 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
It is very unlikely a man who can be elected president would want to be remembered throughout history as a mass murderer. |
Well, I'd consider several Presidents to be mass murderers, most specifically Wilson, Truman, FDR, and LBJ, but many of the others too.
quote:
Yes he did (not the same as today), he just passed them all. |
Obviously basic human morality and aversion to murder were not benchmarks he had to meet.
quote:
We can not say the same about a dictator who has practically total control of the minds of the masses in his country (and others), and who will think what he wants them to think. |
You're telling me that Bush can't pretty much control public opinion through the media and the manufacturing of crises? Hell, it's worked for many other Presidents.
DD,
quote:
You honestly don't get it, do you? Your views on nuclear proliferation are stupid at best and suicidal at worst. |
I just find it hypocritical that the one nation who has used atomic weapons to murder civilians (not to mention threatening the murder of hundreds of millions more) is telling other nations they can't have them, even as a defensive measure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
So you admit it's hypocritical?
JohnT,
quote:
Naw, let me ask: do you realize that you are as wrapped up in your ideological dressings as much as any Mao's-Little-Red-Book-carrying Marxist? |
The difference is, I can back my views up much better than they can - much more consistently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
I'm saying that you have yet to provide any real and substantive justification for your views on nuclear proliferation. |
Before I can justify my views I need you to admit the obvious - that the US is being hypocritical. If we can't at least agree on that, it's pointless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Hypocritical in regards to our stance on nuclear proliferation? You are in Fantasyland! |
How is it NOT hypocritical for a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and hundreds of ICBMs, that also happens to be the only nation ever to use atomic/nuclear weapons to murder civilians, to tell a little pissant desert nation 6000 miles away they can't have a few chemical or nuclear warheads?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I'd consider several Presidents to be mass murderers, most specifically Wilson, Truman, FDR, and LBJ, but many of the others too.
Obviously basic human morality and aversion to murder were not benchmarks he had to meet.
You're telling me that Bush can't pretty much control public opinion through the media and the manufacturing of crises? Hell, it's worked for many other Presidents.
|
Ok, so any president during war time is a mass muderer... of course! 
Everyone knows in war time we are just supposed to roll over and die, and submit to our enemies. And that we should compromise our own interests for the sake of others who want to destroy us...
And no, Bush obviously cannot control the masses effectively.
In Iraq, people are parading in the streets, pledging to fight to the death for their dictator, who just treats them sooo well against the evil American empire. No one is marching the streets to welcome america, or oust Saddam
In the United States, you have much of the population who only agrees with a war with many conditions. And many more who openly oppose war, and countless other political movements of the president.
I dunno how you can say Bush can control The American masses anywhere near the degree that Saddam is.
sry for thread jack
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Ok, so any president during war time is a mass muderer... of course! |
No, but any President who either starts a war or unnecessarily gets us involved in one is morally a mass murderer.
quote:
I dunno how you can say Bush can control The American masses anywhere near the degree that Saddam is. |
Didn't say that he could. I just said that he could definitely have a great influence on public opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
And I guess you know the absolutes when it comes to defining what constitutes a 'morally justified' or 'neccessary' war |
I have a pretty good grasp on the concepts of right and wrong, yes.
quote:
this sounds like to me that you think bush can pretty much control the public opinion... which i guess is why his popularity is falling, as is support for war. |
If Bush wanted to, you're telling me he couldn't just manufacture a "botched terrorist attempt" against the US "funded by the Iraqis"? I bet he could. Maybe he won't, but that isn't the point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
How is it NOT hypocritical for a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and hundreds of ICBMs, that also happens to be the only nation ever to use atomic/nuclear weapons to murder civilians, to tell a little pissant desert nation 6000 miles away they can't have a few chemical or nuclear warheads?
Screw it, you win DF, jack successful.
Let's play the good old analogy game. Flies over some people's heads, but whatever. Let's say I have a 5-year old son. My grandfather once shot a man with his gun (under questionable circumstances; let's say I believe it was justified, but others might not). Now I happen to own quite a few guns, more than grandaddy ever had. Is it hypocritical for me to not allow my 5-year old have a gun and bring it to his preschool?
I can't see how the quanity of guns I own right now (or nukes a nation might possess) has a thing to do with the responsibility that another might use it with. Also, what does what a country did in the past- when it was functionally a different country- have to do with anything? Would you say it's hypocritical for an Italian to preach peace and David Floydism, because the Roman Empire once ruled the Mediterranean with an iron fist?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
If Bush wanted to, you're telling me he couldn't just manufacture a "botched terrorist attempt" against the US "funded by the Iraqis"? I bet he could. Maybe he won't, but that isn't the point. |
He would never, nor would any competent man. You know how many people still believe 9/11 was a US conspiracy plot, executed by americans against muslims? That and any other terrorist attack is covered by such scrutiny by international media that the risk of a fraud being found would be suicide. The president, as well as America would lose all credibility. Anti-Americanism would consume the world. So yes, he couldnt manufacture such a thing. It would be no where near worth the risk, if such a man was even diabolical enough to think about it. He could very well exaggerate, but with today's world's mass media covering everything, its unlikely it would stand.
So yes, this is inconcievable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Let's play the good old analogy game. Flies over some people's heads, but whatever. Let's say I have a 5-year old son. My grandfather once shot a man with his gun (under questionable circumstances; let's say I believe it was justified, but others might not). Now I happen to own quite a few guns, more than grandaddy ever had. Is it hypocritical for me to not allow my 5-year old have a gun and bring it to his preschool? |
Silly analogy. Saddam is not a 5 year old, and the world is not a preschool.
quote:
I can't see how the quanity of guns I own right now (or nukes a nation might possess) has a thing to do with the responsibility that another might use it with. |
Are you familiar with the concept of hypocrisy? It simply means, in this context, that you are telling someone else not to do something or own something that you do or own. Yes, this doesn't apply to parenting children in every case, but we both know that's a silly and irrelevant case.
In that sense, it is absolutely hypocritical for the US to tell Iraq they can't own nuclear weapons, because the US owns nukes. If the US wants to eliminate nuclear weapons, fine, but let's start with our own.
quote:
Also, what does what a country did in the past- when it was functionally a different country- have to do with anything? |
The US was not "functionally a different country" in 1945 - we still have the same government, same Constitution, etc. The individuals involved are obviously different, but the country itself is the same.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-01-2003 10:46
|