Letter of Apology

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

No.

No? I asked whether you agreed that morality is not restricted to interpersonal relations, but also applies to international relations. And you say "No"?

I earlier asked whether you believed that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations. To which you replied "No."

Is this not a contradiction?

Which is it BillyBob? Does morality apply to international relations, as well as interpersonal relations, or not?

Then, when I ask you this: If it is wrong for a strong person to dominate a weak person, then isn't it also wrong for strong nations to dominate weak nations? To which you reply:

No.

So, you think it is right for strong nations to dominate weak ones?

But that is not what we are doing in Iraq. We are deposing a tyrranical terrorist, freeing 25 million people and installing a democracy.

Bull! If Iraq had no oil, Bush would not have invaded them. Saddam was a tyrant, but there are lots of tyrants in the world. The U.S. has no right to invade and overthrow tyrants, who are not a threat, while killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

It's quite a stretch to call Saddam a "terrorist." If we use your definition of "terrorist," then ALL dictators are terrorists and their countries should be invaded, even at the cost of many thousands of innocent people!

We should fight real terrorist groups. But when Bush foolishly declares a so-called "war on terrorism" and begins labeling anyone he wants to overthrow a "terrorist," it is obvious that this label is simply designed to justify the unjustifiable in the minds of the hoodwinked American public. Al-Qaeda are the real international terrorists that we should be fighting, not some alleged low-level so-called "terrorist" dictators, who had ZERO connection to 9/11 and who were NOT a threat.

If you are going to speculate about Jesus' disposition, my guess is that he would support our effort. I bet he'd even vote Republican!

I doubt that!

I suspect that Jesus would have been quite the anti-war protester. Bush would probably have found a way to crucify him again - this time by placing him at Guantanamo Bay, on some unspecified charges, and giving him the "Git-mo" treatment.

There is no point in putting words in his mouth that he did not say.

Preachers do it every day from the pulpit. It's called Biblical interpretation!

Remember this?: WWJD? :chuckle:

Yep, but that is not what we did!

That's EXACTLY what we did. Bush did indeed invade a nation that was not a threat, unnecessarily killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by On Fire

Reason. I love reason. Oh, wait, love is an emotion. I don't love reason. No, wait, it's not that I do or do not love reason - I actually have no emotion for or against reason. I actually hove no emtion for anything. Emotions are illogical.

Reason tells us that humans are emotional animals. Humans are both reasoning and emotional beings. It would be unreasonable and foolish to try to weed emotions from our lives, in a Vulcan-like way. But, when it comes to making decisions that affect the lives of others or have the potential to change the nation or the world, reason should win over emotions during the decision-making process.

When people primarily base their decisions on emotions, they often regret it. Emotions can cloud judgment (reason). But emotions are a fact of human nature, and, from the biased standpoint of one such emotional/reasonable human (me), I'm glad we have them.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

No?

No.

I asked whether you agreed that morality is not restricted to interpersonal relations, but also applies to international relations. And you say "No"?

I earlier asked whether you believed that morality only applies to interpersonal relations, not to international relations. To which you replied "No."

Is this not a contradiction?

No.

Which is it BillyBob?

No.

Does morality apply to international relations, as well as interpersonal relations, or not?

No.

Then, when I ask you this: If it is wrong for a strong person to dominate a weak person, then isn't it also wrong for strong nations to dominate weak nations?

No.

So, you think it is right for strong nations to dominate weak ones?

Yes.

Bull!

No.

If Iraq had no oil, Bush would not have invaded them.

Bull!

Saddam was a tyrant, but there are lots of tyrants in the world.

So it's OK to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

The U.S. has no right to invade and overthrow tyrants, who are not a threat,

Saddam was a terrorist.

while killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

You just said it was OK for Saddam to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Now you are going to complain about a tenth that? Do you see any inconsistency here??? :think:

It's quite a stretch to call Saddam a "terrorist."

Not at all, that's exactly what he was.

If we use your definition of "terrorist," then ALL dictators are terrorists and their countries should be invaded, even at the cost of many thousands of innocent people!

Is that what you are suggesting?

We should fight real terrorist groups.

We are.

But when Bush foolishly declares a so-called "war on terrorism" and begins labeling anyone he wants to overthrow a "terrorist," it is obvious that this label is simply designed to justify the unjustifiable in the minds of the hoodwinked American public.

Hey Teddy Kennedy, what have you done with our Skeptic??? Sure, he's a commie, but he's our commie and we want him back!

Al-Qaeda are the real international terrorists that we should be fighting,

We are.

not some alleged low-level so-called "terrorist" dictators, who had ZERO connection to 9/11 and who were NOT a threat.

Saddam had ties with Al Queda as the countless links I have provided proves.

I suspect that Jesus would have been quite the anti-war protester. Bush would probably have found a way to crucify him again - this time by placing him at Guantanamo Bay, on some unspecified charges, and giving him the "Git-mo" treatment.

One can only hope the same fate for you.

Preachers do it every day from the pulpit. It's called Biblical interpretation!

So, are you saying that Bush's foreign policy should be guaged by his interpretation of what Jesus would do?

Remember this?: WWJD? :chuckle:

Isn't that in the Bill Of Rights???

:blabla: :blabla: :blabla:

:yawn:

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Contradictions.

BillyBob, why doesn't morality apply to international relations, as well as interpersonal relations?

Yes.

BillyBob, why is it right for strong nations to dominate weak ones?

Bull!

Wrong. If Iraq had no oil, Bush would not have invaded them.

So it's OK to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Saddam's atrocities during the late 1980s where wrong. It was also wrong for daddy Bush to have stood by, watching the atrocities unfold, and do nothing to stop it.

There are many atrocities that the U.S. has watched and done nothing to stop.

See: Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century?

Intervening to stop an ongoing atrocity is one thing. Invading a country, killing thousands of innocent people in the process, to overthrow a dictator, who was not a threat, many years after atrocities were committed, is something entirely different.

Saddam was a terrorist.

The U.S. has no right to invade and overthrow tyrants or so-called "terrorist" leaders, in the absence of evidence that they pose a real, significant and imminent threat.

ANY leader of a country, whether they are self-appointed dictators or democratically elected Presidents, can potentially proliferate technology that could be used to make WMDs. Therefore, this potential ALONE does not justify invading and occupying their country, killing thousands of innocent people in the process.

Now, you might think that the U.S. does have the right to overthrow anyone who has the mere potential to spread WMD technology to some anti-American entity. In that case, the way to be most certain that this potential is eliminated is for the U.S. to take over the entire planet and create one U.S.-controlled World Order! Is this what you would like to see, BillyBob?

You just said it was OK for Saddam to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

I said no such thing.

Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda as the countless links I have provided proves.

Your unconfirmed right-wing nonsense has proved nothing.

So, are you saying that Bush's foreign policy should be guaged by his interpretation of what Jesus would do?

No, I'm saying the exact opposite. Bush IS essentially claiming that his foreign policy would be approved by Jesus. Now, THAT's dangerous!!

However, MY interpretation of some of the moral principles that Jesus professed is that he would be opposed to Bush's foreign policies. My moral principles do not derive from anything Jesus or the Bible has to say.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Wrong. If Iraq had no oil, Bush would not have invaded them.

How much oil is in Afghanistan? I will allow that you are partially correct about the oil in Iraq. If Saddam didn't have oil, he would not have been able to afford to fund terrorism and would not have been a threat. However, it was his terroristic tendencies that gave us a reason to depose him, not oil. If he had a gold mine and funded terrorism with the profits from it, we would have removed him from power likewise.

Now, stop with the stupid accusations, the consatnt repitition of your anti-American drivel, pull your head out of your asss and take a look around at the real world sans all the demo-commie propaganda.


(_!_)

..:idea:

 

[BillyBob]

:banana:

 

[BillyBob]

:devil:

 

[BillyBob]

Skeppies not gonna respond to my post?

Maybe he didn't like my artwork demonstrating the removal of his head from his.....uh.....posterior.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by granite1010

"It would have brought the Korean war to a hasty conclusion saving the lives of thousands of Americans and another check in our win column..."

"Another check." :nono:

Dear gods, is it a wonder why people shake in their boots at this neo-con mentality? We're talking the nuclear football, folks, not a Friday night gridiron, for crying out loud.

In 1952, Red China did not have the atomic bomb. McArthur wanted to bomb the Yalu river banks to keep the Red Chineese from crossing the river. Truman unfortunately said no. This was the first Democrat President to tie one arm behind the American fighting man's back while fighting a war. Democrats never learn...



Posted by Granite1010

:mock: There's always the strong probability that this would accelerated the arms race and given the Reds an even itchier trigger finger. But I digress.:doh:

Posted by Granite1010:

I don't see how incinerating civilians does much more than confirm what the rest of the world and many of your countrymen think: that our leaders happen to be nuts.

It worked on Japan... :thumb:

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Gerald

Why not? If Stalin had been taken out in 1945, the Cold War would never have started. No Korea, no Vietnam, no arms race, no space race, and the US would've held dominion over the whole globe.

I like your unfettered logic...:think:



Posted by Gerald:

Don't tell me that you have a problem with stabbing an ally in the back after he's served his purpose. If the positions were reversed, you know Stalin would've done it to us...

Quite frankly Scarlet, I just don't give a damn...

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by On Fire

puh-lease

Whaaat... ???

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Gerald

Indeed. Deco seems to think that Greek scholarship has only slid downhill since 1611... :chuckle:

You've noticed it, too...? 1611 was the high water mark for the Old and New Testament translations.:think:

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Posted by Skeptic :mock:...Secular Humanists base their ideas on reason...:doh:

Posted by Skeptic:

No, it is YOUR fundie mind that is clouded with fairy tales and superstitions that fit YOUR view of reality.

What will the devil do when Skeptic gets saved? :chuckle:

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Awesome, Skeptic.

The blind leading the blind... :doh:

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Skeptic

That ain't going to happen any time soon. Iraq is now worse off than before Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion. As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, things are not going to get better.

That is the Secular Humanist Democrat Party mantra, but tell that to the 60% of the Iraqi people that voted under penalty of death today in Iraq.



Posted by Skeptic:

War is not something one should leave to the whim of the President and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies. There needs to be tighter controls on the power of our own governmental thugs to wage wars.

Where were you when Clinton bombed and killed innocent civillians in Bosnia? Hummm?

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Why the hell doesn't Bush invade Tibet and drive the Chinese out?

For the same reason he doesn't invade England and drive you out...there are bigger fish to fry in the Middle East. :think:

 

[BillyBob]

:chuckle:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Art Deco

You must be alluding to "Jailhouse Conversions."

No, actually, I'm alluding to "jailhouse surveys of religious affiliation". Whether they converted after they were jailed or not is immaterial to the discussion.

The observable "fact" that almost 40 percent of these Christians who get out of prison end up back in says something about the lack of "life changing power" of your good news.

Post episodic data hardly supports your contention that the majority of convicted murderers are Christians.

The statistical data exists, whether you agree with it or not.

Then there's the question: Where is the proof that the murderer was a born again Christian at the time of the murder?...:think:

There isn't even a unversally accepted test to tell whether your next door neighbor is Christian or not. How would you suggest such evidence be collected on this criminal population?

 

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Art Deco

For the same reason he doesn't invade England and drive you out...there are bigger fish to fry in the Middle East. :think:

Don't fear the Jackle. :thumb:

 

[Frank Ernest]

Art Deco
Post episodic data hardly supports your contention that the majority of convicted murderers are Christians.

:zakath:
The statistical data exists, whether you agree with it or not.

Art Deco
Then there's the question: Where is the proof that the murderer was a born again Christian at the time of the murder?...

:zakath:
There isn't even a unversally accepted test to tell whether your next door neighbor is Christian or not. How would you suggest such evidence be collected on this criminal population?

Got it. Statistical data exists to show that the majority of convicted murderers are Christian. Then we discover there is no universally-accepted test to show one is Christian.

So your statistical data isn't worth crap, is it?