Originally posted by lettuce leafThis argument seems to make quite a bit of sense. I think also that if the US military were conscripted, rather than professional, the public would be much more reticent about electing jingoistic warmongers to office.
Which country has the most weapons of mass destruction?
A: USA.
Peace
Originally posted by jgvaccaroWhat do you mean North Korea has never invaded its neighbors? What do you think the whole Korean War (1950-1953) was all about? North Korea launched an invasion of South Korea, which was only beaten back with massive US assistance. When China later got involved on the side of North Korea, the war stalemated at roughly the spot where it had started.
...Further, North Korea, despite its bellicose rhetoric, has never actually invaded its neighbors. Iraq on the other hand has invaded two of its neighbors in the past couple of decades, and well as shooting missiles at Israel)...
Originally posted by kirksey957Quite correct Kirk. When I was teaching an introductory class in ethics last spring, I used the example of violent revolution to get at the distinction between consequentialist and deontological ethical theories. I was making the point that to the extent our ethical intuitions are consequentialist, the violent overthrow of the government (complete with assassinations) would be morally justified if the resultant order maximized human flourishing. Imagine if I had used this example in either Iraq or N. Korea. I would either disappear or be publically strung up. Sometimes we lefties forget the extent to which the US, though far from meeting the democratic ideal, actually gets things right. But this is off topic, regardless of the political structure of the US, there is still a moral imiperative not to inflict suffering on the innocent, and that is an imperative we will violate in a war with Iraq.
Which public? US or Iraq? Or N. Korea? Wait, I just remembered, we are the only ones that elect out of that group. With apologies to all who can't forget Florida. KIrk
Originally posted by kirksey957The difference is that Neville Chamberlain did not provide 40 billion dollars in assistance to Nazi Germany while it invaded Poland (like we did to Iraq when it invaded Iran).
..Now you may question whether or not initiating a war is a reflection of humanity. That's fine. I have two words to say: Neville Chamberlain. KIrk[/b]
We have known since the 70's that Hussein was a brutal dictator, but that never caused us any worries before. Since he wasn't stepping on our shoes, we were only too happy to use him to our advantage. It was only after he became an annoyance to US interests that we decided to notice what a bad guy he is. Our current paroxysm of moral indignation seems to be more than a little hypocritical.
I think there are some generalisations that can be made about war. No, going to war is not always the wrong decision, but I believe that initiating a conflict, as a point of principle, is. There are always going to be some differences in interpretation here - the whole 'you started it' chesnut - but it would be difficult to argue in the present instance that it is Iraq which is doing the initiating. By contrast, Iraq was the obvious aggressor in 1991, the intervention in Kosovo happened in response to an ongoing conflict and even Afghanistan, while disproportianate, was a response to an act of aggression.
Sorry, have to ask the question here. Why was there ever the possibility that this thread might be deleted? War is a matter which can raise temperatures, sure, but as far as I can see this debate has been conducted sensibly and with due respect to opposing opinions. Surely moderating should be restricted to matters of insult, obcenity and bad language?
Here is my input on such an interesting and yet disturbing discussion.
1. We do NOT know everything the government knows, like it or not, we are in the dark concerning information the government has on Iraq.
2. Iraq kills it's own people with gas and other worse ways.
3. Iraq imprisons civilians for not voting for Saddam.
4. When Saddam released Iraq's prisioners there were riots because hundreds of people had disapeared. (No magic involved here.)
5. Saddam has supported and will continue to support Al Qaida.
6. Saddam is playing games with the UN. If you think otherwise you are a fool. The UN inspectors have not found anything because Iraq is not helping them find anything. It is there. There are cases where they previously had missles and chemical weapons and 'poof' now the inspectors cannot find them. Hmmmm.... The UN has stated that Iraq MUST divulge EVERYTHING! Yet they stall the inspectors and provide passive assistance as Hans Blix reported today. Playing 20 questions with the inspectors was not allowed by the UN.
7. If you think it should be easy for the inspectors to find evidence I invite you to come over to my house and look for a sewing needle. I will hide it of course. I will answer your questions...maybe.... Who are you to say that I did not answer truthfully for you do not know what the truth really is! I assure you that you will not find the needle.
8. We probably do not need to fear a nuke flying over from Iraq.
9. We probably need to fear chemical weapons being provided to Al Qaida and smuggled into the country. If you think this is impossible you are a fool.
10. I, nor the President, nor any American, want to send troops over there to die. My brother is in the Marine Infantry. I'll give you a guess where he is going.ðŸ˜
11. Is War warranted? Is there a Clear and Present danger? Does there need to be? You are walking down a dark alley and someone attacks you...is that a good time to decide to take self defense?
It is easy to sit back and destroy the Leaders of this Great Nation from the comfort of our homes. We need to support the President. We need to be praying for the safety of our troops. For the Leaders of the country to have the wisdom to make the right descisions. For the safety of the inspectors. And we should be praying for Saddam. That's right! We should be praying that he sees what he is doing to his people and to the world and starts doing what is right! That is truly the only way that we will get through this without a war, if Saddam starts cooperating with the Nations of the World and stops defying everyone.
I'm sorry if I came across a bit virulent in my small contributions to this discussion. But I agree that aggression is probably not a good solution, especially when complaing about other people's arsenals ('WMD's'😉 is blatant hypocrisy on the part of the US. There are certain risks we take as a society that flaunts its wealth so unashamedly (we've all seen the statistic about the US, with 5% of the world's population, consuming about 30% of its energy resources).
Originally posted by kirksey957Well, I think his position in ethics is self-contradictory. He claims that we have no objective knowledge of good or evil, yet that when confronted with an apparent ethical dilemma, we ought to take into account 1) What Jesus would do, and 2) The needs of others. But the natural question is that if we have no knowledge of good or evil, then why ought we use this decision procedure rather than some other? Unless we have some verification that modeling our behavior on that of Jesus will result in ethical action, we won't be justified in doing so. But to have such verification is precisely to have knowledge of good and evil. I admit that this is a typically analytic reading of someone who, I'm sure, has much to offer the theologically sensitive. By curse or nature, however, I approach the work of authors as a philsophical rationalist, not a theologian. Is my reading of his ethics considerably off-base? If you can shed any light on this I'd appreciate it.
Bennett, have you read any Dietrich Bonhoeffer? I apologize if that is an insulting question. I would be curious of your take on him. Always enjoy your diaglogue. Kirk
Bennett
Originally posted by kirksey957I was referring to the US. Have you listened to virtually all political leaders on both sides of this situation? Warmongers.
Which public? US or Iraq? Or N. Korea? Wait, I just remembered, we are the only ones that elect out of that group. With apologies to all who can't forget Florida. KIrk
Originally posted by ChessNutBy that "logic", no dissent would ever be justified. We would always be sitting around waiting for Big Brother to tell us what we should think. I guess we should have just taken Nixon's word on what happened during Watergate. Or we should have assumed that Reagan had some reasons we didn't know about for violating a congressional ban on the sale of weapons to the contra rebels in Nicaragua. Or those Vietnam war protesters should have known that the government had all the right answers.
[b]Here is my input on such an interesting and yet disturbing discussion.
1. We do NOT know everything the government knows, like it or not, we are in the dark concerning information the government has on Iraq...
The right to express dissent is what this country is built on. If we *are* in the dark concerning information the government has on Iraq, it is precisely because it is the government themselves who are keeping us in the dark.