Paul,
You have had a serious debate, but you have chosen a very hard debate position. And that is OK, because we all enjoy a lively chit-chat forum.
But, your position kind of falls apart when you look at Saddam or bin Laden and try to imagine them as simply misunderstood teddy bears wanting nothing more than the best for their people. The basis of your arguement becomes there is no such thing as an autrocity, only differing points of view.
It also falls appart when you look at your position historically. Neville Chamberlain talked with and reached an agreement with another leader, whose views you have arguably deemed as "equally valid", and declared to the world he had achieved "Peace in Our Time" In looking at this history, you are left with the position that Neville's "achievement" was a huge "success".
Those are both tough debate positions and you should not be surprised when they are taken advantage of.
You have had a serious debate, but you have chosen a very hard debate position. And that is OK, because we all enjoy a lively chit-chat forum.
But, your position kind of falls apart when you look at Saddam or bin Laden and try to imagine them as simply misunderstood teddy bears wanting nothing more than the best for their people. The basis of your arguement becomes there is no such thing as an autrocity, only differing points of view.
It also falls appart when you look at your position historically. Neville Chamberlain talked with and reached an agreement with another leader, whose views you have arguably deemed as "equally valid", and declared to the world he had achieved "Peace in Our Time" In looking at this history, you are left with the position that Neville's "achievement" was a huge "success".
Those are both tough debate positions and you should not be surprised when they are taken advantage of.