Neoteny wrote:I'm not particularly saying he was. But I think he fits into my category of well-meaning people who cause too much harm to be considered a dog in the analogy.
Finding WMDs is a bit of a misnomer when you consider Saddam had a history of gassing people... the real question is if he was a threat to US security. While he may have been, I'm not in a position to decide, I don't think you have to be a top-ranking CIA official to note that there are probably bigger threats.
I don't doubt Bush had good intentions, but I don't think the means have yet been justified. I'm hopeful, but he's sabotaged nearly every effort to win any credibility.
Niether of our last two presidents were elected due to merrit. Bush was a failed president, but as near as I can see, not such a bad guy.
Snorri1234 wrote:GabonX wrote:George Bush was not a wolf in respect to the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a threat to world stability. We went in to find weapons of mass destruction and they were found.
No they weren't.
Old, inert weapons were found which couldn't be used and were probably just buried and forgotten, and a little raw material was also found. Most experts now agree that Saddam made no intent to start a nuclear program and was not a threat.
He did have more than a year to hide whatever weapons programs he may have had. One of the weaknesses of democracy in regards to the military is that things take too long.
The claims that he did not have any contraband weapons ignore three facts, the first that we found them, the second that he had hundreds of tons of nuclear material which could be used to make a bomb, and the third that he had plenty of time to hide whatever additionsl weapons and programs he may have had.
PLAYER57832 wrote:GabonX wrote:Most women, in my experience, are sheep.
It seems that at least half of men are as well.
The key words there are "
in your experience".
Also... there is an old saying about Men and power and women and power.. but if you haven't heard it ... leave it to someone else to educate you. (as in, your future wife)
Marriage is broken. More than half end in divorce and we can't even seem to agree on what the definition should be.
Honestly, I don't see how marriage benefits a man in modern society unless it's his only way to secure sexual gratification.
It probably is for some, but I don't have the overwhelming urge to give a woman claim to take atleast half of the results of my labor and then to continue to demand some sort of alimony living payment.
strike wolf wrote:This analogy of dogs, wolves and sheep is still flawed and until someone can say something that actually refutes what has been given to show htat it is wrong from previous pages. I won't even consider it.
While the analogy is imperfect, as any such analogy would be, the great majority of people fall into one of these three groups.
There is yet to be a real demonstration of how the analogy is flawed. Rather, it seems that the responses demonstrate how much sheep seem to hate dogs and not understand that there are wolves in the world. This was in the orriginal post.
It's very simple. There are people who do not realize that there are real threats in the world or realize that they exist but are not in favor of not doing anything about it. There are people who realize there is a problem and are in favor of allowing someone to fix it, or are willing to fix it themselves. Finally, there are people who empower themselves primarily by doing things which directly harm others.
The best counter argument here is that the description is too simplistic, but there hasn't really been a demonstration that shows this to be the case. Rather the response is too simplistic in itself.
If you want to have a real conversation about this, and your position is that it is flawed, show me one public figure alive today or from any point in history which you believe does not fall into one of these categories. I'm not going to claim that none exist, but I frankly cannot think of any.
