[pbleighton]

Quote

Which no country has done since Pearl Harbor...

You could make a case that the Afghani government, by sheltering Al Qaeda, had entered into an active alliance with a group which had indeed comitted an act of war against the U.S. This is a murky case, and I don't think we have handled Afghanistan well at all, but there was some justification in that invasion. The problem was that, *if you break it, you own it*, and Bush has been consistently irresponsible in this respect, as in others.

Peter

[Winstonm]

The U.S. is in no position to begin a campaign of conquest and occupation against Iran, which to me makes the possibilities even more chilling - the only option available is an air campaign, and that could involve the use of nuclear arms.

For those who support war against Iran, I can only submit that you had better be 100% correct that it would prevent a future detonation of a nuclear device within the U.S. - there is no other viable reason for war. The consequences of being wrong in this assumption are too horrific to imagine. Can the nuclear risk ever be contained, though, as Russia and Pakistan are also possible sources for terrorist devices?

[pbleighton]

More and more countries will have nuclear weapons. We had better get used to it.

Peter

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 10 2007, 11:35 PM, said:

~~Whether or not we mind seems irrelevant; whether or not we have the right to militarily stop them seems to be the correct question. ~~

it all comes back to this, eh? but we had a pretty long thread a year or so ago on 'right' vs. 'wrong' from a philosophical viewpoint, and if memory serves you have no basis to call an action right or wrong since (you can correct me if i'm wrong) neither exist, objectively... as for 'right', in your opinion does might make right? if not, what does? opinion? polls?

pbleighton, on Jul 11 2007, 06:08 AM, said:

BTW, Mike, you miss the point once again (you are remarkable). U.N. approval is neither necessary nor sufficient for us to attack a country. The issue is actually quite simple.  We should attack a country when it commits an act of war against us. Preemptive war is both self-destructive and morally wrong.

mike missed no point, he asked a question.. and his question was answered by ron and helene... it's my opinion that mike is misunderstood by a lot of posters, i just don't know whether it's purposefully done.. his questions are thought provoking and, unfortunately, are usually answered shallowly (imo)

as for your "morally wrong" statement, you have no basis for making it... you are one of the people who deny such a thing exists, or who define the term in such a subjective manner as to make it useless

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Jul 11 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

but we had a pretty long thread a year or so ago on 'right' vs. 'wrong' from a philosophical viewpoint, and if memory serves you have no basis to call an action right or wrong since (you can correct me if I'm wrong) neither exist, objectively... as for 'right', in your opinion does might make right? if not, what does? opinion? polls?

I think the word "right" in "I have the right to ....." is completely different from the word "right" in "the right thing to do is ....". Some may disagree but I don't care. Semantics, seschmantics.

In either case, you can express your humble opinion and I can express my humble opinion. If you are referring to some other frame of reference than your own humble opinion, it's probably a good idea to state that explicitly to avoid misunderstandings. So
"According to the x-philosophy of ethics, the right thing to do is ....." means exactly what is says, while
"The right thing do do, is ...." means "IMHO, the right thing to do is ....."

Quote

as for your "morally wrong" statement, you have no basis for making it... you are one of the people who deny such a thing exists, or who define the term in such a subjective matter as to make it useless

Well, useless to you, apparently. Fair enough.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jul 11 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 11 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

but we had a pretty long thread a year or so ago on 'right' vs. 'wrong' from a philosophical viewpoint, and if memory serves you have no basis to call an action right or wrong since (you can correct me if i'm wrong) neither exist, objectively... as for 'right', in your opinion does might make right? if not, what does? opinion? polls?

I think the word "right" in "I have the right to ....." is completely different from the word "right" in "the right thing to do is ....". Some may disagree but I don't care. Semantics, seschmantics.

In either case, you can express your humble opinion and I can express my humble opinion. If you are refering to some other frame of reference than your own humble opinion, it's probably a good idea to state that explicitly to avoid misunderstandings. So
"According to the x-philophy of ethics, the right thing to do is ....." means excactly what is says, while
"The right thing do do, is ...." means "IMHO, the right thing to do is ....."

that's true, helene, but it doesn't answer the core question that mike asked... where does this right come from? what makes an action "right?" if, as you suggest, it is a humble opinion, then (assuming we do go to war in iran) it would just be america's humble opinion that war was justified

helene_t said:

Quote

as for your "morally wrong" statement, you have no basis for making it... you are one of the people who deny such a thing exists, or who define the term in such a subjective matter as to make it useless

Well, useless to you, apparently. Fair enough.

helene, does such a thing exist? if so, how is it defined?

[helene_t]

America doesn't have a humble opinion. It has some 270,000,000 humble opinions.

And indeed, I don't know where my humble opinion comes from. Sorry.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jul 11 2007, 10:49 AM, said:

America doesn't have a humble opinion. It has some 270,000,000 humble opinions.

And indeed, I don't know where my humble opinion comes from. Sorry.

your opinion(s) and where they come from are your business and i'm perfectly happy reading them... i was speaking of peter's use of the term "morally wrong" and trying to understand how it is determined and/or who determines it

[Winstonm]

First in response to Jimmy's comments.

I have said that actions have consequences. Might indeed makes right as in the powerful can do as they please with no penalty - but they cannot escape the consequences of their actions.

In that sense the U.S. has the "right" to do as it pleases, as no other country can penalize us sufficiently for those actions. However, the U.S. has to live with the consequences of those actions. This is what Ron Paul says, as well, and what the CIA reports call blowback.

My point in using the term "right" in my construction was should our leaders have the right to overrule the majority interest. My main thrust was in pointing out the strong influence of Leo Strauss teachings on the core power group of the U.S.

As for Mike's statement, he said that we don't have to go to war if we don't mind Iran having nuclear weapons. That is a sweeping statement that makes a presumption that Iran is after nuclear weapons. It also suggests that even if they are the only way to stop them is war. If I accept that premise, I am on the defensive to prove my position - and as soon as I do that, I validate his presumption. I do not validate that presumption and thus will not debate on that basis. I would say when it comes to war, especially a holocaustic war of these proportions, the burden of proof must lie with those espousing war, not opposing it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I hate to call any question absurd on the terrorist subject. Highly improbable, sure. I guess I am saying there are asymetric ideas, highly improbable, but still worth discussing on this subject. I do not think that makes one a racist, hate filled or evil person.

Quote

Do you really belive this. This is really Absurd.

Bush starts a war with Iran to stay longer in office? ROFL

I hate to use Mike's comments after he said he was through with this thread, and if he is still reading it I invite him back in.

In the first comment, we see a justification. When the absurdity fits your worldview, you stretch to make it plausible.

The second statement does not fit that same world view, so it must of necessity be absurd.

What makes the first "absurdity" worthy of discussion while the second "sbsurdity" is laughable?

[Al_U_Card]

The only terrorists are the power elite right there in the good old US of A. They are pretty good at doing terrible things. Their only goal, now that they have the money and the power seems to revolve around the exercise of their might.....the main problem is just how inept they are at it.

Nuclear weapons? Not likely. There is no profit in them and think of the oil fields that would be lost.....


btw, they have never had so much scrutiny and so much exposure.....wonder when they will declare the internet a security risk and try to control it.....

[the hog]

Gerben42, on Jul 11 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

Quote

We should attack a country when it commits an act of war against us.

Which no country has done since Pearl Harbor...

Not quite true. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Nth Korea invaded the South. Also Thailand launched an unprovoked incursion agains Laos some 12 years ago. What about The Gulf War?

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Jul 11 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Jul 11 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

Quote

We should attack a country when it commits an act of war against us.

Which no country has done since Pearl Harbor...

Not quite true. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Nth Korea invaded the South. Also Thailand launched an unprovoked incursion agains Laos some 12 years ago. What about The Gulf War?

Admittedly, the Gulf War was caused by justifiable confusion, to paraphrase:

Saddam: "Kuwait is stealing oil from our oil fields using slanted drilling!"
U.S. Ambassador: "So what do you want us to do about it?"
Saddam: "Lean on them, make them stop!"
U.S. Ambassador: "Nope, this is your problem. You two deal with it, we won't interfere."
Saddam: "You won't?"
U.S. Ambassador: "Nope, deal with it yourselves".

And less than a month later, Iraq invaded.

You know, maybe this idea of giving ambassadorships to major donors of the winning party isn't such a good idea.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 11 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

First in response to Jimmy's comments.

I have said that actions have consequences.  Might indeed makes right as in the powerful can do as they please with no penalty - but they cannot escape the consequences of their actions.

In that sense the U.S. has the "right" to do as it pleases, as no other country can penalize us sufficiently for those actions.  However, the U.S. has to live with the consequences of those actions.  This is what Ron Paul says, as well, and what the CIA reports call blowback.

i agree, actions do have consequences.. i disagree with the 'right makes right' philosophy, but when one has no objective definition of "morally right" then one must make use of subjectivity, and this is usually based on one's worldview

Quote

My point in using the term "right" in my construction was should our leaders have the right to overrule the majority interest.  My main thrust was in pointing out the strong influence of Leo Strauss teachings on the core power group of the U.S.

i think our rulers since the founding of the country have overruled majority opinion... i know that the majority of the u.s. population was not in favor of getting involved in the war in europe during wwII, for example... that's one of the dangers of a representative form of gov't... as for leo strauss, i personally find any philosophy that is based on deception to be inherently flawed, though i'm not in a position to defend that statement

Quote

As for Mike's statement, he said that we don't have to go to war if we don't mind Iran having nuclear weapons.  That is a sweeping statement that makes a presumption that Iran is after nuclear weapons.  It also suggests that even if they are the only way to stop them is war.  If I accept that premise, I am on the defensive to prove my position - and as soon as I do that, I validate his presumption.

you can accept either or both of those premises without validating either... that's what debate is all about...

[Winstonm]

Quote

you can accept either or both of those premises without validating either... that's what debate is all about...

You left out my choice, which is to accept neither. So the debate could only be about the statement made: "No, not if you don't mind Iran having nuclear weapons" in response to the question "Will we go to war with Iran?" To me, this is a statement that presupposes that Iran will create those weapons and that war is the only way to stop them.

These are two distinct questions: will Iran create nuclear weapons and should war be used to stop them before they succeed?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 10 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

Quote

U.S. sending third aircraft carrier to the Middle East

Associated Press
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates: The United States is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, the U.S. Navy said Tuesday in a move that bolstered U.S. military capability at a time of tension with Iran and stepped-up operations in Iraq.

Will there be war with Iran?

btw my local newspaper says we are not sending a third carrier group. Is this typical misinformation by our great media? My small, local, paper says this is a replacement group?

Please reconfirm your facts or just say you hate Bush and anything he may do please.

I note even if this was a third group on station, no one, I repeat no one said, yes, well done.

For those who think bush is trying to stay on past his term limit, please explain how?

At first I was really really angry with the insult to our military, after I cooled off I saw all or almost all seemed to be non usa who may not know how the system works.

[the hog]

"At first I was really really angry with the insult to our military, after I cooled off I saw all or almost all seemed to be non usa who may not know how the system works. "

Mike, I am curious as after reading your last post I reread all the posts. Who or what do you think insulted the US miitary? Btw, I think you will find many of us have an excellent idea of how the US system works. I have found the educated Europeans and Australians have a very good knowledge of the world outside their borders, probably because they travel widely, (far more widely than Americans are prone to do, I believe.)

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Jul 12 2007, 01:31 AM, said:

"At first I was really really angry with the insult to our military, after I cooled off I saw all or almost all seemed to be non usa who may not know how the system works. "

Mike, I am curious as after reading your last post I reread all the posts. Who or what do you think insulted the US miitary? Btw, I think you will find many of us have an excellent idea of how the US system works. I have found the educated Europeans and Australians have a very good knowledge of the world outside their borders, probably because they travel widely, (far more widely than Americans are prone to do, I believe.)

Ya I must admit, I was red hot...angry at the insults..for those posts...thank God, i did not post and cooled off, after I assumed many if not all were non usa posts.

Why insult?

They assumed Bush could stay on how? ARmy coup? That is a huge insult to my family and others in the military.

I cooled off and saw they may not understand that Bush staying on was a huge thing, not small.

btw I noticed no one, I mean no one responded in full detail to the posts.....so....I hope that does mean bbo just does not care or lives under the sheets or other......

echo at least said a little tiny something....

In any case the fact that no usa person seems to have responded teaches me some lesson, just not sure what other than perhaps I should not post and just shut up.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jul 12 2007, 09:10 AM, said:

They assumed Bush could stay on how? ARmy coup? That is a huge insult to my family and others in the military.

Huh? Nobody has said anything bad about the US military, or suggested that the military is prone to interfere in politics. What I said was about political consequences of a political decision (to start a war). It does not follow from what I said that how this war is carried out by the military would have any political impact. (It could have, for example the failure to rescue the hostages at the Teheran embassy might have had an impact on the 1980 elections, but that's a completely different kind of thing).

My reasoning is probably somewhat insulting to the U.S. public (so I should say that I think the same mass psychology applies in other countries as well), to the U.S. government (yes, I think the U.S. government sucks and that it sucks more than most other present Western governements) and to U.S. mass media (as I understand it a scaring proportion of Americans get their news from right-extremist propaganda TV but heck, it's a free World and people can just watch BBC or read The Economist if they prefer).

But even if someone had said that the U.S. army sucks, better not take it as a personal offence. There are so many things that "suck" accoding to someone's opinion. Dwayne thinks the Live Earth Concerts suck, Roland (Walddk) thinks that Gerber sucks. Now suppose I'm personally involved in Live Earth and that I'm a devoted Gerberist. Should I feel insulted? I don't think so.

FWIW, I think the U.S. has a quite effective military. But that's off-topic. This thread is about politics.

[pbleighton]

Quote

In any case the fact that no usa person seems to have responded teaches me some lesson

I did respond, Mike. Perhaps you have revoked my citizenship

Peter