To start to win me over, prove that your ideas on the slippery slope of declining civil liberties are more valid than my ideas on the slippery slope of declining morality.
If you like, I'll even furnish you a crystal ball.
[ December 10, 2003, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Scott, I think a lot of what you define as morals has more to do with religious conviction that it does actual law. Is it really all that good an idea to vote Bush in in order to have him push laws that are faith-based? True, they might even stand Supreme Court tests and last for a while. Until we elect another president with the opposite personal views.
It's yet another dangerous precedent to set, since Christians as a whole aren't predicted to remain in the majority for much more than 40 years at the current rate of decline.
Touch not, lest ye be touched.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Law rarely determines moral conviction, Frisco. It's the other way around.
quote:Is it really all that good an idea to vote Bush in in order to have him push laws that are faith-based?
I vote for the candidate whose views are most in line with mine. Don't you do the same? Doesn't everyone?
Tres and Tom seem to have a hard time understanding WHY exactly I hold the murder of children (little bit of fiery rhetoric there) and the reinterpretation of civil marriage to be more important than civil liberties-- my answer is, bluntly, we all have our hang-ups.
quote:It's yet another dangerous precedent to set, since Christians as a whole aren't predicted to remain in the majority for much more than 40 years at the current rate of decline.
Now THAT'S an interesting prediction, Frisco. What do you base it on? Not that I disagree with you-- nothing is more likely than the values I hold going out of style. But I wonder where you get your timeline from.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott -- I haven't had many opportunities to vote, but I've regularly advocated voting for a candidate over another whose views more closely align with mine because I consider the candidate I advocate to be a more upstanding person. A government of people out to do good who disagree with me is unimaginably superior to a government of people doing what I agree with who are without scruples. Of course, I prefer over both those states a government of people who agree with me and have scruples.
By upstanding, I mean primarily belief in the rule of law, and a true desire to bring about public good. Personal sins don't enter into it much for me, except as they are underscore public hypocrisy in many cases. Not to say I wouldn't prefer people whose stains are small, but that there've been enough great leaders devoted to their countries with taudry personal lives to persuade me that one can be publically upstanding while personally perverse.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still haven't touched on my main reason to vote against Bush. The blossoming of Corporate America.
I don't blame it solely or even mostly on him, of course. Corporate influence on politics has been around as long as either has existed, and the number of politicians that haven't been touched by it one way or another can be counted on the fingers of one thumb.
But no other president, no other administration I know of has ever pandered so blatantly, so obviously to the corporate world. Get caught cheating your employees? Slap on the wrist, a little public embarassment, and you get to keep the money. No oversight. The main watchdog is a hand-picked idiot with no power. The heads of the regulatory boards have been personally chosen from either the leading activists against regulation, or the lobbyists from the industry being regulated whose former job was to reduce those very regulations. Regulations themselves being stripped, reduced, softened, made voluntary and therefore toothless. Tax cuts weighted to favor the rich. WHICH I wouldn't mind, since the rich would be paying more taxes anyway, EXCEPT that they don't, and loopholes that allow this have been left open. Measures to stop federal contracts from being awarded to companies with felonious records or companies that have moved their tax base out of the country were stopped cold. Overtime rules changed to favor employers, not employees. Massive expenditures to provide slight temporary relief and major deficits a few years down. Laws passed to slash environmental controls, with accountability and cleanup restrictions being removed. And when the ones that might have justification, just as the Kyoto Treaty and the arsenic levels thing, were cut, we were promised that studies would be made and an alternate suggestion proposed. No sign yet of either. Records of behind the scenes dealing and decision-making being sealed and withheld from the American people. Laws being passed so full of pork they squeal, yet money for education and the states is still tight. Riders showing up on bills that no one will take credit for, that weren't there the day before the vote.
Accountability and responsibility have been systematically removed from the corporate world in the name of free markets and tax relief. If all companies were run by honest men, good and true, this wouldn't be a problem. I'm not holding my breath.
This is why I won't vote for Bush or for any politician, Republican or Democrat or Other, who participated.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess we do all vote for what we think is right...but I also think that anyone should be able to stand back and look at a law objectively and say to themselves, "I don't like it, but it's acceptable according to the Constitution, so I'm going to live and let live."
Granted, I don't think this about abortion. But I think this country has a ways to go before we can fix that...merely electing a president who agrees to make it illegal is too, too little-and I'd say not even a good start. Bush, I feel, is just poking a stick into the anthill of "pro-choice".
I don't think he's doing the right thing with gays, and I don't think he can do much about abortion. On the flip side, I think the precedents Tres points out are very real, and scary. We've got a hotline for little old ladies to call if they see an arab or black man with a bookbag walking down their street. We've already legalized racial profiling (in a country which is increasingly less white). Video cameras on the street are becoming a more real possibility. It's not a big leap from there to have a database of much of the country.
Oh, and the numbers are from the 1980 and 2000 census reports. I only remember because we threw the numbers around in October's homosexuality/polygamy thread. I really have no clue on the future of Christianity, but if it indeed follows the trend of the last 20 years (87% identified themselves as Christian in 1980, compared to 79% in 2000), 40 years was their timetable for loss of majority.
*shrug* I dunno. I just know that all these words are severely affecting my image as an apathetic. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres and Tom seem to have a hard time understanding WHY exactly I hold the murder of children (little bit of fiery rhetoric there) and the reinterpretation of civil marriage to be more important than civil liberties-- my answer is, bluntly, we all have our hang-ups.
You know, we could look into electing the Nazis - they're even more against gay marriage and abortion than Bush is!
posted
Scott-the thing is the government is about law, and civil rights. Morality is something the government can't dictate. It can influence how people think-but civil liberties is the responsibility of the government. Declining morality of the general public is not. Yes, it is something that needs fixing, but...if we ndermine allow the things the government is built on to be undermined, it's not going to be much help to try to make laws to force morality.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now THAT'S an interesting prediction, Frisco. What do you base it on? Not that I disagree with you-- nothing is more likely than the values I hold going out of style.
Wow. That is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I have ever seen posted on Hatrack.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wow. That is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I have ever seen posted on Hatrack.
Really? I definitely don't think so. I've seen far more arrogant things said to myself. To point out somebody's arrogance with a post is a way of being arrogant too you know....
EDIT: Tom: Agreed.
[ December 10, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, i want you to know that i have new wrinkles in my brain today because of your godwin's law reference. i had no idea what it was, googled it, and am now a jot or tittle smarter.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
and as far as being arrogant is concerned, i think i still hold the top spot on that one. you cant swoop in with your 'style values' stuff and take that from me.
Hell, the last time I made a hatrack return i was called a 'smug self satisfied idiot' by a person who knew nothing about me. Now THAT is proof that I exude arrogance.
Now stop making eye contact with me.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Suprisingly, most of these contracts will go to the US and Japan, since the other allies mentioned in this list do not have Haliburton sized companies to do what needs to get done.
The only true competitors for a lot of the big US companies are in France, Germany, Canada and Russia (morse so than in Poland etc).
Further, this Anti-terrorism war will be sending a lot of $ and Business to Saudi Arabia, who supplied most of the 9/11 terrorists and is the birth home of Al Queda.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Okay, maybe I read it differently -- I saw it as "yes, of course, this world is degenerating morally....my value system is far superior and no one else seems to be able to hold up to my standard, and so of course MY value system will be fading."
Or something like that.
Maybe arrogant isn't the right word. But it's definitely 'holier than thou'.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres makes points even I agree are worth consideration. However I still think that Bush is the right man.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forgot, more reasons to vote for or against Bush.
For: His support of Israel (which is also why Lieberman appeals to me).
Against: His willingness to involve religion in politics. Prayer in schools and Christianity being used as a justification really bothers me. In fact I think "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance although the entire pledge shouldn't be thrown out the window.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: We have now invaded a nation with no proven association with terrorists, no proven stash of weapons of mass destruction, and that we failed to prove posed any immediate threat to us at all. The best explanation we've come up with is, it was good for the Iraqi people. Thus, if we reelect Bush, we will be actively consenting to the idea that it is okay to invade any country that we feel like liberating.
Well, uh, yeah. I think it's pretty okay to invade a country that desperately NEEDS liberating. Anyone want to call that an opinion? I say to you, ONE MILLION DEAD!
quote: In other words, "I'm more important than anyone else, and American interests are worth pursuing even at the expense of the interests of most of the other people in the world." I don't suppose you can see how that approach is already alienating many other nations, including some of your own "friends and allies?" There's patriotism and then there's nationalism.
Really, this is exactly what being ANTI war on terrorism says. Your interests in "whatever Bush whatever" must far outweigh ONE MILLION DEAD.
quote: 173,000 Americans have died from Air Pollution 121,000 Americans have died in traffic accidents 52,000 Americans have died because they had inadequate access to medical care 3100 Americans have died due to terrorism
And ONE MILLION have died in Iraq from tyranny and terrorism in their own country. Do they matter? Do we care about people that don't live within our "four walls" as it were?
quote: However, notice how Afghanistan has sort of dropped off the radar now? There are no "how things are going in Afghanistan" press conferences, and the media certainly aren't paying attention to it now that there's no shooting going on.
I think what you mean is, the media isn't paying attention because it went so well. Much better if we keep focus on Iraq, that way we can go on and on about the six kids who died today, or like one guy in a helicopter or something. Makes Bush look REALLY bad. Not to say that it isn't terrible that they died, but it really isn't a huge surprise. It's a WAR.
quote: Yes, that's true. I should have been more accurate – less shooting than in Iraq. The Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan seem equally frustrated – the media only gives them the time of day when some of them die.
Once again, that's because it makes the war look really bad.
And let me just add:
ONE MILLION DEAD! ONE MILLION DEAD! ONE MILLION DEAD!
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This stuff about foreign contracts,while I see the rationale behind letting France et al. in, reminds me an awful lot of that morality tale about the chicken who was baking bread, and the other barnyard animals who refused to help--until it was time to eat. In the interests of goodwill, I can see letting them get a hand in, but they don't deserve it.
Now as to civil liberties and national emergency--the argument cuts both ways, you know. Because it is always possible to have such a massive problem on your hands that the government will fall and its guarantees of rights will fall with it, unless those rights are suspended temporarily so that the problem can be dealt with. Certainly that time has not arrived in regard to general rights, the rights of everyone in the country. But suppose that last plane had crashed on top of the White House or the Capitol instead of in a field...what would we be saying then?
posted
But anyway, I would vote for Bush because of what's been said earlier...don't vote him in and you're handing the war to the terrorists. Bottom line...it'll be just like Vietnam.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) Backup up your assertion of 1 million dead. And if it is such an important point, there are millions dead in wars and massacres in Lower Africa, why didn't we go there first? (This point of backing up figures applies to the various tallies of people dead from accidents, air pollution, and the like)
2) Afghanistan initially went well, but we are now currently screwed there. There is a very good chance that if we leave, the Taliban re-emerges. We really didn't stick around a do any due diligence in Afghanistan.
3) What, no love for my witty continuation of kat's post? I demand respect!
EDIT: 4) As for the Democrats causing Iraq to become a new Vietnam conveniently ignores the fact that other than Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton (the marginal candidates), the democratic field all agrees that immediate retreat is impossible, though increasing the international flavor of the occupying force is one that is supported to greater or lesser degrees.
We should intervene when genocide occurs anywhere be it in Europe, the Middle East or Africa.
Genocide did occur in Iraq. I don't know if a million died but Kurds were certainly killed by the thousands, Shiites were oppressed, and Saddam's sons had plently of fun randomly raping and murdering people.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The countries of the former USSR, China, It is not inconcivable that they could build it, assuming backing of some kind, a "dirty bomb" would be more than enough at any rate.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or maybe from Iran or North Korea. Especially, the former. Or maybe Iraq if we hadn't deposed Saddam.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Tom, the point is that Tresopax wants to claim that there's no threat and that there is one at the same time. Of course, I would personally say there's something of a difference between Iraq's need for liberation and what a fundamentalist would see as our need for liberation. This is for once exactly what Bush talks about when he refers to appeasing the terrorists.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps Tres questions the feasibility of invading every country that might produce or temporarily harbor terrorists capable of detonating an explosive device on our soil...?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
449 US soldiers who have died in Iraq. So far. This isn't counting the 2,529 US soldiers who have been wounded there and the thousands of reservists separated from their families. Do the numbers have to reach 3,500 before we realize it wasn't worth it? Wasn't Afghanistan (and the Philippines, and everywhere else we've been hunting Bin Laden) where we were striking back at terror? How many US soldiers are going to end up dying in Iraq before this thing is through? Don't US occupation forces give terrorists a nice big target in unfavorable conditions (i.e. not our turf, little to no human source intelligence on the ground, language/culture barriers of occupied country)?
We talk about how the US invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people. But we have supported and even put into office dictators who were just as brutal - guys like Pinochet. Is the US just schizophrenic? Do we only oust dictators when it suits us? We aren't exactly the noble Americans. Sure Bush called North Korea part of the axis of evil (yeah, that was really smart when N. Korea has nuclear weapons) but then he had to back off when they restarted their nuclear weapons program. Iraq was just easier to beat up on because we'd been pounding on them for a decade before going in. And it sits on the world's 2nd largest known oil reserve. And we're one of the world's largest oil using countries. So it makes sense to get some part of control over it. Besides it's what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz wanted to do in '91. And we get rid of a potential threat at the same time. The oil and threat reasons make sense, but I don't think it's right ethically to invade another sovereign country based on this, or worth the lives of the US soldiers, of the other parts of the Coalition forces and of Iraqi civilians. Yes, Saddam Hussein used nerve gas on 8,000 people - back in the late 80's! Why didn't we stop him then? Because we're schizophrenic!Disclaimer: I just googled this site. Tell me if it's inaccurate.
Obviously, we're there now and we need to support our troops, but I think it's fairly likely that we made a mistake invading Iraq. To say so would be impossible for the Bush administration, because it destroys trust (of the people) in the government and trust (of the armed forces) in the wisdom of the government (to send them somewhere they need to be). It would also imply that the death of those 449 soldiers was due to a mistake that we voluntarily made. And of course it destroys the possibility of reelection, one of politicians' largest motivators. So most of the congress who voted for the war won't call it a mistake. That doesn't change the truth of the situation, though.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm one of the most arrogant people you're ever likely to meet. I'm an aspiring writer, for Heaven's sake. Can you be a writer and NOT be arrogant?
But in that particular post, I was trying for Puddleglum.
Kat, I had to look this up:
quote:Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
quote: We talk about how the US invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people. But we have supported and even put into office dictators who were just as brutal - guys like Pinochet. Is the US just schizophrenic? Do we only oust dictators when it suits us?
NFL,
It gets even worse than that. When we last meddled in Iran, we ousted a democratically-elected leader and put a dictator in his place.
I really would like to be wearing the white cowboy hat, but being an American doesn't automatically entitle me to do so.
posted
I like it when people such as Johnnynotsobravo say how we have supported dicatators in the past, as if that is a good reason to stop supporting ruthless dictators now. Bush wasnt in office when the U.S. supported Pinochet so dont use that as an example as to why we shouldnt invade Iraq.
Maybe that's my problem? I'm not arrogant enough to be a writer? *grin*
I like Godwin's Law. I'm considering promoting in my mind from a situational truth to a universal truth, depending on the results of more Hatrack study.
quote: 1) Backup up your assertion of 1 million dead. And if it is such an important point, there are millions dead in wars and massacres in Lower Africa, why didn't we go there first? (This point of backing up figures applies to the various tallies of people dead from accidents, air pollution, and the like)
Okay, embarrassed to say it but I will. I mixed up the "over 900,000 thousand" count, which was more specualtion, with the "over 700,000 thousand" which we are pretty certain of. Iraqi leaders themselves have admitted to at least 250,000 killed during various rebellions. (We are thinking closer to 300,000.) Then add 13,000 or so political prisoners that were executed. Plus 400,000, mostly kids who died of malnutrition, etc, because of Hussein's regime. But we're talking about what they've ADMITTED. Do you really think that's all there were? Why should they be completely frank with us about it? I'm guessing (this is just a guess, but a reasonable one) that there will be more bodies/graves recovered as time goes by.
quote: Why? All of the democrats plan to continue the war on terror.
Really? I especially like Dean's statement of "I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning." which can be found on his website, along with lots of other derogatory points. Not that he isn't entitled to his opinion. And we can argue about whether or not "Iraqi Freedom" counts as part of the war on terror. But the point remains that opposition to the war will kill us. And Kerry says the way to "fix the problem" is to get our troops out of there as fast as possible. Which you can bet will BEGIN with a stopping of the funding, which will just dishearten our troops that are STILL over there. Taking our troops out of Iraq in the middle of this will not send a message that our new leadership is kind and peaceful. We are not dealing with level-headed people over there. The only message they will see is that we have a new government in place that isn't willing to see things through and is wishy-washy about the situations in the Middle East. To a bunch of guys looking for their chance, that would be it. It says "Bush was willing to fight, but don't worry, we're on YOUR side."
Saying "I support the war on terror" doesn't mean a thing when the actual plan is to end it as quickly as possible. And as far as "support" goes, all I've seen on the various websites were vague references to being "citizen soldiers" and other things probably put there solely to placate people who are looking for a candidate that is willing to keep fighting, but who don't know enough to keep digging.
quote: That's easily enough said until someone decides we need to be liberated too, and smuggles a nuke into DC to do so.
Are you saying that the people in Iraq didn't need to be liberated? You seem to be confusing what we know is an actual threat to the people of the nation of Iraq with a semi-psychotic delusion of some tyrant...sounds like Osama. What you do in that case is blow the hell out of them.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree we should free repressed and terrorized people everywhere. Lets do the people of Tibet next.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? I especially like Dean's statement of "I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning." which can be found on his website, along with lots of other derogatory points. Not that he isn't entitled to his opinion. And we can argue about whether or not "Iraqi Freedom" counts as part of the war on terror. But the point remains that opposition to the war will kill us.
In what way, exactly, is opposition to the war going to kill us?
quote:Saying "I support the war on terror" doesn't mean a thing when the actual plan is to end it as quickly as possible.
You seem to think the War on Terror is the same thing as the War on Iraq, though. None of the candidates have said they plan to end the War on Terror as quickly as possible - all of them have said exactly the opposite. Some have said they would end the War on Iraq quickly, but usually a principle reason is because they want to return to actually fighting terrorism.
quote:Are you saying that the people in Iraq didn't need to be liberated? You seem to be confusing what we know is an actual threat to the people of the nation of Iraq with a semi-psychotic delusion of some tyrant...sounds like Osama.
Unfortunately, though, there are many people around the world who think our current leadership is an actual threat, and that we are the deluded ones. If it's okay for us to attack based on our opinion about Iraq being a real threat then it's okay for them to attack based on their opinion about America being a real threat. You can't say "We can attack who we want because we're right, but you can't beause you're wrong." Because if you do, they will turn around and say the same thing right back, and probably do it with a bomb, and there won't be much we can do about it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it was a way for you to avoid the question. What makes the Tibetan people's situation ignorable but the Iraqi people's not?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real question, I think, is whether or not we're willing to die for people that we don't know. I hope that I am. I'd like to raise my children that way too.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Dean criticized the president for going into Iraq, from the beginning. HOWEVER, he has also repeated in speeches and debates that he thinks that retreating now would be worse than staying. Why is this rationale so hard to understand?
quote:The second major challenge results from a failure to plan for peace as fully as we planned for war. General Shinseki's professional military advice that 200,000 troops would be needed was rejected. I would add at least 50,000 foreign troops to the force in Iraq.
It is imperative that we bring the international community in to help stabilize Iraq. If I were President, I would reach out to NATO, to Arab and Islamic countries, to other friends to share the burden and the risks.
We need to consider the impact on our guard and reserve troops operating in Iraq. And we should ask that the forces of foreign friends and allies increasingly assume police and security missions. Our active duty military forces are the best trained and best equipped of any military force in the world. We must continue to be able to train them and prepare for other potential war-fighting missions that arise in this dangerous world.
Note that he not only wants to keeps forces in Iraq, he wants to INCREASE the number of forces! Part of his solution for increasing troop numbers is creating a larger coalition. Yes, the response is nuanced, and yes, it seems that much of the USA is deaf to such nuances these days (and likely always), but I don't see how this stance can be construed as "leaving as quick as possible".
Of course, in any case, you are participating what in my eyes is large scale cognitive dissonance (is that the right term?). The "invade Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people" justification was largely an AFTER THE FACT justification! The primary reasons that convinced the US people to support military action was the perception of self defense, that Iraq was harboring WMD, and possibly some terrorists. The humanitarian response was minor until the first two justifications appeared to be overblown.
I mean, it must be nice to confuse cause and effect, and just think we all agreed to do invade out of charity, but it just doesn't jive with the political rhetoric pre-war. I would say the humanitarian justification wasn't a big reason until we found the mass graves... Which was obviously after we invaded!
Why is criticising policy "derogatory"? It's not like he's saying those who disagree are nearly treasonous ("with us, against us", recent Iowa (??) ads implying the dems want us to fail), just that the current policy is ultimately not a solution for the WoT.
"Fast as possible" doesn't mean "pull out at all costs". You realize this, right? It doesn't mean that we won't continue to supply constructive aid (schools, advisement, infrastructure) in the future.
BTW, your numbers are still unsubstantiated. Please provide a link, or if your source is [EDIT: not] online, at least provide the name of the publication. As for the children casualties, that can be argued as being part the international community's fault, for keeping up sanctions.
Ultimately, you hold a number of assumptions that critics don't necessarily hold. The biggest of these is that the Iraqi occupation is an integral part of the WoT. This is debateable. Another is that the only way to solve the terrorism problem, is to attack terrorists at every turn.
Of course, this also ignores the common, and convenient, use of two completely separate rationales to go into Iraq (humanitarian and WoT), and whenever one is criticised, you merely jump to the other.
I guess ultimately I believe that sometimes many people have to lose their lives, not just to save lives, but to stand behind a principle. "Principle" is such a lousy word but I can't think of one more gut-wrenching. Obviously it would not be a good decision to do anything to endanger other people unless the vast majority of them were supportive of the cause, but just because it's not likely doesn't mean it's impossible. Plus, if the world stood together against China, they'd be alot less likely to start nuking. (At least they would if they were thinking.)
I realize the almost impossiblity of it. All I can say is, if it came down the line to me, I would say, "Yes, I'll die" even if I can't speak for anyone else. I hope that others would say the same.
How long before China gets the idea that they can do no wrong? Do you think it would take them long to start conquering as many as possible?
Maybe it's bleak but I think I would choose suffering and only a fraction survival rate, rather than bow down to China and let them take over the world, not that they're doing it, but using the premise that you just gave, they conceivably could.
(I actually just recalled a nice scripture in the Bible about a horde of invaders from the east, too numerable to count. Hmmm...)
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think you quite understand the phrase nuclear superpower, particularly in the context of known megalomania.
We would be greatly endangering the world by attacking China.
Which is why we invaded Iraq instead. It's a country that's far more important in terms of regional stability and world peace than Tibet. That's why it's also a higher priority than Africa—Africa's problems don't threaten the world as much as problems in the Middle East do.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
