On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:34:43 +0100, Casper Gielen wrote: > You're completly missing my point. You stated a few times that actions by the > USA were justified because, A. the US are the good guys, and B. there is no > law that doesn't not allow the US to do what they did. > What I'm trying to make clear: > A. Everybody considers themselves the good guys, so this point is invalid > B. Just because something isn't explicitly dissalowed, it isn't a good thing.
No, not everybody considers themselves good guys. Most bad guys know damn good and well that they are wrongdoers, despite whatever lies they may tell you in an attempt to convince you otherwise. If they are really ignorant and don't know that they are bad guys, their ignorance is no excuse. The consequences for their misdeeds will befall them anyway. > You are only the good guys, if the majority agrees with you. In the case of > Iraq, the majority of the world does not agree with a war. This doesn't mean > you are the bad guys, but your not the good guys by default either. Morality is not established by majority vote or popular opinion or by the UN. >> of self-defense. Self-defense is not violence. Saddam cannot conduct a > What I was trying to say with this paragraph is, imho self-defense is > violence. Maybe justified violence, but it is violence. So before you use it, > even if it is in self-defense, think very good about who you are going to > hurt, because people are going to get hurt. It is violence to tolerate violence. If you see somebody getting raped and you just stand by and watch and you don't do anything to stop it, then you too are violent. If there is no way you can stop it except by injuring the perpetrator, then it is perfectly OK for you to do what you have to do. Kicking the perpetrator's ass is not violent. Standing by and watching and doing nothing is violent. > IMO (and that of most Europeans) the price is not worth the gain. There is not > enough evidence to support what you are about to do. (you probably think > different about that). What would be gained in going to war against Saddam would be the removal of a threat to peace in the region. If we exercise too much restraint now, Saddam will be able to start a war later on his own time-table. His own time-table provides for a somewhat lengthy period for strengthening his forces and for further horrification of his weapons systems. It is a question of whether it is worse to see a few hundred people get killed now, or wait and see millions get killed later. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
