Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:09:31 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:


>> And you don't think US policy in the region is motivated by self
interest?
>
>There's nothing wrong with self interest. The problem is when people
>think only in terms of their interests, to the exclusion of everyone
else.

The suicide bombers are not thinking only in terms of their interests.
They are fighting for what is Right, even when the cost is their own
lives.

That is a bigger problem.

....

>Apparently you don't understand that my question was to illustrate the
>fallacy in yours. Sometimes the *best* answer to a question is a
question,
>assuming the person responding to the second question has enough
>understanding to realize the import. Apparently not, in this case. :-)

Sometimes it is.   Obviously not this time.   Maybe you should have
chosen to answer more plainly this time.

>> My two questions above therefore follow naturally. They are not
rhetorical and I should have thought an upright moral character 
>> such as yourself, armed with the absolute authority of your belief
system, could have answered without hesitation.
>>
>> Here, try again:  Do you think the majority of people in Iraq think
they are better off? Does it matter to you?
>
>
>Once again, you miss the point.

He was making a new point and asking a question.    Maybe you should
answer, ask him what his point was - and ask him what he thought about
your point.

....

>Believe me, I don't know a single American who would not like to see
>U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. The American people do
>not want to militarily occupy other countries. But we don't like to be
>victims of terrorism, either.

The definition of "as soon as possible" varies so much as to be
meaningless.

Some people say we invaded Iraq out of humanitarian reasons - which
leads to ask why we didn't invade Rwanda instead, saving considerable
money and doing more good.

And while we don't want to be victims of terrorism - that doesn't mean
that we agree that a particular action taken in the name of
anti-terrorism succeeds.

I'm sure you can come up with a multitude of cases where the
government's response for one need or another has failed to accomplish
the goal - and often has made the problem worse.   We all can.

But if we agree that the feds can and do make problems worse when they
intend to fix them - we should put aside our wishes and biases and
evaluate whether the invasion of Iraq helped or hindered bin Laden's
goals, whether they helped or hindered our security, helped or
hindered the influence of our values world wide, helped or hindered
our liberty...   but since that is water under the bridge - use those
evaluations as a baseline to decide what our next action should be.