user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Sure, I want to bang Hilary Duff, but you can't arrest me for having sex with sombody underage.
Iraq had desires for nuclear weapons, while Iran and North Korea is actively developing the weapons, which is worst?
I bet many others too have the "desire" to create WMD who actually don't. We're not jumping down their throats and starting wars with them. Anybody could have the desire to do evil things. Bush just wanted to start a war based on gut instinct.
I'd call it thought crime. I considered the label sufficient to make another ballot. Hope you agree!
Great ballot. Bush oil co. and the zionazis pathetically weak justification for the invasion of Iraq are apparent. Only the uneducated and brainwashed swallow these lies. Unfortunately 50% of the US population falls under this category.
I desire weapons of mass destruction. I'll never have them though... my Uranium enriching tubes are not to weapons standards. Does that make me a security threat?
all nations desire wmd,therefore the usa should invade everybody..twice.
Thanks for great comments.
Interesting (and depressing) that at this point in time, one-third of the voters on this ballot believe that bad intent = grounds for war.
by mojo on Thu Oct 07, 04 9:09am
[+]
I heard South Korea was seeking wmd... why the hypocracy?
While we are on the subject of unjust double-standards... Israel + wmd?! When one major power in a region has wmd, the others feel threatened and feel they need to create a balance of power by getting wmd themselves. Therefore I do not blame Iran for being paranoid, its Israel's fault.
The *desire* to commit evil acts did not necessarily justify war, however clearly *some* actions on our part were necessary.
ONE-THIRD? That does NOT bode well.
The SOLE justification for war is TANGIBLE PROOF of a threat from a TANGIBLE enemy. We KNEW that Japan was responsible for Pearl Harbor, so we went to war against Japan. (Well, AFTER we considered Germany to be a greater threat, which serves as an interesting parallel to what we're in now....).
Bottom line- desire alone is NOT sufficient justification.
Intention and action are two very different things people. If you put everyone who had intention to commit crime in jail then there would be a serious population decrease. Saddam wasn't capable of building WMDs even if he did have the intention.
The analogy is good, and would be great if Iraq didn't hae a history of questionable actions. It's like having lustful thoughts about another woman and also having a track record for cheating.
To take any simple philoshphy to any length is dangourous and may lead to death.
The difference here is that not only did he have weapons of mass destruction, he had already used them, against his own people (the kurds). Based on that plus the desire, I think you can make a very strong case for his removal from power.
Why did the USA fund and arm Saddam in the early eighties, knowing what he would do to the Kurds?
Your argument falls apart when you realisde that Saddam was afriend of the US, especially in the war against Iran.
Perhaps, if the people who support the war in Iraq, actually did a bit of research on Iraq and the US part in his rise, they would reflect a bit more before, saying the things they do.
The point is Jenny, that the warin Iraq was about WMD's nothing more, there was no mention of regime change, you really ought to question more and not be taken in by these people.
Simple Philosophy???
Bush's philosophy being so sophisticated :-)
by mojo on Thu Oct 07, 04 5:59pm
[+]
Saddam bombed the Kurds before any large scale of UN resolutions were put against him, that's before weapons inspectors and sanctions. You can't attack him twice for something he did once. Gulf war in 1991 was about stopping Saddam from getting WMDs and keeping him from killing anymore people, and it did. The UN had taken everything away from him in '91 and that's why today he doesn't have any. If you are going to argue that he was a bad person and that he needed to be taken out, that's fine, just don't try to cover it up with the theory that he wanted WMDs or that he has WMDs. Even if he did bad things to his people I don't see how that's a US national security issue or a 9/11 link.
Isn't it every country's sovereign right to produce weapons for defence?
Thatsa whole different ballot Jig lol.
That's right. A different ballot entirely. America's right to make, sell and use WMD is not to be questioned.
Jesus. Jenny... I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you think that. You don't ACTUALLY believe it.. do you?
Just stop and try to think rationally for a second. Forget about the words Bush and Kerry. Forget about Democrat and Republican, conservative and liberal. Forget about the media.
Can you do that? I know that deep down inside, probably in some spot where you've squeezed the issue so tightly that you may have convinced yourself that you've forgotten about it, that you know the truth about Iraq.
Now truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now, to make a decision between two admittedly regretable, but nevertheless solid and irrefutable conclusions: One, that it was wise for us to invade Iraq; and two, that it was unwise for us to invade Iraq.
I beg of you to at least *try to stand back from yourself and the situation for a moment, and really look at it with unbiased eyes. If you can't do that, it's no failing of yours - you're only human. But at least try. :)
Simple Philosophy???
Bush's philosophy being so sophisticated :-)
Bush's philosophy isn't being tested in the ballot. I was stating that the above lustful etc. was not a good analogy in the fact that it dosen't work with Saddam or Iraq.
As for the W.M.D.'s in Iraq there has been no evidence for or against the excistance of the weapons. People want to throw stats and so-called facts around when it comes for supporting there side but as soon as there questioned the same poeple call foul and call the questioner a Radical conservative. What a country we live in.
The whole Desire As a Basis is as ridiculous as it is dangerous.
1: Who is to determine when this desire exists?
The Bush Admninistration? The folks who haven't told enough truth in the past four years to plug a gnat's @$$?!?
Yeah, like he has the judgment to pick matching socks in the morning.
2: Desire does not mean capability.
I desire to win the lottery. But the IRS had damned well better not assess my taxes now, on that expectation.
3: Of the almost 200 countries in the world, does anyone really think *Iraq* was the only one who may have had such a desire?
Does anyone believe they were the worst threat? Most of the terrorists seem to come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and/or Syria ... why in the world would anyone target IRAQ?!?
There's one thing to have desire, there's another to have a record of having used W.M.D. Iraq has certain problems with it that only it has, a history of questionable behavior of misuse and down right horrible humanity record.
Wouldn't that be the same as...
If I'm gay, and concede to Christians/conservatives beliefs (like yours Jenny) and voluntarily surrendered to a life of persecuted secrecy... never acting on the behavior, although I may have had in the past... that I'm fucked either way... because eventually conservative/C's opinion will change to "because he desired"?
The DESIRE would still be there. What next, extermination? Aren't idealistic people who maintain double standard justification's really the culprits we should be FEARING?!!!
by MO_ on Sun Oct 10, 04 5:05pm
[+]
|
|
