The thing about world views is that there are lots of them, and most do not co-incide with either mine or yours, but that does not necessarilly invalidate those views.

I appreciate your comment Kiwi but I am not a moral relativist. I believe strongly that when a view is right and just the most definitely invalidate other views. Since I brought up Hitler before I will bring him up again, his world view deserved to be invalidated. So was Pol Pot, Stalin, and more recently Castro. They are disgusting world views that one cannot just say “ah well, he is entitled to those views.” I do not, nor will I ever, buy into that. It sounds nice, but in the real world it’s hogwash.

that Saddam (the genocidal murderer) was sided with by the US for no better reason than “my enemies enemy is my friend”, that is not the choosing of the lesser of two evils.

Of course it is choosing the lesser of two evils AT THAT TIME. We chose to back the country that posed the least threat to us at that time, period. In hindsight was it a good move? Of course not, but this would be a perfect world if we all could make the right decision every time.

btw, it was really good that the US did join in as we could probably not have won that one without your help, but as you say, we did not have, nor want, the luxury of not taking sides.

Something we can agree on

:bouncing:

Will there always be a perfect side to choose when given the chance? No. But when you are doing everything possible to keep your country, it’s people, and it’s way of life safe you must choose sides eventually.

Our country tried to stay out of WWII because of the isolationists and the appeasers. “it’s not our fight” and all that. But we soon learned what a mistake that was. As we learned what a mistake it was backing Saddam, and Stalin.

As for the earlier appeaser comment, I apologize, I do know that NZ sent many brave troops during WWII for which they should be proud.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The thing about world views is that there are lots of them, and most do not co-incide with either mine or yours, but that does not necessarilly invalidate those views.
Yes Saddam was chosen over Iran, and that reinforces the point I was trying to make; that Saddam (the genocidal murderer) was sided with by the US for no better reason than “my enemies enemy is my friend”, that is not the choosing of the lesser of two evils.
It is not my intention to get into a slanging match, but simply to put another point of view — as for siding with Stalin over Hitler, you need to remember that NZ along with Australia and Britain, had been fighting Hitler’s armies in Europe for several years before Pearl Harbour brought the US into WWII, so I would not see NZ as being in the appeaser category.
btw, it was really good that the US did join in as we could probably not have won that one without your help, but as you say, we did not have, nor want, the luxury of not taking sides.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

If you read Novak’s article you’ll get the impression that Gates might not be qualified, and Bush may prefer it that way. It’s quite obvious to me that Bush only wants someone who will push forward with his personal agenda… and Gates may just be the perfect guy for the job.

http://www.bobgates.net/index.php/2006/11/09/will-lack-of-experience-be-a-problem/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Bronze,

Hastert WAS up for re-election and he won. He did say that he was not running for minority leader. Good! We need the meanest RAT BASTARD we can find in there and that won’t let the Dems get away with sh*t! No more “softies” like Hastert or Frist…puhleeeeze!!!

How does Alice Cooper say it? “No more Mr. nice guy…”

Carol

P.S. I’m serious. Really. We need a Delay type RAT BASTARD!!! Is Delay busy? Get him on the phone! Sic ‘em boy!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Rummy leaving is a loss. Hastert isn’t.

I saw everything I needed to see when he spoke out against the FBI’s search warrant of the crooked William Jefferson’s office.

Too bad Hastert wasn’t up for re-election…

Like or Dislike: 0  0