|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hey guys - cry me a river. The invasion would never have happened if Saddam had only complied with the numerous UNSC resolutions. Saddam told the world to bugger off, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The only difference between (a) the Iraqis toppling Saddam themselves (as was tried and failed on at least four occasions) and (b) the Americans toppling Saddam is that (b) has a chance of success. So, given that (a) is doomed to inevitable failure and you don't approve of (b), that leaves us with only one alternative: (c) doing absolutely nothing and the horror and brutality of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime still being in government. Slice it any way you see fit - it isn't an ethical position. And nor, even more so, is being secretly happy when the people in Iraq suffer so you can say "I told you so", nor being driven by anti Americanism to the point that you support the crumbling of Iraqi society and a return to the brutal civil war conditions of 2006. Failure of US policy is all that matters to some. Me, I wish Iraq every success.
The real failure (related to cost) has been the inability to prevent the violence that broke out after the invasion. However, if law and order collapses in my neighborhood, what should I do? Should I seek to help re-establish law and order? Or should I blow myself up in the middle of a busy market, shortly after shouting "God is great!"? And if I do in fact choose the latter, will Western liberals come along and blame the collapse of law and order for my deed? If Bob blows up a mosque in London, it's Bob's fault. If Bob blows up a mosque in Baghdad, it's Tony Blair's fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I love how all you indoctrinated drones continue, on cue, to blame social welfare spending and healthcare programs not yet even implemented, despite the glaring evidence of where the big money really goes. War and bailout, and Obama is as bad or worse than Bush, and the next president will be worse still unless something is done to make government accountable to the people in the U.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Hey guys - cry me a river. The invasion would never have happened if Saddam had only complied with the numerous UNSC resolutions. Saddam told the world to bugger off, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The only difference between (a) the Iraqis toppling Saddam themselves (as was tried and failed on at least four occasions) and (b) the Americans toppling Saddam is that (b) has a chance of success. So, given that (a) is doomed to inevitable failure and you don't approve of (b), that leaves us with only one alternative: (c) doing absolutely nothing and the horror and brutality of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime still being in government. Slice it any way you see fit - it isn't an ethical position. And nor, even more so, is being secretly happy when the people in Iraq suffer so you can say "I told you so", nor being driven by anti Americanism to the point that you support the crumbling of Iraqi society and a return to the brutal civil war conditions of 2006. Failure of US policy is all that matters to some. Me, I wish Iraq every success.
The real failure (related to cost) has been the inability to prevent the violence that broke out after the invasion. However, if law and order collapses in my neighborhood, what should I do? Should I seek to help re-establish law and order? Or should I blow myself up in the middle of a busy market, shortly after shouting "God is great!"? And if I do in fact choose the latter, will Western liberals come along and blame the collapse of law and order for my deed? If Bob blows up a mosque in London, it's Bob's fault. If Bob blows up a mosque in Baghdad, it's Tony Blair's fault. |
Why Iraq though? There are many equally repressive regimes, and many that are more dangerous to the world. Plus what benefits have we gained and at what price? Is Iraq a functioning liberal democracy? Does, and did, it ever realistically have a chance to become one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Hey guys - cry me a river. The invasion would never have happened if Saddam had only complied with the numerous UNSC resolutions. Saddam told the world to bugger off, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The only difference between (a) the Iraqis toppling Saddam themselves (as was tried and failed on at least four occasions) and (b) the Americans toppling Saddam is that (b) has a chance of success. So, given that (a) is doomed to inevitable failure and you don't approve of (b), that leaves us with only one alternative: (c) doing absolutely nothing and the horror and brutality of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime still being in government. Slice it any way you see fit - it isn't an ethical position. And nor, even more so, is being secretly happy when the people in Iraq suffer so you can say "I told you so", nor being driven by anti Americanism to the point that you support the crumbling of Iraqi society and a return to the brutal civil war conditions of 2006. Failure of US policy is all that matters to some. Me, I wish Iraq every success.
The real failure (related to cost) has been the inability to prevent the violence that broke out after the invasion. However, if law and order collapses in my neighborhood, what should I do? Should I seek to help re-establish law and order? Or should I blow myself up in the middle of a busy market, shortly after shouting "God is great!"? And if I do in fact choose the latter, will Western liberals come along and blame the collapse of law and order for my deed? If Bob blows up a mosque in London, it's Bob's fault. If Bob blows up a mosque in Baghdad, it's Tony Blair's fault. |
And here I thought you were libertarian. Guess not. Bummer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rothbard
Joined: 23 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Hey guys - cry me a river. The invasion would never have happened if Saddam had only complied with the numerous UNSC resolutions. Saddam told the world to bugger off, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The only difference between (a) the Iraqis toppling Saddam themselves (as was tried and failed on at least four occasions) and (b) the Americans toppling Saddam is that (b) has a chance of success. So, given that (a) is doomed to inevitable failure and you don't approve of (b), that leaves us with only one alternative: (c) doing absolutely nothing and the horror and brutality of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime still being in government. Slice it any way you see fit - it isn't an ethical position. And nor, even more so, is being secretly happy when the people in Iraq suffer so you can say "I told you so", nor being driven by anti Americanism to the point that you support the crumbling of Iraqi society and a return to the brutal civil war conditions of 2006. Failure of US policy is all that matters to some. Me, I wish Iraq every success.
The real failure (related to cost) has been the inability to prevent the violence that broke out after the invasion. However, if law and order collapses in my neighborhood, what should I do? Should I seek to help re-establish law and order? Or should I blow myself up in the middle of a busy market, shortly after shouting "God is great!"? And if I do in fact choose the latter, will Western liberals come along and blame the collapse of law and order for my deed? If Bob blows up a mosque in London, it's Bob's fault. If Bob blows up a mosque in Baghdad, it's Tony Blair's fault. |
And here I thought you were libertarian. Guess not. Bummer. |
I was under the impression SS was Libertarian as well. This is just about as disappointing as Thomas Sowell's war mongering.
The Iraqi people have to sort themselves out. It isn't up to to foreigners from 10,000 miles away to sort the problem.
Did someone jack your account SS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeleitz
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Obama is going to sell your daughters to ARabs!! |
Well at least they should have a decent standard of living then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chungbukdo
Joined: 22 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: Believe it! |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Ask yourself: What's the difference between providing health care or launching a war of choice? |
The difference is that military expenditures can be a proper role of government but health care is never within the proper role of government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chungbukdo
Joined: 22 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| We finally get an honest conservative on the site. I like how you defend the upper class. |
You wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the productive (upper) class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: Believe it! |
|
|
| chungbukdo wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Ask yourself: What's the difference between providing health care or launching a war of choice? |
The difference is that military expenditures can be a proper role of government but health care is never within the proper role of government. |
Well played. The use of 'can' instead of 'is' keeps your argument credible.
Now, which is more outrageous, providing health care to Americans or launching a war in Iraq, which by the way impels us to provide health care for American servicemen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chungbukdo
Joined: 22 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: Believe it! |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Now, which is more outrageous, providing health care to Americans or launching a war in Iraq, which by the way impels us to provide health care for American servicemen? |
I think bankrupting the nation by adding to the already existing 50 billion in future liabilities for medicare and medicaid with the health care bill which will destroy health care in America and end up in a lot more lost lives, is the most outrageous.
I am lukewarm about providing health care for several thousand American servicemen who are working in a legitimate area of government. There should only be a tiny fraction of people hurt than there are today, if there was a war waged based on self-interest and not providing welfare for Iraqis who want to murder us.
However, providing health care for the military is certainly better than providing health care for hundreds of millions of peolple in terms of the level of rights violated. Medicare and the health bill are not within the legitimate roles of government. Soldiers salaries are properly the province of the state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Believe it! |
|
|
| chungbukdo wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Now, which is more outrageous, providing health care to Americans or launching a war in Iraq, which by the way impels us to provide health care for American servicemen? |
I think bankrupting the nation by adding to the already existing 50 billion in future liabilities for medicare and medicaid with the health care bill which will destroy health care in America and end up in a lot more lost lives, is the most outrageous. |
Really? You think providing health care to Americans is more outrageous than the $3 trillion spent on the Iraq war?
Okay, fine. We can agree to disagree on this.
But what I find outrageous, is that the GOP wouldn't pay for the Iraq war with taxes, and they won't let the Democrats pay for the health care scheme with taxes, but the GOP will talk about cutting spending all day even though in their six years of dominance they did little such thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wai Mian
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Location: WE DIDNT
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Believe it! |
|
|
| chungbukdo wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
Ask yourself: What's the difference between providing health care or launching a war of choice? |
The difference is that military expenditures can be a proper role of government but health care is never within the proper role of government. |
Proper as determined by whom given legitimacy by whom and agreed upon by what authority? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
