[thechat] A balance of opinion.

[Erika Meyer]

rudy wrote:
>i am for the war because i believe that diplomacy had exhausted
>the avenues for dealing with that maniac

which maniac?

>not that there's anything wrong with communism, oh no, it is
>a glorious system, proven to enoble the people and generally
>enhance the quality of life  </sarcasm>

what if the argument isn't communism or no communism,
what about "sovereign" or "not sovereign"?

interestingly, one of the arguments used against American Indian 
sovereignity was that traditional Indians behaved like "communists." 
It was a good argument for oppression of a large group of people 
during those times when the worst thing you could be was a commie.

What if we just let other countries work out their own problems?  I 
mean, unless they are out of control, putting innocents (or 
"political prisoners") into labor/death camps, etc or attacking other 
countries in an unprovoked manner... and then work thru -- oh, say an 
international organization of some sort-- to address the issue. 
oops, must be my ideals going astray again.

>anyhow, i was also in favour of the '91 gulf war against iraq,
>and i don't see how this one's all that much different

one could argue the Gulf War never ended... hey isn't it funny how 
wars never end *quite* as fast as our leaders claim they will?  How 
long was the US Civil War supposed to last?  4-5 months?

>and no, i'm not interested in having people try to explain to me
>why they think it is

I was against the Gulf War.

>here we have someone promoting civil disobedience, apparently in
>the belief that the end (ending the war) justifies the means
>
>civil disobedience is wrong, and statements like that are trolls too

"Civil disobedience is (always) wrong" is an opinion.
  Henry David Thoreau had a different opinion and so do I.

E

--