Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

clark · 2003-09-03 17:53:45

They wouldn't be justified because their point of view is subjective.

What is subjective about requiring all to not harm others?

And it probably won't work in future societies, because there will always be non-conforming ideologies and beliefs.

What is wrong with requiring all ideologies and beliefs adhering to this one principle? Indeed, almost all legitimate ideologies and beliefs has this idea as their central tenet.

You haven't presented such a higher authority here, and even if you did (and were speculating about some magical future), one doesn't exist (so basically your approach is flawed).

Here is the universal authority, if it is within your power to prevent harm to others, you have the right to intervene to prevent harm being done to others. Pretty obvious to me.

Does a firefighter have some magic mojo that makes him able, or the right person, to put out a fire? No.

What is an act of violence?

HArming another against their wishes and without cause.

And why, specifically, is violence (from outside entities whose authority is in question, mind you) accepted as a solution to stop others violence?

Because it is used as a means to prevent those who deliberatly seek to harm others against their wishes and without cause.

I don't accept that outside entities who aren't affected have some magical authority to defend others via violence.

Ah, I am a brother of Abraham, unless of course Abraham is being beaten, then I am no brother of his.

If it is within your power to act and prevent harm to another, but you do not act, you are complicit in the act of violence.

Would you watch your neighbor's house, several miles away, burn to the ground, or would you help them?

A stranger gets mugged in a dark alley, calls for help, would you ignore it?

So we're not throwing out humanitarianism, we're saying get your shit together yourself, without giving up our, or suggesting that you give up your, sovereignty.

Rationalize it all you want. You're talking about arbitrary and non-exsistant lines in the sand as determining where common decency should end.

It used to be that the individual was sacared. Then it was the family. Next came the clan. After that was your tribe. Then came fiefdoms, then kingdoms, then empires, now 'Soverign' nations.

You talk about the stars, I'm talking about humanity. There are no lines that define us, nor limit us.

Forcing your magical higher authority down peoples throat isn't the way to get them to understand or accept your varient of democracy.

Who wants to force democracy on anyone? Where did I say that?! I don't care if you want to worship a pile of horse manuer as your lord and savior. I'm talking about one rule, regardless of government, regardless of religion, regardless of race.

Follow the King of Siam for all I care. Let him tax you or whatever it is that he does, but he can't harm others. That's the damn point.

It's taken the US, what, several hundred years to get it right? And we still have a ways to go.

Okay, history time. All of this mucking up that humanity has been doing, what's the BIG lesson? What have the basic reforms and fixes been about?

Our greatest travesties have been causing harm to other individuals. Our greatest triumphs has been the cesastion of harm on others.

You don't need democracy to learn this, you need common sense.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-04 13:02:07

What is subjective about requiring all to not harm others?

Who says what is harm and what isn't? Where is the objective standard that states what is harm and what isn't?

What is wrong with requiring all ideologies and beliefs adhering to this one principle? Indeed, almost all legitimate ideologies and beliefs has this idea as their central tenet.

There's nothing inherently wrong with requiring that those in your society adhere to certain principles to inherently belong to your society, however, there is obviously something wrong with forcing those outside your society to become part of your society via forceful means (primarily if their actions do not affect you).

It's wrong because who is to say that these outsiders are wrong or not? Show me your objective standard, clark.

Here is the universal authority, if it is within your power to prevent harm to others, you have the right to intervene to prevent harm being done to others. Pretty obvious to me.

And if in your preventative measures, you kill innocents (regardless of what they have done, they are precieved innocents), does someone else have the authority to prevent harm to them? Or should they stand back and let you raid their towns for the sake of some magical objective standard that I don't think you've proven here?

It is within my power to bomb a business that treats its employees like shit, should I go do that? It would certainly prevent harm to the employees, because I'd do it when none of the employees are there.

It is within my power to bomb a resturant where people who voted and lobbied for a certain politician who perviously cut off health care causing one of my family members to die and is going to do it again, is it okay for me to do so, because I'm preventing other people from dying because their health care is going to be cut?

Does a firefighter have some magic mojo that makes him able, or the right person, to put out a fire? No.

Not really, but look at what a firefighter is doing. Is he putting out fire in another country? No, he's putting out a fire in his local town, or neighborhood, or if it's a really big fire, in another neighboorhood where there are still quite a bit of economic ties.

A firefighter isn't putting out someone elses fire where it doesn't affect him at all. He's getting paid by the tax-payers in the local area to put out fires in the local area. Duh? He has no moral obligation to go help someone so far away, even if the resources are at his disposal (say he has his own airplane, and equipment and so on).

Does he have a right to go and put out a fire somewhere where it's totally inconsequential to him? Perhaps, but I would argue only if the people who he was putting out the fire for asked him to, and understood the overall implications (say the firefighter needed to use the precious water supply or perhaps his putting out a fire using lots of water us going to cause a mudslide that will take out a whole town).

In most situations it would be accepted; someone is robbing my house and I'm screaming for help, damn straight, come right on in (a local situation, someone is being a criminal next door, you're going to want to take care of it).

You have a car and a gun, and someone from two neighboorhoods over calls your number (say it's accidently programmed into their emergency redial), and asks you to please come to their address and help them.

Do you? Would you? Are you morally obligated to? At most, you would call the police.

[Violence is harming] another against their wishes and without cause.

Ahh, so if you harm someone because they harmed you, it's okay (ie, that's your 'just cause'), and everyone else who is affected should just shut up and walk away because somehow they're not magically allowed to do anything about it.

Because it is used as a means to prevent those who deliberatly seek to harm others against their wishes and without cause.

How do we decide who is deliberately seeking to harm others and who is merely defending themselves with tactics in a preventative way? Are Isralies who bulldoze whole neighboorhoods deliberately seeking to harm others when a few children die from that, or are they just preventing harm from continuing?

The converse; are people who blow up busses seeking to harm others when they blow up a bus and kill more children, or are they attempting to send a message that violence begets violence and that they want to be free and so on and so forth?

(Both scenarios are quite ridiculous in my mind, because neither is fully justified in what they do, but this is clearly and obviously their convulted, collective, mindsets. And it happens. And it will continue to happen. Once the wall is up it may die down, but it will still continue on some level, because there will be those who feel justified because of some sort of economic detatchment.)

Ah, I am a brother of Abraham, unless of course Abraham is being beaten, then I am no brother of his.

No. I am a brother of Abraham, unless that brother lives so far away I can't do anything about it. He's better off learning how to defend his damn self, instead of depending on outside entities to do his business, and make him 'think' for himself (make him think the way I think). Instead of blowing him up, I ought to give him something to protect himself and teach him to protect himself. Without money to buy food, he can't be strong. And without the information to learn self defense, he cannot fight.

If it is within your power to act and prevent harm to another, but you do not act, you are complicit in the act of violence.

Sure, this is fairly true ("within your power" is of course, quite another subjective set of terms, but I'll let that slide), but we're not talking about helping some local, we're talking about someone far away who has no ties to us (and thus, it being "within our power" is much lower- look at the cost of restoring Iraq- a cost that will be unending). I can act, certainly, but if I act to defend a certain group rather than to empower the whole populace, they will achieve nothing and indeed, may well wind up where they were before (especially the group I'm defending, like, say, oh, I don't know, the Taliban, goes off and does the nasty).

Would you watch your neighbor's house, several miles away, burn to the ground, or would you help them?

This isn't a valid comparasion. C'mon clark, stop your rhetoric. I'd call the fire department, just like you'd call the police in the situation I gave. The point is that in such situations, we do call upon the higher authority with the resources. A more valid question would be if I had a water truck (mind you this water is pure water and I sell it), would I take my water truck to the guys house and put out his fire?

Perhaps one day in the future resources will be so abundant helping others out will become second nature (but at this point they'll be able to help themselves). Right now, though, there are other factors to consider other than, "he's hurting let me help."

You have created a black and white world that doesn't exist.

A stranger gets mugged in a dark alley, calls for help, would you ignore it?

Again, an invalid comparasion. I can help a stranger. I'm not at liberty to defend a terroist country which if left alone could sort its own shit out.

Rationalize it all you want. You're talking about arbitrary and non-exsistant lines in the sand as determining where common decency should end.

Pfft. As arbitrary as undefined terms like "harm" and "within your power"? Your position is not that different from mine, except that I think that individuals should be more empowered. A police state going around defending everyone from each other isn't a solution.

My position is consistant, because it is based on individual inclinations instead of some subjective universial objective where somehow magically all the laws of man are set in stone, unchanging.

It used to be that the individual was sacared. Then it was the family. Next came the clan. After that was your tribe. Then came fiefdoms, then kingdoms, then empires, now 'Soverign' nations.

The individual is still quite sacared here. You're arguing for defending others, I'm arguing for empowering others. You're arguing for, whenever an individual or nation or kingdom or empire or nation is being bullied, that other outside entities come in and defend them. I am arguing for a society of individuals who are capable of defending themselves. The difference is that you don't see an issue with depending on higher authorities.

You talk about the stars, I'm talking about humanity. There are no lines that define us, nor limit us.

Agreed. So stop inserting subjective value systems here and let the individuals decide for themselves what they want.

Follow the King of Siam for all I care. Let him tax you or whatever it is that he does, but he can't harm others.

And who is going to prevent him from harming others (say, raising his tax to unjust, poverty porportions)? Your magical higher authority? The only people able to truely decide for themselves are those affected, not some outside entity who thinks it knows best.

Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?

Our greatest travesties have been causing harm to other individuals. Our greatest triumphs has been the cesastion of harm on others.

clark, I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I have had this position before, but it has changed somewhat. You have a choice, respect individuals, or respect some attempt at an objective standard. You can't have it both ways, because there will always be individuals who don't conform to some attempt at an objective standard.

"Harm" is subjective. Prove me otherwise.

clark · 2003-09-04 14:05:15

Who says what is harm and what isn't?

from dictionary.com:
harm: Physical or psychological injury or damage.

It is wrong to harm others. Period. If violence must be employed to stop people or groups from harming others, then only the neccessary amount of violence may be used to achieve the end(this is the subjective part).

That means we can inavde a country, but not nuke the country. Nuking it would be more violence than is neccessary, or warranted, to achive the neccessary end of protecting others from harm.

A policeman may employ enough force as is neccessary to prevent a crime, but he may not shoot someone for jay walking.

And if in your preventative measures, you kill innocents (regardless of what they have done, they are precieved innocents), does someone else have the authority to prevent harm to them?

If the violence visited on these innocents is unwarranted, or could have been avoided, then yes. We all have the authority to prevent harm being visited on others. It is exactly our (everyone) abbrogation of this authority that we have ended up in the mess we are all in.

It is within my power to bomb a business that treats its employees like shit, should I go do that?

No, of course not. The level of violence you wish to employ is not warranted by the acts being perpetrated. If your first response is to bomb, without trying any other type of alternatives, then you are wrong.

If the business continues to 'harm' the employee's, and the employee's are unable to change, or remove themselves, from the situation, then greater acts of violence become warranted.

It is within my power to bomb a resturant where people who voted and lobbied for a certain politician who perviously cut off health care causing one of my family members to die and is going to do it again, is it okay for me to do so, because I'm preventing other people from dying because their health care is going to be cut?

If you have no recourse to make your case heard, then yes. If you do have a chance to have your position heard, and it can be resolved within the legal framework of whatever society you belong to, then no.

Not really, but look at what a firefighter is doing. Is he putting out fire in another country? No, he's putting out a fire in his local town, or neighborhood, or if it's a really big fire, in another neighboorhood where there are still quite a bit of economic ties.

Imagine a plane over international water. The plane is filled with one person from each nation of the earth. Suddenly, one of the passangers has a heart attack. A doctor on board, from a different country sees this, and notices that the heart attack victim is from some small impovrished nation no one has heard from. No economic ties here. Should the doctor not help the man?

He has no moral obligation to go help someone so far away, even if the resources are at his disposal (say he has his own airplane, and equipment and so on).

Amorality lets you sleep well at night. We all have a moral obligation to help one another. We make exscuses why we don't live up to that moral obligation. We rationalize. We justify. We say but, but, but.

Either we have a moral obligation to help others, or we don't. If we do, then it is a white and black issue. If we don't, then the rule of law and equality between men is bullshit.

This moral obligation is the foundation of humanity.

Does he have a right to go and put out a fire somewhere where it's totally inconsequential to him?

Your logic would lead us to believe that a policeman dosen't have a right to intervene in a crime unless a victim asks him too. Great. Progressive.

Your logic would also prevent a doctor from helping the cardiac arrest on the plane unless he asks for help.

Perhaps, but I would argue only if the people who he was putting out the fire for asked him to, and understood the overall implications (say the firefighter needed to use the precious water supply or perhaps his putting out a fire using lots of water us going to cause a mudslide that will take out a whole town).

Here's a morality test Josh, please answer, becuase it will answer this point:

A father asks his daughter to wash the dishes, she gets upset, and throws a dish on the ground, breaking it.

A daughter, without being asked, washes the dishes, but as she loads the dishes into the dishwaser, she slips and they all fall to the ground, breaking.

Who should be punished, and why? Who commited a greater crime? Should someone be punished more than another, and why?

In most situations it would be accepted; someone is robbing my house and I'm screaming for help, damn straight, come right on in (a local situation, someone is being a criminal next door, you're going to want to take care of it).

So you agree with me 'locally', but not in any larger context? You are allowing size and distance to limit morality, why? In Iraq, people were screaming for help (many a dead Kurd now). They we're screaming "come on in!".

You need to start seeing through this artifical constructs our mind creates.

You have a car and a gun, and someone from two neighboorhoods over calls your number (say it's accidently programmed into their emergency redial), and asks you to please come to their address and help them.
Do you? Would you? Are you morally obligated to? At most, you would call the police.

This situation depends on the police, i.e a subgroup within a larger group charged with maitnaing peace and security between its members. What if there are no police? That was, and certainly is the case in many a third world country.

What policemen were there for the Kurds? What policemen were there for the Rawandan's? See my point?

Let's go back to your example, except this person calls, and there are no police that can reach them. Better yet, you are closer than the police, you can arrive much sooner than them- would you just hang up the phone?

Ahh, so if you harm someone because they harmed you, it's okay (ie, that's your 'just cause'), and everyone else who is affected should just shut up and walk away because somehow they're not magically allowed to do anything about it.

It is okay to harm another if the intent is to prevent that person from harming others. But only as much violence as is neccessary to remove the immediate threat is allowable. That's why the death penalty is wrong, but invasion is okay.

Are Isralies who bulldoze whole neighboorhoods deliberately seeking to harm others when a few children die from that, or are they just preventing harm from continuing?

It depends if such actions are neccessary, and if there are other alternatives that have yet to be employed.

The converse; are people who blow up busses seeking to harm others when they blow up a bus and kill more children, or are they attempting to send a message that violence begets violence and that they want to be free and so on and so forth?

Tey are seeking to harm others, becuase it isn't neccessary to blow up a bus full of children to get that message across.

No. I am a brother of Abraham, unless that brother lives so far away I can't do anything about it.

Well, Josh, my brother, we CAN do something about it. Now what?

Sure, this is fairly true ("within your power" is of course, quite another subjective set of terms, but I'll let that slide), but we're not talking about helping some local, we're talking about someone far away who has no ties to us

Human blood is the knot that ties us. The same people you so casually dismiss may one day provide an organ transplant, or blood, to someone across the globe. We do live in new times, no?

. I'd call the fire department, just like you'd call the police in the situation I gave. The point is that in such situations, we do call upon the higher authority with the resources.

And what happens when our nation IS the higer authority with the resources?

You have created a black and white world that doesn't exist.

No, it has always exsisted. We just choose to ignore it, or lie to ourselves to justify not living up to it.

My position is consistant, because it is based on individual inclinations instead of some subjective universial objective where somehow magically all the laws of man are set in stone, unchanging.

My position is consistent, and there is only one rule set in stone. Moses had ten, but attention spans being what they are today, I figured this might be remembered.

You're arguing for, whenever an individual or nation or kingdom or empire or nation is being bullied, that other outside entities come in and defend them. I am arguing for a society of individuals who are capable of defending themselves. The difference is that you don't see an issue with depending on higher authorities.

I am pointing out that when a group, or an individual, seeks to harm another individual, that all of us should stop it, regardless of belief, national boundaries, or race. If a group, within a country is harming others in that country, we should all go in and stop it. I am arguing for us to stop being groups, and being individuals.

And who is going to prevent him from harming others (say, raising his tax to unjust, poverty porportions)?

If his subjects are unable to remove themselves from the situation, then we intervene. If he raises his taxes too high, he will find himself a King of one. If he prevents people from leaving, we take him off the throne.

The only people able to truely decide for themselves are those affected, not some outside entity who thinks it knows best.
Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?

i understand the concept and I agree with it. However, I realize that sometime no matter what you individualy decide, you may be powerless to act upon that decision.

You have a choice, respect individuals, or respect some attempt at an objective standard. You can't have it both ways, because there will always be individuals who don't conform to some attempt at an objective standard.

It is objective to say that it is wrong to harm others. Give me a legtimate viewpoint that shows otherwise. The only time it is acceptable to violate this rule is in protecting others from harm, and only a level of violence that is neccessary.

And of course this last part is subjective, and open to interpretation. it is intent that matters most.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-05 08:18:46

Politicians would have you believe that terrorism was the new h-bomb (indeed, you think terrorism is of 'Titanic proportions'), when terrorism is more like localized insurgencies.

The terrible threat now is exactly the h-bomb, Josh. Not only do we have the threat of nuclear weapons now, but the threat of them being detonated in our cities at random, for no reason more than we ? all of us in the eyes of terrorists ? are evil, pure evil, evil enough to justify suicide, suppos?dly a capital sin in all monotheism. There won't be any air-raid sirens, no warnings, no hint that the bomb will be coming. It will be travelling on an airplane with people and passengers that likely have no idea it is about to destroy them, and the city they're landing in.

This is the threat. I cannot believe how lucky we have been since September 11th, 2001. But now we understand why we weren't attacked again (on our own soil, at least): the vigorous machinations of the Adminstration have liquidated al-Qaeda's assets, drained their resources, and frozen most of their accounts, to say nothing of the great number of high-ranking militants we've captured, breaking up their heirarchy, apparently, very effectively.

You can tell when something is being used as a political tool, when you see ads about it on TV, and when you see our spending going in that direction. Politicians in the US rarely do anything unless there's political gain in doing it (this is not to say at all that what they do is in fact good or necessary or not; that's irrelevant, it's just how things get done here)

You think that politicians acting only in favor of political gain is purely an American trait? Name one country whose figures are so notably philanthropic that they are considerably better at governing than Americans.

I mean, c'mon, be realistic here. The Bush admin, for example, blamed Clinton's admin for the lack of security. Is it true? Maybe. But others say that the Clinton admin was strong on security, and that security broke down in the presence of the Bush admin. It goes back and forth, indefinitely.

Well, let's put it this way: The Clinton adminstration saw all the other al-Qaeda attacks that preceded 9/11. The USS Cole was bombed, embassies in Africa attacked, and many more threats by Osama bin Laden were heard by Clinton's presidential ears than Bush's. The threat was incredibly clear, had Clinton the will or the interest to investigate it further.

Keep in mind that the attacks of September 11th were planned in detail before Bush even took office. By these points, one might assert that it was Clinton who pissed off al-Qaeda, not Bush Jr. ? though possibly Bush Sr.; however, had Bush Sr. stayed in office, he undoubtedly would have tried to finish what he started. But, President Clinton preferred not to do anything further with Iraq, didn't take to ousting Saddam Hussein when he had the clear responsibility to do so. Had he acted, gotten our troops out of the Persian Gulf, then Osama bin Laden's two major and singular points against the US that incited his attacks, that we were poisoning their sanctified holy land (Saudi Arabia) with our troops and attacking his Arab brethren (Iraqis), would have been nullified, and there would have been no September 11th, or al-Qaeda to speak of.

Clinton, however, was very fond of maintaining the status quo. (He and Al Gore especially are guilty of perpetuating the Space Shuttle program for so long, and for draining funding from other NASA resources, far more than Bush Sr. who tried to reinspire the space program.) It took a huge arm twisting for him to get us to intervene in Serbia. And thank heavens he did, or their'd still be ethnic cleansing going on there.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-05 11:42:11

If violence must be employed to stop people or groups from harming others, then only the neccessary amount of violence may be used to achieve the end(this is the subjective part).

Ahh, I see how it is, so it's okay to get rid of violence with violence as long as it fits some subjective standard of what is necessary or not. I thought this was a well defined objective thing clark?

That means we can inavde a country, but not nuke the country. Nuking it would be more violence than is neccessary, or warranted, to achive the neccessary end of protecting others from harm.

If I have a small army (tens of tens perhaps), I wouldn't be warrented in fighting back with a nuclear warhead under your highly subjective terms?

The Taliban would happily employee nuclear means to protect themselves from the American threat. And it would definitely be justified under the whole 'violence is okay as long as we think that we're preventing people from being harmed.'

The disgusting thing is that the Taliban use the Israeli conflict to justify their actions. Just like any terrorist, they justify their actions by proping up a weaker group.

A policeman may employ enough force as is neccessary to prevent a crime, but he may not shoot someone for jay walking.

Ahh, you hit it. Due force. Not some magical automatic authority to invade whenever someone is treating someone else badly. You assess the situation and consider if they can help themselves and learn from their problems.

If the violence visited on these innocents is unwarranted, or could have been avoided, then yes.

Hah, yet another set of subjective values you have presented here. Did you read about that young American lady who was bulldozed (and killed) by the Israeli guy? They decided that it couldn't have been avoided. I won't discuss it, but yeah, people can come to whatever damn conculsion they want. Doesn't make their conclusion right. And it doesn't mean that others won't see that their conclusion is wrong and take actions (ie, preventative measures via violent means so it wouldn't happen again).

The guy is still bulldozing houses, btw.

No, of course [it's not okay to bomb someone]. The level of violence you wish to employ is not warranted by the acts being perpetrated. If your first response is to bomb, without trying any other type of alternatives, then you are wrong.

Ahh, so now we're inserting another value, 'first response.' If your 'first response' isn't 'worthy' then it's not okay. Say that I feel it's warrented. Say that most of the employees find it's warrented. We're not necessarily talking about a civilized world, mind you. This is the third world, where the workers haven't been paid in 6 months and the promises are up. And I have the resources to blow up his building.

Is it okay? Ahh, I bet now that I have 'rectified' the scenario, that you would say, 'go for it!'

It's only 'wrong' in the first world where all sorts of welfare alternatives and jobs are accessable. Of course, we haven't been talking in a first world context. We're speaking totally generally. As clear as day, your argument seems to fail when we move from one context to the other, because now we have to consider this variable about whether or not the actions are justified (which again is another subjective value).

If the business continues to 'harm' the employee's, and the employee's are unable to change, or remove themselves, from the situation, then greater acts of violence become warranted.

With this I agree (actually, I agree with much of what you're saying). But acts of violence don't become warrented, they just approach a higher probablity of occuring. Especially if some outside entity thinks it knows best, and instead of arming them with wealth and information, they arm them with guns and start blowing shit up (depreciating the wealth that is already there, and causing a state of chaos wherein information is confused).

If you have no recourse to make your case heard, then yes.

This statement defends the McVeys, and bin Ladens of the world, I wonder if you realize that. You do realize that what you may think is due recourse is differnet from what I think is due recourse, and certainly what the McVeys and the bin Ladens think is due recourse, don't you?

This is the inherent problem I have with your argument. It's not that the idea that not harming anyone is bad (and indeed I agree with it), it's the idea that we're allowed to directly harm people when those people fit a certain subjective criteria. I would argue that we can only harm people when it's directly in defense, period. And that the higher authorities in the worlds only obligation is to insure that wealth and information are available, not weapons and a police state.

No economic ties here. Should the doctor not help the man?

Does the doctor have to land the plane, fly back to his office, get his supplies, and come back? No. The doctor is fully equipped to handle the situation and can do so. You keep using scenarios where action is quite possible and not beyond the capablity of any one person (indeed, as far as I have seen, all your scenarios use individuals rather than groups).

Amorality lets you sleep well at night. We all have a moral obligation to help one another. We make exscuses why we don't live up to that moral obligation. We rationalize. We justify. We say but, but, but.

Your morals aren't the same as my morals. I exist upon the Silver Rule, you clearly exist upon the Golden Rule. Which one of us is right? Neither, I would garner, but I would think that my feelings are more consistant and easier to define.

(The Golden Rule is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Silver Rule is: Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.)

This isn't an attempt at rationalization. You have rationalized here more than me, really. I have stuck to a basic wealth and information position, where you have jumped back and forth about what is due recourse, first response, and all these other subjective values that are irrelevant.

Either we have a moral obligation to help others, or we don't. If we do, then it is a white and black issue. If we don't, then the rule of law and equality between men is bullshit.

The rule of law and equality between men has always been bullshit, because no where on the planet does it exist. Groups always find themselves in a position of superiority, and the inferior groups fight back. You have justfied both groups fighting, for the sake of morality; all you've done here is just perpetuated the fighting itself.

The Silver Rule can be restated thusly: Do unto your inferiors as you would have your superiors do unto you.

Think about it.

This moral obligation is the foundation of humanity.

A given, so I don't think it's in our interest to go about blowing each other up upon some subjective value systems.

Your logic would lead us to believe that a policeman dosen't have a right to intervene in a crime unless a victim asks him too. Great. Progressive.

Nope, there are no policemen in the world. There is no magical higher authority everyone totally respects. You're conflating the situation. If there was a magical higher authority, and the world was a one world government and everyone believed the same things and felt the same way about any given situation, then obviously you're right.

There isn't, though. There are lots of people running around feeling justified in their actions, it doesn't matter what we think about their justifications. What matters is how they feel, and the reasons they feel that way.

Your logic would also prevent a doctor from helping the cardiac arrest on the plane unless he asks for help.

No it wouldn't. Both the policeman and the docter are clearly within the means to help someone. The policeman and the doctor don't need to, for example, acquire some other authority.

Invading countries tends to require some sort of extra authority, because it tends to affect more people, and the means have larger requirements. You confuse group consciousness with individual consciousness, I think.

A father asks his daughter to wash the dishes, she gets upset, and throws a dish on the ground, breaking it.
A daughter, without being asked, washes the dishes, but as she loads the dishes into the dishwaser, she slips and they all fall to the ground, breaking.
Who should be punished, and why? Who commited a greater crime? Should someone be punished more than another, and why?

Why'd she get upset?

This is an argument about collateral damage, and yet it glosses over the real issue here. The issue isn't acting to prevent harm, the issue is what is the best way.

You argue that the best way is for some outside interference. I argue that the best way is for one to learn how to manage on their own.

Take your example. Now, clearly, given our position, we are superior in some way (otherwise we wouldn't be acting as the police). So let's say the daughters hand was broken, and it was in a cast.

What you would have is for the father to put the dishes in the dishwasher while the daughter ran around the kitchen crying hysterically that she couldn't do anything and that her violin hand was broke.

What I would have is for the father to help the daughter learn how to put the dishes in the dishwasher, like, say, using the hand that isn't broke.

This is really the difference in our arguments. You think that radical, totally controlling means are the first approach, whereas I think that empowering means are.

In either case, the same ammount of dishes probably will get broken. Mine, due to the learning process and patience required to survive, yours due to collateral damage because someone is getting in the way.

Embargos, of course, are akin to breaking both hands on the daughter, and blindfolding her (as her father yells at her to do the dishes).

So you agree with me 'locally', but not in any larger context?

This has nothing to do with locality. This is about means and which approach is more appealing and has a greater chance to succeed. My approach doesn't have the problem of subjective values being used to decide which side is 'right.' And which side can commit 'legitimate violence.' I don't even concern myself with that.

This is all about responsiblity, and whose responsiblity it is for groups to do certain actions. You want a police state. I want individuals capable of doing the right thing.

You are allowing size and distance to limit morality, why?

You are allowing morality to abandon personal responsiblity, why?

Just because we're human doesn't mean we're responsible for those outside our domain.

What if there are no police? That was, and certainly is the case in many a third world country.

Oh, then you have mobs running around.

And these mobs would be quite justified in their actions, using your logic.

What policemen were there for the Kurds? What policemen were there for the Rawandan's? See my point?

Of course I see your point. If people want to help directly, go for it. Just don't expect me to in a direct way like that. I'd rather share wealth than share bombs (and I believe that this is the more helpful solution, and more humane solution for most situations). Don't pretend that the world is obligated to help other people fight their wars. You're coming from a position that we as humans must band together for the sake of humanity, how about spreading the wealth around, then? This is the basis of my argument.

BTW, I'm sure the Kurds would still be alive today if a certain country didn't meddle and sell WMDs.

Let's go back to your example, except this person calls, and there are no police that can reach them. Better yet, you are closer than the police, you can arrive much sooner than them- would you just hang up the phone?

These examples are silly. I'm coming from a position that people can help themselves (or if they can't, we should empower them to). Say, someone in my office hears a robber, and calls me. What do I do? Do I call the police, come over, or tell them where to find the shotgun I have stashed away?

What's the most logical solution to this problem?

Exapand it. We're in a third world dictatorship. There are embargos out the ass. We need help. Would we rather be bombed to death (not all of us, just many of our loved ones), or would we rather the embargos (or the high interest rates, or all the first world obligations that have been payed off several times over) be lifted?

It depends if such actions are neccessary, and if there are other alternatives that have yet to be employed.

That's your point of view.

Tey are seeking to harm others, becuase it isn't neccessary to blow up a bus full of children to get that message across.

That's your point of view and it doesn't address the underlying issues.

Well, Josh, my brother, we CAN do something about it. Now what?

We can, my friend? Please, show me how you and I can do something about any given level of oppression in the world. We can't, it takes a collective mindset to get the resources available to do so. And then, at such a point, we will be pushing ourselves so hard, acting as the police to the world, that we will be achieving very little in the way of progress. Since we haven't addressed the economic problems in these places (and indeed, we've drained the world econimcally because we've gone from an industrial state to one which uses war as its primary income), they will get no better, and more and more people will suffer. And more terrorists will be invented. And these terrorists will feel justified in their actions, just like the current ones do. No matter how much you try to create an objective standard to which everyone must adhere otherwise be immoral.

Human blood is the knot that ties us.

And fighting isn't the solution. Ending the suffering is. You don't end suffering by fighting. You end suffering by stretching your hands out and helping. Embargos are unethical.

Drop food, not bombs! Drop food, not bombs!

And what happens when our nation IS the higer authority with the resources?

You first assess how those resources are best distributed. Do we import bombs or food? Do we continue restricting a country from the collective wealth of the world, or do we deny them the very right to exist by denying them access to that wealth? Which is more immoral, clark?

I agree that you help someone in dire need. I disagree that bombing them and their government is the first or even necessary course of action (I feel that it would be shown that if embargos were lifted, with only arm-sanctions, the suffering around the world would end- if I was proven wrong, I would be the first on the battle lines to fight).

We disagree on so little here, but it still tends to create very long responses.

My position is consistent, and there is only one rule set in stone.

That rule stands upon so many subjective variables that it makes very little sense to adhere to it. In the end, that rule is 'right' because the winners get to write history, and only because of that. If this police state of yours is realized, I'm sure I'd quite quickly become a 'terrorist.'

If a group, within a country is harming others in that country, we should all go in and stop it.

This is exactly what the various islamic groups felt when they went into Iraq to fight along-side Saddam. This is a very sweet proposition. I am so happy that you're a humanist.

Oh, oops, it's not harming for the US to go after Saddam, it's only harming when Saddam goes after his people. Oh, but wait, Saddam is largely a creation of the US. Hmm. Um. Where does it end? Where does the act of 'first harm' begin? Go back to the very creation of Iraq and see who instigated the first injustice?

You assume that everyone sees things exactly the way you do, and it just doesn't work out that way!

However, I realize that sometime no matter what you individualy decide, you may be powerless to act upon that decision.

And what is the most humane and responsible way of empowering them? I know that bombing isn't.

it is intent that matters most.

If I intend to blow myself up because you killed my family or have branded me a terrorist and I feel the only recourse I have is to give you some of what you've given me, and that hopefully that might let you realize your own injustices, you can screw off. I'm not doing it to harm you, of course (using your definition of harm and intent). I'm doing it because it's all I have left. I'm doing it because your superiors are responsible for destroying my life.

Sure, intent matters. Do unto others as you would have them (or as they have done) unto you. This is your mantra.

I find it repulsive. I find it sad.

Spider-Man, I'm sorry you feel that way.

And I didn't say that this political crap was purely an American trait. And I have no intention of defending Clinton, I am merely pointing out that both sides have political inclinations. I think it's quite obvious, for example, which side you're on.

Also, you should know by now that terrorist justifications are mostly hogwash. Had we left the holy land before 9/11, it would've still happened. I find it interesting that you seem to think that doing what the terrorists want is okay.

War isn't the solution to everything. Unlike what many people here think (I think Cindy here is the only reasonable person on this issue!).

Palomar · 2003-09-05 12:56:27

War isn't the solution to everything. Unlike what many people here think (I think Cindy here is the only reasonable person on this issue!).

Thanks for the compliment!

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-09-05 13:16:51

War isn't the solution to everything. Unlike what many people here think (I think Cindy here is the only reasonable person on this issue!).

Hey, me too I think that war doesn't is not a solution. It's not because I have been tough with the devilish indians, the saracens and lately the freemasons that I am a warmonger.
Military self defense is acceptable, however with a response proportional to the attack, in no case selfdefence should become a war of conquest.
Time, discussions and knowing of the civilisation that is perceived as a treat should be as good as a war. Time makes everything relative and all violence senseless.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-06 14:23:52

Spider-Man, I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm unsure as to which feeling you are referring.

And I didn't say that this political crap was purely an American trait. And I have no intention of defending Clinton, I am merely pointing out that both sides have political inclinations.

Oh without a doubt! I was just pointing out the singular grievance.

I think it's quite obvious, for example, which side you're on.

*Laughs.* Oh is it?

Well then! let's examine my own political inclinations, eh?

I aspire most ardently to the idealistic philosophy of a knight; chivalry guides all my beliefs and inclinations. And there are many expressions of chivalry which manifest themselves, and, indeed, according to no specific political group:

Due to my passionate adoration and respect for women and veneration of womanhood in general, I carry what would no doubt be deemed feministic tendencies (qualifying a liberal bias); for instance, I am pro-choice (or more precisely, I do not believe any decision in that area can ever be considered by men, that only women can decide; I do not believe men should have any right to an opinion at all with regard to abortion).

However, I do not follow any "modernist" sophistic beliefs (such as there being no truths), including lying or deception or other Machiavellian dictates. Truly, I am very strongly rooted in a sense of virtue and goodness and right versus wrong (usually asserted to conservatives). I maintain that knowing the truth, knowing what is good or bad, is not always clear; but I also am equally insistant that there is good and bad, and our mission in life as human beings is to determine what is best, for ourselves and the rest of humanity. (This is referred to as the quest in chivalristic philosophy.)

But this leads to a vehement belief in altruism, in helping others, in generosity and benevolence. Indeed, I believe that humanity is inherently good (liberal), that all people are endowed with virtues that make them moral people. However, this delicate and beautiful flower that is the human spirit can easily be damaged, and browned, if it is mistreated at a nascent stage of development.

Neverthless, I do believe in the spirituality of people (conservative), in an abstract concept of a soul, and a mind, Socratic concepts as in Greek philosophy. But I am not religious, though I do respect religion and dedication of religious nature.

However, I am an optimist, environmentalist, idealist, and any number of arguably liberal labels.
You see that in fact I don't have an easily definable "political tendency", as you put it. I have none, and many. Personally, I despise the concept of political parties and inherent division in a society along such ignominious lines.

Indeed, I take offense to your insinuation that I am conservative. I would be equally offended if you assumed me liberal. I am both, and neither.

If you must, you may qualify me as moderate (my voter registration reads that I am of no political party at all, of course), but I don't like that either; I prefer no political label whatsoever. I prefer to be totally independent of the system, and wish instead to observe.

This is one reason I love space, and the future so very much. Conservative and liberal leaders alike in the last half century have shared the glory, and the blame, when it comes to space exploration. Kennedy pushed us forward, whilst Clinton and Gore held us back. Nixon strangled the life out of manned exploration, but Bush Sr. breathed life into it again.

Also, you should know by now that terrorist justifications are mostly hogwash.

I think the use of "terrorism" has been absurd as a buzzword. Suicide bombers call those who are militarily powerful "terrorists", which is just falaciously incorrect. I understand the fear, of course, the universal hatred of the powerful giant (there are any infinite number of stories in ancient literature and mythology, from David to Thor).

Had we left the holy land before 9/11, it would've still happened.

"It" is a little vague. If you mean September 11th and attacks against mainland US, then sure; they already were happening off shore.
But it definitely was our prolonged stay which brought it on.

I find it interesting that you seem to think that doing what the terrorists want is okay.

I beg your pardon?

War isn't the solution to everything.

Someone said it is...? Certainly not I; I'm also pacifistic, and yet still believe in martial arts, such as fencing (aren't I a conundrum?).

Unlike what many people here think (I think Cindy here is the only reasonable person on this issue!).

Indeed, let no one debate the sagacity of our belov?d Cindy. Sincerely, she is very logical and intelligent, and she has my deepest respect.

As for my position on the war (which you may have narrowly taken to assume was the complete scope of my political outlook), I believe that it was right to depose a tyranny and infuse freedom into Iraq, and Afghanistan. It would be wrong to let any people suffer.

As much as I agree with the action, I do not agree with the basis of it that was portrayed by the Adminstration, that it was for reasons of "national security". The actions were still totally justified, but that should never have been the main issue.

As my signature quotes from the movie Spider-Man, "with great power comes great responsibility". We have the power to positively affect the lives of millions, of the entire world. But if we squander that power for ignobility and sophistry, we are worse than bad.

Though Spider-Man without a doubt represents the best parts about America, the United States is not a single entity. It is composed of millions of individuals, all with their own beliefs and inclinations. Many are good, and many are bad.

But the ones that make a difference, who go out of their way to make their community, their country, their world a better place, they are the real heroes.

Byron · 2003-09-06 14:52:15

However, I do not follow any "modernist" sophistic beliefs (such as there being no truths), including lying or deception or other Machiavellian dictates. Truly, I am very strongly rooted in a sense of virtue and goodness and right versus wrong (usually asserted to conservatives). I maintain that knowing the truth, knowing what is good or bad, is not always clear; but I also am equally insistant that there is good and bad, and our mission in life as human beings is to determine what is best, for ourselves and the rest of humanity. (This is referred to as the quest in chivalristic philosophy.)
But this leads to a vehement belief in altruism, in helping others, in generosity and benevolence. Indeed, I believe that humanity is inherently good (liberal), that all people are endowed with virtues that make them moral people. However, this delicate and beautiful flower that is the human spirit can easily be damaged, and browned, if it is mistreated at a nascent stage of development.
Neverthless, I do believe in the spirituality of people (conservative), in an abstract concept of a soul, and a mind, Socratic concepts as in Greek philosophy. But I am not religious, though I do respect religion and dedication of religious nature.
However, I am an optimist, environmentalist, idealist, and any number of arguably liberal labels.

Cool...I have to say that your philosophy of life is pretty similar to mine...

Indeed, what you've described is what has gotten us (humanity) to where it is today - and it will enable us to achieve the dreams of tomorrow, such as making Mars a second home for the human race...

B

Spider-Man · 2003-09-06 15:04:55

Of course there is a darker side to what I am saying though. I am saying it is okay to invade another soverign nation if they kill portions of their citizens. If they repress them.
That means the US could be rightly invaded becuase of our penchant for the death penalty. it means we should invade every back water african country that continues to stone women.

Though it's clear I do agree with you on some issues, Clark, I cannot concur that stoning women is equivalent to executing people. I don't believe in it either, but they don't seem to be on exactly equal footing.

The news link concerns former POW Jessica Lynch to receive 1 million $ for her story. Why does this kind of make me sick? What about the people who rescued her? What about those pesky "trouble spots" in the story line? What about the other soldiers who have been killed in Iraq, and the other former POWs? What about the soldiers still over there?

You can tell when something is being used as a political tool, when you see ads about it on TV, and when you see our spending going in that direction.

Heh, it seems to me that what you two have a problem with is the media. I hate the media, liberal, conservative, it's all bad, all sophistry and purveyance ignorance. History is what should be on TV, to educate peole on the origins of these conflicts, on the meaning behind these things. Otherwise, people are totally in the dark, and make gross assumptions, only leading to progressively worse and worse opinions that become "truth" for those who are too uninformed to know the difference.

And I agree with you totally, Cindy; it's quite absurd. Blame the media for making such a big deal about it; blame the weakness of American viewers for not turning away, and for enjoying such exacerbated stories; I don't know. I just know that you speak truthfully.

Should I even comment? I mean, damn. No, it's not ever good to invade anyone for any reason except for clear acts of mass genocide (basic 'repression' isn't enough, because that's quite subjective).

I hope, Josh, that you're aware that you have just agreed that invading Iraq was quite "good", as you say, for all the horrors and atrocities and tortures and terrors that were inflicted on those poor people.

The real solution to the Iraq 'threat' was to lift the embargo.

I haven't heard something so na?ve in a long time.

Better the overall wealth of the society (in a very short period of time, might I add), and you would have influenced them with real democracy.

What kind of nonsensical assertion is this? Keep in mind that those embargos were emplaced in part because the Iraqi government was terrorizing its people, and maintained for that reason as well. The Iranians were poisoned with chemical weapons too, to say nothing of all the other unbelievable criminal acts that went on in Iraq during the '80s, all without embargos and under an uninhibited economic regime.
Exactly how many of our free, democratic virtues reached Saddam Hussein before he invaded Kuwait?

Iraq, now, is a breeding ground for terrorism. It wasn't before.

Correction: Iraq, now, is a magnet for terrorism. Our American presence there is like a flame that these suicide bombers are drawn to; there is no more symbollically pertinent target to al-Qaeda-following terrorists.

And like hell it wasn't before! What do you think Saddam Hussein was doing to his people? Treating them to ice-cream every Friday after mosque?
He killed, tormented, and terrorized his people for years. Saddam Hussein was inflicting, yes, terrorism on his people. There is in fact less terrorism in Iraq now than there was a year ago, despite the magnetism of our troops.

Iraq may be better off now (although it depends on how you look at it, before, while you had a dictator, you still had job security and utilities and so on, whereas now you have a military presence with daily bombings; personally I see no real change, what use is liberty when you're in crappy conditions?).

Tell that to the Scots, who fought for, and won, their freedom, not giving a care to how crappy their lives would be. "It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom."

I think it's the most selfish thing in the world to be so resentful against temporary, temporary living conditions being bad when the future is now so open and bright. What a fantastically self-centered way to think about oneself first, before being concerned with the children and those children's future.

Palomar · 2003-09-06 15:25:31

*Thank you for your kind words about me, Spider-Man; what a rosy complexion I now have!

Of course, I agree with your statements pertaining to media manipulation and the need to know when to turn away from media hype (even if it does ruffle my feathers every now and then).

--Cindy

Spider-Man · 2003-09-06 16:11:37

Who says what is harm and what isn't? Where is the objective standard that states what is harm and what isn't?

That is so unbelievably sophistic...

Your reason is the objective standard, my friend, your wisdom and sense of logic. The basic, abstract concepts that we all believe in and no one debates (numbers, colors, etcetera), but for the insane, are what bind us to a common sense of simple logic and rationality. Extrapolated, just as mathematical equations are extrapolated in order to define new numerical values, these bases lead to a full, common understanding of the world.

We are all human beings. Despite our individual uniqueness, this is what we all have in common.

There's nothing inherently wrong with requiring that those in your society adhere to certain principles to inherently belong to your society, however, there is obviously something wrong with forcing those outside your society to become part of your society via forceful means (primarily if their actions do not affect you).
It's wrong because who is to say that these outsiders are wrong or not?

That's moral relativism. "What's moral for you is good for you, but is not right for me," goes the saying. Ironically, this is the philosophy that leads to the subjugation of foreign cultures to begin with, or more exactly, to the belief in one's superiority over others.

Your assertion that societies can have parallel but different moralities is preposterously false. You've given all authority to the city walls, and none of it to humanity. By your logic, a group of people within the city can say, "Hey, what's justice for you isn't justice for us, so we're not going to follow your laws." So then, as you insist, these people can cause any kind of anarchy. And so can anyone else.

This is the worst form of sophistry.

You also justify a rapist by your assertion. Say a rapist pulls some girl off the street and takes her into an alley and begins to rape her. Then you walk by the alley, and realize what is happening.

By your definition, it is wrong for you to intervene. As it is none of your business, you go on, and ignore it.

There is almost nothing more criminal. Those who looked the other way in Nazi Germany allowed the Jews to be slaughtered. "I was just following orders!" they cried. When the North looked away when the South had slavery and tortured and killed the black slaves, they were equally criminal. Eventually, they intervened.

Are you saying that it was wrong for the United States of America to invade the Confederate States of America? Are you really that unbelievably sophistic, relativistic, and malign? Please, correct me if I have misinterpreted your, sincerely, very clear assertion.

It is within my power to bomb a business that treats its employees like shit, should I go do that?

That's a pretty specious analogy (I find it humorous you ridicule Clark's analogies when his are actually quite reasonable). The people are employed by their own choice. Subjects of a tyrant can't quit the country.

It is within my power to bomb a resturant where people who voted and lobbied for a certain politician who perviously cut off health care causing one of my family members to die and is going to do it again, is it okay for me to do so, because I'm preventing other people from dying because their health care is going to be cut?

I hope you don't really think that these terrible examples in any way relate to saving lives (think policeman, fireman, medical worker, not nutzo who bombs restaurants and office buildings).

Not really, but look at what a firefighter is doing. Is he putting out fire in another country? No, he's putting out a fire in his local town, or neighborhood, or if it's a really big fire, in another neighboorhood where there are still quite a bit of economic ties.

I find that to be just plain stupid. You're saying that your town is more important than a comparable town due to nothing but geographical proximity. You're saying that, when passing through, say, a Canadian town on your way back to Seattle that has a building in it that is burning, and you have the fire truck, the fire fighters, all the necessary equipment to stop it, you wouldn't stop it? when no one else could?

You're saying that humans are not created equal, but that there are indeed divisions between us, that some people are more equal than others, that slavery is justified outside your own land. This is your objective authority?? What nonsense!

A firefighter isn't putting out someone elses fire where it doesn't affect him at all. He's getting paid by the tax-payers in the local area to put out fires in the local area. Duh? He has no moral obligation to go help someone so far away, even if the resources are at his disposal (say he has his own airplane, and equipment and so on).

That is monstrous!

Does he have a right to go and put out a fire somewhere where it's totally inconsequential to him?

You appear to completely miss the point. It is consequential to him, because it is another group of human beings in danger. When one person dies in a terrible circumstance like that, all humanity suffers.

Perhaps, but I would argue only if the people who he was putting out the fire for asked him to, and understood the overall implications (say the firefighter needed to use the precious water supply or perhaps his putting out a fire using lots of water us going to cause a mudslide that will take out a whole town).

If he has the power and no one else is available, the firefighter should, and would, help.

Human lives are less important than surviving (surviving being the key word) a droubt?
The mudslide thing is just idiotic.

You have a car and a gun, and someone from two neighboorhoods over calls your number (say it's accidently programmed into their emergency redial), and asks you to please come to their address and help them.
Do you? Would you? Are you morally obligated to? At most, you would call the police.

The police are better qualified and trained. That's a very bad example.

How do we decide who is deliberately seeking to harm others and who is merely defending themselves with tactics in a preventative way?

That is the quest, in chivalristic philosophy. It is difficult, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try; you, me, all of us must use our sense of reason, and determine what is best, "not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

Are Isralies who bulldoze whole neighboorhoods deliberately seeking to harm others when a few children die from that, or are they just preventing harm from continuing?

Keep in mind that the children themselves run out in front of the bulldozers to commit suicide, driven on by their convictions of "glorious jihad."

The converse; are people who blow up busses seeking to harm others when they blow up a bus and kill more children, or are they attempting to send a message that violence begets violence and that they want to be free and so on and so forth?

I hope you have the logical sensibility to realize that such claims are nonsense.
But from what I've read so far of your beliefs, that hope grows dim.

(Both scenarios are quite ridiculous in my mind, because neither is fully justified in what they do, but this is clearly and obviously their convulted, collective, mindsets.

And that is moral equivalence. Suicide bombers aren't justified at all in what they do! being that they deliberately target children and innocent people because they are innocent. Israel does not do any such thing. When bystanders die, it's an accident.

clark · 2003-09-06 22:08:49

Indeed, I take offense to your insinuation that I am conservative. I would be equally offended if you assumed me liberal. I am both, and neither.

i'm a definition without a definition...

sophistry is the pot calling the kettle black, spider-man. :laugh:

Spider-Man · 2003-09-06 22:41:01

Heh, the point was that I am not a part of the political system. And yes, I added a little bit of perverse sophistry to drive home that point.

At least someone got the joke.

And, as always, you're quite welcome, milady Cindy; the honor is ours.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-07 17:31:24

Oh poo, I don't have the energy to respond to these posts, but I'll respond to the most important ones.

I hope, Josh, that you're aware that you have just agreed that invading Iraq was quite "good", as you say, for all the horrors and atrocities and tortures and terrors that were inflicted on those poor people.

Unfortunately quite a bit of the acts of genocide happened whilst we were still friends with Iraq (so we happily turned a blind eye and pretended all was well). The other deaths are the result of political persecution, a thing unavoidable in all socities, though obviously more severe in the case of Iraq.

I haven't heard something so na?ve in a long time. [With regards to lifting embargos.]

And yet you don't offer a retort, you simply insult.

Keep in mind that those embargos were emplaced in part because the Iraqi government was terrorizing its people, and maintained for that reason as well.

Um, no, historically, we don't put embargos on people because they terrorize their people (if that were the case, for example, China would have no hope doing business with us). We put embargos on people because "we don't like them." This justification is never consistant.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcar … Index.html

Correction: Iraq, now, is a magnet for terrorism. [...]And like hell it wasn't before!

We didn't have to deal with a terrorist threat before. Our guys were safely at home, doing their thing, without any major problems. Now we're being constantly attacked, the economic infrastructure of Iraq will forever be at risk, and so on. Any 'terrorist' threat wasn't affecting us. Now it is, and it's going to cost untold billions.

And note that you don't generally call political persecution terrorism (even though it obviously qualifies). But to each his own.

[The idea that we can't objectively define what is harm or not] is so unbelievably sophistic...

People see things differently, despite the drivel you wrote about people being basic mathematical equations. This isn't about there not being some standard everyone can agree on (the Nazi principle, for example, had a lot of people who agreed on it, and I'm not saying it's 'right' despite what you may assert in your paragraphs of curious insults), this is about how society in its current state has those who won't accept your definitions. Who won't accept your behaviors and actions as something they want.

I agree with your guys' position, I simply know that people see things differently, and I'm not stupid enough to think that certain honest, just, actions aren't going to be seen negatively, so I believe that the solution is to avoid allowing those honest actions to be seen that way if possible. Had we gone through the UN, for example, I would have no complaints, because at that point there would be little argument that we had unjust motives.

That's moral relativism. "What's moral for you is good for you, but is not right for me," goes the saying.

That's not what I'm saying here, despite it being such a "very clear assertion," to you. I have my own set of beliefs, and I would hope that others see these beliefs and accept them as their own. But I'm not going to force them down some peoples throats via bombs. At this point, my bombs fail to become wonderful examples of my belief system, but rather fester anger and create more hatered for the very system I'm trying to get you to accept.

clark has the belief that everyone should be basically bombed to death for "causing harm." Go for it. See how many terrorists you invent because they don't see it that way.

You're saying that your town is more important than a comparable town due to nothing but geographical proximity.

This is about resource considerations. All the examples you and clark have given have been reasonable in that it's not a stretch for individuals to make an effort to help those in need.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't help people here, I'm saying the approach should be different. If two towns are sharing a fire department, is it wiser to continue sharing the fire department (and increase its spending) or build another fire department that each town uses for itself except where they need to help each other? I don't see where you're deriving all this "don't help anyone" stuff from my posts. I'm being realistic; for example, how often do you hear in the news that a building was lost because there weren't enough fire trucks? (How long until the US has to "fight a fire" and she doesn't have enough "fire trucks?")

Suicide bombers aren't justified at all in what they do!

To themselves they are. When I see suicide bomber videos, where they basically give their last will and testament, I can tell they're at the bottom of the fucking barrel, and that their mindset is clearly beyond the fringe. To think that they don't feel justified is kind of naive in my mind. You have to feel justified to do something like that.

I'm not arguing with you guys about there not being an honest, humanist, approach to existance. I'm saying that regardless of that, there will be people who don't see it that way, and we have to take that into consideration. Call it what you will.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-07 22:13:30

The other deaths are the result of political persecution, a thing unavoidable in all socities, though obviously more severe in the case of Iraq.

Ah, a Saddam apologist... I love you guys; you never cease to amaze me.

And yet you don't offer a retort, you simply insult.

If you mean an alternative solution, I didn't need to give one because I already supported the alternative solution that was employed, the invasion and restoration of Iraq at a fundamental level.

I'd also like to note that I have not once insulted you personally, but only criticized your ideas. I find it kind of odd you take such offense to the minor disregard I show your thoughts, while you insult Clark at every instance on a personal level (though he isn't guiltless either, of course). In fact, I respect you very much; you're clear and intelligent and rational, in a way. If I didn't have such regard for you personally, I wouldn't engage in this friendly debate.

Um, no, historically, we don't put embargos on people because they terrorize their people (if that were the case, for example, China would have no hope doing business with us). We put embargos on people because "we don't like them." This justification is never consistant.

You're absolutely right. This is my largest problem with the way we do things now. We absolutely should go after all this truly dispicable people and end the suffering of those they torment. The problem is having all the resources to do that, and the time, drive, logistics, and assurance that we will not be oblitterated in the process. What we do need is courage. Iraq is a first step to gaining the proper courage to take on other enemies of humanity, like the North Korean government, and get them to stand down and free their people.

Your justification is that we shouldn't attack Iraq because we didn't attack China or North Korea or Saudi Arabia or other more deserving places (yet). Even though it is hypocritical on the larger scale, with the specific issue of Iraq, if something could have been done about it, it should have been done. And it was. May we do more in the world and end our hypocracy. (Nevertheless, I'm willing to sustain a little hypocracy if it means sustaining the quality of human life.)

We didn't have to deal with a terrorist threat before. Our guys were safely at home, doing their thing, without any major problems. Now we're being constantly attacked, the economic infrastructure of Iraq will forever be at risk, and so on. Any 'terrorist' threat wasn't affecting us. Now it is, and it's going to cost untold billions.

It's affecting us as human beings. That's enough.

People see things differently, despite the drivel you wrote about people being basic mathematical equations.

If you're referring to that post I made a while back, you'll note that I was against the relativism that said that nothing exists but mathematical equations. You ought to inspect the post better, friend. I think it's drivel too.

This isn't about there not being some standard everyone can agree on (the Nazi principle, for example, had a lot of people who agreed on it, and I'm not saying it's 'right' despite what you may assert in your paragraphs of curious insults),

This cloaked rebuke and retort is really tiresome, more than anything because I can't decipher what you're talking about exactly. I think I can pick out that you're trying to pin me as some sort of Nazi apologist (don't know how that happened), but I'm not sure.

this is about how society in its current state has those who won't accept your definitions. Who won't accept your behaviors and actions as something they want.

The point is not that they are my definitions, but that they are the definitions. Take a basic philosophy course; Socrates, Plato, Aristotle; you'll see what I mean.

I agree with your guys' position,

You do?? Good heavens, then why have you contradicted it so vehemently?

I simply know that people see things differently, and I'm not stupid enough to think that certain honest, just, actions aren't going to be seen negatively, so I believe that the solution is to avoid allowing those honest actions to be seen that way if possible.

What? "...honest actions to be seen that way if possible..." huh? Could you clarify some of those? I may just be tired, but I I can't seem to understand what you mean.

Had we gone through the UN, for example, I would have no complaints, because at that point there would be little argument that we had unjust motives.

No no no no, this is a terrible sophistic argument, that rightness is determined by majority. It is not. Rightness exists as a concept independent of subjectivity. It's a matter of moulding our subjective points of view to conform with the objective reality (part of the quest).

As for going through the UN, we did do that. As members of the UN Security Council, the US and UK held up their obligations denoted in previous SC Resolutions, which gave them total lattitude for what they did in Iraq, and gave you what you wanted most: ending the embargo. The new SC Resolution was a courtesy. It wasn't necessary, and it was withdrawn accordingly.

clark has the belief that everyone should be basically bombed to death for "causing harm." Go for it. See how many terrorists you invent because they don't see it that way.

Clark isn't actually saying that. It may appear that way at first, but reading closer reveals that he's just making a point. I wouldn't agree with that either.

This is about resource considerations. All the examples you and clark have given have been reasonable in that it's not a stretch for individuals to make an effort to help those in need.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't help people here, I'm saying the approach should be different. If two towns are sharing a fire department, is it wiser to continue sharing the fire department (and increase its spending) or build another fire department that each town uses for itself except where they need to help each other? I don't see where you're deriving all this "don't help anyone" stuff from my posts. I'm being realistic; for example, how often do you hear in the news that a building was lost because there weren't enough fire trucks? (How long until the US has to "fight a fire" and she doesn't have enough "fire trucks?")

You didn't really seem to be saying that before... but I'll let that point go and give the benefit of the doubt then.

To themselves they are. When I see suicide bomber videos, where they basically give their last will and testament, I can tell they're at the bottom of the fucking barrel, and that their mindset is clearly beyond the fringe. To think that they don't feel justified is kind of naive in my mind. You have to feel justified to do something like that.

That doesn't make it right. Not all opinions are correct; not all things are defensible. More than that, no matter how many hardships these people have been through, no matter how much mind warping, it comes down to a choice for them. They can choose the high road (as some have done under far worse conditions), or the low road, as these terrorists too.

In reality, due to a lack of nurturing of the human spirit in our culture, in most all cultures, very few people naturally take the high road. Most take the low road, meaning that they defer to irrationale and illogic instead of using their natural faculties of wisdom. The difference with terrorists is that they're in an environment which offers a low road that goes very low indeed, and their lack of logic leads them to a cascade of malign behavior.

I'm not arguing with you guys about there not being an honest, humanist, approach to existance.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying that regardless of that, there will be people who don't see it that way, and we have to take that into consideration.

We can be compassionate to a degree, but some people you just can't argue with; some people are just too dedicated to killing you to be saved. That's when the unfortunate necessity of self-defense is employed, sad as it is.

Call it what you will.

I call it cynism.
There will always be room for reason.

Byron · 2003-09-08 06:57:48

Hey guys, I don't mean to butt into your little debate here...so please forgive me for this little intrusion.

I was reading the paper this morning about Mr. Bush's plea for more $$ for Iraq...the tab is already going past a $100 bil, and it's going to go much higher in the months to come. While I fully support the American government's efforts to stamp out terrorism as well as removing evil despots from power, I have a serious problem with the way Bush is handling this situation.

Simply put, I think he's putting the Iraqis ahead of his own people...it's all fine and dandy to have the benevolent desire to rebuild a war-torn nation in our image...but should we forsake our own people to do so? Isn't self-interest supposed to be at the top of the totem pole instead of the bottom? There are just so many things the U.S. needs right now...better education, universal health care coverage, a better transportation infrastructure...the list goes on and on, and here we are, prattling on about fixing Iraq, the people back home be dammed.

Fighting terrorism needs to be a global effort, with the costs to be shared by all nations...not just the one that happens to have the biggest, baddest military on the planet. There's going to come a time (sooner, rather than later) that we will no longer be able to support our vast military machine...so who's going to carry the load then? There is a finite limit to how much money we can spend on this...after all, there's <only> $10 trillion of the green stuff to go around...and once it's gone, it's gone. Can you imagine what the world would be like if the United States was a bankrupt nation?

Let's just not go that route...get the U.N. back together, start cutting deals with other rich nations...I don't care...because this unlimited checkbook policy is going to ruin us a whole lot faster than you may think...

B

clark · 2003-09-08 09:05:48

You know, it's gotten to the point now where I'm not sure what I'm saying, and what others think I'm saying...

As for personal attacks on me, I can't say I have been offended. I think of them as mental headloc.. I mean hugs. Mental hugs.

Here is something we agree on, "it's not okay to hurt others". Hurting others is wrong. There is no sense in hurting anyone.

We catch a criminal, we don't think they should be shot in the street where they were caught. We spend all this time on law and enforcement, protection of liberty, due process, et. al. for the sole reason that we beleive it is wrong to hurt others.

Why do we generally (most western societies) incarcerate criminals from our society? Becuase to do otherwise (read execution, forced labor, cutting the thumbs off, etc.) is to visit harm on another person without cause.

You know, I have this innate belief that rapists, child molestors, murderers, and other assorted violent offenders should all be brought out into the street and shot. That's my instinct. I wouldn't cry if they all just died.

Yet at the same time, i realize this blood lust. This senseless need for vindication and vengence. A dead rapist isn't a threat to me anymore, or anyone I care about. However, the State that killed them- the system in place to end that life, that IS a threat to me. Or at least it could conceivably be one day to any of us.

"It's never okay to kill, except when WE do it." That's the system we have in place now. That is but one bit of shining american hypocricy. Stoning women may be without due process, but the end result is exactly the same. Sanctioned murder of the individual by the group.

Now, this idea, this idea of it not being right to visit harm on others, that is objective.

Imagine if you will a game, in this game are two rolls, executed, and executioner. Now, we flip a coin to decide who is who. Before the game starts though, we can all decide on what are the limits of power given to the executioner. Now you don't know which one you will be before the game starts, so what basic rule would you have to limit the power fo the executioner?

I agree Josh, information and wealth can help bring freedom to people. Well, really, it helps bring more information with which they can make informed decisions. And generally, people making informed decisions, make better decisions for their lives, and for society.

Yet I think you realize, and which may have been lost in this discussion, that even with information, even with wealth, sometimes criminal elements prevent people from exercising their will. I'm saying this is wrong, and that we ought to help these people. I'm saying that these criminals intimadate people in a certain geographical location, which for some werid reason we "can't get involved", because of 'soverignty'.

A child being beaten by their parents come to mind. The parent has authority over their child. Are we, as a society, unallowed to protect the child from harm becuase of parental rights? If the child's life is threatened by a parent, say the parent is holding them hostage, are we unallowed to intervene, and even use dealy force inorder to protect the life of the child?

I'm not suggesting we go into countries becuase of their tax code, or their social welfare system, or lack of one. Basic and systematic harm being perpetuated on others is the only reason that justifies intervention.

You try to show how my rationale can justify terroism, and I must admit, it can. However, please remember that the United States won it's independance via terroism. We were without recource. We had no alternatives.

Just as stealing bread to feed your starving family is not a crime if there is no alternative, violence against others is justified when there are no alternatives.

That means we DO have to take a look at some terroists complaints, and where warranted, make changes to the system to reduce instances where they are warranted.

One of the thing the terroists complain about is US support of oppressive and unrepresenative regimes in the Middle east. That's something that needs to be changed (which we don't for 'security' reasons).

Regardless though, it should be more than the US fighting for this idea, it should be all people, all groups. There are two camps, those who think it's wrong to hurt others, and those who think it's okay. If we must, we must be prepared to use force to prevent those who have already decided that using force is acceptable.

Fight fire with fire, but control it.

I don't want war, but I certainly don't want the continual cycle of history to keep playing itself out on the worlds stage.

Byron · 2003-09-08 09:55:22

I don't want war, but I certainly don't want the continual cycle of history to keep playing itself out on the worlds stage.

Indeed. Unfortunately, the "cycle of history" is the one thing that the human race just hasn't been able to get under control....history has repeated itself for 1000's of years, and there's little reason not to think this will continue into the indefinate future, whether we want it to or not. It's like, we're dammed if we do, dammed if we don't. The point I'm trying to make these days is that we (the U.S.) needs to not lose sight of the problems here at home...what good is the global, "peacekeeping" hegemony if we allow things to fall apart in our own house? It's high time that we get "real" about this. I just can't help but to have the feeling that the terrorists are playing these games with us to do just that...making us forget about taking care of our "own" in the process of fighting them (after all, what do *they* have to lose...not much, it seems.)

But the United States...we're in the unfortunate position of having so much to lose, as opposed to the potential gains we may have by execising control over in the Middle East. I honestly feel that we've painted ourselves into a corner...which is exactly what the terrorists want to happen. I say it's time to start playing our own game, instead of theirs...the true strength of a nation begins at home, not in some distant land under a broiling sun.

Anyone care to revisit what happened to the great Roman Empire??...

We can debate all day long about the morality of what we're doing in Iraq...but we just cannot afford to lose sight of what's *really* important to America and the rest of the world...we just can't. We want to fight a war over there because we feel there's a legit reason to do so...fine, so be it. That's not what I have a problem with. The problem is paying for it. This idea of pulling mega-billions out of thin air, with the hope that it'll just somehow "fix itself" later on down the road...come on, people, it's time to get a grip on this situation. Let's get our own priorities straight and then figure out how to go about solving all of the world's problems.

I think I'll just leave it at that...

B

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-08 12:15:36

Ah, a Saddam apologist... I love you guys; you never cease to amaze me.

I was merely pointing out facts, I was in no way condoning what Saddam had done. If you want to call me an apologist for that, it's all good.

If you mean an alternative solution, I didn't need to give one because I already supported the alternative solution that was employed, the invasion and restoration of Iraq at a fundamental level.

Oh, I support it now, after the fact. I would see no rationale in us leaving in the spur of the momment. The only thing I may wish is for my brother to come home, but we need to be there now more than ever.

I wasn't asking for an alternate solution, though. I was merely expecting you to give me an example as to why lifting embargos and increasing economic wealth is "naive." Just calling names doesn't make it so.

I'd also like to note that I have not once insulted you personally, but only criticized your ideas.

In an insulting way, of course.

Note that I'm not regarding you in a similar way because I know that it can devolve into a bitch fight. I've had similar arguments with clark before and it's quite tiresome.

I could do it, of course. There are numerous words I could assign to your arguments. (And in fact, I'm having to go to greath lenghts in this very post to not do so.)

You're absolutely right. This is my largest problem with the way we do things now. We absolutely should go after all this truly dispicable people and end the suffering of those they torment.

Ahh, but ending the suffering of others isn't easy when you chose to do it via violent means. Note that, in the link I provided, we were the creators of these truely dispicable people and we caused the suffering of those they tormented.

The problem is having all the resources to do that, and the time, drive, logistics, and assurance that we will not be oblitterated in the process.

Well absolutely. That's what I'm saying. And on top of that, we have to make sure that we're not going to create resentment along the way. Right now, the US is inarguably the most disliked country in the world when it comes to foreign policy. You can disagree with this and simply call the rest of the world wrong, or you can sit back and try to determine why the rest of the world thinks this way. It's up to you.

Your justification is that we shouldn't attack Iraq because we didn't attack China or North Korea or Saudi Arabia or other more deserving places (yet).

Well, no, my justification is that we aren't consistant in any case, and we will never be consistant because that's simply our how politics work. We will never attack Saudi Arabia, we will never attack China. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. We don't attack our friends, no matter how dispicable they are (and we have no qualms making friends with dispicable people, despite this drivel about how we're wonderful humanists). We will probably attack North Korea in the coming years, especially if Bush gets reelected (I'm beginning to question that possiblity, though it's possible the country really is that insane).

You are somewhat naive to think that our intentions when we attack a country are always good. If they were 'good' the US wouldn't have had to go to the UN with extremely dubious 'facts' in order to try to convince everyone war was necessary.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to sustain a little hypocracy if it means sustaining the quality of human life.

But it is that hypocracy that creates terrorism and resentment.

It's affecting us as human beings. That's enough.

It's affecting more now than it did before, though. I think that's the point I was trying to make. When you try to attack a problem, you want to come out on top, not make things worse.

I think I can pick out that you're trying to pin me as some sort of Nazi apologist (don't know how that happened), but I'm not sure.

No, I'm saying groups are quite able to believe certain things that conflict with virtues like equality, which humans have been trying to perfect for hundreds of years. And that when you and clark argue for a human obligation to fight one anothers wars, that view can certainly be agreed upon by people. It doesn't make it right.

You do?? Good heavens, then why have you contradicted it so vehemently?

Quote me contridicting you guys. I'm merely disagreeing on approach.

What? "...honest actions to be seen that way if possible..." huh? Could you clarify some of those? I may just be tired, but I I can't seem to understand what you mean.

Erm, I was tired also. I have been quite busy and would rather not continue these discussions, but I'm not going to bow out like Shaun. At least not without exerting a lot of effort here.

I'm just saying that if you can avoid being tagged as a bad guy, do it. For every situation where diplomatic solutions are available, don't drop a bomb. And when diplomatic solutions aren't available, increase the threat of action, but indeed, don't drop bombs; try again to have a diplomatic solution.

Bombs are the last solution.

No no no no, this is a terrible sophistic argument, that rightness is determined by majority. It is not.

I wasn't saying that it was, but people in the world do look at the UN as a good, or ideal, arbiter in these sorts of situations (even if it currently isn't because some countries decide to ignore it). We're arguing that we should come together, yet in the same sentence, we say that we're right and everyone else is wrong. Sounds foolish, wouldn't you agree?

It's a matter of moulding our subjective points of view to conform with the objective reality.

Or in the case of the US when we went to the UN, to mould objective reality to conform with our subjective points of view (ie, "here are the WMDs! don't you see?!?").

The new SC Resolution was a courtesy. It wasn't necessary, and it was withdrawn accordingly.

It's about perceptions. It wasn't necessary, I agree totally. But once it happened, there was no turning back. "Withdrawing accordingly" doesn't mean anything; it's like offering something and childishly taking it back because you realize you can get your way anyway. If the troops on the ground in Iraq had UN written on them, we'd be a lot better off than we are now.

You didn't really seem to be saying that before... but I'll let that point go and give the benefit of the doubt then.

Oh c'mon, that's the whole reason my scenarios were somewhat absurd, I had to interject some sort of individual resource problem. Most individual scenarios don't have such problems (though I think I hit it on the nail the the father-daughter example).

That doesn't make it right. Not all opinions are correct; not all things are defensible.

I never once suggested otherwise (feel free to show me how I did). I'm merely saying that if we ignore the reasons behind certain positions, we're not going to get anywhere, and we'll only wind up creating more problems.

In reality, due to a lack of nurturing of the human spirit in our culture, in most all cultures, very few people naturally take the high road.

Yes, and I would argue that this is more a case of economics than basic radicalism.

We can be compassionate to a degree, but some people you just can't argue with; some people are just too dedicated to killing you to be saved.

Obviously you can't do anything about those people. But you can take steps to keep more of those types from being invented. They're not magically born into thin air. their environment creates them.

clark,

I don't want war, but I certainly don't want the continual cycle of history to keep playing itself out on the worlds stage.

Then I suggest for that every situation that you think war is necessary to prevent further harm to humanity, you reasses your position. I simply don't think they're necessary for a majority of situations.

I can think of one situation. It was an African country. Many thousands of people died in acts of genocide. I bet you couldn't even name it.

I bet none of you could.

Byron · 2003-09-08 12:38:58

I can think of one situation. It was an African country. Many thousands of people died in acts of genocide.

You wouldn't happen to be referring to Rwanda, would you?

B

clark · 2003-09-08 12:41:26

Josh, I like you. No, really, I do.

I don't think I've maligned your charater. I don't think I've called you names. Or say that any of your points are stupid, insane, or what not.

You are extremly moderate in your responses, and show a liberal approach to freedom and the dignity of man.

You agree that in some instances, as a last resort, violence is an answer. I agree Josh. We agree. I think most adults, with enough information, and enough personal 'wealth' will arrive at the same conclusions. Sometimes reason dosen't work. Sometimes an idea, no matter how sensible it is, must be crammed down peoples throat wheter they like it or not.

We can both cite examples from history that prove and disprove this point. But the point still remains, that this 'approach' can be te harbinger of better days of man.

A civil war threatened the very instution of this great experiment called America. An idea was forced upon others for a better world for all. This is what I am getting at.

You cite the UN as a fair means to come to a consensus for times of action, and I agree with you. I think we should have gone to the UN, and instead of waving reams of unfactual reports on WMD's for a reason to invade, we should have waved reams of evidence depicting the horrible crimes against humanity that were occuring on an hourly basis within Iraq's border.

But you see what happens if we had simply done that? Do you understand the repercussions of attempting that? Invading a soverign country for crimes against humanity? For killing their people?

The UN is a great instution, unfortunetly it allows less than great countries to be represented there. These 'less than great' countries are far from interested in the welfare of their people. So to go in on that declaration would to put the rest of the despots of the world on notice.

Do you see the problem, as well as the beauty of such a bold declaration?

I can think of one situation. It was an African country. Many thousands of people died in acts of genocide. I bet you couldn't even name it.
I bet none of you could.

There are so many....

Rwanda
South Africa
Botswanna (against the San)
General victims from ongoing, or previous ethnic cleansing:
Congolese
Ugandans
Burundians

Spider-Man · 2003-09-09 00:52:24

Very well reasoned, Clark; I agree with virtually all you said.

You try to show how my rationale can justify terroism, and I must admit, it can. However, please remember that the United States won it's independance via terroism. We were without recource. We had no alternatives.

Actually, it wasn't terrorism, but guerrilla tactics. We set the standard of the next century of warfare. Our generals didn't deliberately attack civilians to achieve our end of freedom. The British generals would, however, on occasion, terrorize the American folk, in order to quell the resistance and subdue the Patriot foe.

Anyone care to revisit what happened to the great Roman Empire??...

Yes, Byron; they stopped fighting wars. As a result, they stopped expanding themselves physically. Because of this, they stopped expanding themselves mentally, and became decadent and eventually fell apart. By not ensuring greater knowledge, especially military knowledge, such as of terrain, they weakened themselves ten fold. The Barbarians stormed the gates, and the Empire fell.

This doesn't mean we have to follow the same example, of course, but such was Rome's fate.

clark · 2003-09-09 10:18:46

Actually, it wasn't terrorism, but guerrilla tactics. We set the standard of the next century of warfare. Our generals didn't deliberately attack civilians to achieve our end of freedom.

Um, no. I haven't the facts to contend the behaviour of our generals during the Revolutionary war, but I am aware that many a man turned on his neighbors depending on which crown they supported during that time.

The birth of the revolution was a terroist act, it was to move beyond the restrictions of the governing law (my point).

I would also like to point out that America did not set some example for the coming century.

Unless of course General Sherman and his oh so famous march to the sea can be called the actions of a saint.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-09 13:01:57

heh, Rome fell because it stopped being a warmonger...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2003-09-03 17:53:45

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#102 2003-09-04 13:02:07

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#103 2003-09-04 14:05:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#104 2003-09-05 08:18:46

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#105 2003-09-05 11:42:11

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#106 2003-09-05 12:56:27

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#107 2003-09-05 13:16:51

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#108 2003-09-06 14:23:52

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#109 2003-09-06 14:52:15

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#110 2003-09-06 15:04:55

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#111 2003-09-06 15:25:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#112 2003-09-06 16:11:37

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#113 2003-09-06 22:08:49

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#114 2003-09-06 22:41:01

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#115 2003-09-07 17:31:24

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#116 2003-09-07 22:13:30

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#117 2003-09-08 06:57:48

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#118 2003-09-08 09:05:48

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#119 2003-09-08 09:55:22

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#120 2003-09-08 12:15:36

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#121 2003-09-08 12:38:58

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#122 2003-09-08 12:41:26

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#123 2003-09-09 00:52:24

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#124 2003-09-09 10:18:46

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

#125 2003-09-09 13:01:57

Re: Appropriate Topics: On War and Politics

Board footer