SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (81124)5/31/2007 5:45:36 PM
From: JBTFD  Read Replies (4) of 93284
 
Our so called right to attack another country without overt provocation only becomes a double standard when we try to deny any and every other country the same so called right.

That is the double standard. One set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another group. I stand by my assertion that the US is naively thinking this double standard is ok.

"We can pre-emptively attack another country because we spend more on defense than the whole rest of the world combined. If some other country pre-emptively attacks another country they will be answerable to us."

In other words "we can do it but you can't."

That's a double standard.

And by the way a double standard does NOT have to be based on morals. That is one definition. The other one is :

1. any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, esp. an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women.

So your point about morals is a red herring, even though to any normal person it is obvious that antagonistic violence against another country qualifies as a moral issue. I don't care if you don't agree because it is irrelevant anyway.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext