From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 11:12:01 MST
Dickey, Michael F wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samantha Atkins [mailto:samantha@objectent.com]
>
> Dickey, Michael F wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Max M [mailto:maxmcorp@worldonline.dk]
>>
>>"So far Bush is doing a very poor job convincing anybody that he is
>
> morally
>
>>right in attacking Irak. Especially the arab countries are
>>convinced it is all just a ploy to get cheap oil. Exactly the situation
>
> that
>
>>turned Osama and many other arabs against the
>>USA. So how can that be a long term solution?"
>>
>>The fact that Sadam is a murderous racist tyrant despotic dictator is
>
> moral
>
>>justification enough.
>
>
> "With no or little consequences and death to only him and his direct guard
> and troops that *might* be enough. But this is far from the case."
>
> So because you feel 'innocents' might be killed, we should do nothing about
> Sadam?
You should not do things that make the situation likely worse
for the people, the region and ourselves.
>
> So we can not attack IRAQ unless we only kill or remove him and his direct
> guard and troops. What about his Son? What about his supporters? What
> about his political leadership and infrastructure? What about the soliders
> standing in his way, shall we politley ask them to step out of the way?
> What about his aresnal?
>
So now you want to eliminate all who might think like him. Some
"democracy" and free country you are attempting to set up there.
>
>>The fact that Europeans do not find this as a moral
>>justification is a testament to the liberalized moral relativist notions
>>prevalent in Europe at the moment.
>
>
> "This is nothing but empty rhetoric."
>
> Your following response demonstates otherwise.
>
> "The latest polls show that 70% of the American people believe we should not
> use military means at this time, that we should give more time to
> inspections and diplomatic means. Of course you can make your empty
> accusations against them also. But at some point you really need to notice
> that a great deal of the world and of US people do not believe this is the
> correct course of action. Call them whatever names you will, the numbers
> are against you."
>
> A great deal of people in the world think that thier feelings could manage
> to alter the course of a single spec of dust in the universe, believe that
> stars tell their futures, and drinking urine in the morning is healthy.
Excuse me. Are you going off on this rant in order to dismiss
the wishes of the majority of the people when you claim to
support democracy? For shame!
As
> the numbers were also 'anti war' the vietnam era, and that cost the lives of
> 3 million indochinese people, I must appeal to the fallacy of logic known as
> argumentum ad populum, just because more people say something, doesn't make
> it more likely to be right.
Of course not. But in a democracy the people are supposed to
have a very substantial voice. How many Indochinese people did
we ourselves kill btw? How much of the result was made worse by
our own actions? These things would be difficult to evaluate
well. But blaming any/all bad results on those who cried for us
to get out of Vietnam and stop the huge drain on this nation is
obviously unbalanced and unfair argumentation.
> This same majority of people (such as yourself)
> think its ok that 3 million indochinese people were murdered by an
> expansionistic communist regime.
Boring. I said no such thing and I am damn tired of you being
tiresome enough to make such a silly charge.
I am done with this topic.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST