Post by JesterCerberus on May 11, 2004 21:57:55 GMT -5
When I first read the questionnaire written by Rob Larrikin I was so baffled by his perspective that I did not know what to say. Okay obviously most people in America would be outraged if someone was raping there neighbor, even more so if it was a defenseless little old lady. What I can not believe is that anyone would believe this was an accurate analogy. And although you wish for no one to assume Iraq is the little old lady and just answer the question I believe that your stupidity would allow these truthful answers from most compassionate Americans make you feel vindicated. Allow me to point out the many holes in you analogy.
Let’s ignore the oversimplification of entire countries represented by a single person.
First of all Iraq is not our neighbor. And before you tell me I’m unsympathetic to a group of people because they aren’t near by let me correct you. I think that the problem with the world is that people forget that beyond the customs, the ideologies and the hate that people are people. I am just as compassionate towards the Iraqi people as I am to all the other starving poor and victimized people of the world that could be far more easily aided with our fighting battles that killed almost 2000 civilians and used uranium depleted shells that have been proven to very greatly increase the chances of cancers for centuries to come (especially to young children).
Secondly the whole rape scenario is not completely accurate. In your analogy an intruder of some sort has broken into your neighbor’s house and began rapping her. Saddam is not intruder instead a better analogy might be an abusive husband. This is a small point because I’m sure you could have gotten the same response of disgust but it changes things a fair amount. For one thing this person owns the house that he is abusing this woman in so you are trespassing when you go over there. Also this analogy I think works better because many abused wives plead that no one get involves and makes excuses for their husbands. I agree that Saddam was horrible dictator but then again there is much that is wrong with the world a lot of countries and peoples that are better choices if you are acting for completely altruistic intentions. Also when we went to war Saddam wasn’t doing anything wrong to his people, you speak of things he had done. So let’s say a husband that you know has beaten his wife and probably will continue until stopped. So that takes away your on going danger (“Let’s say that the only way to stop the guy was to shoot him, so you shot him in the leg.” In other words, you tried everything else and it didn’t work; and every second the old lady was still being raped.”)
Thirdly in your scenario the police are absent, this does not represent the true state of affairs. I think you should read Scott Ritter’s book “Frontier Justice: The Bushwhacking of America.” He is the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, a former Marine and a Republican.
If you still think your analogy is valid and proves your point I would like to point out that even if you made your analogy better it would still miss the whole issue. WE DIDN”T GO TO IRAQ BECCAUSE OF OUR CONCERN FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE. Just because it was named Operation Iraqi Freedom doesn’t mean it’s true. The reason why congress agreed and most Americans were behind the war was because we believed that Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the U.S.A. So don’t do what the White House has done to justify the war after we learn the threat was insignificant that we did if for altruistic reasons. If that were the case there are many that we could do more
A. Easily
B. Cost Effectively
C. With less loss of human life (I’m actually thinking of saving lives, what a strange idea)
D. With more support from the rest of the world, which I think is the only way we can build a better world. We should try to be a member of the world community not an arrogant, powerful and dangerous dictator.
Let’s ignore the oversimplification of entire countries represented by a single person.
First of all Iraq is not our neighbor. And before you tell me I’m unsympathetic to a group of people because they aren’t near by let me correct you. I think that the problem with the world is that people forget that beyond the customs, the ideologies and the hate that people are people. I am just as compassionate towards the Iraqi people as I am to all the other starving poor and victimized people of the world that could be far more easily aided with our fighting battles that killed almost 2000 civilians and used uranium depleted shells that have been proven to very greatly increase the chances of cancers for centuries to come (especially to young children).
Secondly the whole rape scenario is not completely accurate. In your analogy an intruder of some sort has broken into your neighbor’s house and began rapping her. Saddam is not intruder instead a better analogy might be an abusive husband. This is a small point because I’m sure you could have gotten the same response of disgust but it changes things a fair amount. For one thing this person owns the house that he is abusing this woman in so you are trespassing when you go over there. Also this analogy I think works better because many abused wives plead that no one get involves and makes excuses for their husbands. I agree that Saddam was horrible dictator but then again there is much that is wrong with the world a lot of countries and peoples that are better choices if you are acting for completely altruistic intentions. Also when we went to war Saddam wasn’t doing anything wrong to his people, you speak of things he had done. So let’s say a husband that you know has beaten his wife and probably will continue until stopped. So that takes away your on going danger (“Let’s say that the only way to stop the guy was to shoot him, so you shot him in the leg.” In other words, you tried everything else and it didn’t work; and every second the old lady was still being raped.”)
Thirdly in your scenario the police are absent, this does not represent the true state of affairs. I think you should read Scott Ritter’s book “Frontier Justice: The Bushwhacking of America.” He is the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, a former Marine and a Republican.
If you still think your analogy is valid and proves your point I would like to point out that even if you made your analogy better it would still miss the whole issue. WE DIDN”T GO TO IRAQ BECCAUSE OF OUR CONCERN FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE. Just because it was named Operation Iraqi Freedom doesn’t mean it’s true. The reason why congress agreed and most Americans were behind the war was because we believed that Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the U.S.A. So don’t do what the White House has done to justify the war after we learn the threat was insignificant that we did if for altruistic reasons. If that were the case there are many that we could do more
A. Easily
B. Cost Effectively
C. With less loss of human life (I’m actually thinking of saving lives, what a strange idea)
D. With more support from the rest of the world, which I think is the only way we can build a better world. We should try to be a member of the world community not an arrogant, powerful and dangerous dictator.
