POLL: IRAQI'S prefer dictatorship! Re--enslave them now!

[emprworm]

note:

[filecore]

Wow.

Gosh, I do love a little extremism with my morning croissants.

Especially when it mixes terms and doesn't know what it's talking about.

And just for the record, I have no problem with counting myself as a "liberal" and a "socialist" while still agreeing that terrorism is a Bad Thing and should be wiped out.

On second thoughts, this isn't really worth my bother replying to.

[emprworm]

so was it a mistake to go into Iraq?

[Dante]

Yes. Because...

1) Iraq was not a threat.

2) It was none of our business how the country was run.

3) We helped Saddam into power anyway.

[emprworm]

well if we helped Saddam into power then we at least owed it to 25 million enslaved people to fix our error.  Do we not?

[Dante]

No. We owe them nothing.

[emprworm]

bad logic dustscout.

you claimed:  we put him in power to begin with.

QUESTION:  Was this good or bad?

If BAD, then it was our mistake to put him in power.  How then can you say that correcting a mistake WE MADE is a bad thing? 

You are claiming it is a mistake to correct a mistake.  lol!  bad logic dustscout.  you have been caught in your own liberal bias.  The truth:  you hate Bush, and whatever he does, will be a mistake to you.  Had clinton done this, it would have your support.  That is my theory.

Next question:  If you, sitting in your easy chair in your free nation say it is a bad thing that Saddam is removed from power, what do you say to the Iraqi's living in Iraq that say otherwise?

[GUNWOUNDS]

go empworm .. its your birthday...

ROFL .. empworm tearing up the forums hehehe..

[Dante]

I'm not a liberal, numbskull, I'm an autocrat. And an amoral one at that.

I didn't say that putting Saddam in power was a bad thing, and I'm not saying it now. Nor am I saying that it's a good thing. I hold no opinion one way or another, therefore I'm not saying it was a mistake.

I do, however, see his removal as a bad thing because it was illegal and none of our business. I don't care for any 'moral' matters that may be involved at all. My logic in this case is completely emotionless. Hense:

You are claiming it is a mistake to correct a mistake.  lol!  bad logic dustscout. 

Not I'm not.

Next question:  If you, sitting in your easy chair in your free nation say it is a bad thing that Saddam is removed from power, what do you say to the Iraqi's living in Iraq that say otherwise? 

I say hold your democratic views if you want, see if I care. When you fall into the corrupt pit that the rest of the Western world has entered then you'll come crying to me for autocratic dictators.

[emprworm]

I do, however, see his removal as a bad thing because it was illegal and none of our business.

so your criteria of "good or bad" is simply 'legal' and 'our business'

a strange moral system you have, but ok lets go with it.

  So if we put Saddam in power to begin with, and gave him weaponry back in the late 1980's, was this legal?  According to you, YES.  Please elaborate, how it was legal that the United States armed Saddam with weapons, including gas weapons, to fight Iran.  Because according to UN accounts, and many US accounts, it was ILLEGAL.

Second, if "none of our business" makes something BAD, then how was it "our business" to empower Saddam to begin with?

You have been caught once again, Dustscout, in your bad contradictory logic.

You claim:  " didn't say that putting Saddam in power was a bad thing, and I'm not saying it now" 

You claim:  "I do, however, see his removal as a bad thing because it was illegal and none of our business"

Yet putting Saddam in power to begin with was both illegal, and none of our business.  So how was it not a bad thing again?

[Dante]

I have no morals. Or at least, none that apply to this.

Very well? So the US supported Saddam then too. That was illegal and bad because it wasn't our business either. I never said it wasn't.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Even if Saddam was put in power illegally (which I do not know enough about) then taking him down illegally is just compounding the problem. The US made two mistakes instead of one. You're not helping your argument, Emprworm.

[emprworm]

wrong again Dustscout.  In one way I'm pleased that your bad logic here is obvious for all to see.  In another way, I'm sad because I thought you had more logic than this.  Your bush-hatred is blinding your ability to think rationally.

Now that you admit that putting Saddam in power was indeed a BAD thing, and that we are to blame for it, you still say that removing him was bad.  How can you do this?  Since its our fault for putting him in there, it now becomes OUR BUSINESS.

Why do you continue to punish 25 million people dustscout?  We unleashed a plague on 25 million innocent people.  If we have the cure for that plague, how in the world can you sit there and say we should not make every effort to do so?  You would stand idly by and let Hitler finish exterminating the Jews. 

your bad logic has been exposed.

[Dante]

If you're going to try and argue against me could you at least do it politely? There's a good boy.

Making one mistake does not justify making another. If putting Saddam in power was bad then taking him away against just made things worse because it compounded the problem. Not in a moral sense, I don't care about morals. I'm talking about legalities.

Hitler is a different case, he was discriminate. As far as I can tell Saddam simply attacked anyone he saw as a threat to him.

It wasn't a plague, it was just a mistake. A mistake that should have been allowed to run it's natural course and expire without any more needless outside intervention.

Even if we put him there it remains not our business because it is then his business. His country, his rules, not ours.

[emprworm]

Dustcout, your hatred of Bush will not allow you to think clearly.  I will try and make all this concise.  If I seem rude to you, it is because you are condemning 25 million people to slavery and you do it from your free country.  I would side with them, before I side with you. 

Your stated moral criteria for something to be right.

"It must be our business"

"It must be legal"

1.  The United states put Saddam in power.  This was Illegal, therefore wrong. 

2.  Since Saddams power was illegal, therefore illegitamte, how is it illegal to remove him?  Bush had full approval from Congress.  Under US law it was legal to remove him.  What law do you appeal to when you claim removing him was illegal?

now, you also make a moral claim saying it is "bad" that we removed him. 

You also admit it was "bad" that we put him in power.  You claim "dont fix a wrong with a wrong".  Then my question is to you- how, in your moral system, do you fix a wrong?

2 questions (and please answer them).

Concerning putting him in power:  Once we wrongly put him in power, what would the right action be to fix that first error?

Concerning removing him from power:  Now that (according to you) we already made the mistake of removing him from power, what should be the right action to take NOW to fix this "second error"?

[Wolf]

I think the fact that an individual who claims to be an amoral autocrat opposes the US-led invasion of Iraq sort of defines what beliefs would support which point of view. Of course, only an amoral autocrat can be safely insulated from the argument that Iraq had to be invaded to prevent human rights abuses; an amoral autocrat has no care for human rights abuses, because the argument against them is inherently moral.

[Dragoon Knight]

Look here; it's not Dust that has flawed logic, it's you.  Whether the US put Saddam into power illegally or not makes no difference: they took him out of power illegally anyway.  By Dust's logic, this makes Bush's actions wrong.

I don't hate Bush.  I think he's funny.  Having him in the Oval Office makes for good entertainment; the press telling me what he's done wrong today.  I really wish you could see a TV programme we have over in Britain called 2D-TV.  It would really make you angry.

In the meantime, don't accuse people of hating Herr Bush when they don't, and try to look at the validity of your own logic before you criticise others'.

[Caid Ivik]

I would say it is right of anyone to be enslaved. When someone is so dumb, of course, it is evil of slavers who abuse it. However I take Iraq as a country, where slaver simply wanted to find new hunting place in USA. Then it is american responsibility to eliminate him. And prevent another from rising.

[emprworm]

Look here; it's not Dust that has flawed logic, it's you.

[GUNWOUNDS]

they took him out of power illegally anyway.

[Dragoon Knight]

You have a really nasty habit of putting words in peoples' mouths, Emprworm... stop doing it to me.  I never said that I want Saddam back in power - I don't care who runs Iraq because it is none of my business.  Nor is it any of yours.  The fact remains that the Coalition Forces acted ILLEGALLY when they took Saddam out of power.  You can't deny that, o ye of "perfect" logic.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The fact remains that the Coalition Forces acted ILLEGALLY when they took Saddam out of power.

[emprworm]

The coalition did it legally.  Whos law did they break?

Dragoon, if you do not want Saddam back in power, then why are you so critical of him being out of power?  What do you want Dragoon?  You bush-haters like to spew hatred, but offer nothing for a solution.  Should Saddam be allowed to enslave the people again?  What do we do with Saddam now?

dont let your bush-hatred blind you from thinking clearly,

and offering solutions

rather than attack

attack

attack

attack

[Caid Ivik]

Gunwounds is true, there is no law about putting down foreign leaders, last was I think Westfalfrieden in 1648, and the world has changed slightly...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunwounds is right, there is no law about putting down foreign leaders, last was I think Westfalfrieden in 1648, and the world has changed slightly...

Thanks for the voice of intelligence and reason... finally someone speaking who knows what their talking about.

[emprworm]

yes it is refreshing to hear intelligence and reason.  Bush haters usually dont offer much in that regards.  They have too much hatred for Bush to speak rationally.

25 million free people now, who profess life is better without Hussein.

but Bush-haters still see that as something that should not exist.  Bush-haters would rather those people still be under tyrrany.

how in the world can these bush-haters claim to be tolerant, peace-loving people when they prefer a country of 25 million to be under tyrranny?  sounds like hatemongering to me.