michaeledward said:
I am an alcoholic practicing my 12th year of sobriety. You need not lecture me on where the responsibility lies. Perhaps someday you may discover alcoholism is a disease, not a choice; we don't blame those with cancer for their disease.
Well, actually, no I don't believe alcoholism is a disease... A disease happens to you, alcoholism (and drug abuse, spouse abuse, child abuse) is a choice. Made under a degree of duress, perhaps, but it doesn't just "happen." Alcoholics don't choose to be alcoholics, but they sure do choose to drink... But congratulations on your sobriety nonetheless. It's a long, hard road.
Justice and Vengeance are not the same thing.
No, they aren't, which is why I included them both in my admonishment to you to be sure that, in the situations I outlined, you call for neither.
Please be aware that more terrorist activities have occurred since 9/11/2001 than occurred in the same time period prior to September 11, 2001. Maybe not on U.S. soil, but the Marriott in Bali is pwned by a U.S. company. Al Qaeda's war is a world wide war.
And when, precisely, did I start giving two sh|ts about other countries? I care that
my family is safe, first and foremost. All others come after that. Is it sad and terrible that other countries have had such a rough go since 9/11? You bet. But you'll notice that after we froze Osammy's accounts, bombed the bejeezus out of his training camps, arrested as many of his operatives as we could, and made getting into this country a tad bit tougher, things haven't been quite so noisy here at home, have they? Mission accomplished...
Or because the Bush Administration had to beat the drums to launch his 'Private Little War' against the 'Tyrrant' that tried to kill "his daddy".
Nice side benefit, don't you think? Be able to secure the country against outside attack
and settle a grudge? I'm not seeing a problem there...
. . . I'm not sure that the Iraqis are 'glad' about anything.
Of course you aren't, dear. That's because your information comes from the media. I have at least a half dozen people on the ground that I speak with now and again, and they are saying that the word on the street, the word from the Everyday Joe, is that they are dead happy that Saddam is out of the picture. But then, that'd go against your arguments aimed at Dubya's head, so why would you admit that they might be happy about what has happened...
You are again arguing that 'Saddam' was part of the 'threat of terrorism'. This is just not true ... no matter how much some want to believe it.
No, I didn't say that. I said that he has a history of atrocities against his own people. I said that he was a tyrant. I never said he was necessarily a part of the "threat of terrorism." However, the friend of my enemy
is my enemy. If he was going to allow Osammy to reside within his borders, he becomes part of the problem in one fashion or another. Again, Khaddafy made real sure that we knew he wasn't going to harbor anyone... A few well placed bombs back in the Reagan administration saw to it that the Colonel knows with whom he f*cks when the US is concerned...
Of course, it is required that you believe this fallacy is true, in order to justify that we are 'doing the right thing'. If Saddam was not part of the 'threat of terrorism', then what we are doing is wrong, regardless of the outcome.
No, I am not "required" to believe anything. Thanks for painting me with the same brush you accuse everyone else of using - making broad generalizations about a person's motives based on a few statements.
I am reminded of a saying I heard a long time ago: "Who must do the harsh thing? He who can..." In this instance, and so many others, the rest of the world bellyaches to the US "Oooh, bail me out of my financial quagmire," or "oooh, please feed my starving people," or "oooh, please give us free medical care to save us from the diseases plaguing us." How about "oooh, please save my bacon from this other pissant third-world nobody that is rattling sabers at my borders?" We're good enough for these things, right? So we took the ball and ran with it. We finished a mission that should have been wrapped up over a decade ago. Some very few individuals have done reprehensible things on both sides. But I stand by the fact that what we have done pales in comparison, if for no other fact than because it is my people that are being affected...
Is that different from the Iraqis? Absolutely not. Which brings me to this gem:
What do you mean, 'They do not think like we do'? .. Do they think with their liver?
Statements like these tend to be part of the 'dehumanization' process that allows people to kill someone else with enduring difficulties.
No, they think based on their cultural background, which states that acts like the beheading are perfectly acceptable in retaliation to the US for the photos and abuse of the Iraqi prisoners. We don't think the same. They think death is preferable to humiliation. It is hard to get an American to feel strongly about anything to believe death is preferable, so the killing of an individual in place of anything else is abhorrent to us.
It is statements like
yours that help to fuel the fires of those whose direct experience in any of these situations is lacking...
