Sunnis Targeting al-Qaida......Maybe there is hope?

[rtwngAvngr]

Not terribly.

Where do you make the jump between admitting a possiblity that we could be wrong and equating freedom with tyranny.

Again let me spell it out for you

Step 1. Person X says, I do not know if what we are doing is right

Step 2. ?

Step 3 Person X Believes that Freedom = Tyranny.

I already explained it. It's typical moral relativistic B.S. You think we may not be right because you refuse to differentiate between relative freedom and totalitarianism.

 

[deaddude]

again I fail to see the connection in wondering if what the US is doing as right, and not being able to determine the difference between relative freedom and totalitarianism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

again I fail to see the connection in wondering if what the US is doing as right, and not being able to determine the difference between relative freedom and totalitarianism.

If you don't see that we're right, you obviously don't value the difference between freedom and tyranny, because we bring freedom to those living in totalitarianism. Get it now, ace?

 

[deaddude]

We bring freedom to those living in a Totalitarianism.? how many totalitarian regimes have we supported over the years. Lets see: We installed Diem into Vietnam, We tried to preserve the Khmer Rouge lead by Pol Pot whose reign resulted in 1.5 million holocaust style deaths. We gave huge amounts of funding both to Al Queida and to the Taliban.

Also I assume you are refering to us "bringing freedom" to Iraq. The coin is still flipping on whether we leave it as a stable country, an example to other Middle Eastern Countries of the power of democracy, or whether we leave it in a civil war. Now just because I can guess how you will respond to this I will attach this final addendum. I would LOVE to see Iraq left as a stable society and an example to other middle eastern countries about the power of democracy, and it would be terrible if we left them in a civil war. Yet because I recognise both as a possiblity, I am somehow incapable of recognising the difference between totalitarianism and freedom? I just cant follow your logic.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We bring freedom to those living in a Totalitarianism.? how many totalitarian regimes have we supported over the years. Lets see: We installed Diem into Vietnam, We tried to preserve the Khmer Rouge lead by Pol Pot whose reign resulted in 1.5 million holocaust style deaths. We gave huge amounts of funding both to Al Queida and to the Taliban.

Also I assume you are refering to us "bringing freedom" to Iraq. The coin is still flipping on whether we leave it as a stable country, an example to other Middle Eastern Countries of the power of democracy, or whether we leave it in a civil war. Now just because I can guess how you will respond to this I will attach this final addendum. I would LOVE to see Iraq left as a stable society and an example to other middle eastern countries about the power of democracy, and it would be terrible if we left them in a civil war. Yet because I recognise both as a possiblity, I am somehow incapable of recognising the difference between totalitarianism and freedom? I just cant follow your logic.

Sometimes we supported dictators to keep soviet invluence out of a region. Ultimately we defeated the soviet union.

The chances for eventual freedom in Iraq are much greater after our actions there.

Understand what we're attempting to do, and compare it to what the terrorists are attempting to do. It's the difference between bringing freedom and ensuring totalitarianism. Maybe we're not as effective as we'd like to be, but there is no disputing are intentions are more moral, unless you don't value the difference between freedom and totalitarianism.

 

[deaddude]

Sometimes we supported dictators to keep soviet invluence out of a region. Ultimately we defeated the soviet union.

The soviet union defeated itself economicly. Our support of dictators cost millions of lives, we were willing to sacrifice them in order to serve our own interests, just like the majority of other countries.

The chances for eventual freedom in Iraq are much greater after our actions there.

True.

Understand what we're attempting to do, and compare it to what the terrorists are attempting to do. It's the difference between bringing freedom and ensuring totalitarianism. Maybe we're not as effective as we'd like to be, but there is no disputing are intentions are more moral, unless you don't value the difference between freedom and totalitarianism.

Are our intentions more morall than the terrorists? You bet. Is that a high bar exactly? No. Now I am sure that there are some genuinely heroic people over there trying to make the world a better place, but I would also be willing to bet there are some pretty unsavory people there trying to make an easy buck off of the misfortunes of others.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The soviet union defeated itself economicly.

Having to compete with us militarily around the world stressed their weak system, hastening the fall.

Our support of dictators cost millions of lives, we were willing to sacrifice them in order to serve our own interests, just like the majority of other countries.

Some forms of activity can serve the needs of many simultaneously. Freedom oriencted governance and economics create win win scenarios in nearly every circumstance, unlike totalitarianism which views the world as a zero sum game.

Are our intentions more morall than the terrorists? You bet. Is that a high bar exactly? No. Now I am sure that there are some genuinely heroic people over there trying to make the world a better place, but I would also be willing to bet there are some pretty unsavory people there trying to make an easy buck off of the misfortunes of others.

So because of some possible corruption, what we're doing there isn't right? Is that your contention?

 

[Nienna]

Having to compete with us militarily around the world stressed their weak system, hastening the fall.

Some forms of activity can serve the needs of many simultaneously. Freedom oriencted governance and economics create win win scenarios in nearly every circumstance, unlike totalitarianism which views the world as a zero sum game.


So because of some possible corruption, what we're doing there isn't right? Is that your contention?

There you go!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There you go!

Thanks for the props, mom. I tried to rep ya, but I gotta spread it.

 

[Nienna]

Thanks for the props, mom. I tried to rep ya, but I gotta spread it.

No need for thanks... you have such a great mind when you aren't flaming people!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No need for thanks... you have such a great mind when you aren't flaming people!

I'm not megaproud or anything. It's just.... oooooo that clay taurus gets to me!

 

[deaddude]

So because of some possible corruption, what we're doing there isn't right? Is that your contention?

No my contention is that saying we are better than the terrorists is not the be all end all, of the morality of our impact on Iraq.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No my contention is that saying we are better than the terrorists is not the be all end all, of the morality of our impact on Iraq.

expound please. I keep hearing that a civil war kept in check by Saddam's higher despotism is somehow preferable to what's going on now. Do you believe that?

 

[dilloduck]

Thanks for the props, mom. I tried to rep ya, but I gotta spread it.

Listen to mom now RW--she good for ya !

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Listen to mom now RW--she good for ya !

The port deal sucks.

 

[dilloduck]

The port deal sucks.

MOMMMMMMMMMM !!!!!!!!!!!! RWA DID IT AGAIN !!!!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

MOMMMMMMMMMM !!!!!!!!!!!! RWA DID IT AGAIN !!!!!!!

LOL. :rotflmao:

 

[Nienna]

LOL! Dang, boys! I've got four of my own! You two work it out!

 

[deaddude]

expound please.

Very well. We are moraly superior to the terrorists. Period. End of story. With you 110%. However being moraly superior to someone whose lifes dream is to strap a bunch of explosive to himself and blow up a bus full of innocents, is not terribly difficult. If "we are still better than the terrorists" is where we draw the line, then that still alows for a vast number of immoral and inhumane actions which, while better than the acts of depravity inflicted by terrorists, are still immoral.

I keep hearing that a civil war kept in check by Saddam's higher despotism is somehow preferable to what's going on now. Do you believe that?

That depends both on the results of the civil war, would a civil war kill more people than Saddam? After the war would another despot take power?

As to Saddam being prefferable to what is going on now, probably not. We just have to wait and see.