From: matus@matus1976.com
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 13:00:51 MDT
Samantha said:
>
> We, America, insisted on a war. Many countries tried to tell us
> it was not
> needed. Many of our own people tried to do so. But we were
> railroaded on
> the basis of WMD which we really had no good evidence for and which never
> materialized.
Saddam, a murderous dictator, INSISTED on remaining a murderous dictator.
WMD were only part of a greater list of motivations, all the others of which
you ignore.
As a person who dislikes governments (at least large ones) I am surprised
you do not feel more strongly against Saddam. So I will pose this question,
which I suspect you will ignore just as others I have asked this of have.
Does anyone have a right to be a dictator?
>
> If Bush and company had backed down then there would not have been this
> senseless waste of time, energy, goodwill and money for nothing.
And the same could be said of Saddam. However, Saddams moral goals, that of
remaining a murderous dictators, are far more repugnant that the Coalitions
moral goals. Do you agree? If Saddam had backed down, there would have
been no senseless waste of time, energy, money, goodwill, and ~20 million
Iraqis would have been freed without one drop of Blood being shed. Yet you
and others still insist the coalition bears the moral culpability.
> Nor are we
> likely to extricate ourselves gracefully from the resulting mess for some
> time and at ever more expense in dollars, time, goodwill and lives.
Of course not, when morally bankrupt people insist on never holding a
murderous dictator morally culpable for being a murderous dictator.
>
> > I will grant you that people may have
> >
> > > died by the actions of their government, somewhat counteracting the
> > > difference between war and peace (slightly).
> >
> > *may*? Whats the figure now, 300,000 in mass graves? May!?
> Yeah, im sure
> > ol Saddam would have just stopped his mass killings, oppressive
> rule, and
> > exploitation. What about the deaths from the sanctions, which
> as a result
> > of the war, have been lifted.
> >
>
> You know as well as I that that WAS NOT THE REASON we went so trying to
> whitewash this senselessness afterward with such is highly dishonest.
As I have noted many times, it was one of many reasons, and as I have also
noted many times, these many reasons were not necessary, as I have argued
often that the fact he was a murderous dictator morally required our
intervention. But whatever the reasons, even if WMD had all ready been
found, you still would not have supported the war, and you would still blame
every death on the coalition, instead of the murderous tyrant whos only goal
was to remain a murderous tyrant.
As a person who allegedly despises government, I can not see how you dont
despise the worst type of government on the planet and one of the worst
governments in existence.
>
> >
> > Again, the moral culpability lies on Saddam, not the Coalition.
> Saddam and
> > the Baath party could have easily agreed to and facilitied a peaceful
> > change in government, and he *chose* not to. *chose*. No
> power outages,
> > no water shortages, no phone problems, no cluster bombs, no
> rioting. etc.
> > etc. etc. Saddam is still to blame for each and every death,
> you completely
> > MISS the point that he has NO RIGHT to be a dictator, and thus anything
> > that results from his insisting he remain a dictator he is
> morally culpable
> > for.
> >
>
> No, you cannot put the entire culpability on Saddam. We were the
> invaders.
Again, just as Emlyn, you ignore the Gulf War I, in which Saddam invaded
another country we agreed to defend. The resolutions calling for the end of
the open fighting in the conflict were the ones that were violated and
instigated res 1441. Saddam did nothing less than break the agreements that
ended Gulf War I. Yet we were the invaders? Never mind the multiple other
compelling reasons to oust Saddam.
Regardless, A stated goal of our actions was to free the Iraqi people, this
was NOWHERE in Saddams list of goals!
We
> are the occupiers. We did not need to be.
Did Saddam NEED to remain a murderous dictator? Well, did he? Did he have
any moral RIGHT to remain a murderous dictator?
Some of the power outages and
> water shortages and so on were not even necessary according to our own
> statements
And would have never occured had Saddam stepped down peacefully.
of what was and was not a legitimate target and our
> much vaunted
> ability to hit more or less only what we wish to hit. If you
> are going to
> continue to be dishones then I will ignore you on this subject
> from this time
> forward.
Please exhibit where I am being 'dishonest' I submit that you are, for
never once acknowledging that NO ONE has the RIGHT to be a murderous
DICTATOR!
I suspect that you will simply ignore my comments, and never bother to
answer that one simple question under the guise of my being dishonest
somewhere.
Does Saddam have the moral right to be a dictator?
> >
> > In the US system of law, you are also held morally accountable
> for deaths
> > that result from 'depraved indifference', which I assert each
> and ever war
> > opposer is guilty of.
>
> OK. You are out of your mind on this one. I hope you get over it.
>
I am out of my mind? I have still yet to hear you say that no one has the
right to be a dictator. As an extropian, can you not even acknowledge the
basic moral premise that no one has the right to be a dictator?
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 12:54:30 MDT