b$ and mc chat it up about life, politics, and pop culture
|
|
| a blog a day b$ and mc chat it up about life, politics, and pop culture |
|
|
Monday, January 20, 2003 no. posted by Matt & Mary Catherine's Wedding | 7:51 PMAssumptionsMC, On your other blog, you said, "she said, yes he's a dictator, but so is Chong-il Kim and we are working out a diplomatic solution with north korea. he said, yes, but he has nuclear weapons. man, i would have nailed him for that one, but they had to wrap it up. maybe i should develop some weapons of mass destruction. at least i wouldn't have to worry about them bombing my house while negotiations are on. " How would you have "nailed him"? This may be an interesting case of conflicting underlying assumptions. To the guy (and perhaps to me), it's obvious that we shouldn't pursue a diplomatic solution w/ Iraq because justice/experience/reason requires that you not compromise w/ illegitimate and violent dictators unless they've got a gun (or a nuke) to your/your client state's head. Whereas to the girl (and perhaps to you?), it's obvious that you ought to pursue diplomatic solutions with everyone, and Kim Jong-il/Saddam Hussein are justified for developing WMD since that's the only way to bring warmongering Western hegemons like the U.S. to the bargaining table. I don't like Bush, but in terms of being dishonest, abusive, illegitimate, etc., I think Hussein and Jong-il take the prize; it seems to me that (sorry for paraphrasing Bush rhetoric) the onus to prove themselves worthy of civil discourse is on the dictatorships, and the right to bear arms belongs to the U.S. Am I right? posted by Brandon | 1:32 PM |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||