No 2nd Resolution

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I'd consider several Presidents to be mass murderers, most specifically Wilson, Truman, FDR, and LBJ, but many of the others too.

Obviously basic human morality and aversion to murder were not benchmarks he had to meet.

You're telling me that Bush can't pretty much control public opinion through the media and the manufacturing of crises? Hell, it's worked for many other Presidents.

Ok, so any president during war time is a mass muderer... of course!

Everyone knows in war time we are just supposed to roll over and die, and submit to our enemies. And that we should compromise our own interests for the sake of others who want to destroy us...

And no, Bush obviously cannot control the masses effectively.
In Iraq, people are parading in the streets, pledging to fight to the death for their dictator, who just treats them sooo well against the evil American empire. No one is marching the streets to welcome america, or oust Saddam

In the United States, you have much of the population who only agrees with a war with many conditions. And many more who openly oppose war, and countless other political movements of the president.
I dunno how you can say Bush can control The American masses anywhere near the degree that Saddam is.

sry for thread jack

[JohnT]

David... aw, fuck it. Why am I bothering?

[DanS]

JohnT: Yes, why are you bothering?

[David Floyd]

Ok, so any president during war time is a mass muderer... of course!

No, but any President who either starts a war or unnecessarily gets us involved in one is morally a mass murderer.

I dunno how you can say Bush can control The American masses anywhere near the degree that Saddam is.

Didn't say that he could. I just said that he could definitely have a great influence on public opinion.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Before I can justify my views ...

Why don't you start with explaining why percieved hypocrisy is relevent and go from there?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by JohnT
David... aw, fuck it. Why am I bothering?

probably cause it upsets you that someone can be so wrong relative to your thought process (a somewhat more rational a process in my opinion)

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, but any President who either starts a war or unnecessarily gets us involved in one is morally a mass murderer.



Didn't say that he could. I just said that he could definitely have a great influence on public opinion.

And I guess you know the absolutes when it comes to defining what constitutes a 'morally justified' or 'neccessary' war

no you didnt, you said:

You're telling me that Bush can't pretty much control public opinion through the media and the manufacturing of crises? Hell, it's worked for many other Presidents.

this sounds like to me that you think bush can pretty much control the public opinion... which i guess is why his popularity is falling, as is support for war.

And yes, Bush can influence the public, im not denying this. But you seem to have forgotten the many, many other vocals out there who also mold public opinion. Bush isnt the only voice. Many influentials contridict him (openly and freely, as it rightly should be in this country!).

Kman

[David Floyd]

And I guess you know the absolutes when it comes to defining what constitutes a 'morally justified' or 'neccessary' war

I have a pretty good grasp on the concepts of right and wrong, yes.

this sounds like to me that you think bush can pretty much control the public opinion... which i guess is why his popularity is falling, as is support for war.

If Bush wanted to, you're telling me he couldn't just manufacture a "botched terrorist attempt" against the US "funded by the Iraqis"? I bet he could. Maybe he won't, but that isn't the point.

[notyoueither]

Anyways...

I do wonder about the impact of the SecCouncil situation. I wonder why Bush and Blair seem so bent to start a war with someone who is not part of the OBL set.

The answers will not be known for some time I am sure. Personally, I think it's for bases.

[SnowFire]

How is it NOT hypocritical for a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and hundreds of ICBMs, that also happens to be the only nation ever to use atomic/nuclear weapons to murder civilians, to tell a little pissant desert nation 6000 miles away they can't have a few chemical or nuclear warheads?

Screw it, you win DF, jack successful.

Let's play the good old analogy game. Flies over some people's heads, but whatever. Let's say I have a 5-year old son. My grandfather once shot a man with his gun (under questionable circumstances; let's say I believe it was justified, but others might not). Now I happen to own quite a few guns, more than grandaddy ever had. Is it hypocritical for me to not allow my 5-year old have a gun and bring it to his preschool?

I can't see how the quanity of guns I own right now (or nukes a nation might possess) has a thing to do with the responsibility that another might use it with. Also, what does what a country did in the past- when it was functionally a different country- have to do with anything? Would you say it's hypocritical for an Italian to preach peace and David Floydism, because the Roman Empire once ruled the Mediterranean with an iron fist?

[Kramerman]

If Bush wanted to, you're telling me he couldn't just manufacture a "botched terrorist attempt" against the US "funded by the Iraqis"? I bet he could. Maybe he won't, but that isn't the point.

He would never, nor would any competent man. You know how many people still believe 9/11 was a US conspiracy plot, executed by americans against muslims? That and any other terrorist attack is covered by such scrutiny by international media that the risk of a fraud being found would be suicide. The president, as well as America would lose all credibility. Anti-Americanism would consume the world. So yes, he couldnt manufacture such a thing. It would be no where near worth the risk, if such a man was even diabolical enough to think about it. He could very well exaggerate, but with today's world's mass media covering everything, its unlikely it would stand.

So yes, this is inconcievable.

[notyoueither]

Why do people dance to the lunatic tune?

[DanS]

Oh, please. I can't believe you guys are taking this joker seriously.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why do people dance to the lunatic tune?

Boredom.

[David Floyd]

Let's play the good old analogy game. Flies over some people's heads, but whatever. Let's say I have a 5-year old son. My grandfather once shot a man with his gun (under questionable circumstances; let's say I believe it was justified, but others might not). Now I happen to own quite a few guns, more than grandaddy ever had. Is it hypocritical for me to not allow my 5-year old have a gun and bring it to his preschool?

Silly analogy. Saddam is not a 5 year old, and the world is not a preschool.

I can't see how the quanity of guns I own right now (or nukes a nation might possess) has a thing to do with the responsibility that another might use it with.

Are you familiar with the concept of hypocrisy? It simply means, in this context, that you are telling someone else not to do something or own something that you do or own. Yes, this doesn't apply to parenting children in every case, but we both know that's a silly and irrelevant case.

In that sense, it is absolutely hypocritical for the US to tell Iraq they can't own nuclear weapons, because the US owns nukes. If the US wants to eliminate nuclear weapons, fine, but let's start with our own.

Also, what does what a country did in the past- when it was functionally a different country- have to do with anything?

The US was not "functionally a different country" in 1945 - we still have the same government, same Constitution, etc. The individuals involved are obviously different, but the country itself is the same.