Really, the logic that you choose to extract from my statements. I'll bet you could imagine/interpret one hell of a story out of an ink blot test.
American preemptive strikes against those preparing (not just talking tough) to kill Americans are good things to do. Grant terrorists their martyrdom in their terrorist camps as they sleep in their beds. They will die in a cause that they believe in and we will kill them for a cause that *I*, at least, believe in: the saving of American lives.
*You* remember *that*.
Aries 1B
You have ignored my point. A Japanese pre-emptive strike you regard as an act worthy of "infamy"; an American pre-emptive strike you regard as a noble and just thing.
You have ignored my point. A Japanese pre-emptive strike you regard as an act worthy of "infamy"; an American pre-emptive strike you regard as a noble and just thing.
Cheers
Scott
You are correct; good for you.
You have ignored the fact that the 1941 Japanese government was a military dictatorship that was working very hard to enslave Asia. The atrocities committed by the Japanese merited war crimes trials after WW II.
You are trying to build a moral equivalence between the Japanese government of that past time that wanted to expand its system of slavery, oppression, and murder (See 'Rape of Nanking' and 'Occupation of China' which occurred before Dec 7, 1941)) and the current government of the United States (at whose head sits the man that some psychopaths still think is a false President: George Bush.) that is acting to protect its citizens.
There is no equivalence to be drawn. The United States today is acting to preserve the lives of American citizens while killing as few innocent Iraqi people in the process. The Imperial Japanese Navy acted to thwart any effort that we may have taken to impede the Japanese domination and enslavement of Asia.
The question 'Why' must be asked in both the Pearl Harbor case and in the Iraq War case. The why behind Pearl Harbor was in order to further an evil regime. The why behind the Iraq War is in order to end an evil regime.
It takes a serious case of moral relativism to criticize this analogy.
No. If you want 'moral relativism' talk to NoahJ.
A pre-emptive strike is fine if there is a known threat. A pre-emptive strike on a possible thread is fascism. You can support fascism because you're scared. I'm sad that the U.S. has been relegated to such a low status, that's to short sighted limited minded blind thinking such as you're capable of producing.
You have ignored the fact that the 1941 Japanese government was a military dictatorship that was working very hard to enslave Asia. The atrocities committed by the Japanese merited war crimes trials after WW II.
That has nothing to do with whether or not their pre-emptive attack against us was noble and just. They attacked us pre-emptively. We're attacking Iraq pre-emptively. One is regarded as ignoble. One is regarded as noble.
Quote:
You are trying to build a moral equivalence between the Japanese government of that past time that wanted to expand its system of slavery, oppression, and murder (See 'Rape of Nanking' and 'Occupation of China' which occurred before Dec 7, 1941)) and the current government of the United States (at whose head sits the man that some psychopaths still think is a false President: George Bush.) that is acting to protect its citizens.
No. I'm not. But thanks for playing. If I had been trying to suggest a moral equivalence between our government and the Japanese government, I probably would have mentioned it.
Quote:
There is no equivalence to be drawn. The United States today is acting to preserve the lives of American citizens while killing as few innocent Iraqi people in the process. The Imperial Japanese Navy acted to thwart any effort that we may have taken to impede the Japanese domination and enslavement of Asia.
And remember that part where the Japanese made a pre-emptive strike upon a country they regarded as a potential threat to them. You say such a thing is ignoble, and yet an American pre-emptive attack upon a nation that it regards as a potential threat is a good thing.
Quote:
The question 'Why' must be asked in both the Pearl Harbor case and in the Iraq War case. The why behind Pearl Harbor was in order to further an evil regime. The why behind the Iraq War is in order to end an evil regime.
This has nothing to do with anything I've been talking about in this thread. Japan saw us as a threat, and they attacked us before we could attack them. That, you argue, is an act worthy of ignominy. We regard Iraq as a threat, and we attack them before they can attack us, and you regard it as a noble and worthy cause.
Quote:
There is no moral equivalence.
I never suggested that there was. You tried to extrapolate such a claim from what I said. I was suggesting that bringing Pearl Harbor into all of this brings to the fore some of the hypocrisy of the position you're advocating, and that that's a bad idea in terms of your argument.
It's more just when the police go through the court system to get a search warrant rather than just bust down someone's door.
In this case the "court system" is the UN. Your analogy is ridiculous because the UN is not a "court system" for the world.
I am amazed at your foolish logic that something is "just" simply because it has a tag of approval. I am sure you would scoff at the idea of every legalized federal action was "just".
Keep ignoring the people. Your pathetic and failed international organizations are apparently more important to you than the lives of millions of people.
In this case the "court system" is the UN. Your analogy is ridiculous because the UN is not a "court system" for the world.
I am amazed at your foolish logic that something is "just" simply because it has a tag of approval. I am sure you would scoff at the idea of every legalized federal action was "just".
Keep ignoring the people. Your pathetic and failed international organizations are apparently more important to you than the lives of millions of people.
Well what is your version of "just", religious law? Moral relativism?
Laws define 'justice', even if they're not perfect. That's why the ability to change the U.S. Constitution is built into the Constitution itself. Because what was considered 'just' would change.
In this analogy the "court system" is the UN. An analogy does not have to have a direct correlation to "the world". It most likely does NOT have a direct correlation to "the world".
The way in which the U.N. was handling Iraq was certainly more "just" than how the U.S. was. The thing someone as scared as you are might not realize is that sometimes what's "just" will end up with a scenario that's not as "good" as unjust means. The most "just" isn't defined by the ends, it's defined by the means.
You keep ignoring the law because you're too scared to realize what fascism really is. You keep ignoring law because you're living a comfortable, isolated life. You keep ignoring law because it's biased in your favor and you have very little reason to believe it's ever going to bite you on the arse which means you have a strong and selfish reason to keep the status quo.
A pre-emptive strike is fine if there is a known threat. A pre-emptive strike on a possible thread is fascism. You can support fascism because you're scared. I'm sad that the U.S. has been relegated to such a low status, that's to short sighted limited minded blind thinking such as you're capable of producing.
I thought that fascism was a form of government that placed the collective over the individual. Saying that I support fascism is quite incorrect and saying that I'm scared is an insult. I'm much less worried now, truth be told, because we have nearly eradicated the SH regime. I am, however, concerned about the threat poised by Iran, one of the sponsors of State Terrorism. Since we're in the neighborhood...
... maybe we can encourage the long suffering Iranians to rise up against their accursed regime.
we are 'just' in a transcendant sense . . .meaning, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations
and we know this because we are just, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations
we don't need the discourse between nations to wiegh and balance the scales of justice because we are right, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations.
we are right and we have the might to make it so
which, without the International Law mediated by International discourse is very similar to justice in fascist cultures
but that is ok since it is so evident to us, we the correct people, that we are just.
If we kill every skulking son of a bitch readying a WMD for use on the United States, you won't have to.
Aries 1B
You just go on thinking that total American safety is an achievable goal. It's not. It never is. The irony of it is, of course, that in the process of attempting to achieve this safety, you wind up making more enemies, which means all new people to kill.
It's a slippery slope that ends in imperial overextension, paranoia, and lots and lots of dead bodies--both at home and abroad. And it's all for the illusion of safety, not the real thing.
You should demand better solutions than this from your government.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
Please make a note that on 4/5/03 you said this. Write it down somewhere.
Cheers
Scott
Are you going to cheer if I'm wrong?
Aries 1B
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Are you going to cheer if I'm wrong?
Aries 1B
No. I will weep for America.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Really, the logic that you choose to extract from my statements. I'll bet you could imagine/interpret one hell of a story out of an ink blot test.
American preemptive strikes against those preparing (not just talking tough) to kill Americans are good things to do. Grant terrorists their martyrdom in their terrorist camps as they sleep in their beds. They will die in a cause that they believe in and we will kill them for a cause that *I*, at least, believe in: the saving of American lives.
*You* remember *that*.
Aries 1B
You have ignored my point. A Japanese pre-emptive strike you regard as an act worthy of "infamy"; an American pre-emptive strike you regard as a noble and just thing.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
You have ignored my point. A Japanese pre-emptive strike you regard as an act worthy of "infamy"; an American pre-emptive strike you regard as a noble and just thing.
Cheers
Scott
You are correct; good for you.
You have ignored the fact that the 1941 Japanese government was a military dictatorship that was working very hard to enslave Asia. The atrocities committed by the Japanese merited war crimes trials after WW II.
You are trying to build a moral equivalence between the Japanese government of that past time that wanted to expand its system of slavery, oppression, and murder (See 'Rape of Nanking' and 'Occupation of China' which occurred before Dec 7, 1941)) and the current government of the United States (at whose head sits the man that some psychopaths still think is a false President: George Bush.) that is acting to protect its citizens.
There is no equivalence to be drawn. The United States today is acting to preserve the lives of American citizens while killing as few innocent Iraqi people in the process. The Imperial Japanese Navy acted to thwart any effort that we may have taken to impede the Japanese domination and enslavement of Asia.
The question 'Why' must be asked in both the Pearl Harbor case and in the Iraq War case. The why behind Pearl Harbor was in order to further an evil regime. The why behind the Iraq War is in order to end an evil regime.
There is no moral equivalence.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by Aries 1B
It takes a serious case of moral relativism to criticize this analogy.
No. If you want 'moral relativism' talk to NoahJ.
A pre-emptive strike is fine if there is a known threat. A pre-emptive strike on a possible thread is fascism. You can support fascism because you're scared. I'm sad that the U.S. has been relegated to such a low status, that's to short sighted limited minded blind thinking such as you're capable of producing.
You are correct; good for you.
Thanks.
You have ignored the fact that the 1941 Japanese government was a military dictatorship that was working very hard to enslave Asia. The atrocities committed by the Japanese merited war crimes trials after WW II.
That has nothing to do with whether or not their pre-emptive attack against us was noble and just. They attacked us pre-emptively. We're attacking Iraq pre-emptively. One is regarded as ignoble. One is regarded as noble.
You are trying to build a moral equivalence between the Japanese government of that past time that wanted to expand its system of slavery, oppression, and murder (See 'Rape of Nanking' and 'Occupation of China' which occurred before Dec 7, 1941)) and the current government of the United States (at whose head sits the man that some psychopaths still think is a false President: George Bush.) that is acting to protect its citizens.
No. I'm not. But thanks for playing. If I had been trying to suggest a moral equivalence between our government and the Japanese government, I probably would have mentioned it.
There is no equivalence to be drawn. The United States today is acting to preserve the lives of American citizens while killing as few innocent Iraqi people in the process. The Imperial Japanese Navy acted to thwart any effort that we may have taken to impede the Japanese domination and enslavement of Asia.
And remember that part where the Japanese made a pre-emptive strike upon a country they regarded as a potential threat to them. You say such a thing is ignoble, and yet an American pre-emptive attack upon a nation that it regards as a potential threat is a good thing.
The question 'Why' must be asked in both the Pearl Harbor case and in the Iraq War case. The why behind Pearl Harbor was in order to further an evil regime. The why behind the Iraq War is in order to end an evil regime.
This has nothing to do with anything I've been talking about in this thread. Japan saw us as a threat, and they attacked us before we could attack them. That, you argue, is an act worthy of ignominy. We regard Iraq as a threat, and we attack them before they can attack us, and you regard it as a noble and worthy cause.
There is no moral equivalence.
I never suggested that there was. You tried to extrapolate such a claim from what I said. I was suggesting that bringing Pearl Harbor into all of this brings to the fore some of the hypocrisy of the position you're advocating, and that that's a bad idea in terms of your argument.
Cheers
Scott
[edit: forgot to say "cheers"!]
Originally posted by Aries 1B
You are trying to build a moral equivalence between the Japanese government of that past...and the current government of the United States....
Morality doesn't change based on the government. Pre-emptive strikes based on fear are wrong for a dictator or a democracy.
Originally posted by bunge
No. If you want 'moral relativism' talk to NoahJ.
Or me. I'm cool with it.
Cheers
Scott
I didn't think you could answer my question. Your argument is based mostly on feeling than facts or logic.
Originally posted by bunge
If the cause is just, there is no body count too high. If the cause is the dollar, no dollar amount is too high to avoid one body.
So you would say that the way the UN has handled the situation is more "just" than the way the US is handling it now?
Originally posted by groverat
So you would say that the way the UN has handled the situation is more "just" than the way the US is handling it now?
It's more just when the police go through the court system to get a search warrant rather than just bust down someone's door.
Originally posted by bunge
It's more just when the police go through the court system to get a search warrant rather than just bust down someone's door.
Amen to that!!!!!
It's just that " We're going to do what we want to do because we can " that's at the heart of what's wrong with this.
Originally posted by bunge
It's more just when the police go through the court system to get a search warrant rather than just bust down someone's door.
In this case the "court system" is the UN. Your analogy is ridiculous because the UN is not a "court system" for the world.
I am amazed at your foolish logic that something is "just" simply because it has a tag of approval. I am sure you would scoff at the idea of every legalized federal action was "just".
Keep ignoring the people. Your pathetic and failed international organizations are apparently more important to you than the lives of millions of people.
Originally posted by groverat
In this case the "court system" is the UN. Your analogy is ridiculous because the UN is not a "court system" for the world.
I am amazed at your foolish logic that something is "just" simply because it has a tag of approval. I am sure you would scoff at the idea of every legalized federal action was "just".
Keep ignoring the people. Your pathetic and failed international organizations are apparently more important to you than the lives of millions of people.
Well what is your version of "just", religious law? Moral relativism?
Laws define 'justice', even if they're not perfect. That's why the ability to change the U.S. Constitution is built into the Constitution itself. Because what was considered 'just' would change.
In this analogy the "court system" is the UN. An analogy does not have to have a direct correlation to "the world". It most likely does NOT have a direct correlation to "the world".
The way in which the U.N. was handling Iraq was certainly more "just" than how the U.S. was. The thing someone as scared as you are might not realize is that sometimes what's "just" will end up with a scenario that's not as "good" as unjust means. The most "just" isn't defined by the ends, it's defined by the means.
You keep ignoring the law because you're too scared to realize what fascism really is. You keep ignoring law because you're living a comfortable, isolated life. You keep ignoring law because it's biased in your favor and you have very little reason to believe it's ever going to bite you on the arse which means you have a strong and selfish reason to keep the status quo.
Originally posted by midwinter
No. I will weep for America.
If we kill every skulking son of a bitch readying a WMD for use on the United States, you won't have to.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by bunge
No. If you want 'moral relativism' talk to NoahJ.
A pre-emptive strike is fine if there is a known threat. A pre-emptive strike on a possible thread is fascism. You can support fascism because you're scared. I'm sad that the U.S. has been relegated to such a low status, that's to short sighted limited minded blind thinking such as you're capable of producing.
I thought that fascism was a form of government that placed the collective over the individual. Saying that I support fascism is quite incorrect and saying that I'm scared is an insult. I'm much less worried now, truth be told, because we have nearly eradicated the SH regime. I am, however, concerned about the threat poised by Iran, one of the sponsors of State Terrorism. Since we're in the neighborhood...
... maybe we can encourage the long suffering Iranians to rise up against their accursed regime.
Another American Victory is assured.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by jimmac
For Aries 1B,
I didn't think you could answer my question. Your argument is based mostly on feeling than facts or logic.
Colin Powell's speech to the UN. That was good enough for me.
Aries 1B
we are 'just' in a transcendant sense . . .meaning, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations
and we know this because we are just, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations
we don't need the discourse between nations to wiegh and balance the scales of justice because we are right, utimately, and beyond the discourse between nations.
we are right and we have the might to make it so
which, without the International Law mediated by International discourse is very similar to justice in fascist cultures
but that is ok since it is so evident to us, we the correct people, that we are just.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
If we kill every skulking son of a bitch readying a WMD for use on the United States, you won't have to.
Aries 1B
You just go on thinking that total American safety is an achievable goal. It's not. It never is. The irony of it is, of course, that in the process of attempting to achieve this safety, you wind up making more enemies, which means all new people to kill.
It's a slippery slope that ends in imperial overextension, paranoia, and lots and lots of dead bodies--both at home and abroad. And it's all for the illusion of safety, not the real thing.
You should demand better solutions than this from your government.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by bunge
Morality doesn't change based on the government. Pre-emptive strikes based on fear are wrong for a dictator or a democracy.
There's no chance of communication between us on this issue. Good day.
Aries 1B