US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letterconcerning presidential growth

Herb Martin HerbM at learnquick.com
Fri Dec 16 13:43:28 UTC 2005


> Samantha Atkins
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:20 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: 
> [extropy-chat] letterconcerning presidential growth
> 
> 
> On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:
> > The irony here is, they would not be able to decide that, 
> if we had  
> > not overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under the  
> > jackboot of Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms 
> would still  
> > be in operation. People would still be thrown living into plastic  
> > shredders... head-first if the death was to be merciful.
> >
> 
> As opposed to the jackboots of the US occupation forces?  Democracy  
> cannot be imposed by force.  It is even more laughable to believe  
> freedom can be opposed by removing freedom.

Of course it can -- we know this because it has been done
on several (many?) occasions:  Germany, Japan, Afghanistan,
and so far Iraq come to mind immediately.

And to the dingbat that doesn't even have a (working) definition
of terrorism:

	The intentional targetting of non-government civilians,
	especially women and children for no direct military value,
	in an attempt to win political or military concessions.

Terrorism may include more than this, but the above is generally
correct when it identifies an act of terrorism or a terrorist.

None of this belongs on this list -- and the people who instigated
it are largely idiots.

Grow up and take you petty political squabbling (and stupidity)
to a list or newsgroup where it falls under the subject and is
on topic.

--
Herb Martin





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list