This is an archived comment posted by Alex Sloat. You can view the original
here. So Alex, since atomic bombs aren't really that bad and only level mid-size cities, something that can be done with conventionl weapons as the English proved in Dresden, then we really shouldn't be worried about Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" should we? And caring about 3,000 people dying in the World Trade Center is a waste of time when far more people are dying of AIDS in Africa right?
Honestly, WMD's, invasions, etc. only answer the question of "Why Saddam first?". The answer to "Why Saddam?" is much simpler - he is a genocidal tyrant.
As for AIDS vs. Sept. 11th, it's quite simple - if someone was murdering those millions in Africa(and elsewhere, but mosdtly Aftica), then they should be dealt with as violently as the US has tried to deal with Osama. However, it's not as simple as saying "You take down this organization, and people will stop dying from AIDS". If AIDS or any other disease could be dealt with as simply as terrorists and tyrants, then it should be, but that's not the case.
I know I disregarded your suggestion to not answer the questions, but I did go through Aaron's posts. Quite simply, I found nothing to disagree with him about. No factual errors, no logical errors, no points of great importance that contradict his view overlooked, and certainly nothing to label him a troll. I'd say that he passes a critical reading with flying colors. I doubt he'd pass your critical reading so well, but mine finds nothing objectionable. [ Parent ]
|
