--- Bryan-TheBS-Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> > Examples? I'm sorry, but I don't recall that last time we flew a
> > civilian plane into a skyscraper.
>
> Oh, well, if you are going to be _that_specific_! I guess not!
>
You don't have to be specific. No single act committed by Americans
compares to 11 Sept.
>
> You save that [expenditure] for people who directly threaten innocent
> Americans, like Bin Laden.
It's sadly amusing to hear anyone try to put down America and Americans
for caring about themselves before others. This is the same attitude
of those who think it is ok for our people to be bombed, but not for us
to bomb the bombers. This is one of the most frustrating
idiosyncracies that lay within people's perspective on America: people
actually begrudge America for considering America's interests.
>
> > The guy who gassed his own people.
>
> Yeah, the same people who the Turks regularly have to combat as
> well. Dude, I know it is wrong to use chemical weapons, but that
> overused statement is getting old.
>
Bryan, you made a slew of good points--but the above reply concerning
Sadaam Hussein is a cop-out. The Hussein family has committed acts far
worse than murder and betrayal of their own followers, including rape
and extended torture in the name of entertainment. If you are jaded to
any of these notions, then you have gone too far in your quest to
"embrace all perspectives."
>
> > In the cold war, it fell to the Americans to check the
> > abuses of the communist countries.
>
> Oh yeah, that worked well in a lot of places ... Korea, Vietnam ...
> Afganistan??? ;-PPP
>
The idea that America is to blame for funding bin Laden ~15(?) years
ago is ludicrous; it is a waste of time to bring it up, and it derails
any credibility had by its utterer. And as for Korea and Vietnam:
America made the best decisions it could at the time... why do people
cite carefully made bad decisions as evidence that the decision-makers
are rightfully ridiculed? To answer my own question: hindsight is
20-20. Arm-chair quarterbacks.
> > The point you're making is?
>
> The point I'm making is that both the war on drug and crime have
> become _political_ nightmares. Whether you agree with them or not,
> they are political battleground where PC rules. Crime has steadily
> gone down over the last decade. Columbine was an isolated innocent
> and was *NOT* the worst (some of the worst were in the '80s), but
> the liberal media won't let it go. And we are damn lucky a Democrat
> wasn't in the White House when this happened or guns would probably
> be outlaws right now.
>
> Politics always rule.
>
Another frustrating trend: people begrudge the existence of politics
in government. That is, people begrudge the philosophy of government
and country in government. _Something_ about that IRKS ME!!!!!!!!!!!
> > My main point is that the ethics of a group are enforceable
> primarily
> > by that group. When the group fails to enforce ethics, justice
> enters
> > in the form of some outside entity.
>
> And that's the "holy war" attitude that is such a "double
> standard." No wonder! I mean, think about it!
>
You realize, of course, that their holy war is based on our _indirect_
intrusion by way of cultural influence (something that without our
control), and _their_ intrusion was made directly by way of 4
commerical airliners.
Justin Keyes, m9u35@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:41:27 EDT