A Moral Dilema

[michaelmt1]

Who has a right to have weapons ?

The right to bear arms is ingrained in American Culture and any endeavour to remove it is defended.

So how can America try to dictate to other countries who has a right to weapons?

I still do not know exactly what a weapon of mass destruction is and how you can define who has a right to have them.

Surly America Chine India Pakistan England France and countless other hold weapons of mass destruction.

I really dont know on this issue of Iraq if you Disarm them then do you not have a moral obligation to protect them. If they could not defend them selves does this not mean that stronger nations could invade them. Would they not be more likly to internal problems like radical groups taking power.

At the end of the day is this really just about cheaper oil prices.

All I can say is I am yet to beconvinced that we the people of the world have any right to impose our will on Iraq or any other nation. if we did have such a right surly Columbia would be a better starting point to rid the world of a real all evil that we are all convinced exists.

I am not nieve and I keep well read on these subjects I am purly conflicted about the real motives.

What do you think




Mike

 

[QuickDuck]

Personally I think i would like having the right to arm bears.

*shrug* just my thoughts

 

[cybergirly]

I'm with you Mike,

I can't help but thinking that 90% of the precieved problems with Iraq are political. Gas prices have gone steadily up over the last year or so, and I prey that that's not what it's all about. I for one am willing to pay more for gas if it means not killing people. Then of course there's the whole issue of it being an election year in the states, and little shrub (hehe I love calling Bush that) trying to take peoples eyes away from some serious at home issues.

I'm also torn on the right to have these "weapons of mass destruction". You're absolutley right, it is so hypocritical of us Americans to say "No you can't have weapons, but you better believe you can't take ours away either."

On the issue of Iraq not being able to defend themselves. I can see exactly that happening. Which would of course lead to a "peace keeping" force being left in Iraq. And I can't see that as being something that would help the already unstable region. Nor something that the American people, or the people of every other nation thats going to find itself involved could possibly want.

I see no easy answers, and alot of unanswered questions. Both moral and ethical questions. As well as practical questions that I believe need to be answered, and fear never will be.

 

[SINthysist]

Of course it's political, of course it's about oil.

China and Russia are trying to secure the world's supply of oil to defeat us militarily.

But if the Administration tells the truth, you wouldn't fight for oil. You'd let them have it. You'd let them control it and the price. Why do you trust them more? How can people be like Jimmy Carter?



Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2002
Book: Carter, Democrats Asked Soviets to Stop Reagan, Sway U.S. Elections

Remember the old conservative charge that many of the Democrats here in America were playing footsie with the Soviets? Some Republicans even said the Russians viewed the Democrats as their favorite party.

Now bombshell revelations prove these accusations beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Peter Schweizer, a Hoover Institution research fellow, has just written a new book, "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism."

This book may well force historians to revise the history of the Cold War.

Schweizer, after scouring once-classified KGB, East German Stasi and Soviet Communist Party files, discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Soviets not only played footsie with high-ranking Democrats, they also worked behind the scenes to influence American elections.

In "Reagan's War," Schweizer shows how the Democrats worked with Moscow to try to undermine Reagan before and after he became president.

Jimmy Carter's Dirty Tricks

Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984 former President Jimmy Carter dropped by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's residence for a private meeting.

Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."

Using the Russians to influence the presidential election was nothing new for Carter.

Schweizer reveals Russian documents that show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy.

Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan.

Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls.

'Carter Won't Forget That Service'

"Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.

Carter was not the only Democrat to make clear to the Russians where their loyalty lay. As the election neared in 1984, Dobrynin recalls meetings with Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill.

O'Neill told Dobrynin that no effort should be spared to prevent "that demagogue Reagan" from being re-elected.

Soviet documents report that O'Neill told Dobrynin: "If that happens, Reagan will give vent to his primitive instincts and give us a lot of trouble, probably, put us on the verge of a major armed conflict. He is a dangerous man."






I ask you...



HOW?

 

[SINthysist]

Do we need to mention that the terrosrists are just a tool against the west?

A relic of the cold war, reactivated, to confuse the American public and evade the detection of the new communist alliance against the west.

It's working.

 

[Guest]

We don't like Saddam.

Iraq's don't like Saddam

The arab world (apart from the Palestinians) don't like Saddam


lets do what the world want, and take him out

 

[Ishmael]

It's about this, it's about that. Everyone has a theory. This thread posit's the question about a "moral" diliemna. Inorder of be "moral" one must have ethics. And ethics presupposes that the person with said ethics know's the difference between right and wrong.

All this talk about oil and politics is BULLSHIT. It is a means used by those that are ethically challenged, or moral relativist's.

Saddam Hussein has supported terrorism for over 20 years now. In the form of financial support, material support, and 'safe haven' for terrorist's. This is a fact that is well known. In particualar he is the single largest supporter of Hamas.

Saddam Hussein has invaded two of his neighbors and threatened a third. For the weakest of reasons. These invasion were about regional control and more importantly the control of petroleum. Had Saddam succeeded he would now be controlling the majority of the known worlds oil reserves. Do you really want a man like this to have that kind of power?

Saddam Hussein has spent his national treasury to acquire or build weapons, conventional and un-conventional, far in excess of what would be required to protect his country. This sort of military buildup is traditionally associated with aggresion, and history has shown that Saddam will use his forces in that manner.

Saddam has used chemical weapons on his neighbors and his own countrymen. He shows no particular restraint in doing so unless faced with retaliation in kind.

Saddam has violated every international agreement that he has signed. Every one.

Saddam has engaged in eco-terrorism on a scale that the world has never seen before. This was done spitefully and purposely.

He is once more engaged in the manufacture of un-conventional weapons. (God how that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" phrase pisses me off. A bastardization of the language. How allegedly intelligent people can put up with this bullshit piece of rhetoric is beyond me.) Weapons that are unecessary for his nations safety and in violation of three international treaties that he has signed.

And yet there are these 'moral' individuals that lean on the flimsiest of excuses to deflect the blame away from this monster in the making. Why? Fear? Cowardice? Or the inability to tell right from wrong? I suspect it's all of the above along with a severely challenged code of ethics.

Oil: The reason isn't oil. Not this time. Some have talked about the rising oil prices and how "America needs cheap oil for this winter". Fucking idiots. The price of oil is going up because of a very real slowdown of production in Venezuela, and the very real fear that should hostilities erupt, and they will' Iraqi oil production will suffer (and they are right here) until order is restored. The price of oil will go even higher once the invasion begins. Not lower. It will be a year before oil prices stabilze again. That means next winter for those of you that can't read a calendar.

Now, for you economically challenged. The price of oil is set by the world spot market. It is set by the economic priciple of supply and demand. A US occupation of Iraq will NOT change that and Iraqi oil production cannot exceed the capabilities of the current infrastructure. You can pump oil all day long, but you'll be pumping it on to the ground usless you have;

pipelines
terminals
storage facilites
port facilities

All of which are fixed at the capacity that Iraq is currently pumping. Simple world economics makes these arguments, arguments without merit. No merit at all. Excuses made by the ignorant or uninformed.

As for the weapons argument. Should murderer's or the criminally insane be allowed weapons? By some peoples rationalizations, they should. Do you want them as a neighbor? And the neighborhood is getting smaller everyday.

Ishmael

 

[Guest]

It's about this, it's about that. Everyone has a theory. This thread posit's the question about a "moral" diliemna. Inorder of be "moral" one must have ethics. And ethics presupposes that the person with said ethics know's the difference between right and wrong.

All this talk about oil and politics is BULLSHIT. It is a means used by those that are ethically challenged, or moral relativist's.

Saddam Hussein has supported terrorism for over 20 years now. In the form of financial support, material support, and 'safe haven' for terrorist's. This is a fact that is well known. In particualar he is the single largets supporter of Hamas.

Saddam Hussein has invaded two of his neighbors and threatened a third. For the weakest of reasons. These invasion were about regional control and more importantly the control of petroleum. Had Saddam succeeded he would now be controlling the majority of the known worlds oil reserves. Do you really want a man like this to have that kind of power?

Saddam Hussein has spent his national treasury to acquire or build weapon, conventional and un-conventional, far in excess of what would be required to protect his country. This sort of military buildup is traditionally associated with aggresion, and history has shown that Saddam will use his forces in that manner.

Saddam has used chemical weapons on his neighbors and his own contrymen. He shows no particular restraint in doing so unless faced with retaliation in kind.

Saddam has violated every international agreement that he has signed. Every one.

Saddam has engaged in eco-terrorism on a scale that the world has never seen before. This was done spitefully and purposely.

He is once more engaged in the manufacture of un-conventional weapons. (God how that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" phrase pisses me off. A bastardization of the language. How allegedly intelligent people can put up with this bullshit piece of rhetoric is beyond me.) Weapons that are unecessary for his nations safety and in violation of three international treaties that he has signed.

And yet there are these 'moral' individuals that lean on the flimsiest of excuses to deflect the blame away from this monster in the making. Why? Fear? Cowardice? Or the inability to tell right from wrong? I suspect it's all of the above along with a severely challenged code of ethics.

Oil: The reason isn't oil. Not this time. Some have talked about the rising oil prices and how "America needs cheap oil for this winter". Fucking idiots. The price of oil is going up because os a very real slowdown of production in Venezuela, and the very real fear that should hostilities erupt, and they will' Iraqi oil production will suffer (and they are right here) until order is restored. The price of oil will go even higher once the invasion begins. Not lower. It will be a year before oil prices stabilze again. That means next winter for those of you that can't read a calendar.

Now, for you economically cahllenged. The price of oil is set by the world spot market. It is set by the economic priciple of supply and demand. A US occupation of Iraq will NOT change that and Iraqi oil production cannot exceed the capabilities of the current infrastructure. You can pump oil all day long, but you'll be pumping it on to the ground usless you have;

pipelines
terminals
storage facilites
port facilities

All of which are fixed at the capacity that Iraq is currently pumping. Simple world economics makes these arguments, arguments without merit. No merit at all. Excuses made by the ignorant or uninformed.

As for the weapons argument. Should murderer's or the criminally insane be allowed weapons? By some peoples rationalizations, they should. Do you want them as a neighbor? And the neighborhood is getting smaller everyday.

Ishmael

<Claps>


<buzz>

 

[Trail48]

Who has a right to have weapons ?

The right to bear arms is ingrained in American Culture and any endeavour to remove it is defended.

So how can America try to dictate to other countries who has a right to weapons?

I still do not know exactly what a weapon of mass destruction is and how you can define who has a right to have them.

Surly America Chine India Pakistan England France and countless other hold weapons of mass destruction.

I really dont know on this issue of Iraq if you Disarm them then do you not have a moral obligation to protect them. If they could not defend them selves does this not mean that stronger nations could invade them. Would they not be more likly to internal problems like radical groups taking power.

At the end of the day is this really just about cheaper oil prices.

All I can say is I am yet to beconvinced that we the people of the world have any right to impose our will on Iraq or any other nation. if we did have such a right surly Columbia would be a better starting point to rid the world of a real all evil that we are all convinced exists.

I am not nieve and I keep well read on these subjects I am purly conflicted about the real motives.

What do you think




Mike

Iraq has not hesitated to massacre their own population with biological weapons. What evidence is there to convince you they would even blink at the idea of using those weapons on other nations? To bear arms is to protect ones self, and ones country. The peope of Iraq are not protecting themselves.