Perhaps he meant that as a matter of doctrine, the U.S. does not target civilians, unless fired upon.
Actually, the war in Iraq was probably the most humane war (I can hear the protests over humane) in U.S. history, and certianly in modern times. Fast, precise, focused on breaking the will of the enemy before major combat...excellent.
Post war, of course, we've been mutton headed.
I don't know. I read this morning that the Iraqi casualties are around 12K all told (civ and military) and that military casualties are around 9K. Am I reading that right? 1 in 3 Iraqis we kill is a civilian?
Anyway. We'll have to see about the war and its humanity. I'm not convinced that it's over yet.
For those who lost a family member that is all moot points. Evil had been done to them.
Look its not the war in itself I am criticising here but the misuse of the word evil. I was for the war i Afghanistan, but they way we are ready to rationale out evil actions done by us while we won´t do it when its our enemy that does is. Evil is what people feel done to them. There is no higher moral ground to stand and say one killing is more or less evil than another. Or else you have to accept that Al Quada had a higher goal with 911 and this somehow justifices the 2000+ deaths because they served a higher purpose.
Without going off on a tangent. The recent Iraq war can be argued was just a resumption of a previous war and cease fire agreed upon by saddam, and then broken.
Those people that have died in the US side were volunteers, knowing full well they could be used in case of a war. If you are referring to innocent Iraqis, yes evil was done to them but it was by the hand of their government, who was warned over a dozen times by the international community to comply with international agreements.
I guess the whole world just made up intel over the last 30 years and were just imagining the threat. 9/11 just solidified the fact rogue states are more than just an idle threat or minor irritation.
I don't know. I read this morning that the Iraqi casualties are around 12K all told (civ and military) and that military casualties are around 9K. Am I reading that right? 1 in 3 Iraqis we kill is a civilian?
Anyway. We'll have to see about the war and its humanity. I'm not convinced that it's over yet.
Perhaps post-war analysts are getting a better grip on the numbers - I've seen them fudge quite a bit in prior guesses. One thing that stands out, however, is that the military causalties are extremely low (I would'nt be surprized if their were even fewer military deaths making the ratio more like 50/50). Aside from the targeting, three other factors are at play: 1) The Iraqi military learned to get out of their vehicles proximity at night, and dismount during the day. Many were empty when destroyed. 2) The Iraqi military also learned that it was sure death to be caught in the open, so most concealment was done in builtup areas (among civilians) 3) Irregulars decided make a fight of it for the cities, urban warfare has, unfortunitly, a mucher higher rate of civilian deaths.
Still, estimates of Iraqi deaths the first Gulf War (military) range from 25,000 to 75,000, and for the Iraq-Iran War, 500,000 (Iraqi) and 1,000,000 (Iranian). All war is disgusting...but this one has shown a way to make it less costly, for both sides.
Perhaps he meant that as a matter of doctrine, the U.S. does not target civilians, unless fired upon.
Actually, the war in Iraq was probably the most humane war (I can hear the protests over humane) in U.S. history, and certianly in modern times. Fast, precise, focused on breaking the will of the enemy before major combat...excellent.
9/11 just solidified the fact rogue states are more than just an idle threat or minor irritation.
Rouge states are not really the issue in the War on Terrah. Afghanistan was not a war against a nation-state. We're through the looking glass these days: fourth-generation, asymmetrical warfare.
Without going off on a tangent. The recent Iraq war can be argued was just a resumption of a previous war and cease fire agreed upon by saddam, and then broken.
No, it can't. The last war was about ousting the Iraqi army from Kuwait and getting them back within their borders. It was also fought by a COMPLETELY different group of people.
This is a war that emerges from a neo-con agenda and 9/11 was used as the means to test out their theories about the ME.
Rouge states are not really the issue in the War on Terrah. Afghanistan was not a war against a nation-state. We're through the looking glass these days: fourth-generation, asymmetrical warfare.
What was the taliban? They were a rogue government.
What was the taliban? They were a rogue government.
Taliban history. It would best be likened to a military dictatorship that seized control of Afghanistan after the soviets pulled out and all the tribes there broke down along ethnic lines.
I'm not sure that there really is an accurate political/military analogy. That's part of the point. Maybe the West Wing got it right when they compared the Taliban to the Nazi party seizing control of Germany.
I'm not sure what context you learned about Strauss in because it clearly focused you on a detail. The first step in understanding strauss is that he admires the political models of Plato, although exactly what this means is what I am studying right now. For more information, look up Shadia Drury. I found this great interview with her today, and it will give you a good bit of insight and some hints on where to get more info (including her book titles): http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates...-2-95-1542.jsp
Quote:
1)\tAre Wohlsetter and Strauss especially influential in shaping the decision makers ideas in regards to Iraq?
No question.
Quote:
2)\tAren?t there numerous, even hundreds, of analysts in Washington? galaxy of think tanks, dozens of State and Defense Department Agencies, NSC, etc. that are influenced by very diverse foreign policy backgrounds? (Heck I read a wide range of stuff prior to this thread from college, without ever tripping across their names in foreign policy and international relations theory).
Both Shulsky and Wolfowitz recieved they doctorates under strauss. Both went there to study under him, though wolfowitz also chose UofC to study under Wolstetter. Most of the neo-cons are devout straussians, including Cambone (undersec defence for intel), both kristols (Irving was very committed) and Perle.
Both Wolfowitz and Perle are considered Wolstetters 'proteges.'
EDIT: Oh, wow. Both Zalmay Khalilzad and Ahmad Chalabi studied under wohlstetter, too!
Quote:
3)\tNeoconservatism is not so much an ideology, as an intellectual perspective.... I imagine most of them never heard of Shulsky, and only a few insiders would have appreciated Wohlsetter's thinking.
Actually, everyone knows Shulsky. Shulsky is actually a very well-known straussian, not to mention that he was a member of reagan's defense department. Strauss has always been the center of the neoconservative movement. With Perle and Wolfowitz, Wohlstetter is clearly as the core as well.
It's important to note that these people were not just students that studied these men, they were the continuation of each one's legacy. The bush admin consist of the proteges of each man in all decision making positions.
And here's the webstern defintion for ideology:
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
Analysis: To date, we have been offered 5 disparate quotes, from 5 unspecified events and sources. Luckily, this ?evidence? has been already been analyzed and debunked by a number of sources. In fact, its been dealt with in the FIRST post and its links. For those curious, including Giant, I offer the following definitive analysis:
I just have to weigh in on this. 1st, neither one refers to the Perle quote.
But Sullivan is simply an absolute joke. No member of the administration said imminent? I guess if you don't call the appointed head of the DPB a member of the admin, maybe this could be slightly correct. But then, aren't we just playing games with words again if the discussion goes that route?
Anyway, Josh really hit the fatal blow:
Quote:
Live by the word game, die by the word game.
Andrew Sullivan arguing that no one said the threat was imminent (emphasis added) ...
Quote:
We can fight over words in this way, but the fundamental reality also undermines Marshall's case. The point about 9/11 is that it showed that we were in a new world where we could be attacked by shadowy groups with little warning. The point about Saddam is that he was a sworn enemy of the U.S., had been known to develop an arsenal of WMDs, was in a position to arm terrorists in a devastating way, and any president had to weigh the risk of him staying in power in that new climate. The actual threat hangs over us all the time. It is unlike previous threats from foreign powers. It is accountable to no rules and no ethics. We know it will give us no formal warning. But we cannot know it is "imminent".
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminEre to project, threaten, from in- + -minEre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) -- more at MOUNT
Date: 1528
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head (was in imminent danger of being run over)
If you are referring to innocent Iraqis, yes evil was done to them but it was by the hand of their government, who was warned over a dozen times by the international community to comply with international agreements.
So when our bombs hit weddings and marked places its really not us that did evil but SH, who is doing evil stuff that forces us to take action we know will kill innoncent people in the process? How is this argument different from one that say that the 2000+ death 911 is not the responisibility of Al Quada but the US because it forces AQ to take action against us? Calculated dead is calculated dead.
Remember its not the action itself I am trying to argue against here but the use of the word "evil"
I'm not sure what context you learned about Strauss in because it clearly focused you on a detail. The first step in understanding strauss is that he admires the political models of Plato, although exactly what this means is what I am studying right now. For more information, look up Shadia Drury. I found this great interview with her today, and it will give you a good bit of insight and some hints on where to get more info (including her book titles): http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates...-2-95-1542.jsp
No question.
Both Shulsky and Wolfowitz recieved they doctorates under strauss. Both went there to study under him, though wolfowitz also chose UofC to study under Wolstetter. Most of the neo-cons are devout straussians, including Cambone (undersec defence for intel), both kristols (Irving was very committed) and Perle.
Both Wolfowitz and Perle are considered Wolstetters 'proteges.'
EDIT: Oh, wow. Both Zalmay Khalilzad and Ahmad Chalabi studied under wohlstetter, too!
Actually, everyone knows Shulsky. Shulsky is actually a very well-known straussian, not to mention that he was a member of reagan's defense department. Strauss has always been the center of the neoconservative movement. With Perle and Wolfowitz, Wohlstetter is clearly as the core as well.
It's important to note that these people were not just students that studied these men, they were the continuation of each one's legacy. The bush admin consist of the proteges of each man in all decision making positions.
And here's the webstern defintion for ideology:
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
My exposure to Strauss was in a college Poly Sci class, and then a little later in a couple of articles published in Conservative thought anthology. The thrust of his "admiration" by conservatives have not been his classical scholarship (per se) but of his devotion to classical virtue in government, pre-modern values, and his distaste for modern political philosopy/science. He had a wide ranging intellect, and was rather eccentric...but at the moment, I don't have any reference to a formal ideology, but I thought I'd just let you know what us run of the mill conservatives think about him.
I have additional thoughts, but for right now I'll leave you with a couple of observations:
1) Rather than read Strauss, would'nt it be more direct to simply read what Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, etc. say about him ? Most neocons are prolific writers, and I'm sure they have eulogized his ideological meaning to them extensively, if they have taken beyond simple admiration.
2) Would'nt it also be more direct to simply read what neocons think they are; i.e. their tenats, their system, their theory or doctrine than trying to imput beliefs from a trail of putative mentors ?
So when our bombs hit weddings and marked places its really not us that did evil but SH, who is doing evil stuff that forces us to take action we know will kill innoncent people in the process? How is this argument different from one that say that the 2000+ death 911 is not the responisibility of Al Quada but the US because it forces AQ to take action against us? Calculated dead is calculated dead.
Remember its not the action itself I am trying to argue against here but the use of the word "evil"
Yes, a government should protect it's citizenry. It should do what is best for it. SH did not care about anything but himself and his own interests. Killing of thousands was common. In fact, I was watching the news and they are finding a staggering number of mass graves, more than they imagined. SH used civilians and civilian installations as cover. The US does not do this, as most if not all free countries do not. SH made that choice, so the evil was the choice he made to hide behind human shields.
I feel very comfortable using the word evin when it comes to terrorists, OBL, SH, Hitler and so on. I am not sure why you have a problem with the word use, but I am interested.
Besides thats not a valid comparisment. They wanted to kill the wedding parties. They weren´t drunk and hit the fire button in an accident.
It was an calculated risk and the planners knew that innocent people would die and they were prepared to sacrifice the lifes of the civilians for the higher goal.
I think you know very well what I'm trying to get at, but I think you think you're being clever with your flippant reply. Anyway, let me give another example..
Let's say you suffer from a mestatising cancer in your leg, and under western medical practice, cutting off that leg would be the thing to do. And let's say I was to cut off your leg for nicking some jewelry off me, because under Islamic law that's the thing to do. In both cases your leg was intentionally cut off. So in both cases evil was done to you. Right?
Now, regards that wedding party. I don't know the specifics of the case, but I do know that it's very customary in those kind of events in that part of the world to shoot firearms into the air. Now, if a jet pilot flying over a hostile area sees this firing into the air and knowing that no friendly forces are supposed to be in the area, what do you suppose he will be thinking, and how do you suppose he will react? Yes, he will intentionally try to return fire at the source. Now, I'll be the first to concur that the legal system isn't perfect, but it does give shelter to such cases of friendly fire accidents. But I suppose the "fair and balanced" thing to do would be for you convict this poor pilot for murder.
In the case of a the leg thing. I think a a better description would be; a wrong was done.
Evil: Morally bad or wrong; wicked.
This is the definition I am using. Unintentional happenings can be called evil in a broader definition as follows:
Evil: Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
So in the broader sense anything that happens with bad effects can be considered evil.
So to clarify maybe I should have said "morally evil" but typically evil refers to the former definition. That was the context in which I use evil in this conversation.
i think you are trying to philosophize a little too much.
Unintentional happenings can be called evil in a broader definition as follows:
Evil: Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
Doesn't that definition implicitly assume that the ruin, injury or pain is intentionally caused? I mean, how can one be unintentionally Evil? Doesn't it require agency?
Doesn't that definition implicitly assume that the ruin, injury or pain is intentionally caused? I mean, how can one be unintentionally Evil? Doesn't it require agency?
Cheers
Scott
An earthquake could be considered evil as compared to normal existence before it.
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
Intent is a major ingredient here. But evil can also be cause unintentionally through a lack of education. That's way the bible and its accompanying literature is so important as a guide into these questions. And why conservatives often decry the lack of a moral fiber in a society that constantly attacks its biblical symbols.
An earthquake could be considered evil as compared to normal existence before it.
Given the theology that the term requires, I don't think this is actually true. There's a reason we call such things an Act of God. You can even get insurance for it.
Quote:
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>
All of which require agency/intent.
Quote:
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
Archaic, and gone so far as I can tell by the 19th-century.
Quote:
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
The example speaks for itself: things that are pernicious or longstanding are be default institutions, which admit an agency insofar as they are tolerated. I don't know that I can think of anything for 3b except "an evil string of bad luck," which implies that the misfortune was visited upon--literally MARKED upon--the individual by some agent.
Intent is a major ingredient here. But evil can also be cause unintentionally through a lack of education. That's way the bible and its accompanying literature is so important as a guide into these questions. And why conservatives often decry the lack of a moral fiber in a society that constantly attacks its biblical symbols.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but that only means that I'd like some more discussion from you on this. How can "evil" result from "lack of education"?
Comments
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Perhaps he meant that as a matter of doctrine, the U.S. does not target civilians, unless fired upon.
Actually, the war in Iraq was probably the most humane war (I can hear the protests over humane) in U.S. history, and certianly in modern times. Fast, precise, focused on breaking the will of the enemy before major combat...excellent.
Post war, of course, we've been mutton headed.
I don't know. I read this morning that the Iraqi casualties are around 12K all told (civ and military) and that military casualties are around 9K. Am I reading that right? 1 in 3 Iraqis we kill is a civilian?
Anyway. We'll have to see about the war and its humanity. I'm not convinced that it's over yet.
Originally posted by Anders
For those who lost a family member that is all moot points. Evil had been done to them.
Look its not the war in itself I am criticising here but the misuse of the word evil. I was for the war i Afghanistan, but they way we are ready to rationale out evil actions done by us while we won´t do it when its our enemy that does is. Evil is what people feel done to them. There is no higher moral ground to stand and say one killing is more or less evil than another. Or else you have to accept that Al Quada had a higher goal with 911 and this somehow justifices the 2000+ deaths because they served a higher purpose.
Without going off on a tangent. The recent Iraq war can be argued was just a resumption of a previous war and cease fire agreed upon by saddam, and then broken.
Those people that have died in the US side were volunteers, knowing full well they could be used in case of a war. If you are referring to innocent Iraqis, yes evil was done to them but it was by the hand of their government, who was warned over a dozen times by the international community to comply with international agreements.
I guess the whole world just made up intel over the last 30 years and were just imagining the threat. 9/11 just solidified the fact rogue states are more than just an idle threat or minor irritation.
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't know. I read this morning that the Iraqi casualties are around 12K all told (civ and military) and that military casualties are around 9K. Am I reading that right? 1 in 3 Iraqis we kill is a civilian?
Anyway. We'll have to see about the war and its humanity. I'm not convinced that it's over yet.
Perhaps post-war analysts are getting a better grip on the numbers - I've seen them fudge quite a bit in prior guesses. One thing that stands out, however, is that the military causalties are extremely low (I would'nt be surprized if their were even fewer military deaths making the ratio more like 50/50). Aside from the targeting, three other factors are at play: 1) The Iraqi military learned to get out of their vehicles proximity at night, and dismount during the day. Many were empty when destroyed. 2) The Iraqi military also learned that it was sure death to be caught in the open, so most concealment was done in builtup areas (among civilians) 3) Irregulars decided make a fight of it for the cities, urban warfare has, unfortunitly, a mucher higher rate of civilian deaths.
Still, estimates of Iraqi deaths the first Gulf War (military) range from 25,000 to 75,000, and for the Iraq-Iran War, 500,000 (Iraqi) and 1,000,000 (Iranian). All war is disgusting...but this one has shown a way to make it less costly, for both sides.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Perhaps he meant that as a matter of doctrine, the U.S. does not target civilians, unless fired upon.
Actually, the war in Iraq was probably the most humane war (I can hear the protests over humane) in U.S. history, and certianly in modern times. Fast, precise, focused on breaking the will of the enemy before major combat...excellent.
Post war, of course, we've been mutton headed.
Yes that was what I meant, of course. Thank you.
Originally posted by NaplesX
9/11 just solidified the fact rogue states are more than just an idle threat or minor irritation.
Rouge states are not really the issue in the War on Terrah. Afghanistan was not a war against a nation-state. We're through the looking glass these days: fourth-generation, asymmetrical warfare.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Without going off on a tangent. The recent Iraq war can be argued was just a resumption of a previous war and cease fire agreed upon by saddam, and then broken.
No, it can't. The last war was about ousting the Iraqi army from Kuwait and getting them back within their borders. It was also fought by a COMPLETELY different group of people.
This is a war that emerges from a neo-con agenda and 9/11 was used as the means to test out their theories about the ME.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Rouge states are not really the issue in the War on Terrah. Afghanistan was not a war against a nation-state. We're through the looking glass these days: fourth-generation, asymmetrical warfare.
What was the taliban? They were a rogue government.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What was the taliban? They were a rogue government.
Taliban history. It would best be likened to a military dictatorship that seized control of Afghanistan after the soviets pulled out and all the tribes there broke down along ethnic lines.
I'm not sure that there really is an accurate political/military analogy. That's part of the point. Maybe the West Wing got it right when they compared the Taliban to the Nazi party seizing control of Germany.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
discussion of strauss
I'm not sure what context you learned about Strauss in because it clearly focused you on a detail. The first step in understanding strauss is that he admires the political models of Plato, although exactly what this means is what I am studying right now. For more information, look up Shadia Drury. I found this great interview with her today, and it will give you a good bit of insight and some hints on where to get more info (including her book titles): http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates...-2-95-1542.jsp
1)\tAre Wohlsetter and Strauss especially influential in shaping the decision makers ideas in regards to Iraq?
No question.
2)\tAren?t there numerous, even hundreds, of analysts in Washington? galaxy of think tanks, dozens of State and Defense Department Agencies, NSC, etc. that are influenced by very diverse foreign policy backgrounds? (Heck I read a wide range of stuff prior to this thread from college, without ever tripping across their names in foreign policy and international relations theory).
Both Shulsky and Wolfowitz recieved they doctorates under strauss. Both went there to study under him, though wolfowitz also chose UofC to study under Wolstetter. Most of the neo-cons are devout straussians, including Cambone (undersec defence for intel), both kristols (Irving was very committed) and Perle.
Both Wolfowitz and Perle are considered Wolstetters 'proteges.'
EDIT: Oh, wow. Both Zalmay Khalilzad and Ahmad Chalabi studied under wohlstetter, too!
3)\tNeoconservatism is not so much an ideology, as an intellectual perspective.... I imagine most of them never heard of Shulsky, and only a few insiders would have appreciated Wohlsetter's thinking.
Actually, everyone knows Shulsky. Shulsky is actually a very well-known straussian, not to mention that he was a member of reagan's defense department. Strauss has always been the center of the neoconservative movement. With Perle and Wolfowitz, Wohlstetter is clearly as the core as well.
It's important to note that these people were not just students that studied these men, they were the continuation of each one's legacy. The bush admin consist of the proteges of each man in all decision making positions.
And here's the webstern defintion for ideology:
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Analysis: To date, we have been offered 5 disparate quotes, from 5 unspecified events and sources. Luckily, this ?evidence? has been already been analyzed and debunked by a number of sources. In fact, its been dealt with in the FIRST post and its links. For those curious, including Giant, I offer the following definitive analysis:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index....h_archive.html
I just have to weigh in on this. 1st, neither one refers to the Perle quote.
But Sullivan is simply an absolute joke. No member of the administration said imminent? I guess if you don't call the appointed head of the DPB a member of the admin, maybe this could be slightly correct. But then, aren't we just playing games with words again if the discussion goes that route?
Anyway, Josh really hit the fatal blow:
Live by the word game, die by the word game.
Andrew Sullivan arguing that no one said the threat was imminent (emphasis added) ...
We can fight over words in this way, but the fundamental reality also undermines Marshall's case. The point about 9/11 is that it showed that we were in a new world where we could be attacked by shadowy groups with little warning. The point about Saddam is that he was a sworn enemy of the U.S., had been known to develop an arsenal of WMDs, was in a position to arm terrorists in a devastating way, and any president had to weigh the risk of him staying in power in that new climate. The actual threat hangs over us all the time. It is unlike previous threats from foreign powers. It is accountable to no rules and no ethics. We know it will give us no formal warning. But we cannot know it is "imminent".
Webster?s, well-known dictionary manufacturer, defining ?imminent? ?
Main Entry: im?mi?nent
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminEre to project, threaten, from in- + -minEre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) -- more at MOUNT
Date: 1528
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head (was in imminent danger of being run over)
- im?mi?nent?ly adverb
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...09.html#002189
I think you might want to pick a different blog to visit.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you are referring to innocent Iraqis, yes evil was done to them but it was by the hand of their government, who was warned over a dozen times by the international community to comply with international agreements.
So when our bombs hit weddings and marked places its really not us that did evil but SH, who is doing evil stuff that forces us to take action we know will kill innoncent people in the process? How is this argument different from one that say that the 2000+ death 911 is not the responisibility of Al Quada but the US because it forces AQ to take action against us? Calculated dead is calculated dead.
Remember its not the action itself I am trying to argue against here but the use of the word "evil"
Originally posted by giant
I'm not sure what context you learned about Strauss in because it clearly focused you on a detail. The first step in understanding strauss is that he admires the political models of Plato, although exactly what this means is what I am studying right now. For more information, look up Shadia Drury. I found this great interview with her today, and it will give you a good bit of insight and some hints on where to get more info (including her book titles): http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates...-2-95-1542.jsp
No question.
Both Shulsky and Wolfowitz recieved they doctorates under strauss. Both went there to study under him, though wolfowitz also chose UofC to study under Wolstetter. Most of the neo-cons are devout straussians, including Cambone (undersec defence for intel), both kristols (Irving was very committed) and Perle.
Both Wolfowitz and Perle are considered Wolstetters 'proteges.'
EDIT: Oh, wow. Both Zalmay Khalilzad and Ahmad Chalabi studied under wohlstetter, too!
Actually, everyone knows Shulsky. Shulsky is actually a very well-known straussian, not to mention that he was a member of reagan's defense department. Strauss has always been the center of the neoconservative movement. With Perle and Wolfowitz, Wohlstetter is clearly as the core as well.
It's important to note that these people were not just students that studied these men, they were the continuation of each one's legacy. The bush admin consist of the proteges of each man in all decision making positions.
And here's the webstern defintion for ideology:
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
My exposure to Strauss was in a college Poly Sci class, and then a little later in a couple of articles published in Conservative thought anthology. The thrust of his "admiration" by conservatives have not been his classical scholarship (per se) but of his devotion to classical virtue in government, pre-modern values, and his distaste for modern political philosopy/science. He had a wide ranging intellect, and was rather eccentric...but at the moment, I don't have any reference to a formal ideology, but I thought I'd just let you know what us run of the mill conservatives think about him.
I have additional thoughts, but for right now I'll leave you with a couple of observations:
1) Rather than read Strauss, would'nt it be more direct to simply read what Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, etc. say about him ? Most neocons are prolific writers, and I'm sure they have eulogized his ideological meaning to them extensively, if they have taken beyond simple admiration.
2) Would'nt it also be more direct to simply read what neocons think they are; i.e. their tenats, their system, their theory or doctrine than trying to imput beliefs from a trail of putative mentors ?
Originally posted by Anders
So when our bombs hit weddings and marked places its really not us that did evil but SH, who is doing evil stuff that forces us to take action we know will kill innoncent people in the process? How is this argument different from one that say that the 2000+ death 911 is not the responisibility of Al Quada but the US because it forces AQ to take action against us? Calculated dead is calculated dead.
Remember its not the action itself I am trying to argue against here but the use of the word "evil"
Yes, a government should protect it's citizenry. It should do what is best for it. SH did not care about anything but himself and his own interests. Killing of thousands was common. In fact, I was watching the news and they are finding a staggering number of mass graves, more than they imagined. SH used civilians and civilian installations as cover. The US does not do this, as most if not all free countries do not. SH made that choice, so the evil was the choice he made to hide behind human shields.
I feel very comfortable using the word evin when it comes to terrorists, OBL, SH, Hitler and so on. I am not sure why you have a problem with the word use, but I am interested.
Originally posted by Anders
Beats me. The legal system isn´t perfect.
Besides thats not a valid comparisment. They wanted to kill the wedding parties. They weren´t drunk and hit the fire button in an accident.
It was an calculated risk and the planners knew that innocent people would die and they were prepared to sacrifice the lifes of the civilians for the higher goal.
I think you know very well what I'm trying to get at, but I think you think you're being clever with your flippant reply. Anyway, let me give another example..
Let's say you suffer from a mestatising cancer in your leg, and under western medical practice, cutting off that leg would be the thing to do. And let's say I was to cut off your leg for nicking some jewelry off me, because under Islamic law that's the thing to do. In both cases your leg was intentionally cut off. So in both cases evil was done to you. Right?
Now, regards that wedding party. I don't know the specifics of the case, but I do know that it's very customary in those kind of events in that part of the world to shoot firearms into the air. Now, if a jet pilot flying over a hostile area sees this firing into the air and knowing that no friendly forces are supposed to be in the area, what do you suppose he will be thinking, and how do you suppose he will react? Yes, he will intentionally try to return fire at the source. Now, I'll be the first to concur that the legal system isn't perfect, but it does give shelter to such cases of friendly fire accidents. But I suppose the "fair and balanced" thing to do would be for you convict this poor pilot for murder.
Evil: Morally bad or wrong; wicked.
This is the definition I am using. Unintentional happenings can be called evil in a broader definition as follows:
Evil: Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
So in the broader sense anything that happens with bad effects can be considered evil.
So to clarify maybe I should have said "morally evil" but typically evil refers to the former definition. That was the context in which I use evil in this conversation.
i think you are trying to philosophize a little too much.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Unintentional happenings can be called evil in a broader definition as follows:
Evil: Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
Doesn't that definition implicitly assume that the ruin, injury or pain is intentionally caused? I mean, how can one be unintentionally Evil? Doesn't it require agency?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Doesn't that definition implicitly assume that the ruin, injury or pain is intentionally caused? I mean, how can one be unintentionally Evil? Doesn't it require agency?
Cheers
Scott
An earthquake could be considered evil as compared to normal existence before it.
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
Intent is a major ingredient here. But evil can also be cause unintentionally through a lack of education. That's way the bible and its accompanying literature is so important as a guide into these questions. And why conservatives often decry the lack of a moral fiber in a society that constantly attacks its biblical symbols.
Originally posted by NaplesX
An earthquake could be considered evil as compared to normal existence before it.
Given the theology that the term requires, I don't think this is actually true. There's a reason we call such things an Act of God. You can even get insurance for it.
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>
All of which require agency/intent.
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
Archaic, and gone so far as I can tell by the 19th-century.
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
The example speaks for itself: things that are pernicious or longstanding are be default institutions, which admit an agency insofar as they are tolerated. I don't know that I can think of anything for 3b except "an evil string of bad luck," which implies that the misfortune was visited upon--literally MARKED upon--the individual by some agent.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by aapl
midwinter,
Intent is a major ingredient here. But evil can also be cause unintentionally through a lack of education. That's way the bible and its accompanying literature is so important as a guide into these questions. And why conservatives often decry the lack of a moral fiber in a society that constantly attacks its biblical symbols.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but that only means that I'd like some more discussion from you on this. How can "evil" result from "lack of education"?
Cheers
Scott