Quote:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy
Webby ... bad things have happened in the name of security all over the world. I'm still trying to figure out how you conclude that "because Country X gave weapons to Dictator Y", he is less of a threat. That's a whole seperate issue.
The U.S. stand on Kyoto has no relevance to the danger presented by Saddam. The U.S. attitude toward the International War Crimes treaty is completely irrelevant to the issue of chemical and biological weapons in the hands of the Iraqi government. You are making no more sense than the morons who believe all Europeans are socialists, or all liberals are moral degenerates.
|
You seem to be missing an important point: america claims moral superiority, but fails to back it up. When a country says "We know what's best for the world, and even if the rest of the world doesn't agree with it, we will do it regardless", while at the same time that country supports dictators, refuses to use the same standards for itself as it does for others, and consistently shows huge errors in judgement (like giving weapons to Saddam and the Taliban), as well as a lack of willingness to act positively towards the rest of the world, it doesn't exactly create an environment of trust.
Imagine a person who says he knows what's best for you, and constantly tells you which things you should do. Now, this person keeps on telling you stuff that only leads to failure and disaster, and aside from that, he refuses to not smoke in your house, refuses to stop harassing your wife, and every once in a while punches you in the face.
Now, will you continue trusting this person, or will you eventually tell him to fuck off?