You've yet to really refute anything information I've posted, aside from saying "don't believe everything you hear", and while that's a good notion, it doesn't mean "don't believe anything at all".
Yeah, it’s hard to believe the media lately with all the crap they feed us. I mean, look at the issue at hand. At first, the media was with Bush with Iraq, then they came out with “oh there was false information” and all the crap that followed. Now all of a sudden there was no false information?
Sorry, but the credibility of the American media has been dissolved in its own acidic lies.
I think we need to raise our eyebrows.
Now, I don’t disagree with this. I think we should be concerned, and look into the issue. But you should be sure, if this is a legitimate issue, it WILL be asked to the president in some press conference. I’d like to see this be addressed by more than one guy.
And by the way, here's the logical failure of your entire analogy:
Assuming you live in a social anarchism (again, to be fair), then yes. I do.
Laws are different all over the world, and when two nations collide we have to look global laws. There's a body called the United Nations which is supposed to be representative of this, that "higher power" you spoke of earlier, it does exist
Oh, the failure of my entire
analogy, huh? Great, ‘cause I think I can work with this one.
If you will recall, I said “greater authority willing to look at the issue
”. And just like the UN who was unwilling to do anything about it, so is the case in my analogy.
Keaton, you need to stop making so many straw men, it's embarrassing. I merely said you underestimate the power of the executive branch of this nation.
Jordan, you need to stop making so many straw men, it's embarrassing. I merely said you overestimate the power of the executive branch of this nation.
The President of the United States is typically considered the nation's leader and leader of the free world.
Wait, so he’s the leader of the free world? So this would arguably include Iraq, no? Iraq being non-communist...
First off, this scenario is silly because if your room mate has a gun, then you don't have to intrude to find out, because you also would be living in that room. Because you'd be room mates. But for the sake of ignoring trivial details, I'll assume by "room mate" you actually mean "neighbor."
I am thinking of a room mate in the since that they share a house. Is “house mate” a better term? I’ve never heard that term before.
Second off, your scenario and the Iraq War differ in respect to the potential consequences of your actions. In the roomie scenario, intruding will strain relations between you, maybe even one of you will end up getting shot, but only the two people will be affected. In the case of Iraq, invasion, whether justified or nor, will results in tens of thousands of deaths, largely from innocent civilians. I think that's an important distinction that warrants slightly heavier consideration of one's actions.
I see your point, but realize, if this guy has an assault rifle, he’s probably
planning on using it on other people.
But this is easily solved. Let’s add that he is a very unstable individual, and you know that he may kill others if provoked. But then also we must add that it’s known that he has already killed others before; he’s a known murderer, and shows no signs of quitting.
Thirdly, I disagree that the person in your analogy is justified anyways, as breaking and entering of your own accord, even if you suspect illegal activity, is illegal. A responsible citizen would alert the police, and defer to their authority.
Remember as stated, person A and B live in a social anarchy. There are no such laws governing them, much as there are no international laws governing the invasion of a country.
The way I'm interpreting this, person B arming themselves and barricading the door would be analogous to Saddam showing off his WMDs and threatening to blow up anyone who sets foot in Iraq. And that never happened.
No, think of person B (or Iraq) arming themselves with weapons other
than the assault rifle / WMDs... just like in real life.
See, the point is to mimic the Iraq situation, so we should try to make this analogy match the situation there. You’re right, Saddam did not arm himself with the WMDs, thusly, so should person B not be armed with the questioned weapon.
You don't actually mean this, do you? Please tell me you don't actually mean this one.
What, you mean Saddam supporting terrorism? Um, yeah I mean it!
I'm just trying to say the the US should've waited for UN support before charging into Iraq.
And I might have agreed with you if a) it seemed like the UN was EVER going to agree, and b) waiting for the UN would not have cost even more
innocent Iraqi lives.
Though I do need to ask... why is it important that they wait for the UN? Would this have changed things in a significant way? If the answer is ‘yes’, then that’s cool, but I really just want to know.