Is that Saddam Invaded Kuwait then failed to live up to his obligations and that Al-quida attacked the US first. The whole preemptive argument against Iraq is false because we were not merely hypothesizing a threat, he was a proven one.
The moral equivalence argument is valid only so long as you believe the two moral basis are indeed equivalent. According to most standards of moraility they are not. The American ideals of life, liberty, and happiness are ideals that most of the world want to achieve even if most fall far short and we have our own shortcomings. The tyranical beliefs of radical Islam are onerous to most of those who live under them. This is the kind of PC nonsense that make so many feel some liberals are divorced from reality.
Regards,
Mark
Current Events » in reply to No, you don't: there's a principle involved
What You Neglect
The whole thread (40 posts)
- A lot of brainwashing going around.
- Scouring "Government Resources"
- re: Canadians were not fooled by the WMD story, or by your ambassador's threats of economic sanctions
- Oh, for Gods sake, Justin
- What's the difference...
- wow, too negative. . . Kinder/Gentler/Corrected manifesto
- re: wow, too negative. . . Kinder/Gentler/Corrected manifesto
- The exercize of conscience
- What Is And Is Not Appropriate
- re: The exercize of conscience
- The absence of conscience
- If there are changes to America that will improve things...
- Do I understand you correctly?
- No, you don't: there's a principle involved
- You're wrong on this one.
- What You Neglect
- Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder
- No
- Define "harm". I will stipulate to murder and torture.
- No
- Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder
- No, you don't: there's a principle involved
- re: If there are changes to America
- Do I understand you correctly?