Quote:
Originally posted by Sleeper
**Yes, you are uneducated and uninformed and I have no idea why. I don't care if you are anti-American or if you support the US, but at least get your facts straight about our role in recent conflicts. If you are going to argue a point, do so rationally and not with the same, tired emotional arguements that continue to be used.
|
This attitude always erks me if for no other reason. We always call someone uneducated or uniformed when we do not agree with that person. Actually his views are not uneducated or uniformed at all. They are just different from your's and that is all.
If you watched "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, there was a quest that clearly stated that Iraq and the Taliban are not fighting for the same things and that the Taliban would be more of an enemy to Iraq than an allie. For one Suddam Hussian is an secular leader, not an Islamic leader. The Taliban is a political/religious organization. According to one of the guests (sorry I did not catch his name) he claimed that Iraq would be very hard pressed to give the Taliban weapons to benefit them, especially when their interests are not the same. Now this came from an individual that worked in government and in the White House and knows or understand what is going on much more than most. Would you call him uneducated or uniformed? Not everyone agrees the threat Iraq poses or it's role in terroism. Terroism is a world wide problem, not just something Iraq is responsible for. If that is the case, let us attack Saudi Arabia. Most of the highjackers came from there. But that would not fall in line with our inconsitent foreign policy.
Views that are not yours does not make someone uniformed nor uneducated, it makes them simply different. Espeically considering that we are all different races, religions, nationalities, ethnicity or political value system.
Peace