Posted on 12/04/2003 11:55:41 AM PST by areafiftyone
Aha, so all those people whose death President Reagan was allegedly responsible for were leftists. Being a leftist means denying the rights of individuals to their lives, property, liberty, and the pursuit of their own happiness. While a person may temporarily become a leftist out of honest error (President Reagan made that error himself), anyone with half a braincell is bound to find out very soon what the left really stands for and, if he is any good--if he is any grayer than pitch black--he will correct his error by coming over to the right side.
Given the possibility of error, rational societies do not punish mere adherence to evil views by death (or in any way at all) in times of peace; they only punish actual violations of rights. But that doesn't change the fact that any person who knowingly and purposefully supports an evil ideology is guilty of a moral crime of the worst kind.
Not that the deaths we are talking about were peacetime deaths. In a war, the people on the right side have to defend themselves and defeat the evil side, without regard to civilian casualties. The moral responsibility for any and all deaths of innocents in a war lies with the evil side, because without it, there would be no war in the first place.
Out of curiosity, since you so much insist on there being no black and no white--may I ask you why your soul isn't white? (If the question isn't clear enough: What crimes have you committed?)
Schroder was elected on an explicit anti-American platform based on the idea that the dethroning of Saddam was "illegitimate"--implying that Saddam was the legitimate ruler of Iraq! Saddam, a man who invaded Kuwait, gassed the Kurds of his country, enslaved millions, causing them to starve while he was building an offensive arsenal designed to extend his tyranny all over the region, had women and children raped, and brutally tortured and murdered those who tried to resist his oppression. This is the man whom your Herr Schroder was so adamantly trying to keep in power. How dare you say he didn't deny anyone's right to his life???
You're country is being ruled by conservatives and it has the death penalty, which denies individuals the right to live.
Please stand up and repeat after me:
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Every man has a right to his life, property, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but those who violate the rights of others forgo their own rights.
Is this concept really so difficult to grasp?
How can someone be good that sells weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein? Ronald Reagan did this
At that time, he didn't know what Saddam was like. It is not a crime to help someone you don't know is a criminal. It is only a crime to knowingly support criminals.
That said, I think it was a mistake to support Saddam. We all make honest mistakes. Making honest mistakes is not immoral. If President Reagan could still speak to us, I'm sure he would say he wished he hadn't supported Saddam and he would fully back his removal from power in order to correct that mistake.
And you're trying to tell me that the killed innocents weren't innocent because they believed in other ideals than you do!
If your "ideals" are theft, murder, and tyranny, well I'm sorry, but you're anything but innocent.
"The moral responsibility for any and all deaths of innocents in a war lies with the evil side"
Where the evil side is the one you're opposing. How convenient.
It's not evil because I oppose it; I oppose it because it's evil.
By the way, this is the exact same reasoning that islamic fundamentals give you.
I don't hear Islamic fundamentalists talking much about individual rights.
Well, I'm a "leftist", so that alone would warrant the death penalty for me it seems
I've also been rude to others sometimes,
That's not a crime.
I could have done more help to others
Oooh, baaaaaaaaaad, baaaaaaaad leftist! Don't you know that, according to your ideology, a good man does everything he can to help others? Quickly send me fifty thousand dollars to atone for your greediness.
(Of course it is not a crime when you "could have done more to help others." You don't owe anyone anything other than a passive respect for their rights.)
sometimes I drive over the speed limit
If a speed limit is forced on you by a government that forcefully claims a monopoly on building and regulating long-distance roads (as is the case in Germany, AFAIK), then you are the victim, not the criminal. In a situation like this, you should follow the rational traffic rules and ignore the irrational ones (as far as possible without getting punished).
BTW the way traffic is organized is one thing I rather like about Germany. It's quite a special feeling when you pass the border on the Autobahn, floor the gas, go as fast as you please without having to worry about breaking the law, and see your fellow motorists do the same. It's a feeling of liberation.
there's a line out of a somewhat well known christian prayer that you should remember: "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Oh, I have no problem with forgiving those who want to be forgiven--and prove it by
Obviously, a murderer cannot possibly compensate for the damage he has done, so there is no way can fulfill all the necessary conditions to be forgiven.
"Schroder was elected on an explicit anti-American platform based on the idea that the dethroning of Saddam was "illegitimate"--implying that Saddam was the legitimate ruler of Iraq!"
He was elected because of, among other things, opposing a war that was allegedly waged because of weapons of mass destruction - a war that was also opposed by about 80% of the german people. This time democracy actually worked really well.
Implying, well... The US government was implying that they were absolutely sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, of which none were found. They were further implying that Saddam was in bed with Osama (or so it looked like in FOX et al), while in fact nobody of Sept 11th was from Iraq - but there were quite a few people from Saudi-Arabia, which strange enough wasn't attacked by the US despite having a tyrannic leadership.
At last, it was implied by the government of the US that the Iraq would be "freed" of the oppressive regime. Now, the war is over, they are free. or dead. or injured. or they're property has been destroyed. or they suffer the rampant crime. And every day the situation looks worse as schiits (they're the ones endorsing democracy: As they are the majority, they can create an islamic state à la Iran. Great, isn't it?), sunnits and kurds have completely different goals.
I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein wasn't a reckless dictator, it's great that he's gone. I'm saying the goal doesn't justify the means.
"How dare you say he didn't deny anyone's right to his life???"
Well, the men he killed were probably guilty by your standards: many of them were leftists. But joke aside, the US has denied about 10,000 people the right to live, they were killed during the war by US forces. So dare you say Bush didn't deny anyone's right to life???
"At that time, he didn't know what Saddam was like. It is not a crime to help someone you don't know is a criminal. It is only a crime to knowingly support criminals."
You're kidding, right?
By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.
The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].
What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.
Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].
Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
He knew exactly what he was doing and with whom he was dealing.
"That said, I think it was a mistake to support Saddam. We all make honest mistakes."
Sure. Can you tell this the relatives of the killed innocents too? "Hey, folks, sorry your fathers and mothers and your children are dead - we made a mistake, whoops, haha, won't happen again, we promise"
If your "ideals" are theft, murder, and tyranny, well I'm sorry, but you're anything but innocent.
Yeah, if you're asking Osama, you'll surely hear that his ideals are theft and murder. I'll think you'll more likely hear something like that men must behave exactly as god has laid forth. Strange enough, I hear this quite often from this board, too....
"That's not a crime."
Sorry, I thought we were talking about souls being white and such. Of course, it's not a crime, but it's not good either.
If a speed limit is forced on you by a government that forcefully claims a monopoly on building and regulating long-distance roads (as is the case in Germany, AFAIK), then you are the victim, not the criminal. In a situation like this, you should follow the rational traffic rules and ignore the irrational ones (as far as possible without getting punished).
Now what? Is it about commiting crimes now, about being good or bad, or about following what seems to fit your own interests?
Why do you think speed limits are imposed? Because the ones in charge are bored or what?
"BTW the way traffic is organized is one thing I rather like about Germany. It's quite a special feeling when you pass the border on the Autobahn, floor the gas, go as fast as you please without having to worry about breaking the law, and see your fellow motorists do the same. It's a feeling of liberation."
Yes, I pity you about not being able to do that in the land of the free. Nevertheless, people who floor the gas are often the ones either being dead quite soon or causing the death of others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.