THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Society is the authority. It is the social contract that binds us together with a shared set of morals and values. Of course, there are outliers and differences of opinion - we aren't robots - but in general, our society has agreed upon a set of acceptable or unacceptable actions.
Who speaks for society and expresses what society thinks is "acceptable or unacceptable"? Our elected? Our appointed?

Your 'building a table' argument is ridiculous, as I'm sure you know. Building a table isn't a moral argument, it is a procedural action.
I gave you multiple moral arguments showing actual ends justifying means that went way over your head. So I thought I try a simple moral argument demonstrating the same. Obviously, that went over your head as well.

Your definition of 'ends' and 'means' are a little shifty; an end usually refers to a definate result, not 'not doing things which are wrong,' an open-ended guidline for living. That isn't an end, it is a moral, which is quite different. An 'end' is a concluded set of actions.
False!

An end is a result of a set of actions. The result of a just set of actions is a different result than the result of an unjust set of actions.

Quote:

www.m-w.com
Main Entry: 1 end
Pronunciation: 'end
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ende, from Old English; akin to Old High German enti end, Latin ante before, Greek anti against
1 a : the part of an area that lies at the boundary b (1) : a point that marks the extent of something (2) : the point where something ceases to exist <world> c : the extreme or last part lengthwise : TIP d : the terminal unit of something spatial that is marked off by units e : a player stationed at the extremity of a line (as in football)
2 a : cessation of a course of action, pursuit, or activity b : DEATH, DESTRUCTION c (1) : the ultimate state (2) : RESULT, ISSUE
3 : something incomplete, fragmentary, or undersized : REMNANT
4 a : an outcome worked toward : PURPOSE <the> b : the object by virtue of or for the sake of which an event takes place
5 a : a share in an undertaking <kept> b : a particular operation or aspect of an undertaking or organization <the>
6 : something that is extreme : ULTIMATE -- used with the
7 : a period of action or turn in any of various sports events (as archery or lawn bowling)
synonym see INTENTION
- end·ed /'en-d&d/ adjective
- in the end : AFTER ALL, ULTIMATELY
- no end : EXCEEDINGLY
- on end : without a stop or letup <it>

Cycloptichorn

How exactly is is courageous for Bush to go to Iraq, in secret? It of course isn't courageous at all.
...
Cycloptichorn

It isn't courageous to sneak into a place which we have supposedly 'liberated,' in the middle of the night, and to sneak back out after a photo op, sorry. Courage would be staying for a while and seeing what he actually sends our nation's kids to do every day.

This? Just a stunt, nothing more.

Cycloptichorn

It isn't courageous to sneak into a place which we have supposedly 'liberated,' in the middle of the night, and to sneak back out after a photo op, sorry. Courage would be staying for a while and seeing what he actually sends our nation's kids to do every day.

This? Just a stunt, nothing more.

Cycloptichorn

You may or may not have read that Al-maliki wasn't informed of Bush's visit beforehand, actually, not until 5 minutes before he met Bush. This isn't exactly a sign of confidence, in fact, quite the opposite. Bush was using the visit to his own benefit, not to al-maliki's; just another carefully staged photo op.

You guys sure are funny, though

Cycloptichorn

You may or may not have read that Al-maliki wasn't informed of Bush's visit beforehand, actually, not until 5 minutes before he met Bush.
...
Cycloptichorn

Light orange on light blue is hard to read--just in case you want to share those bon mots with others, ican711...

The Territorial Army has suffered a drastic loss of experienced personnel with almost 16,000 troops quitting since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a Freedom of Information request has revealed.

The reserve army, which has been widely used to support under-manned regular units in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan, is now 7,000 below full strength.

In the past year the TA lost 5,000 personnel, leaving 32,000 members. In 1985 it had a strength of 81,000

The Territorial Army has a long and distinguished history, since volunteers fought alongside the regular Army to thwart Napoleon at Waterloo. In various guises, TA soldiers have been putting their heads above the parapet each time this nation comes under threat. But, until now, their role has not been as a permanent replacement for regular troops in foreign campaigns.

Since 1988, Government spending on defence has steadily declined. But since 1997, while this decline has continued (the defence budget has shrink by a quarter under New Labour), the tasks the Armed Forces are called upon for have grown. So as the fulltime Army is losing soldiers, the Government appears to believe that the TA is a cheap way of replacing them. More than 1,000 TA troops are currently in Iraq risking life and limb alongside the full-timers. The volunteer force now accounts for one in five of those on the front line of an unpopular war. Yet its manpower is only three-quarters of what it should be.

In the two years since October 2003, the TA has lost, through resignation, 2,100 more volunteers than it has managed to recruit. One major reason is the dislike of the conflict in Iraq, which has hit both regular and part-time soldier recruitment. But the Government has also steadily diminished the authority and status of British soldiers, through a combination of insensitive judicial enquiries and unpopular regimental reorganisations.

The original purpose of the TA was to defend our country - not to fight battles far from home. The Government thought the alteration would go unnoticed, but to many of those willing to give up their time the difference is immense. The change makes it much less attractive to join the Territorials, as the likelihood of being sent to a war zone such as Iraq or Afghanistan is now much higher. The impact on volunteers' lives and jobs is often too great, resulting in those considering offering their services walking away and those already serving resigning. Yet it is these men and women we would be relying on in a real emergency.

The TA are not Dad's Army buffoons. They are highly trained, dedicated soldiers. And they should be valued as such. The Government has been wrong to assume that it could change their role without any knock-on effects. It should appreciate the vital role the Territorials provide in times of trouble or threat, and not just see them as a cheap way of filling in an underfunded army. There is only one solution: to recruit - and properly equip - more full-time soldiers.

No, I'm accusing him of supporting torture and murder through a third-party, based upon his statements.

While I am quite sure a professional would be more proficient at torture than an amateur, it doesn't make morally justified in any way, and therefore to say that you are 'glad' that certain people are good at torture is as morally reprehensible as committing torturous acts oneself. It is simply easier to justify when it isn't oneself who is called upon to do the act, but that doesn't make it right at all.

Let's see... Iraq is a sovereign nation now, got a government and everything. Right?

So, for five hundred A2K points, name another sovereign nation that the US President can fly into unannounced, under cover of darkness, for a surprise meeting with that nation's leader.

Take your time.


Joe(Knock, knock. Who is it?)Nation

Joe Nation wrote:

Let's see... Iraq is a sovereign nation now, got a government and everything. Right?

So, for five hundred A2K points, name another sovereign nation that the US President can fly into unannounced, under cover of darkness, for a surprise meeting with that nation's leader.

Take your time.


Joe(Knock, knock. Who is it?)Nation

He can do that in every country we have diplomatic relations with.