Bush Speech

[dlihcraw]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equality is only a principle in democracy, and while a country may outline it as a fundamental right, it is not always given to every citizens, much like your first negative for “Islamism”! Want proof? Ask aboriginals, blacks, Asians, and any other visible minority! So far, one for one. Next, the equality of sexes. Well, even in Canada and the United States are men paid considerably more than woman for the same amount of work. Two for two. Third, freedom of expression, this one is a little tricky. Remember the recent Republican convention in New York City and the treatment protestors received? If not, remember the WTO in Seattle, or the Million Man March in Washington, DC? Three for three. Next, the right to elect their own leaders, I think the last American election says enough here. Four for four. Next, freedoms, that seems somewhat redundant to what has already been said so I’ll just dismiss it. Bye. Five for five. Next, the separation of church and state, did you know there is a chapel in the American house of government, and President Bush often refers to God (not to mention the infamous “In God We Trust” on the American dollar bill)! Ok, so far, six for six. Next, worship, ah, apparently not. Look at your hate rhetoric, how can the right to free worship exist in a democratic society when the rights of bigots like yourself come first?! Making the total seven for seven. Man, come to think about it, we all suck. Destroy the world! The human race is a incurable disease!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
the only force in the region that could fill the power vacuum would be Iran and if they made a move against Iraq and annexed the Basra oil fields and then supressed the Sunnis and Kurds you would be in trouble, the Gulf States would be at risk and then global economies could be threatened.

I thought the debate was over western and eastern values, not western and eastern economics? Ah, the plot thickens!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to have overlooked these questions of mine, perhaps you can still answer (or avoid) them?

 

[dlihcraw]

Again, you speak in very generalizing terms. Can you say every Islamic leader is cruel, or every Islamic husband hits his wife (please forgive my not using you ridiculous “Islamism”)? The American Declaration of Independence was said to free the American people from the tyranny of the British monarchy, yet a significant amount of Americans left the newly founded country after the war and moved to Canada because they found value in the monarchy. Were these people wrong?

 

[dlihcraw]

Who determines the appropriate value system for the world to accept? From what you have implied, it is the western world. Subsequently, that makes you enthropocentric, and still more racist.

 

[dlihcraw]

You have the mentality of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. You advocate the systematic removal of all value systems opposite to your own. You criticize “Islamism” for allowing genocide (without substantial proof), but advocate it yourself? Where do you stand?

 

[dlihcraw]

Your beliefs equate to cultural genocide.

 

[dlihcraw]

Saddam Hussein was not at any one point in time a real threat to the western world. Iraq was surrounded by indifferent, and even resentful, countries; the US and British controlled the northern and southern areas of Iraq, allowing a Kurdish nation to emerge in the north; and the gulf was constantly patrolled by American war ships. Beaten without resistance by UN forces during the Gulf War and having been inspected for some time after revealing significant weapon stockpiles for such a hapless military, Saddam Hussein was never a threat. We don’t know if he had weapons. We know Iran and North Korea have weapons. We know these countries pose larger threats to the western world than Iraq ever will, so why didn’t we attack them? Because it would have been militarily, politically and economically inconvenient. After 9/11, the western world needed a confidence injection. Afghanistan was not enough. We wanted more, we wanted revenge. We saw/see Islam as the source of our hurt. We attacked Iraq because it was relatively weak and located in the middle-east. Cuba would have been a more legitimate target, as communism goes strictly against the values of democracy. But we didn’t attack them, we didn’t attack Iran and we didn’t attack North Korea. We attacked the vulnerable. You want to effectively detour terrorism? Open communication with the countries that harbour terrorists, help recollect Russia’s missing nuclear weapons. Don’t go marching into the middle-east full of patriotism and short on reason.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that this thread has been wrecked. Send it to locksville. Personal attacks and derailing threads do not deserve to continue.

 

[dlihcraw]

They will not sit down for peace talks, they cannot be reasoned with - kill them and eliminate the ideology with liberty, the only remedy for such unmitigated evil.

International musical chairs is your intention. You won’t sit because they are standing; similarly, they won’t sit because you are standing. This logic is contradictive and counter-productive. The music continues to play regardless of your participation.

I agree, and I have reported the astonishing amount of hate propaganda that can be found in this thread.

 

[dlihcraw]

(This was said but never got posted:

I said liberty and democracy - the liberal democracy. This was a product of the age of enlightenment which drives home the importance of the individual and free will. This political model replaced the autocracies through the industrial revolution. Its influences stretch back into classical concepts but its implementation is much more recent.

“Actually, modern democracy originated with the Bill of Rights given by the British Parliament to Charles II as a condition for his accepting the English throne. This occurred in the very early 1600's, long before the Industrial Revolution. At this time, Hobbes and Locke, principal figures in the English enlightenment, had yet write their political ideologies. Hobbes' Leviathan was published in the mid 1600's, and Locke's work later.)

 

[pax]

Okay, I think the comparisons to Hitler and the charges of racial genocide are more than a bit overboard.

Au revoir.