From: matus@matus1976.com
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 11:39:54 MDT
This post showed up on the board (bulletin board) and not the mailing list,
(I believe only mailing list subsribers get their messages sent out to the
mailing list?) Since it addresses some of my comments and a common argument
I wanted to post a rebuttal to it.
posted from a newbie named "XXX"
Damien said:
> When I hear that Saddam and his sons and regime tortured and murdered
> people, I am horrified; when I hear that US jails contain a
> million or more
> prisoners many of them incarcerated for using marijuana and subjected in
> prison to rampant rape and brutality, I am horrified as well.
...but are you equally horrified? !!!!!!!!
"No, actually *more* so, because the latter crimes against humanity take
place in a supposedly "civilized" country, and, more importantly, a country
that seeks to impose its brand of sanctimonious, hypocritical "morality" and
"justice" on the rest of the planet, **and has the means to do so**."
Here is the common argument, the US has no right to impost any of its morals
on the rest of the world unless the US is perfect. This is what this
particular poster is saying. Lets ask if the people of Iraq would find it
worse or better to be threatened with jail time if they are caught smoking
pot (something relatively rare, actually serving time in prison for smoking
pot only) or be raped, tortured, and executed for merely speaking out
against Hussein. I should note that 50,000 Shiites were murdered in the
uprising that followed gulf war I, and recent mass grave figures range in
the 300,000 range. To imply that the people of Iraq would prefer to live in
the same brutal dictatoral state of gulags harboring torture devices and
execution squads until a perfect utopian world arises is despicable,
intellectually foul, and morally corrupt. Each incremental step toward a
better life is valued.
These same arguments are shouted by leftists America is evil revisionist
historians who insisted that the US had no right to impose its systems, with
such failings as racism, wage gaps, and drug laws, onto other countries,
countries which typically lived under murderous tyrants and despicable
oppressive enslaving thugs.
Again, a prime example of twisted ethics, the US must be absolutely perfect
before imposing its crazy western ideals of free speech, market based
economies, equal rights, and constitutional republic democracies on any
other country. Absurd. Another example of someone not thinking out the
implications of their ethical stances.
Additionally, I would ask XXX what in particular would represent a perfect
US, so that the US could finally impose its values abroad (or, a perfect
moral state for that matter) And I would ask XXX how he/she intends to
prove that their system is perfect to the people who feel it is not. I
should note that some people think that drug laws are moral (I do not) but
nearly everyone in the world (except murderous dictators, and perhaps a few
members of this mailing list) actually acknowledge that murdering is wrong.
"If the self-appointed globocop is in fact crooked, that's MAJOR PROBLEM,
IMHO. Iraq and other such "rogue" (ooh, naughty!) nations are relatively
harmless,"
They are not harmless to the people that live inside them, you are nothing
less than a selfish jingoist. Who cares if 100's of thousands of Iraqs are
tortured, raped, and arbitrially murdered, as long as they dont bother you!!
Crooked by whos standards, yours? What would constitute a non-crooked
global cop?
"and whatever threat they pose(d) isn't / wasn't removed by invading them.
Maybe even on the contrary... Apart from that, the whole War on Terror is
just another farce, or rather a cynical power grab by the US / Israeli power
structure."
Ah yes, the zionist conspiracies. *sigh*
" "They" probably "knew", and thought something along the lines of "Hot
damn, now there's a mighty fine opportunity to advance our fascist, err
*patriotic* agenda."
Fascist? I think you need to check your dictionary, the US is a democratic
constitutional republic. Compare that with the leadership of IRAQ.
"Let's pull another Pearly Harbor, and them stupid sheep will be bleating
for (even) more state control. SUCKERS!"""
You are no less of a sheep than you assert others to be, uncritically
accepting all the arguments presented to you that happen to coincide with
your own worldview. Answer the objections posed to your criticisms and well
see how much of a sheep you are or are not.
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 11:33:38 MDT