"Stephen Fry pronounces the death of classical liberalism: ‘We are irrelevant and outdated bystanders’"

[untermensche]

You're defending capricious and unneeded murder and torture and rape.



Not the UN.

If it was so necessary why did Powell have to tell nothing but lies?

Why was there nothing real to talk about?

Yeah, but the UN has a bunch of dictators as members. Their voices don't count.

France? Germany? Norway?

Dictators?

The dictators were the people who voted for the invasion over the will of their people.

The dictators were in England, Australia, Spain, Denmark and Poland.

Nothing can defend that huge crime against humanity.

Those that try show all they believe in is American exceptionalism.

With GW as the great leader of the world killing and torturing and raping at will.

The UN acted just fine when Hussein invaded Kuwait. It ordered war to restore the Kuwaiti dictatorship.

The UN acts in favor of dictatorships and democracies.

It just depends what they do.

If there was a strong enough power in the world it would have stopped the US deliberate murder, torture and rape.

Let's just hope most good people don't have your impeccable morals. Or our world is truly fucked

The last gasp of a totally immoral position.

The US attack of the Iraqi people was a massive act of terrorism.

It was a war crime.

To defend it shows a person devoid of the ability to make moral judgements.

Morality is allowing for yourself only what you would allow for all other people.

A nation attacked can defend itself.

A nation not under attack or even threat of attack cannot morally create war where no war exists.

Because adults know what war means. It means the murder and torture and rape of the innocent.

It is the greatest crime there is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Let's just hope most good people don't have your impeccable morals. Or our world is truly fucked

The last gasp of a totally immoral position.

The US attack of the Iraqi people was a massive act of terrorism.

It was a war crime.

To defend it shows a person devoid of the ability to make moral judgements.

Morality is allowing for yourself only what you would allow for all other people.

A nation attacked can defend itself.

A nation not under attack or even threat of attack cannot morally create war where no war exists.

Because adults know what war means. It means the murder and torture and rape of the innocent.

It is the greatest crime there is.

Before we continue I'd like to hear you argue for why Saddam's rape and torture of the Iraqi people was completely acceptable. Why was that so fine and dandy?

 

[untermensche]

Let's just hope most good people don't have your impeccable morals. Or our world is truly fucked

The last gasp of a totally immoral position.

The US attack of the Iraqi people was a massive act of terrorism.

It was a war crime.

To defend it shows a person devoid of the ability to make moral judgements.

Morality is allowing for yourself only what you would allow for all other people.

A nation attacked can defend itself.

A nation not under attack or even threat of attack cannot morally create war where no war exists.

Because adults know what war means. It means the murder and torture and rape of the innocent.

It is the greatest crime there is.

Before we continue I'd like to hear you argue for why Saddam's rape and torture of the Iraqi people was completely acceptable. Why was that so fine and dandy?

A matter for the Iraqi people, not the US.

The only reason Bush and his henchmen even cared about Iraq was because of the prospect of controlling oil. They screwed that up like everything else. They were the keystone cops telling everybody they were realpolitik.

Realpolitik is a myth. It is just something people tell themselves, and babble to others, to justify their crimes.

There is no morality in your position.

It is purely American exceptionalism and not one thing more.

How much democracy must a nation lose before your morality says it is OK to attack and kill and torture and rape the victims of the system?

Because the US has little to no real democracy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Before we continue I'd like to hear you argue for why Saddam's rape and torture of the Iraqi people was completely acceptable. Why was that so fine and dandy?

A matter for the Iraqi people, not the US.

So then it's ok then? How did you reach the conclusion that they were ok with it? Did they vote about it in their non-existent parliament? Just trying to follow your line of thought? As far as I know Iraq didn't have a mechanic by which to figure out what the Iraqi people wanted. So how could you possibly know that the Iraqi's were ok with being tortured?

You're like a person who stands next to a child who walks out into traffic and doesn't stop them because... hey... it's a matter for the child's parents. Why should you get involved. If the kid's parents haven't taught the kid about the dangers of traffic... then fuck the child... amiright?

There is no morality in your position.

As you keep saying, yet you defend torture and murder. I'm not impressed by your "morals".

How much democracy must a nation lose before your morality says it is OK to attack and kill and torture and rape the victims of the system?

Are you now claiming Iraq was more democratic before the invasion than after? WTF are you smoking?

Because the US has little to no real democracy.

That's just conspiracy theory craziness. USA is a very well functioning liberal democracy. It works as designed. Perhaps you have a problem with it's design? But it's no less democratic. That's just ignorant to claim.

USA is not designed as a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy. It's works just fine.

 

[untermensche]

A matter for the Iraqi people, not the US.

So then it's ok then?

That is an insane conclusion.

I am not OK with some dictator the US helped put in power and supported and sold weapons to for years.

But I have advanced to the point where I understand that many wrongs do not make things right.

The invasion of Iraq did not make things right. It was a massive crime.

Innocent people were killed and tortured and raped. By the US.

It directly led to a powerful ISIS which created a prolonged war in Syria.

It did more damage than Saddam was doing.

The US is not a moral agent in the world. No nation is.

Your morality allows any nation to invade any other nation if it doesn't like the government.

It is not a morality fit for humans.

USA is a very well functioning liberal democracy.

Insanity.

The US is a diseased plutocracy.

It has enough wealth to be a paradise for all citizens. Yet it has huge slums everywhere.

Rotting infrastructure and the cost of college is skyrocketing while wages are stagnant.

With a president as absolute proof.

With huge crimes like the terrorist attack of Iraq as absolute proof.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd argue you're not a liberal if you're not willing to fight and die for your liberal values. When it came to Iraq most liberals were spineless. But most people are like that. Cowards who just complain and do nothing for anybody

What unit were you in? What was your MOS? How long were you in-theater?

You did serve in that invasion, right?

That's handy now when we have China and Russia to worry about.

Another way to view it would be that it's more a hindrance than ever because now our equipment is worn and our treasury depleted, leaving us relatively weaker than before launching the Iraqi invasion.

That doesn't change the fact that you're taking a cowardly stance on this. An immoral stance IMHO

It's easy to talk tough from behind a keyboard. All you have to do is have friends who have served in a war.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is an insane conclusion.

Ok, got it. But if you're ok with torture then why have a problem with USA torturing? Torture is torture.

But I have advanced to the point where I understand that many wrongs do not make things right.

The invasion of Iraq did not make things right. It was a massive crime.

No, but at least it got rid of Saddam. That's a good start. It was also good in the wider sense. It let other dictators know there's a limit to what they can get away with. Very handy now when China is trying to expand.

Innocent people were killed and tortured and raped. By the US.

And before that by the Baathist regime. The tortures and rapes by the regime was systematic terror of the population. It's one of the worst regimes ever.

It directly led to a powerful ISIS which created a prolonged war in Syria.

Hindsight is 20-20. It was still the right call at that time IMHO

It did more damage than Saddam was doing.

And you call me insane. Saddam engaged in genocide of Kurds. How can anything be worse than that?

The US is not a moral agent in the world. No nation is.

Your morality allows any nation to invade any other nation if it doesn't like the government.

At least USA did it. That's worth something. Most countries are all talk. I prefer USA.

No, I support any democratic country to invade a non-democratic country if the result is that the non-democratic country ends up democratic and sovereign.

I don't believe in peace at any cost. I'm not a nationalist. I'm not a cultural relativist. I think all humans deserve the same degree of freedom I have. Whatever leads to that, I'm all for. I'm a big fan of weapons and muscles. They're convincing like nothing else

It is not a morality fit for humans.

You can stop saying that. I think we have about the same view about eachother. I'm aware what you think of me and you know what I think of your "morals".

USA is a very well functioning liberal democracy.

Insanity.

The US is a diseased plutocracy.

It has enough wealth to be a paradise for all citizens. Yet it has huge slums everywhere.

Rotting infrastructure and the cost of college is skyrocketing while wages are stagnant.

With a president as absolute proof.

With huge crimes like the terrorist attack of Iraq as absolute proof.

That's the thing about freedom. Sometimes people don't behave the way you want them to. That's actually evidence for that the democracy is working

 

[untermensche]

That's the thing about freedom. Sometimes people don't behave the way you want them to. That's actually evidence for that the democracy is working

When I get this insanity as a justification for plutocracy I know I am wasting my time.

Your ilk is why we have horrible wars of choice that destroy lives and destroy the credibility of the US if something real happens.

I served 4 years in the Marine Corps to allow you to spew your insanity.

You have no basic human morality.

A moral agent only allows for itself what it would allow for all others.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I served 4 years in the Marine Corps to allow you to spew your insanity.

So you seem to understand how this works. Judicious use of guns help.

The reason the kings of Europe have away their power in the 19'th century was because they feared for their lives. That's the only reason they did it.

I want all dictators to start with democratic reform because they're afraid what will happen if they don't

 

[untermensche]

I served 4 years in the Marine Corps to allow you to spew your insanity.

So you seem to understand how this works. Judicious use of guns help.

No it does not.

Engaging in war only as a last resort is the only moral use of war.

War for choice is immoral in every instance.

Once you say GW can engage in a war of choice you have not set any limits.

It is absolute American exceptionalism. The nation that killed millions in Vietnam and Cambodia.

By choice.

The moral teacher of nobody.

It is nothing more.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I served 4 years in the Marine Corps to allow you to spew your insanity.

So you seem to understand how this works. Judicious use of guns help.

No it does not.

Engaging in war only as a last resort is the only moral use of war.

War for choice is immoral in every instance.

Once you say GW can engage in a war of choice you have not set any limits.

It is absolute American exceptionalism. The nation that killed millions in Vietnam and Cambodia.

By choice.

The moral teacher of nobody.

It is nothing more.

We tried asking Saddam nicely. It didn't work. So what do you think we should have done instead? How wasn't an invasion the last resort?

Allowing him to stay in power would be a terrible precedent. Not to point out the obvious but Hitler is a good analogue

 

[untermensche]

No it does not.

Engaging in war only as a last resort is the only moral use of war.

War for choice is immoral in every instance.

Once you say GW can engage in a war of choice you have not set any limits.

It is absolute American exceptionalism. The nation that killed millions in Vietnam and Cambodia.

By choice.

The moral teacher of nobody.

It is nothing more.

We tried asking Saddam nicely. It didn't work. So what do you think we should have done instead? How wasn't an invasion the last resort?

Allowing him to stay in power would be a terrible precedent. Not to point out the obvious but Hitler is a good analogue

You asked Saddam nicely what?

What the fuck are you talking about?

No "weapons of mass destruction" were ever found.

Just like the weapons inspectors and anybody with real knowledge said.

There was no justification for the killing and torturing and raping of innocent people.

You have given no justification to kill or rape or torture any innocent people.

You are defending massive immorality.

It is sickening.

 

[Tammuz]

Hitch was a good example of the fact that we can't assign people to boxes and therefrom predict everything about them. I agreed with him on almost everything but his stance on the war. That stance doesn't mean he sold out or is a traitor to me. It just means we disagreed on something. That's allowed.

I find myself sharing the values of the Hitch as well. Like you, I also disagree with his stance on the Iraq War (though not on Yugoslavia, or the moral bankruptcy of the "peace" movement).

Pro-science, pro-human freedoms, pro-Enlightenment. Hitch got it right. His writings on contemporary affairs would be very valuable. I would love to read his take on the Syrian Civil War, Kim Jong-un, and Trump.

Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the Supernatural and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No it does not.

Engaging in war only as a last resort is the only moral use of war.

War for choice is immoral in every instance.

Once you say GW can engage in a war of choice you have not set any limits.

It is absolute American exceptionalism. The nation that killed millions in Vietnam and Cambodia.

By choice.

The moral teacher of nobody.

It is nothing more.

We tried asking Saddam nicely. It didn't work. So what do you think we should have done instead? How wasn't an invasion the last resort?

Allowing him to stay in power would be a terrible precedent. Not to point out the obvious but Hitler is a good analogue

You asked Saddam nicely what?

What the fuck are you talking about?

No "weapons of mass destruction" were ever found.

Just like the weapons inspectors and anybody with real knowledge said.

There was no justification for the killing and torturing and raping of innocent people.

You have given no justification to kill or rape or torture any innocent people.

You are defending massive immorality.

It is sickening.

Who cares about the weapons of mass destruction? There was plenty of reason to invade anyway. The fact that he had a history of using poison gas against Kurds as a form of collective punishment should be enough to get him dethroned. After that he invaded Kuwait. Not to mention the Iran-Iraq war.

If the international community doesn't use whatever force is necessary to bring criminals like that to justice then wtf are we doing?

 

[untermensche]

You asked Saddam nicely what?

What the fuck are you talking about?

No "weapons of mass destruction" were ever found.

Just like the weapons inspectors and anybody with real knowledge said.

There was no justification for the killing and torturing and raping of innocent people.

You have given no justification to kill or rape or torture any innocent people.

You are defending massive immorality.

It is sickening.

Who cares about the weapons of mass destruction? There was plenty of reason to invade anyway. The fact that he had a history of using poison gas against Kurds as a form of collective punishment should be enough to get him dethroned. After that he invaded Kuwait. Not to mention the Iran-Iraq war.

He used American helicopters to deliver the gas.

After he did it the US did not punish him. The US government continued to support him.

The US used Hussein and urged him to attack Iran and supplied him with weapons.

Eventually the US supplied both sides with weapons. Reagan traded TOW missiles with Iran.

It was very profitable.

If the international community doesn't bring criminals like that to justice then wtf are we doing?

The international community is the UN.

The matter was taken to the UN.

They said no war is needed.

Inspections were taking place. Nobody was being attacked.

Bringing war to a nation and destroying that nation is a massive crime against humanity.

To not see that leaves little hope for a sane future.

 

[DrZoidberg]

He used American helicopters to deliver the gas.

After he did it the US did not punish him. The US government continued to support him.

The US used Hussein and urged him to attack Iran and supplied him with weapons.

Eventually the US supplied both sides with weapons. Reagan traded TOW missiles with Iran.

It was very profitable.

So what?

If the international community doesn't bring criminals like that to justice then wtf are we doing?

The international community is the UN.

The matter was taken to the UN.

They said no war is needed.

Inspections were taking place. Nobody was being attacked.

Bringing war to a nation and destroying that nation is a massive crime against humanity.

To not see that leaves little hope for a sane future.

Nonsense. The international community was fervently discussing ways to get rid of Saddam. The UN inspections weren't working. Saddam was dicking them around. Everybody agreed. Losing him was a done deal. The question was just how.

I agreed with the assessment that an invasion was the only realistic option. The rest was a waste of time

 

[untermensche]

So what?

It is absolute proof that the US did not give a shit about the Kurds.

Until a bunch of insane war mongers took power that were salivating to invade Iraq during the Clinton administration.

The international community is the UN.

The matter was taken to the UN.

They said no war is needed.

Inspections were taking place. Nobody was being attacked.

Bringing war to a nation and destroying that nation is a massive crime against humanity.

To not see that leaves little hope for a sane future.

Nonsense. The international community was fervently discussing ways to get rid of Saddam.

Nobody gave two shits about Iraq except a handful of psychotic Americans that convinced other Americans with no morality.

The US kept bringing the matter up. It was an issue only because of the military power of the US that gives it more of a voice than it deserves.

The international community, meaning the people of the world, held massive protests of the proposed invasion.

The "leaders" that ordered troops to follow the US attack did it over the majority of their people.

At the time of the US attack the world was focused on terrorism, not Iraq.

The US had some good will from the world because of 911.

Then the US became a pariah because of the unprovoked attack of Iraq.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is absolute proof that the US did not give a shit about the Kurds.

I care about the Kurds. That's all I need to support a US invasion.

Nonsense. The international community was fervently discussing ways to get rid of Saddam.

Nobody gave two shits about Iraq except a handful of psychotic Americans that convinced other Americans with no morality.

The US kept bringing the matter up. It was an issue only because of the military power of the US that gives it more of a voice than it deserves.

The international community, meaning the people of the world, held massive protests of the proposed invasion.

The "leaders" that ordered troops to follow the US attack did it over the majority of their people.

At the time of the US attack the world was focused on terrorism, not Iraq.

The US had some good will from the world because of 911.

Then the US became a pariah because of the unprovoked attack of Iraq.

We remember things completely differently. USA is still not a pariah. USA has done bad things, but they're still infinitely better than any dictatorship. They're always to be preferred. There's degrees. I reject your simplistic dichotomy. USA isn't an empire of evil. They're just a bit flawed. Like all of us

 

[untermensche]

I care about the Kurds. That's all I need to support a US invasion.

You do not get to say you support the killing and rape and torture of innocents because you like people.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I care about the Kurds. That's all I need to support a US invasion.

You do not get to say you support the killing and rape and torture of innocents because you like people.

Which explains why I didn't. At no point have I supported any rape and torture