Who is more evil? People like Pat Tillman who invade Iraq on the basis of her weapons of mass destruction D ) or the Iraqi resistance who defend themselves, their women, their kids and their natural resources against the likes of Tillman?
As I've pointed out before, candletrader, insurgents in Iraq -- 'freedom fighters' as some media morons have dubbed them -- must be the stupidist people in history: why are they fighting for their 'freedom', when the US is already guaranteeing them their freedom? In case you've forgotten, the US doesn't intend to annex any Iraqi territory, nor does it seek colonize it. So what exactly are they fighting for? To retain their precious Baathist values? Hmm, seems only the most hopelessly lost moral and cultural relativist would equate that to the actions of Tillman.
Look CT, I'm all for these polls, but I'm not even going to bother voting because it is more than obvious that you are really just making a statement and don't actually care what us voters think. To start with, you ask a question about being ethical equals and then after someone clicks on the link you change and you ask 'who is more evil? Those are different questions, but I'll let it slide.... Now I was Communication major and I spent a lot of time on studying persuasion and argumentation so looking at your question about who is more evil, just in that little blurb, I think that would be a perfect example to show what fallacies are. Off the top of my head....its been a few years since I graduated, but.....here are some: Loaded language (ex: the entire 2nd part of the sentence after 'or the Iraqi resistance') argument by suggestion, oversimplification, card stacking, poisoning the well, black/white thinking, emotional appeal.... the list goes on.... My point being that your poll is pointless if you're going to call it a legitimate poll...If you wanted to know the actual thoughts from us you should have left out your entire comment....
I doubt the insurgents are fighting for freedomm...at least not the core insurgents...hey who knows there may be people fighting just because they are told to...but the core the people behind the scenes dont want freedom...they want control....perhaps im wrong...
I realize Pat Tillman is being turned into the 3nd great hero of the war on terrorism (after Rudolph Giuliani and Jessica Lynch) and I consider his willingness to fight and die for his country very noble, although no more noble than the 700+ others who have died (nor the thousands who have been injured). But a friend of mine recently asked me this interesting question: Suppose America had been invaded and occupied by a foreign power (gasp!). And many Americans were resisting the occupation and fighting the conqueror. Now to the occupiers we would be despicable, ungrateful "insurgents", kinda like the way we hear that word used every single day in the news. But to us we would be Freedom Fighters, fighting for our country, fighting to repel the invaders/occupiers. Don't know, it's not so simple and tidy when presented with that scenario and I just hope this mess ends soon.
I disagree, only because of the kind of incredible money, pussy, and luxury he gave up in order to fight.
But magna, what if this "occupying power" gave you a clear 'use by date' by which time they would hand back the reigns of power to you? What if major focus of their time in occupation of your land was in order to (a) firstly free you from a tyrannical regime and (b) set you up with a proven system for securing the personal liberty of your populace and providing the greatest possible opportunity for socio-economic upward mobility? Would this cause you, if you found yourself under such an occupation, to take up your guns, hit the hills and fight for your 'freedom' (even though you should well know you are already scheduled to receive it)?