Re: Please, Tell Me Why

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Von Bailey) wrote:

>Alexander Kalinowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> In alt.religion.christian Von Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : Alexander Kalinowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
>> PROTECTED]>...
>> :> In alt.religion.christian Von Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :> : "Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > :> So who 
>> would you recommend that we trade Bush in for, who will get us some
>> :> :> points in this War On Terrorism ? If you can't name anyone, I am stuck
>> :> :> voting for Bush
>>  
>> :> : Someone who will tell the truth. 
>> :> 
>> :> Alex:
>> :> That would be good but it's not the most important requirement. If lying is
>> :> necessary, I'd wish for a head of state who can lie - even to the public. I
>> :> don't think it was necessary in Iraq's case though. The war against Saddam
>> :> was fully justified and if the general strategy had been fully explained to
>> :> the American public they could have convinced them without resorting to
>> :> lies. 
>> :> 
>> : The idea that it's 'okay to lie' to the people that you represent is
>> : just stupidity accepted by the gullible.  Explaining your ability to
>> : accept it.
>> 
>> Alex:
>> Oh, your in fight mode again... as you wish. :-) Well, the philosophy behind
>> my comments is actually a different one: that averting unnecessary suffering
>> of innocents at the expense of truth if really necessary. The founder of my
>> teaching has compared it to telling sweet lies to a child in order to get it
>> out of a burning house. If the child is stubborn and immature, the truth will 
>> not get it out of there and it will burn to death. If you weigh truth more
>> than suffering or people's lives, I have to question the wisdom of that
>> decision. And if you say that truth will always work, even when it is urgent
>> and things get hectic, I will likewise have to question your wisdom. :-)
>> 
>
>The founder of your teaching teaches superficial claptrap or you have
>a limited understanding of the concepts taught.  A child will leave a
>burning building regardless of the 'sweet lies' (a questionable
>euphemism in itself) because it's instinct for survival would cause it
>to move away from the flames.  If you have to tell 'sweet lies' for
>the child to come to you as opposed to staying in a flaming building I
>would have to ask why the child fears you more than the pain of the
>flames.
>
>As usual your rationale is superficial.

Well done.  You are, of course, quite right.

>> :> I guess the (alleged, I have to add) lies was mainly to convince the other 
>> :> NATO members... which ended in a credibility disaster.
>> :> 
>> : Where are the WMDs that they stated not only that they were there but
>> : that they KNEW where they are.  That was a lie.
>> 
>> Alex:
>> Well, I'd like to point your attention to 1441. 
>
>Well, I'd like to point out that your answer doesn't respond to the
>questions.
>
>WHERE ARE THE WMDS that they said they KNEW were there?  1441 doesn't
>miraculously create WMDs or a rationale for people saying that they
>existed and then not having anything to back up their claims.
>
>von

The Bush invasion of Iraq was obviously done without UN approval.

It was also done illegally, as admitted by Perle.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/11/20/perleadm.html