Reply #87: specifics

[paulsbc]

fine, lets address specifics:

you say:

The entire notion of a "cop" is based in acknowledged enforcement of applicable law for the common good. What we have done in Iraq and elsewhere is certainly niether upholding law, nor for the common good, nor do we have a mandate from the world to do any such thing.

my reply:

it is for the common good, the common Iraqi is much better off free than under an oppressive regime. that is my point.

as for mandate, i could care less if the US has a 'mandate' from the rest of the world, i'm interested in helping oppressed people become free.


you say:

Who defines evil? Is Ken Lay evil? He's hardly been stamped out by America, after ruining at least two state economies.

my reply:

Ken Lay is a criminal, and should be held accountable, yes. Oppression is very easy to see, certain the liberal in you recognizes that? that is the philosophy behind affirmative action, worker laws and unions, and a variety of other ideals we stand for. I believe your hatred for Bush blinds you to the fact that we have removed oppression from the people of Iraq, and that is a good thing

you say:

Whatever else one may say about this, and there is much disagreement still about the particulars of how it was carried out, it was done WITH THE SUPPORT AND BACKING OF THE UN, not against the advice and wishes of our closest allies.

my reply:

the support and backing of the UN is irrelevant in my view when oppression is lifted and freedom given to a people. i don't need the backing of the UN to want equal protection in the US, workers rights and protection and corporate control and oversight. The UN does not define my belief, and certainly is not a litmus test on whether something is "right" or not.

you say

You wish the Liberian intervention was something other than tokenism? I agree, but unfortunately our military was already overcommitted in its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

my reply:

wrong, we had 2000 troops off the coast on ships, they did nothing. we should have led that effort, we didn't. afghanistan and iraq were non-issues with liberia.

you say
Be very careful. You may think your idealistic views are noble, but other people are defining "ruthless dictator" as far as foreign policy goes.

my reply:

i look at each situation on its own and make my own determination. it is my belief that we should elect a president and representatives that are truly interested in what I believe, and in helping the oppressed both at home and abroard, and helping the PEOPLE, not the governments, not the corporations or the highest 1%ers. How one can't have this as the liberal goal is beyond me, but as I said earlier, I believe many are blinded by hate for Bush and the Republicans so much that they can't see the good that is occuring.