Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:10:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1087 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > It has everything to do with justness and unjustness. Being a sovereign nation
> > > means that the nation has the right to make laws governing itself and to enforce
> > > those laws - furthermore, being a recognized nation means that other nations
> > > will respect that right.
> >
> > So, Germany could slaughter jews at whim in the 20th century because it was a
> > sovereign nation and you fully support that?
>
>
> There's a debatable issue for you--if Pearl Harbor never happened, would the
> Americans have 'officially' entered WW2 at all?
See, with that kind of non-sequitor answer you are just encouraging Lenny to
dodge the question the same way. Nor was the question aimed at countries, it
was aimed at him as a person. Let me direct it specifically at you: could any
nation slaughter random inhabitants at whim simply because it was a sovereign
nation and do you fully support that (i.e. said genocide is not and is never a
just reason for war)? Let me reiterate: this is not about whether it is a wise
decision, but only a valid (just) reason for intervention (i.e. war).
>
> I mean, the Allies didn't know Hitler was murdering the Jews until well into the
> war, and then it was mostly rumour (iirc), so if Japan didn't strike at America,
> would the US have used the extermination camps as a reason to send troops to
> Germany?
It doesn't matter to my question.
>
> I dunno--I don't know exact details about WW2 but I wonder if the US would have
> sent troops if they weren't attacked.
Again, doesn't matter to my question. We made the decision to send troops
against Germany before Germany attacked us, by the way. And it was Yet Another
Stupid European War, so I'm not sure why we need to get involved in shooting if
we didn't have to (this is about a just reason for war, and not about the
specific actions of anyone or country in the past).
>
> So then all world leaders have this 'sword of Dubya(Damocles)' hanging over
> their heads--they get to lead their countries daily thanks to the auspices of
> Georgie-boy? Slip up and down comes the sword...
That's neither here nor there to what I said.
>
> > >
> > > Think of it this way: If i had killed Timothy McVey I would be guilty of
> > > *murder*, despite McVey kill 150 other people.
> >
> > McVey is about to blow up a another building with hundreds of people in it. I,
> > not authorized by the U.N., U.S., or anybody else, pop him with two to the chest
> > and one to the head. It would not be murder even though I wasn't directly
> > threatened.
>
>
> I don't know about that--you'd have difficulty in a court of law.
Not if events are actually what I said they were. Or are you saying you'd do
otherwise because you feel it would be murder? Quick, he's just connected the
wires and is about to push the plunger which you had traced back from the
explosives. You yell, "Stop or I'll shoot!" He doesn't stop. Three, two,
one...(decision time).
> > > > > Are you're saying that Saddam was a jerk and therefore waging war to overthrow
> > > > > him was just?
> > > >
> > > > I merely disputed the assumption that David made that the war was "unjust".
> > > > I'll also dispute "illegal". I won't dispute "stupid", "unsanctioned",
> > > > "trumped-up", and any number of terms uncomplimentary to Dubya.
> > >
> > > For the reasons mentioned above, the war was illegal.
> >
> > Unsanctioned.
>
> illegal
Because the U.N. chose not to take action on a specific front does not mean
action was not justified on another. It provided no "sanction" (approval") for
the war, but that does not mean that it was "illegal" - you need to establish
why it is illegal (and if you accept Lenny's line of logic, you also accept that
it is okay to slaughter jews, which is why I am asking you and Lenny about
that).
> > The war was not about what Bush was claiming it was about, and even if it was,
> > his claims certainly weren't accurate - one can make a claim for it being moral
> > or immoral either way regardless of whether it was wise or not (was it deception
> > or honest error - entirely ignoring that Saddam was a murdering bastard in the
> > first place). I am more concerned about the cure being worse than the disease,
> > myself.
>
> And I think by demonstation that Dubya is a 'murdering bastard' who has no
> remorse for his actions and no concept of responsibility. Moreover, he wants to
> 'hide' the negative aspects of his 'war on terror' (no photos of caskets, etc)
> and when pushed about it, he becomes surly, defensive and snippy. As with
> Cheney. But that's all my humble opinion.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if you are agreeing with my statement that the cure
is worse than the disease or if you are not understanding that you are agreeing
with me.
> > > By "ends" i mean the
> > > capturing of Saddam, placing him on trial, on creation of a new Iraqi gov't.
> >
> > I think it would have been wiser to let someone else besides the U.S. do this,
> > and I would certainly not have a problem with the morality of his neighbors
> > doing it, U.N. sanction or no, beyond his neighbors are pretty dubious in their
> > own way.
>
>
> All true, and yet the US hasn't 'picked a fight' with them. Why Iraq?
Doesn't enter into the matter at hand.
> > You are confusing wisdom with justness. They are not the same thing, and your
> > confusion of such is why you both misunderstand the situation and my views on
> > it.
>
> I think in this particular situation, there is no wisdom--taking out Saddam the
> way the US went about it wasn't wise from the outset, and I believe most of the
> world stated such--and certainly justice doesn't enter the picture at all.
I note that you chose to comment on the wisdom aspect when I said that wisdom
has nothing to do with "justness" and this is about "justness".
> The thing is, I still believe that Bob Dole woudn't have done this, Gore
> definitly woudn't have invaded Iraq... I think only Dubya has the proper
> combination--spoiled rich brat who has no concept of ramifications and large...
> well, everything's big in Texas so I'm told...
Well, Bush IS a big idiot...
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
