Originally Posted by mmarsh

There are lots of tryants, and Saddam was hardly the worst. Iran new resurregence is largely due to the fact there is no Saddam Hussein anymore to keep them in check.

Which do you prefer Saddam or the Mullahs in Iran? Its an easy pick for me: Saddam.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

So you prefer Saddam Hussein over the Mullahs in Iran.
So you do not believe what you previously posted in the topic:

Topic: Iranian Election: Fraud or sour grapes?

"5.56

Your wrong. Iran isnt a full-blooded democracy but its elections up until now have been much more fair then say countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where there are no elections at all. Iran is a authoritarian religious theocracy but its not a total dicatatorship...yet."

and you would prefer Saddam Hussein,
The same Saddam Hussein who orchestrated the genocide of the Kurds in North Iraq.

The same Saddam Hussein who slaughtered Shiites in the south, after they rose up against him after Desert Storm.

Certainly clarifies your views as to why invading Iraq was such a bad decision.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Only to you. The intent of my post was clear enough to everyone else. I am not responsible for your lack of basic reading comprehension skills.

First quote was mmarsh statement.
Second quote was my response.
Like I said, "took nothing out of context."

People can easily click on the blue arrow in the beginning of each quote to verify what was said in each post.

The claim of "taking your post out of context" is just a smokescreen to hide your rather misguided statement:

"Which do you prefer Saddam or the Mullahs in Iran? Its an easy pick for me: Saddam."

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Open mindedness and moral corruption:
The line between morally corrupt and open mindedness... if you allow it, it means you think it is right and therefore anything questionable must not be allowed at all. To be open minded is to condone moral corruption. I'm sure you get the point. That's how a lot of folks see it.

And then you get into hypocrisy. Because there are things I might think are okay that you believe are wrong, and what happens when I'm in the position of power? You can't do anything about it... That's why I believe it would be better to not intervene unless absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Peaceful non believers:
Are still infidels and must be either converted or killed. Period. In the case of the Taliban that would be true. As for other Muslims, it really depends on them individually. Others from more open societies don't mind so much but others from more religiously fundamentalist socieities would see that person as the lowest form of life on earth.
Peaceful or not peaceful would be irrelevent.
Actually, being peace loving and non violent is actually seen as a sign of weakness by many.

Yes, I know... It's unfortunate that people feel a need to NOT kill as a sign of weakness...

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

This is a very difficult question and I sometimes think the only answer comes with either success or failure.
Vietnam was obviously considered "the wrong war" but the Korean War which was fought for identical reasons is hardly called "the wrong war." The difference is in Vietnam, the US failed to preserve South Vietnam whereas in Korea, the US and other UN forces managed to save South Korea.
To say that America must stay out means you tolerate oppression wholescale. To say America must intervene, we aren't sure where to draw the line in terms of respecting other people's sovreignty. Is it right to say "We will tolerate all countries as long as they're exactly like us"?
Had America chosen not to intervene in world matters after World War II, I'd probably have starved to death at some point or if still alive, severely malnourished and living a very miserable existence under tyranny.

I just really don't know... There are a lot of factors in the equation... I'll say this... I DO have respect for George W. Bush in one aspect... That's the aspect of his handling of the crap life threw at him... He had one hell of a presidency, and he handled everything well. It may not have been the choice I felt was right, but he did it with conviction and assurance. Either he knew something I didn't, or he had one helluva poker face.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

And then you get into hypocrisy. Because there are things I might think are okay that you believe are wrong, and what happens when I'm in the position of power? You can't do anything about it...

I guess that's why it matters who governs (sometimes).
As for tolerance and stuff, it's actually not something you can find a lot. It's either their way or the highway.

Another unfortunate circumstance in this world we live in... I know I'm quite the opinionated person and feel VERY STRONGLY about the way I feel, but I'm not one to try and make someone change their opinion... I might debate my side and try and show the person why I feel the way I feel, but at the end of the day... They'll believe what they want, and I'll believe what I want... Neither should condemn the other for it...

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Neither should condemn the other for it...

What if what the other guy does is simply unacceptable in your eyes?
i.e. they use a certain ethnic group and use them pretty much like livestock. Slavery, rape, murder towards them all not only condoned but a regular way of life.
Do not judge?
Or attempt to liberate millions?
Where do we draw the line?
What if we accepted that Germans under Nazism killed Jews and that's just the way things worked over there.
To we tolerate those who tolerate but not those who do not tolerate? Again, that's cultural imperialism as well.

Judging is unavoidable.
Condemning is unavoidable.
Unless you believe in absolutely nothing. At the extreme, you get to a point where murder is the same as sending mail.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

What if what the other guy does is simply unacceptable in your eyes?
i.e. they use a certain ethnic group and use them pretty much like livestock. Slavery, rape, murder towards them all not only condoned but a regular way of life.
Do not judge?
Or attempt to liberate millions?
Where do we draw the line?
What if we accepted that Germans under Nazism killed Jews and that's just the way things worked over there.
To we tolerate those who tolerate but not those who do not tolerate? Again, that's cultural imperialism as well.

Judging is unavoidable.
Condemning is unavoidable.
Unless you believe in absolutely nothing. At the extreme, you get to a point where murder is the same as sending mail.

There's a difference between judging/condemning and basic humanity.... I think I could probably count the number of people who believe slavery is RIGHT on one hand... Is breaking up a fight still considered imposing one country's will on the other?

The definition of basic humanity varies depending on where you are.
If it's difficult to accept or understand, that's okay. But rules do change and they change in ways that can seem unacceptable.
It's all a matter of where we draw the line.

There are still basic beliefs held by humans... Every human NEEDS food, clothing, and shelter... Every human has the right to exist in peace.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

There are still basic beliefs held by humans... Every human NEEDS food, clothing, and shelter... Every human has the right to exist in peace.

Basic needs and basic beliefs are two widely different things. Yes every human needs food, water , shelter for survival. Those are basic needs.

Beliefs are alot different. Beliefs are a learned outlook and a learned system brought about by up bringing and culture as well religion often playing a part in this.

While in your mind every person may have a right to exsist in peace, once again you ignore human nature and divergent cultures and belief systems. It can't and won't be a fuzzy bunny world ever. Not as long as human nature reigns as it has for just about forever.

Do you believe any human deserves to die simply for their existence? I'm not talking criminal records, personal beliefs, or anything like that... Do you think any person deserves to die just because they live?