Reply With Quote
Ever read the "Sea Wolf" by jack london?
I guess you make it right, you choose what's right and wrong and then you see how it works for you, the point is moral relativisim is a canard.
Ever read the "Sea Wolf" by jack london?
What?
Even if we did "protect every waterway in the world" that would not be the reason.We do this, because our country believes in freedoms.
No we weren't.Also we were attacked by these two countries- Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your analogy fails because you assume we were attacked by either country.Now if We attacked England and they went to war and invaded and then won, then they could make us have free healthcare.
That's not why America is great.That is what is so great about America. We can invade, take and conquer any country in the world and we don't.
Ends justifying the means.If we do and win, the outcome has always been a more beneficial, healthier, and more successful society.
Nope.We were attacked by these two countries.
They're protecting us from two countries that didn't attack us.It would be immoral for our govt. to not protect us.
You have a seriously warped view of the world.
Wow, just wow.
No devil's advocate, socrates?
There is no point discussing anything with someone who's world view is grounded in a place so far from reality. The nationalism which runs in your veins is amazing.
They hate us because we work,because people choose us. They hate us for the same reason the Catholic Church hated Martin Luther. They hate us because if the the Islamic world didn't use terror on it's own people it would in short order end up as an obscure and silly cult.If people in the Islamic world were free of terror to make their own choices, to explore freely there own spiritual truths without coercen, without punishment, they are afraid Islam would dry up and blow away.
How am I a nationalist? What facts base the idea that the views i have are away from reality? Can you name things that are away from reality with which you have the "real" answer? Do you have the enlightened approach to help me with my Neanderthal ideas of government?
i'm still trying to comprehend that afghanistan and iraq attacked us..
Yes.
Was a basket case to begin with.Afghanistan?
Beside the point. Neither was much of a threat to us, and Iraq had zip to do with 9/11.Do you really think that either of those countries were better off before us?
What is business is it of ours to impose our form of government on others, and to try to remake their societies after our own image??
Not sure what that has to do with anything.Saddam killed over a million of his countrymen.
For all I know you're right. What makes you so certain and what would that prove?I don't know the numbers of Taliban and AQ killing Afghan's but I am almost certain to be higher than American's.
We're better than them. Granted.These two also don't police their own. America does. No other country, besides England, has held such a high standard for it's own military towards the enemie's civilians. America set up an elected group of their peers. We let their own countrymen create their own laws, based on their culture. Beside the idea of democracy, we did not ins ute anything from our culture. ""Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." " -Colin Powell
Do you think this gives us the right to topple their governments and wreck their , just because we think they should be more like us?
I focused on one thing. Forgive me.You are simplifying and forgetting so much more of OBL's mayhem.
That's for them to say, really. I'll bet there are some mixed feelings, particularly in the Philippines, and for sure every August in Japan.Finally, look at our track record. We instilled our democracy on S. Korea, Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, etc. and are they not better off?
Sure. Does that mean it's the right thing to do every time?Between 15-30000 French civilians were killed in the Normandy campaign in WW2. We 'wrecked' that country trying to free it and is it not better off?
Also, does the project of converting the globe to our form of government have any rational end? Is it doable? Is it affordable? Is it good for the USA?
http://www.slate.com/id/2171752/pagenum/2
I ran into this several years ago. It's a book review on the Al Queda Reader by Reza Aslan. Though the review didn't state exactly why they hate us it did seem to believe that there really wasn't a coherent philisophy as much as ramblings of compliants and greivances against the West and particularly the US. And the argument about US/Western freedoms being the reason for their hatred seemed to hold less sway as the years passed.
Uhm... I'm pretty sure there are some pirates who would counter you on this point. And I don't see anything saying that the US has to support the world's waterways.
When were we attacked by Iraq?
Additionally, being attacked by a terrorist from another country is not the same as being attacked by that country, officially. I would think this is obvious though. For instance, if an American bombed a building in another country, would that mean that the US had suddenly gone to war with that country? Of course not.
I also think your moral relativism is interesting. If we don't invade, then we're a good country. But even if we DO invade, places always turn out better, so that's ok too.
Actually, our government is there to protect our laws, not our safety. Big difference.
Second, why do you think it's immoral to take money from someone in order to make the lives of poor people better, but you think it's moral to invade a country to make the lives of poor people better?
It is not except if we have to go to war with a country. Precedent has it that we nation-build. That is Democrats and Republicans. People like you say that it is immoral to just go to war with a nation and not help them rebuild. I believe it is more beneficial to us to help but should be doctrine.
I disagree we wrecked their . We should go to war with people who attack us. Iraq tried to assassinate a president. He shot down americans. He encouraged suicide bombers to train and kill americans and israelis. The entire world's intel community thought he had wmd.'sDo you think this gives us the right to topple their governments and wreck their , just because we think they should be more like us?
You are assuming. I don't agree.That's for them to say, really. I'll bet there are some mixed feelings, particularly in the Philippines, and for sure every August in Japan.
No but should it never be used?Sure. Does that mean it's the right thing to do every time?
NoAlso, does the project of converting the globe to our form of government have any rational end? Is it doable? Is it affordable? Is it good for the USA?
Actually, that precedent of nation-building is relatively recent, if you're including the entire history of the United States.
So you're saying we haven't done any damage there?
Hmm don't quite remember that... do entation?
Not the entire world's intel community. There were many skeptics before the war. And encouraging bombers isn't the same as doing it himself.
Even if he DID do all this, that doesn't necessarily mean we should go to war without weighing the risk vs benefit ratio.
Are you Japanese? Have you lived over there? Have you studied Japanese culture? If not, I don't see how your assumption is any more valid than WH23's.
He never said it shouldn't be used. He said it shouldn't always be used. There's a difference.
There were actually multiple questions... are you responding No to all of them?
I agree that nation-building has become customary for the USA, but I guess we'll just have to disagree about the effect it has on others and ourselves.
I didn't say that.
It's checkable. Just look at the power generation and potable water situation in Iraq. Cholera thrives in technologically backward countries, and that's what Iraq is now.
Before the war, it wasn't.
We wrecked it.
To a point, yes. You can make a mountain out of a molehill.
President Clinton addressed that. He wrecked some . I approved.
In the Gulf War, you mean?
We encourage Marxists and Baluchi separatists to kill Iranians. Is that so different?
Bull . The incompetence of the whole world's intelligence services has been greatly exaggerated.
The unanimity and the certainty you cite are grossly overstated, and the relevant caveats and footnotes in our own NIE's show the ambiguity about WMD's that existed then.
The UN inspectors, who had the best access and information, were ignored. They told us beforehand there were no WMD's in Iraq and they were right.
I never said never, but you seem to doubt we could ever be wrong.
This is actually the hisatorical reason for Bin Laden's hatred. It is also why he (Bin Laden) hates the Saudi royal family...because they asked us to stay in their country as protection agains Iraqi aggression. That meant that we were in their 'holy' places.
@ this post. I think this thread is going extremely well to be honest. Way to prematurely blow your load.
Well, it did take on some life after sitting there for hours like a rotting turd.
I don't know about anywhere else but in Iraq, they were taught that Hitler was good and the Axis. Maybe because of the Ottomans.
Besides asking for do entation, I'll point out that this is a non-sequitur.
And here, we're not only taught that our own doesn't stink, but to wear it as perfume.
No we cannot make all countries into what we want. We don't have the capacity.
Here are some of my question is should US intervene anytime? Should we intervene when it is beneficial to america's interest, or morally just? Are there certain governments that america should not work with until they become a better government? Should an enemy of ours be able to develop nuclear weapons?
soooooo..that justifies war?
Im sorry, While I was in Iraq, I talked to Iraqis who would tell me about how america lost in ww2 to the great hitler. I am sorry I portrayed myself as if I went door to door to every iraqi and asked them about hitler.
depends on how beneficial, what interests are at stake and whether they can be secured short of war.
No. Let others ruin their own countries or fight wars. And then go in and do business with them, if possible. It's working great for China. It worked great for us for a long time....or morally just?
Even in WWI and WWII, we stayed out as long as possible, let Europe wreck itself and cleaned up afterwards.
Not our business, IMO. It's bad form to meddle in the internal affairs of others, and it's seldom very persuasive. Doing business with them and respecting their sovereignty, OTOH, tends to increase amity and US influence. Telling them how they should run their country doesn't.Are there certain governments that america should not work with until they become a better government?
Working to prevent this makes good sense. Just as working toward it makes good sense to them.Should an enemy of ours be able to develop nuclear weapons?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions