Mr. G: "Can" does not imply "ought". The fact that the US can attack Iraq with impunity does not mean that that action is in any way morally justifiable. You can shout all you want about how all the other nations will just have to accept US hegemony, and you will be right about the fact, but morally wrong nonetheless. Perhaps, in practice, asking for moral justification is doomed to failure. But it is the responsibility of every moral person not only to do what is right in their personal actions, but to exhort others to do right as well. Even if the US government cannot be swayed by moral arguments, that does not mean that such arguments are in any way a waste of time. To stay silent is to consent. Consent to tyranny is wrong. You should read the works of some of America's founding fathers. They knew these things. They held them to be self-evident truths. Somewhere along the line, things have slipped in the land of the free, it seems. --------- <i>Explaining ad naseum is just Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Just accept the fact that we're not interested in repeating that particular bit of anecdotal history when we can go out and kick some serious butt in proactive self-defense.</i> Rah rah rah. Where's the justification? <i>You don't have to like it; you just have to hope you haven't pissed us off so we come for you next. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!</i> Like Xev, I hope for your sake you never need help from somebody more powerful than yourself. <i>Because of the facts--his and ours--Hussein with nukes is not going to happen. Thanks to Clinton, we now have N. Korea with nukes. Crazy fanatics with nukes should make everyone nervous. We aren't going to die passively so you can feel we should.</i> But this is the crux of the issue. <b>There is no evidence that Saddam has or is developing nuclear weapons</b>. At least, none that I've seen. So, why attack him?
I know the answer Adam, we should strictly bash Iraq from now on, maybe Mr. G (being the national concious of american soceity) will listen to us again.....
Nah. Even if you say something clearly obvious, or supported by evidence, the best you'll get out of patriot-boy is: - Yawn. - Your "facts" are just opinions. - America is biggest, it can do what it wants. - No, I'm not wrong, I was... um... pushing buttons!... I think it's just not worth it. He's a theist and a patriot, both conditions which require ignorance.
James R.: Call it shouting as you like, but I have seen too few stand and speak contrary to the forum's members all speaking from a leftist, (hyper-)liberal (if not outright socialist) perspective--the local hegemony. For motives entirely my own, I don't mind standing up in a crowd to say "You know, this is all very interesting but don't you imagine that there is at least one other possible alternative perspective founded on the same available data set?" I am intrigued how on different scales the hegemonists and the exhortists reverse roles. I cannot disagree with this, nor would I try. But ethereal morality (morality in a universal context, as opposed to morality in a local context--such as that prefered by militant, radical, Islamists (situationally redefineable morality) is not, in and of itself, entirely sufficient for the ensuring the national defense of the US; and in so far as it is generally in a nation's own best interest to behave according to common consensus, there are times when common consensus--another hegemony--can agree to a wrong course of action (as time tells). Is there in international affairs no conceivable possibility for a minority to disagree and operate democratically in opposition to a majority's desires? And so I've stood amongst you and broken the silence. ....self-evident truths, that all men are created equal....(well, except the slaves many of the founding fathers owned at the time things were being self-evident.) There's idealism and there's pragmatism. Insepctions in Iraq: A Primer To eliminate the risks of internationally distrusted Saddam Hussein using nuclear blackmail against his neighbors--especially Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirants, etc.. To eliminate Iraq's funding of terrorism in the Palestinian Territories. To mitigate transference of WMD/WMD technologies to other nations and terrorist/organized crime organizations. To free Iraq from despotism, restore conditions conducive to economic revitalization. To make it possible for more progressive Arab states such as Jordan to more comfortably embrace the West and for the economic advantages afforded its population through increased regional and international trade. To exert cultural reform pressure on Iran so that its young, educated citizens can more confidently press the ruling religionists for increased democracy and decreased fundimentalism. To increase Iraqi oil production, raising Iraqi revenue and lowering the word market price for oil, stimulating economic growth internationally: some of this reveune must be invested into alternative energy techologies for the purpose of reducing oil profits in OPEC and non-OEC nations to encourage them to increase their revenues by investing in an educated/innovative workforce because just drilling holes in the ground isn't going to be enough for their needs (as Thomas Freidman of the New York Times advocates. Oh my gosh, a 'right-winger' who reads the NYT. What is this world coming to?) Vortexx: I don't presume to be American society's conscious, just an advocate for a point of view not your own and inadequately represented in this on-going leftist lovefest, for reasons stated above. Speaking of ignorance: in fact--as I've stated in our conversations on several previous occasions--I am an Atheist. And the fact that I am also a patriot and an advocate of protecting US national sovereignity and viability you can characterize however you like, but it won't change the fact you are sterotyping in the best tradition of scurulous bigots.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! what noble and lofty principles. i am wondering whether to puke or lol good one g!
I'd like to re-visit this from James R.: Let's for a moment step back from the question about whether or not there is justification for nations to war against one another. Let me pose the question: If every moral person on the planet spends their life exhorting every other person on the planet to do right as well, will there ever be a time in the future when the planet no longer has a need for policemen, security guards and do-right exhorters?
James R: Argument from adverse consequences and illogical to boot. If Mr.G needs help from somebody more powerful than himself, he'll either get or not get it regardless of what he posts on internet forums.
<b>Mr. G</b>: <i>Call it shouting as you like, but I have seen too few stand and speak contrary to the forum's members all speaking from a leftist, (hyper-)liberal (if not outright socialist) perspective--the local hegemony.</i> I wonder whether you put me into that particular basket. Considering that you have no basis on which to judge my political leanings, I wonder where this is coming from. <i>But ethereal morality (morality in a universal context, as opposed to morality in a local context--such as that prefered by militant, radical, Islamists (situationally redefineable morality) is not, in and of itself, entirely sufficient for the ensuring the national defense of the US; and in so far as it is generally in a nation's own best interest to behave according to common consensus, there are times when common consensus--another hegemony--can agree to a wrong course of action (as time tells).</i> Basically, you are saying that countries don't always act for good moral reasons. No argument from me there. <i>....self-evident truths, that all men are created equal....(well, except the slaves many of the founding fathers owned at the time things were being self-evident.) There's idealism and there's pragmatism.</i> Then there's misplaced nationalism. <i>[Why attack?] To eliminate the risks of internationally distrusted Saddam Hussein using nuclear blackmail against his neighbors--especially Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirants, etc.</i> Is the US internationally trusted, do you think? What about the military blackmail it uses? <i>To eliminate Iraq's funding of terrorism in the Palestinian Territories.</i> What about the US's previous funding of Iraq? <i>To mitigate transference of WMD/WMD technologies to other nations and terrorist/organized crime organizations.</i> What about the US's stockpiling of the world's largest nuclear arsenal? <i>To free Iraq from despotism, restore conditions conducive to economic revitalization.</i> To ensure a free market you advocate attacking an independent nation? Should Australia attack the US over its farm subsidies? <i>To make it possible for more progressive Arab states such as Jordan to more comfortably embrace the West and for the economic advantages afforded its population through increased regional and international trade.</i> It is not necessary to attack Iraq to do that. <i>To exert cultural reform pressure on Iran so that its young, educated citizens can more confidently press the ruling religionists for increased democracy and decreased fundimentalism.</i> That's a bit far-fetched, isn't it? How are Iran's citizens affected by what happens in Iraq? <i>To increase Iraqi oil production, raising Iraqi revenue and lowering the word market price for oil, stimulating economic growth internationally...</i> Ah yes, oil for the US. <i>Let me pose the question: If every moral person on the planet spends their life exhorting every other person on the planet to do right as well, will there ever be a time in the future when the planet no longer has a need for policemen, security guards and do-right exhorters?</i> No. Human nature and evolutionary psychology tells us that there will always be "cheaters" who act immorally for their own ends. <b>Xev</b>: <i>Argument from adverse consequences and illogical to boot.</i> Ah... it wasn't an argument, Xev. I was expressing a hope on behalf of Mr G. and yourself.
Not anymore. John Ashcroft (fascist, religious fanatic and all-around not-good guy) is now our highest chief of police. Make no mistake: George W. Bush and the people he has appointed to his administration are on a religious crusade. And it's got nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America. I'm afraid for all of us.
James R: Actually, I do; though your writings are more reasoned and more reasonable than your basket-mates', the fact that you express political perspectives largely different than my own is a pretty good clue that the communal data set is not unambiguously definitive. You have your interpretation, I have mine. Neither of us can be truly certain of our philosophic allegiences, no? In that we are probably closer to one another than to all the group-think junkies (with whom you're wondering I'm equating you) herein who think the most important thing in life and the universe is for everyone to think alike. Not so simple a disassembly, there. I'm saying that nation-collectives are not incapable of errant group-think. Nor are single nations incapable of laser-like analysis while the Collective is acting Lemmingsville. And then there's misplaced anti-nationalism. We're all trying to influence one another, no? Where's the surprise that nations of people attempt to influence one another, too? Trust? Isn't that the presumption of being needed? Trust is just another marketable commodity, as you and others are quick to remind us Yanks ("Deal with us on agreeable terms or you ain't getting any of what we think you need")? Buying influence by giving money/material/support doesn't ensure loyalty--it hasn't purchased for the US an Australia free of US-bashing, has it? Not the largest (ref: Russia), just the most deadly. And we haven't used it on anyone since '45. Then again, in '45 we used all we had. Now, we have more and we can't seem to use them, with or without the permission of others. No. Iraq is currently irrelevent to the global free market. Should you beat your wife for withholding sex? Maybe our Arab allies think it is. Do you know what our Arab allies having been privately saying to the US government on the matter? Why might we feel so bold in the face of non-regional opinion? US-facilitated, voluntarily-adopted Iraqi democracy might just embolden those democracy-minded Iranians to strive for more democracy, too. Since when are you a critic of uncertain, even improbable, idealism? Actually, more of the oil would go to Europe and Japan than to the US. Thank you. You make the inarguable point for the need for occasional policing-actions, no matter the pleadings of the never-no-how warriors.
If there is ever a time we do not need some policeman analogue I do not wish to see it. It would mean we would have become little more than glorified termites. The ideal solution would be to have some sort of omnicient unthinking power that dispatched automatic and unwavering penalties for various crimes. (ie: you kill someone---> lightning bolt strikes you down) Sadly people have to do it or the wrongs just keep being committed. Someone does a wrong and benifits from it but nobody punishes them they will do it again. Somebody else sees them doing it and benifiting from it they will also do it. Monkey see, monkey do.
Mr. G: <i>I'm saying that nation-collectives are not incapable of errant group-think. Nor are single nations incapable of laser-like analysis while the Collective is acting </i>Lemmingsville. i.e. the US knows what's best, and the large majority of other nations which oppose a US strike on Iraq are just Lemmings who can't make their own judgments. Interesting point of view. <i>And then there's misplaced anti-nationalism.</i> I personally don't believe there is such a thing as misplaced <i>anti</i>-nationalism. Anti-nationalism is always a good thing. Rampant nationalism has never led to anything good. <i>Trust? Isn't that the presumption of being needed? Trust is just another marketable commodity...</i> You can't buy trust. You need to earn it in other ways. <i>Buying influence by giving money/material/support doesn't ensure loyalty--it hasn't purchased for the US an Australia free of US-bashing, has it?</i> See what I mean? <i>Not the largest (ref: Russia), just the most deadly. And we haven't used it on anyone since '45. Then again, in '45 we used all we had.</i> Really? I thought the US arsenal was bigger these days. My mistake, I guess. <i>Now, we have more and we can't seem to use them, with or without the permission of others.</i> Are you saying you'd <i>want</i> to use them? Under what circumstances? <i>Should you beat your wife for withholding sex?</i> I don't see the connection. (My answer is no, BTW.) <i>US-facilitated, voluntarily-adopted Iraqi democracy...</i> There's nothing voluntary about democracy imposed by conquest. <i>... might just embolden those democracy-minded Iranians to strive for more democracy, too. Since when are you a critic of uncertain, even improbable, idealism?</i> The people of Iran are doing quite well on their own. They don't need the US to invade Iraq to work towards democracy. They are already doing that themselves. <i>Thank you. You make the inarguable point for the need for occasional policing-actions, no matter the pleadings of the never-no-how warriors.</i> I have not argued against occasional policing actions, as far as I can recall. I am arguing against invasion of a sovereign nation which has done nothing wrong lately (to all appearances). If Iraq needs policing, show me the evidence which says so. That's all I ask.
James R Not precisely, no. Certainly the US knows best what is best for itself and less so for what is best for others--being as capable of making its own judgements as any nation. And where interests diverge disagreements result. If the US decides its interests are better served by Hussein recognizing it's time to step down from power, it must have judged it the least onerous circumstance of others it estimates it will face in the future. If the Kuwaitis, Qataris, Jordanians, Israelis, Saudi's, UA Emiratis, the Afghanis, Pakistani's, Turks, Kurds and others weren't facilitating us in our policies toward Iraq and the region we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Do you believe in protection of national/state sovereignity? You certainly think the US should not be able to tell other nations what to think/do. Isn't your own exhorting of nations to stand in honorable opposition to US foreign policy pro-nationalism? Agreed. Yet, the earning still is a purchase price, no? Mutual self-interest served by reciprocal investment? Operating from recollection, I believe our operational nuke arsenal is larger but Russia still has a few more nukes overall--both operational and moth-balled. No! Exploding nukes is not a good idea. Rattling of nukes seems to be their most effective use--for deterence, or blackmail. At least for states. For non-state entities such as terrorists and criminals the use of nukes I fear is as important as their rattling. If the US doesn't acquiesce on farm subsidies is Australia prepared to attack? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, nor is it necessarily undesireable (ref: Japan). Even if The US initially succeeds in forcing democracy onto Iraqis, as some point the US will have to step back and allow Iraqi's true democratic self-determination. At that moment, it is just as likely that Iraq devolves into at least three autonomus regions (democratic Kurd north, undecided Sunni middle, and Iran-styled Shiite south) with no unified system of governance nor west-leaning support for US policies in the region. I imagine the US is interested it re-establishing market forces into the country to raise the standards of living so that each groups' self-interests become interwined nationally and internationally. Quite well? Depends on the Iranian whom you ask. I was just establishing that even you think that violent confrontation has its occasional purposes in the management of international affairs. Hey, where's that streak of anti-nationalism hiding? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But can you say the same is true in substance? I think the UN Security Council has a better stash of evidence than do I. And they have resolved to police Iraq based on those evidences, up to and including force, if necessary. Come February, the Security Council may not be unanimous but neither will the US be going it alone should it decide to protect its interests and those of its allies in the region who support such action at that point in time. It won't be so easy for world opinion to say the US is unilaterally throwing its weight around when it first had to find support for its positions and policy in and around the region. And then, what of the UN which presumes to disarm Iraq (its stated goal and position on numerous occasions) by insufficient means? The UN claims the authority to do so for what it considers good reason(s) but should it fail at the task--especially if disasterously--due to lack of will or of means, then where does the responsibility lay? And at what costs to itself and to Hussein's victims?
Clockwood: I find the thought of Christianity's Heaven to be similarly unpleasant for the same reason. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hm, might I put in a word? Mercy and compassion is only for the truly great, and can not occur on an international-relations scale, so the U.S. is not to be blamed for its bitching and diplomatic stupidity. However, the US is making a bunch of enemies around itself and if it is not careful...Mr G, you might do well to know that Nazi Germany and the Soviet combined was far more powerful than the US in terms of firepower, yet the Allies grouped together and won. A similar thing could happen, and if the US is not careful, if it underestimates its enemies, it can easily collapse under sufficient pressure. See you round when Bin Laden comes back to rape Bush. I'll be there.
Zero: You don't really know. That's okay. No one else really knows either. That's what make wishful thinking such a natural high.
