In A Way...It's A Great Time To Be Alive

he said, adding the denigrating word Nanny...with clear intentions of being denigrating.......

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

he said, adding the denigrating word Nanny...with clear intentions of being denigrating.......

But of course it was intended so. You are pretty quick on the uptake today. :wink:

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
he said, adding the denigrating word Nanny...with clear intentions of being denigrating.......

But of course it was intended so. You are pretty quick on the uptake today. :wink:

]
either that or you are just totally predictable.

0 Replies

Correct.

This brings me back to an earlier point of the debate. What value judgement allows for the widespread killing of innocent Iraqis?

At what point do the lives of innocents trump our 'national interests?' We get around this a lot in America by simply not talking about it. But if the presenters of this war were straight up with the American people and said 'ten to twenty thousand innocent Iraqis will die when we invade. Sorry, gotta break some eggs, yaknow?', The American people never would have gone for it. Never.

Moral relativism can be taken too far. If your value judgement allows for the killing of innocents in order to obtain natural resources, then your values are wrong, your values are those of a facist. It is as simple as that.

If you support candidates who espouse these same values, you are as guilty as they are.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ow.

0 Replies

had they said only 10-20k would die, most Americans would have indeed been behind the war. It was expected that hundreds of thousands would die, remember? 10-20k is a drop in that bucket.

I wish I could live in the land of make believe with you guys where war didn't kill anyone and the bad guys were all innocent.

0 Replies

Quit appealing to extremes, McG. It's a logical fallacy and really uncalled for.

It wasn't expected by anyone that hundreds of thousands would die...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"If your value judgement allows for the killing of innocents in order to obtain natural resources, then your values are wrong, your values are those of a facist. It is as simple as that."

Maybe in your opinion.

Were the leaders of our nation facist when we invaded and occupied our Western lands, killing innocent Indian women and children in the process?

Was FDR facist when he authorized the fire bombing of Munich and Dresden.

Was Truman facist when he authorized the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

All of those were deemed to be in our national interest.

0 Replies

The first one -- yes. And that was specifically about natural resources.

The other examples are not about natural resources.

0 Replies

In your first example, yes, our government was behaving in a very facist manner.

In your second and third examples, no. Those wars were a) not started by us, and b) were not about the US drive for natural resources, and therefore do not apply.

What other opinion can you hold on the subject, Larry? Are you stating that in your opinion, it is justified to kill innocents for the purpose of acquiring natural resources?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quit appealing to extremes, McG. It's a logical fallacy and really uncalled for.

It wasn't expected by anyone that hundreds of thousands would die...

Cycloptichorn

Oh balony! Numerous groups proclaimed with great zeal how many american and Iraqi deaths would occur from Saddams use of WMD's and the super-defense the Iraqi army would put up.

0 Replies

The American Indians one is a really interesting example. It is a huge blot on our history, and I would have been proud (though probably imperiled) to have protested it at the time.

It seems to reinforce that we should be looking critically at those in power, and be willing to recognize their fallibility.

0 Replies

Feel free to provide a link to that, and I'll believe you, McG.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In your first example, yes, our government was behaving in a very facist manner.

In your second and third examples, no. Those wars were a) not started by us, and b) were not about the US drive for natural resources, and therefore do not apply.

What other opinion can you hold on the subject, Larry? Are you stating that in your opinion, it is justified to kill innocents for the purpose of acquiring natural resources?

Cycloptichorn

No, I am saying that, IMO, war is justified when deemed in our national interests by our elected representatives. That may or may not include the acquisition of assured access to essential natural resources.

That despite the military's best effort to minimize, collateral damage occurs and innocent lives are lost.

0 Replies

So you are saying that there is no war this country could undertake that you would say was unjustified.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
:
In your first example, yes, our government was behaving in a very facist manner.

In your second and third examples, no. Those wars were a) not started by us, and b) were not about the US drive for natural resources, and therefore do not apply.

What other opinion can you hold on the subject, Larry? Are you stating that in your opinion, it is justified to kill innocents for the purpose of acquiring natural resources?

Cycloptichorn

No, I am saying that, IMO, war is justified when deemed in our national interests by our elected representatives. That may or may not include the acquisition of assured access to essential natural resources.

That despite the military's best effort to minimize, collateral damage occurs and innocent lives are lost.

Short version: yes, if der fuhrer says so. Or do I misunderstand?

0 Replies

That is correct Freeduck.

0 Replies

Then I'm just curious where you stood on Kosovo.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, I am saying that, IMO, war is justified when deemed in our national interests by our elected representatives. That may or may not include the acquisition of assured access to essential natural resources.

We've finally come down to it.

Your statment basically says, 'a war is justified because the people we elected to make decisions say it is justified.'

There is a basic difference between us. I don't believe that our leaders have the ability to create justification for things just by proclaiming it to be so. In fact, I feel that to blindly follow one's leaders is the worst possible sort of participation in one's society.

Because people will die in war(no contention there), and war is justified as long as your elected leaders say it is, then you are in effect stating that killing innocents is okay as long as our leaders tell us that it is okay. To me, this position is not only irresponsible from a democratic citizen's standpoint, but morally bankrupt in that it does not value the sanctity of human life at all above the 'interests' of our nation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

How do you mean? Do I think the war in Kosovo was justified? With out a doubt.

0 Replies

In A Way...It's A Great Time To Be Alive

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know