Nonono.... I thought it was a bit misunderstandable as I reread it right now. I was saying, from the German perspective, that, well, people had been voting for Hitler and supporting the NSDAP, but even though what they got was WWII, the democracy that eventually was installed has been quite beneficial.
So - beneficial consequences we should ponder, and ignore all the rest?
McTag writes
Quote:You're missing out a few steps. It has been shown here that the intention to invade Iraq pre-dated the 9-11 attacks and then that attack was used to sway public opinion against Iraq, sorry, against "Saddam".
I think it is your wish to believe this. I do not think the evidence supports it. That there was a game plan drawn up to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 is not prove of intent. There are also game plans drawn up as we speak to invade France, Germany, England, Ireland, and Alabama. Do you honestly think these are in advance of actual planned attacks?
Foxfyre wrote:And if the alternative would cost a million additional lives, it is hard to fault Truman's decision to drop the A bomb. Of course if Japan had had the A bomb, I doubt we would hae dropped it. Now that there is nuclear proliferation, the likelihood of it being implemented in war is more remote except for the rogue nations in which there is little or no value placed on human life. I'm not sure if htis answers your question. If not, please ask again and I'll try again.
The problem is: how do you know? How would it have cost a million additional lives if the a-bomb hadn't been dropped? There's no proof for that, it's all just imagination. Japan might as well have surrendered a couple of days later, like Germany did.
But I'll try to restate my question: would it be just, in order to save an innocent person, to kill another innocent person?
Foxfyre wrote
"By your reasoning, the U.S. should not have declared war on Germany in WWII as there was no 'imminent threat' but only a 'perceived threat'."
Wrong. Germany declared war on the US.
"My conscience was clear as soon as the pictures of all those mass graves and malnourished children started showing up and the testimony of brave Iraqi citizens willing to risk death in order to cast a vote was undisputable. At that time the motives for the invasion of Iraq were no longer important to me. The results of the invasion were."
This is illogical. You say your conscience was clear...Why? because you wanted to put a stop to mass killings and starving children...then in the next sentence you say the motives for the invasion were no longer important, at the time of the invasion.
"And if the alternative would cost a million additional lives, it is hard to fault Truman's decision to drop the A bomb."
from another thread:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment"
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey.
"But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."
Gen Henry H (Hap) Arnold, quoted by Eaker.
"dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"Of course if Japan had had the A bomb, I doubt we would hae dropped it. Now that there is nuclear proliferation, the likelihood of it being implemented in war is more remote except for the rogue nations in which there is little or no value placed on human life."
I dont understand this sentence.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Foxfyre wrote
"By your reasoning, the U.S. should not have declared war on Germany in WWII as there was no 'imminent threat' but only a 'perceived threat'."
Wrong. Germany declared war on the US.
Steve, in defense of Foxy: I think she was restating what she thought I had been saying.
OE writes
Quote:But I'll try to restate my question: would it be just, in order to save an innocent person, to kill another innocent person?
I think you would have to give specific circumstances. Decisions like that are made all the time. If two people are drowning or trapped in a burning building and you only have time to save one, you have to choose and thereby essentially condemn the other to death. Doctors/families sometimes have to choose whether the mother or her unborn child will be saved. I can see a scenario where terrorists are lobbing shells from a mosque into nearby neighborhoods. To bomb the mosque could likely kill any innocent people held hostage by the terrorists. What do you do? In this case innocent people are going to die no matter what decision is made. So the answer is yes, there are times that innocent people are killed so that other innocent people may be saved.
I'm not talking about a "save this person or save that person because you only have time/chance/opportunity to do so, whereas you are in fact struggling to save both" situation.
Specific situation... okay, from the top of my head (actually, a scene from a movie about a concentration camp)(I'm aware I'm talking WWII era a lot today):
A mom with her two kids. A SS guard. She wants to keep the kids. He says she can keep one. If she decides which one he should kill on the spot, the other one could live.
The SS guard is a cruel murderer who should die a slow and excruciating death. The mother is in an impossible situation with no choice at all so far as I am concerned. But how can you equate this with the question 'is it just?" Justice is trumped by necessity or inevitablility when there is no choice. The examples I used all do involve choice.
McTag wrote:You continue to reassure yourselves of your country's "good intentions". That is the lie which is being peddled, and that is the lie which got the vote through the US congress and the British parliament.
But it was a deliberate lie, and not good intentions at all. No matter how unspeakable Saddam was. That was not the reason for going.
The US, and to some extent this country too in recent times, has a self-image of legality and rectitude. That is why this crime was so great- not because we killed more than Stalin, but because we did it behind a lie. The administration is duping the people, seeking to influence world opinion, and hoping to get away with it. I am glad to say Tony Blair is is a measure of trouble here over this, but not yet nearly enough.
Was Chamberlan's betrayal of then Czechoslavia and promise of "Peace in our Time" also a lie?
The fact is there were many factors in the arguments put before both the American people and the Congress for our intervention: WMD was but one of several. The potential for a nexus between the forces of islamist terrorism and autocratic regimes such as saddam's wasa another, as was the need to change the direction of political development in the Arab World. These were not lies.
Basically, any situation involving the forceful death of innocent people is 'an impossible situation'. Yet, there always seems to be a choice.
Necessity or inevitability where used to justify the colonisation of the rest of the world by Europeans, too. And, necessity or inevitability are rather very personal feelings most of the time than actual situations.
I could say, for example: WWII was inevitable anyway. It was just a matter of time until it finally happened.
Necessity or inevitability are quite removed from the concept of justice. Justice, to define it partially, is to make use of the same moral concept in any given situation.
OE writes
Quote:Necessity or inevitability are quite removed from the concept of justice. Justice, to define it partially, is to make use of the same moral concept in any given situation.
I think that's what I said.
And then the debate comes down to what choice is the just one? And in my mind, the status quo to avoid loss of life when loss of life is inevitable or even probable isn't always the choice that is just.
Fox
Quote:I think it is your wish to believe this. I do not think the evidence supports it. That there was a game plan drawn up to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 is not prove of intent. There are also game plans drawn up as we speak to invade France, Germany, England, Ireland, and Alabama. Do you honestly think these are in advance of actual planned attacks?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Do yourself a favor and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes, Fox, before you say things like this.
Make sure you keep in mind that the folks who were a part of said documents and their creation are the leaders of our administration.
To compare what the LEADERS of our ADMIN wrote to 'gameplans' to invade France, Germany, etc. is completely ridiculous.
Hell, none of this is even a secret:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm
Quote:
O'Neill: Iraq planning came before 9/11
THis is the complete opposite of the way the issue was presented to the American people and the world. By which, I mean, they lied in order to find the reasoning they needed to justify the invasion.
This is completely the wrong order that one should use to start wars!!!!@! Ideology looking for Justification?!!? Madness!
Cycloptichorn
georgeob1 wrote:The fact is there were many factors in the arguments put before both the American people and the Congress for our intervention: WMD was but one of several. The potential for a nexus between the forces of islamist terrorism and autocratic regimes such as saddam's wasa another, as was the need to change the direction of political development in the Arab World. These were not lies.
The US went to war not be because immediate vital interests were so threatened and there was no other choice. It was a political decision, and as such it will be judged.
You have to give credibility to people that aren't credible to believe most of that Cyclop. I'm pretty familiar with that rabbit hole by now. You also have to know whether such people are being quoted accurately and in context. Otherwise you just look like another partisan hack trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
".... for the US alone, oil imports, or imports of other sources of oil, such as natural gas liquids, will have to rise from 11m bpd to 18.5m bpd by 2020. Securing that increment of imported oil - the equivalent of total current oil consumption by China and India combined - has driven an integrated US oil-military strategy ever since [the May 2001 National Energy Plan of Vice President Dick Cheney]. There is, however, a fundamental weakness in this policy. Most countries targeted as a source of increased oil supplies to the US are riven by deep internal conflicts, strong anti-Americanism, or both. Iraq is only the first example of the cost - both in cash and in soldiers' lives - of facing down resistance or fighting resource wars in key oil-producing regions, a cost that even the US may find unsustainable. The conclusion is clear: if we do not immediately plan to make the switch to renewable energy - faster, and backed by far greater investment than currently envisaged - then civilisation faces the sharpest and perhaps most violent dislocation in recent history."
Michael Meacher
(Dr) Michael Meacher is a former cabinet member in Blair's govt.
George said:
"The fact is there were many factors in the arguments put before both the American people and the Congress for our intervention: WMD was but one of several."
But the emphasis was different here. Tony Blair said his govt. would adhere to national and international law, and unlike the US we are signatories to the ICC. The finding and disarmament of Iraqi WMD formed the sole legal basis for Britain going to war. The Attorney General asked Blair to be "unequivocal" in stating his belief that Iraq possessed wmd, which Blair duly did, and the AG pronounced the war "legal". We all know what happened next. The fact is either Blair was himself deceived by the intelligence reports, in which case we went to war on the basis of a misunderstanding, or Blair knew all the caveats relating to wmd intelligence and deliberately left them out and we went to war on the basis, as McTag says, of a lie.
Foxfyre wrote:
OE writes
Quote:Necessity or inevitability are quite removed from the concept of justice. Justice, to define it partially, is to make use of the same moral concept in any given situation.
I think that's what I said.
Good, so we're back on track. Apply the same morals you use jugding Iraqi torture when you judge US torture. Apply the same morals you use jugding the Saddam's connection to bin Laden when you judge Rumsfeld's connection to bin Laden. Apply the same morals you use jugding the former Iraqi regime when you judge Bush sanctioning the abduction of innocent citizens by the CIA.
Foxfyre wrote:And then the debate comes down to what choice is the just one? And in my mind, the status quo to avoid loss of life when loss of life is inevitable or even probable isn't always the choice that is just.
Therefore the responsibilty to obtain any possible information in order to judge the situation in a most objective way, and then putting the maximum effort into judging the situation in a most objective way seems to be paramount.
Something the US government completely failed to do.
OE writes
Quote:Therefore the responsibilty to obtain any possible information in order to judge the situation in a most objective way, and then putting the maximum effort into judging the situation in a most objective way seems to be paramount.
Something the US government completely failed to do.
I believe the US government made the best decision it could with the information it had at the time. That the information was lacking is moot at this point because the decisions have already been made. I do not fault the U.S. for making the decision it did. And I am gratified that even though the decision was apparently based on faulty information, the results of the decision may be even better results than were initially envisioned. That is my hope.
In this case I think the expected ends justified the means. That the ends they got were not the expected ones but have potential to be even better, who can argue that this isn't a good thing?
Do I think every motive was pure and noble? Probably not. We are dealing with human beings here after all. But, my philosophy is that you don't knock a good thing resulting from a less-than-exemplary agenda. It goes back to the Publisher's Clearing House analogy. PCH doesn't give a flying fig about me. But if I benefit from their entirely selfish motives to promote their product, I am benefited just the same as if they intended to do something nice for me.
The why is not as important as the results.
Fox,
Quote:You have to give credibility to people that aren't credible to believe most of that Cyclop. I'm pretty familiar with that rabbit hole by now. You also have to know whether such people are being quoted accurately and in context. Otherwise you just look like another partisan hack trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Can you be more specific, please? I'll divide it up in to two seperate questions for yer convienence.
First, what/who about the PNAC is not credible? Can you give me specific names, or articles that you don't feel are credible? How do you reconcile the fact that our senior leadership was intimately involved in the creation of the PNAC with this lack of credibility?
Second, who do you feel is being quoted out of context to 'make a mountain out of a molehill?' Be specific, please...
Cycloptichorn
Steve's post with this quote, "The finding and disarmament of Iraqi WMD formed the sole legal basis for Britain going to war." tells all we need to know how much the US emphasized WMDs and it's immediate threats. Without the threat of WMDs, there would not have been a "coalition of the willing," and the US would be at war by ourselves. Everything else is secondary and not worth the argument.
