Political Rants

AMEN BROTHER!

Yes, I relearned how to type. Now then, morality. It's true that what Osama bin Laden planned and executed on September 11th was, by most moral standards, very wrong indeed. However, is it not also true that if we kill a similar number of people in the name of retribution, we become no better than the people who murdered over two thousand innocent civilians in one day? Honestly, do you think that we can end the pain inflicted upon the United States by bloodying our own hands? Do we end hatred by crippling a nation with a sample of our own? Look at Germany, post World War One. The Treaty of Versailles crippled the German economy, and as 2.5 million German soldiers lay dead on the battlefields, hatred for the old enemies of Germany rose. As a direct result of the harsh treatment of Germany post-World War One, World War Two claimed the lives of 61 million soldiers and civilians. The initial act of terrorism to set World War One in motion, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, claimed the lives of two. Just another angle.

I am going to ask one you simple question Ben, why did Osama Bin Laden attack America, why didn't he attack one of the other thousand nations that populate this Earth with as such supreme prejuidice he attacked America? In that answer, Ben lies the reason that I believe that we can't go killing the arabs and say that we were attacked first. We are not in the right, we have done things that have been terrible to that country and now we shouldn't go around murdering their people. Yes obviosly what Bin Laden did was horrific and unprecendented, and he had no right to do it, but because we the United States of America did instigate some sort of retalition from the Arab people then retaltion was therefore deserved. And yes Ben i have no backbone to say to myself that an American's life is any more important than any one else on the face of the earth, I am not a patriot and I am not arrogant, I will never support killing someone because who they are or where they live or killing some one at all. And if that makes me spineless so be it, but I would rather be spineless then to be a blind patriot randomlly sluaghtering Arabs. - Oh and Ben this forum has been typically focusing on mocking and ranting about other people that write on this forum.

Gross, when I first read your piece, I thought it was civil and intellectual, but then I reread it and realized that it was a bunch of rhetoric and quite unintelligent. All you do is say what you believe I think without carefully reading what I have written. I suggest you read what I write much more carefully. What you wrote is roughly the equivilent to, 'you are wrong, I am right, you are stupid, now I will make up a bunch of crazy stuff about what I think you believe.' Gross, we can not possibly have a meaningful conversation if you resort to such immature responses and arguments. You would be a great politician with this kind of attack. It does not respond to anything I have written. Maybe I am being manipulated by U.S. government propaganda. Maybe I haven't 'grown up' yet, but at least I am here to discuss very important philisophical issues, not to call other people names. What about you?

Andrew, where do you draw the line? When do you say that someone is wrong? That is what I am getting at. If you are unwilling to do that in all circumstances, then you literally have no backbone. By the way, if I thought that all arabs were terrorists, why would I believe that freedom of speech and universal suffrage would benefit the middle east? If I thought that all Chinese were communists, why would I be an advocate of free trade with China and believe that China had an important role in the future of world capitalism (which I made clear to you in previous conversations). I do not care about what other people believe, but I do care about their actions. Unfortunately, you apply your moral relativism to the actions. Maybe rape and murder should be legal? I mean, "we don't have the right to tell someone if they are right and wrong." Never, not once, do I advocate doing anything against people who do not share my opinion. Actions are what the only thing I am concerned about. You never address what to do if a nation attacks another. You dismiss with it with "America has made plenty of mistakes." Because America has made plenty of mistakes, we should not ever defend it? Wonderful idea Andrew! I know that America has made mistakes, I am not an uneducated hillbillie, but you, as an educated person, should also know that America, for all its faults, is not evil, and definitely one of the better places in the world to live. I will not get into romaniticizing about how great it is, but I will say that if my Grandfather did not immigrate here with his family, he would be a bar of soap.

Ben you are manipulated by the fact that you think America is so wonderful, I mean hell you would rather kill off half the world then to see one American die. And you are only seing things through how your government is and has been telling you to see them for your entire life. You have a veil over your eyes and since it has been on their you entire life you don't even notice it when you are talking, and that is what everyone is criticizing you about, your egocentric view point. It seems Ben that you think every single person in the Middle East is a terrorist and everyone in China is a communist . . .there are people in those countries that merely live there because their parents did and they don't go around killing Americans. Oh and also you are definitely trying to enforce your morality on other people, you are a typical republican in this regard, you believe in a small government until it comes to your moral opinion than you want rules, legislation, and war to enforce your moral viewpoint - grow up America isn't infalliable and it has made plent of mistakes.

"'everyone is right, no one is wrong' bullshit!" What? I think it would be the "No one is right, no one is wrong" bullshit. Donat seemed to be ranting about how people "have no right to tell someone else what is right and wrong" (which in itself is contradictory. What makes it wrong to tell someone what is right and wrong? Why are you telling them that they have no right to do that? Is that not what you are against? heh) I agree with him in some sense. Countries should not impose their believes on other countries. They should not interfere with what countries are doing to other countries, because "Who is to say if that is right or wrong?". I totally agree with that. BUT I then take a look at what Ben was talking about. You know, the bar of soap thing. If what one country is doing to another has even a slight chance of possibly effecting the freedoms we enjoy so much, either now or in the future. We have to kick their ass. That's all I can say about that....we have to draw the line somewhere. Why not draw it right there?

Dan, Jesse is biased because he has the right to be, and ought to be. We aren't a newspaper, we are just a bunch of folks arguing with each other. Sure, Jesse is biased, but so are the rest of us. If he, and the other writers here, were not, no one would come to this website!

You can not even defend your own beliefs! Do you guys even have any beliefs? I am not saying that we should enforce morality on other people, then we would be no better than the people who we claim are "immoral." But how can you morally equivilize everything in life? Do you do this when you make decisions for yourself? If you do, would it really be considered making your own decisions? Frankly, I couldn't give a damn about what other people think, but when I make my own decisions, I do not want to be manipulated by this "everyone is right, no one is wrong" bullshit! If this attitude was around during WWII, you would be speaking German and I would be a bar of soap!

This is in response to when Jesse said in response to my latest post about the Clinton admin warning the Bush admin. Seeing as how Jesse probably won't care that there are legitimate reasons for the Clinton adminstration not taking actions against Al Qaeda, I'll be breif with the details. Furthermore because of my own laziness, from now on when I say Bush or Clinton in this post, I'm refering to their adminstrations.

1. Clinton had planned to attack the forces plotting against us, but because of incidents involving his wang, the American people would not have supported it.

2. The second time Clinton was going to strike was during an election, and he didn't want to make that into Gore's campaign.

You see Jesse, it's not that I really care, it's that you unnecarily bashed Clinton, since there were actual reasons for Clinton, and I've looked and found NONE for Bush, except that he wanted to sweep the budget crisis under the rug.