Preparing for More War?

[helene_t]

but we had a pretty long thread a year or so ago on 'right' vs. 'wrong' from a philosophical viewpoint, and if memory serves you have no basis to call an action right or wrong since (you can correct me if I'm wrong) neither exist, objectively... as for 'right', in your opinion does might make right? if not, what does? opinion? polls?

I think the word "right" in "I have the right to ....." is completely different from the word "right" in "the right thing to do is ....". Some may disagree but I don't care. Semantics, seschmantics.

 

In either case, you can express your humble opinion and I can express my humble opinion. If you are referring to some other frame of reference than your own humble opinion, it's probably a good idea to state that explicitly to avoid misunderstandings. So

"According to the x-philosophy of ethics, the right thing to do is ....." means exactly what is says, while

"The right thing do do, is ...." means "IMHO, the right thing to do is ....."

 

as for your "morally wrong" statement, you have no basis for making it... you are one of the people who deny such a thing exists, or who define the term in such a subjective matter as to make it useless

Well, useless to you, apparently. Fair enough.

[luke warm]

but we had a pretty long thread a year or so ago on 'right' vs. 'wrong' from a philosophical viewpoint, and if memory serves you have no basis to call an action right or wrong since (you can correct me if i'm wrong) neither exist, objectively... as for 'right', in your opinion does might make right? if not, what does? opinion? polls?

I think the word "right" in "I have the right to ....." is completely different from the word "right" in "the right thing to do is ....". Some may disagree but I don't care. Semantics, seschmantics.

 

In either case, you can express your humble opinion and I can express my humble opinion. If you are refering to some other frame of reference than your own humble opinion, it's probably a good idea to state that explicitly to avoid misunderstandings. So

"According to the x-philophy of ethics, the right thing to do is ....." means excactly what is says, while

"The right thing do do, is ...." means "IMHO, the right thing to do is ....."

that's true, helene, but it doesn't answer the core question that mike asked... where does this right come from? what makes an action "right?" if, as you suggest, it is a humble opinion, then (assuming we do go to war in iran) it would just be america's humble opinion that war was justified

as for your "morally wrong" statement, you have no basis for making it... you are one of the people who deny such a thing exists, or who define the term in such a subjective matter as to make it useless

Well, useless to you, apparently. Fair enough.

helene, does such a thing exist? if so, how is it defined?

[helene_t]

America doesn't have a humble opinion. It has some 270,000,000 humble opinions.

 

And indeed, I don't know where my humble opinion comes from. Sorry.

[luke warm]

America doesn't have a humble opinion. It has some 270,000,000 humble opinions.

 

And indeed, I don't know where my humble opinion comes from. Sorry.

your opinion(s) and where they come from are your business and i'm perfectly happy reading them... i was speaking of peter's use of the term "morally wrong" and trying to understand how it is determined and/or who determines it

[Winstonm]

First in response to Jimmy's comments.

 

I have said that actions have consequences. Might indeed makes right as in the powerful can do as they please with no penalty - but they cannot escape the consequences of their actions.

 

In that sense the U.S. has the "right" to do as it pleases, as no other country can penalize us sufficiently for those actions. However, the U.S. has to live with the consequences of those actions. This is what Ron Paul says, as well, and what the CIA reports call blowback.

 

My point in using the term "right" in my construction was should our leaders have the right to overrule the majority interest. My main thrust was in pointing out the strong influence of Leo Strauss teachings on the core power group of the U.S.

 

As for Mike's statement, he said that we don't have to go to war if we don't mind Iran having nuclear weapons. That is a sweeping statement that makes a presumption that Iran is after nuclear weapons. It also suggests that even if they are the only way to stop them is war. If I accept that premise, I am on the defensive to prove my position - and as soon as I do that, I validate his presumption. I do not validate that presumption and thus will not debate on that basis. I would say when it comes to war, especially a holocaustic war of these proportions, the burden of proof must lie with those espousing war, not opposing it.

[Winstonm]

I hate to call any question absurd on the terrorist subject. Highly improbable, sure. I guess I am saying there are asymetric ideas, highly improbable, but still worth discussing on this subject. I do not think that makes one a racist, hate filled or evil person.

 

 

Do you really belive this. This is really Absurd.

 

Bush starts a war with Iran to stay longer in office? ROFL

 

I hate to use Mike's comments after he said he was through with this thread, and if he is still reading it I invite him back in.

 

In the first comment, we see a justification. When the absurdity fits your worldview, you stretch to make it plausible.

 

The second statement does not fit that same world view, so it must of necessity be absurd.

 

What makes the first "absurdity" worthy of discussion while the second "sbsurdity" is laughable?

[Al_U_Card]

The only terrorists are the power elite right there in the good old US of A. They are pretty good at doing terrible things. Their only goal, now that they have the money and the power seems to revolve around the exercise of their might.....the main problem is just how inept they are at it.

 

Nuclear weapons? Not likely. There is no profit in them and think of the oil fields that would be lost.....

 

 

btw, they have never had so much scrutiny and so much exposure.....wonder when they will declare the internet a security risk and try to control it.....

[the hog]

We should attack a country when it commits an act of war against us.

 

Which no country has done since Pearl Harbor...

Not quite true. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Nth Korea invaded the South. Also Thailand launched an unprovoked incursion agains Laos some 12 years ago. What about The Gulf War?

[jtfanclub]

We should attack a country when it commits an act of war against us.

 

Which no country has done since Pearl Harbor...

Not quite true. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Nth Korea invaded the South. Also Thailand launched an unprovoked incursion agains Laos some 12 years ago. What about The Gulf War?

Admittedly, the Gulf War was caused by justifiable confusion, to paraphrase:

 

Saddam: "Kuwait is stealing oil from our oil fields using slanted drilling!"

U.S. Ambassador: "So what do you want us to do about it?"

Saddam: "Lean on them, make them stop!"

U.S. Ambassador: "Nope, this is your problem. You two deal with it, we won't interfere."

Saddam: "You won't?"

U.S. Ambassador: "Nope, deal with it yourselves".

 

And less than a month later, Iraq invaded.

 

You know, maybe this idea of giving ambassadorships to major donors of the winning party isn't such a good idea.

[luke warm]

First in response to Jimmy's comments.

 

I have said that actions have consequences.  Might indeed makes right as in the powerful can do as they please with no penalty - but they cannot escape the consequences of their actions.

 

In that sense the U.S. has the "right" to do as it pleases, as no other country can penalize us sufficiently for those actions.  However, the U.S. has to live with the consequences of those actions.  This is what Ron Paul says, as well, and what the CIA reports call blowback.

i agree, actions do have consequences.. i disagree with the 'right makes right' philosophy, but when one has no objective definition of "morally right" then one must make use of subjectivity, and this is usually based on one's worldview

My point in using the term "right" in my construction was should our leaders have the right to overrule the majority interest.  My main thrust was in pointing out the strong influence of Leo Strauss teachings on the core power group of the U.S.

i think our rulers since the founding of the country have overruled majority opinion... i know that the majority of the u.s. population was not in favor of getting involved in the war in europe during wwII, for example... that's one of the dangers of a representative form of gov't... as for leo strauss, i personally find any philosophy that is based on deception to be inherently flawed, though i'm not in a position to defend that statement

As for Mike's statement, he said that we don't have to go to war if we don't mind Iran having nuclear weapons.  That is a sweeping statement that makes a presumption that Iran is after nuclear weapons.  It also suggests that even if they are the only way to stop them is war.  If I accept that premise, I am on the defensive to prove my position - and as soon as I do that, I validate his presumption.

you can accept either or both of those premises without validating either... that's what debate is all about...

[Winstonm]

you can accept either or both of those premises without validating either... that's what debate is all about...

 

You left out my choice, which is to accept neither. So the debate could only be about the statement made: "No, not if you don't mind Iran having nuclear weapons" in response to the question "Will we go to war with Iran?" To me, this is a statement that presupposes that Iran will create those weapons and that war is the only way to stop them.

 

These are two distinct questions: will Iran create nuclear weapons and should war be used to stop them before they succeed?

[mike777]

U.S. sending third aircraft carrier to the Middle East

 

Associated Press

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

 

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates: The United States is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, the U.S. Navy said Tuesday in a move that bolstered U.S. military capability at a time of tension with Iran and stepped-up operations in Iraq.

 

 

Will there be war with Iran?

btw my local newspaper says we are not sending a third carrier group. Is this typical misinformation by our great media? My small, local, paper says this is a replacement group?

 

Please reconfirm your facts or just say you hate Bush and anything he may do please.

 

I note even if this was a third group on station, no one, I repeat no one said, yes, well done.

 

For those who think bush is trying to stay on past his term limit, please explain how?

 

At first I was really really angry with the insult to our military, after I cooled off I saw all or almost all seemed to be non usa who may not know how the system works.

[the hog]

"At first I was really really angry with the insult to our military, after I cooled off I saw all or almost all seemed to be non usa who may not know how the system works. "

 

Mike, I am curious as after reading your last post I reread all the posts. Who or what do you think insulted the US miitary? Btw, I think you will find many of us have an excellent idea of how the US system works. I have found the educated Europeans and Australians have a very good knowledge of the world outside their borders, probably because they travel widely, (far more widely than Americans are prone to do, I believe.)

[mike777]

"At first I was really really angry with the insult to our military, after I cooled off I saw all or almost all seemed to be non usa who may not know how the system works. "

 

Mike, I am curious as after reading your last post I reread all the posts. Who or what do you think insulted the US miitary? Btw, I think you will find many of us have an excellent idea of how the US system works. I have found the educated Europeans and Australians have a very good knowledge of the world outside their borders, probably because they travel widely, (far more widely than Americans are prone to do, I believe.)

Ya I must admit, I was red hot...angry at the insults..for those posts...thank God, i did not post and cooled off, after I assumed many if not all were non usa posts.

 

Why insult?

 

They assumed Bush could stay on how? ARmy coup? That is a huge insult to my family and others in the military.

 

I cooled off and saw they may not understand that Bush staying on was a huge thing, not small.

 

btw I noticed no one, I mean no one responded in full detail to the posts.....so....I hope that does mean bbo just does not care or lives under the sheets or other......

 

echo at least said a little tiny something....:P

 

In any case the fact that no usa person seems to have responded teaches me some lesson, just not sure what other than perhaps I should not post and just shut up.

[helene_t]

They assumed Bush could stay on how? ARmy coup? That is a huge insult to my family and others in the military.

Huh? Nobody has said anything bad about the US military, or suggested that the military is prone to interfere in politics. What I said was about political consequences of a political decision (to start a war). It does not follow from what I said that how this war is carried out by the military would have any political impact. (It could have, for example the failure to rescue the hostages at the Teheran embassy might have had an impact on the 1980 elections, but that's a completely different kind of thing).

 

My reasoning is probably somewhat insulting to the U.S. public (so I should say that I think the same mass psychology applies in other countries as well), to the U.S. government (yes, I think the U.S. government sucks and that it sucks more than most other present Western governements) and to U.S. mass media (as I understand it a scaring proportion of Americans get their news from right-extremist propaganda TV but heck, it's a free World and people can just watch BBC or read The Economist if they prefer).

 

But even if someone had said that the U.S. army sucks, better not take it as a personal offence. There are so many things that "suck" accoding to someone's opinion. Dwayne thinks the Live Earth Concerts suck, Roland (Walddk) thinks that Gerber sucks. Now suppose I'm personally involved in Live Earth and that I'm a devoted Gerberist. Should I feel insulted? I don't think so.

 

FWIW, I think the U.S. has a quite effective military. But that's off-topic. This thread is about politics.

[pbleighton]

In any case the fact that no usa person seems to have responded teaches me some lesson

 

I did respond, Mike. Perhaps you have revoked my citizenship :P

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

U.S. sending third aircraft carrier to the Middle East

 

Associated Press

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

 

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates: The United States is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, the U.S. Navy said Tuesday in a move that bolstered U.S. military capability at a time of tension with Iran and stepped-up operations in Iraq.

 

 

Will there be war with Iran?

btw my local newspaper says we are not sending a third carrier group. Is this typical misinformation by our great media? My small, local, paper says this is a replacement group?

 

Please reconfirm your facts or just say you hate Bush and anything he may do please.

 

I note even if this was a third group on station, no one, I repeat no one said, yes, well done.

 

For those who think bush is trying to stay on past his term limit, please explain how?

 

At first I was really really angry with the insult to our military, after I cooled off I saw all or almost all seemed to be non usa who may not know how the system works.

The first article I read stated that a third carrier was being sent. Much later, I saw another article that said that by the end of summer there would only be one carrier in those waters.

 

Yes, it would good to know whether this is a build up or reduction.

[Winstonm]

Please reconfirm your facts or just say you hate Bush and anything he may do please.

 

I note even if this was a third group on station, no one, I repeat no one said, yes, well done.

 

For those who think bush is trying to stay on past his term limit, please explain how?

 

At first I was really really angry with the insult to our military

 

1. No, I do not hate Bush. I mistrust Bush and his judgement. You are welcome. I strongly disagree with Bush/Cheney/Gonzales concepts of the unitary executive - my conflicts with this administration are philosophical. I also disagree with actions taken when I feel the action was based on that philosophy.

 

2. There should be no surprise that no one said "well done". Polls show that 70% of the U.S. believe we are on the wrong course with Iraq.

 

3. I do not think Bush will attempt to stay past his term; however, all changes to laws and executive orders granting more power to declare presidential superiority should be repealed for the good of the nation and its future. .

 

4. The commander-in-chief sends - the military responds. How is this something to be riled about? I do not see the insult to the U.S. military unless you are extrapolating the idea of Bush exceeding his term and needing the military's cooperation to do so. I did not see anyone suggesting military cooperation in a coup.

 

If there is such a power grab, it will not require the military's assistance - it will be the result of a "crisis" and putting into action laws and executive orders that are now in place.

[Al_U_Card]

In any case the fact that no usa person seems to have responded teaches me some lesson, just not sure what other than perhaps I should not post and just shut up.

That is exactly what they want you to do, Mike.

 

When confronted by the facts and reality, and no longer able to justify the "party" line, get back into your bunker "mentality" and hope the boogie man goes away.

 

Wake up! Look around! You had the greatest country in the world but it was hijacked by a cadre of deliberate and conniving monsters. Did not Cheney tell Norad to stand down regarding flight intercepts during the exercises that were running "as previously scheduled" during 9-11? Did he not order Norad to get his approval before taking action during their practice? Was he not the sole reason why kamikaze airliners were not intercepted by your valiant air-force pilots?

 

You are in a war, my friend, but it is not Christian against Muslim, it is your freedom versus their domination. Good luck to all of us.

[mycroft]

Putting on my tinfoil hat:

 

1) Bush won't stay on. There's too little time to organize that (barring another MAJOR terrorist attack, not squibs like the current media darlings, probably not even another of the scale of London July 7. I'm talking the Sears Tower going down, or a successful Aum Shinrikyo-style attack). And anyway, even the Republicans don't want that. And when you lose your Barons Money Base, paper like the Magna Carta Constitution becomes more solid and unavoidable.

 

2) It *is* important to Bush et al. *personally* that their legal inventions safeguards stay in place for the next four years. By then, the political capital (newsworthiness) that can be made off criminal investigations of the current Administration will have diminished to the point where the Democrats will just take the benefits of the Great Power Grab in exchange for not embarrassing/jailing the Bush Inner Circle when they get in. In other words, they get away with it.

 

3) At the moment, it is important to the GOP machine that 2) happens, as well, because *right now*, there's enough in removing the shroud of secrecy behind the last 6 years that taking down the people involved would be worth it, politically, in long-term hamstringing the GOP. Again, if they can survive until 2012, their blue-state friends will be happier to just take the power.

 

Therefore, 4) a War with Iran, if they can work it so that it will keep the presidency Republican for one more term (of course, no Bush, please, we're not British) everything will get nicely swept under the rug, and politics can get back to normal. Plus, they might just be able to get another moderate conservative on the Supreme Court, and lock that sucker up for 15 years or so - also improving the chances that the veil of secrecy over the 2000s will remain.

 

Please note, I have not mentioned America or The People or Freedom or anything actually important in this screed. That's the truly dis(turb|gust)ing thing about this whole show.

 

Michael.

[Winstonm]

As I stated above, my differences with current administration and their policies is based on their philosophical beliefs. My gravest concern is that I do not know the depth of their beliefs - meaning I do not know to what extremes they might go to instistute ideologies.

 

The legal debate is whether the laws passed, executive orders signed, and presidential directives instituted are substantial enough to be the U.S. equivalent to the Enabling Act - and might they be used as such under a false pretense.

[Winstonm]

I find this interesting:

 

Poll published in Wall Street Journal shows most Iranians willing to recognize Israel in the frame of agreement to restore relations with US

Yitzhak Benhorin

 

An overwhelming majority of Iranians, 70 percent, favor normal relations and trade with the United States, a nationwide poll conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow has found.

 

In return for normal relations with the US, most Iranians were willing to recognize Israel and Palestine as independent states, ending Iranian supports for armed groups in Iraq, and adopt a transparent nuclear policy, Terror Free Tomorrow President Ken Ballen wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

 

The poll also found that only 29 percent of respondents viewed developing nuclear weapons as a top national priority. By contrast, 88 percent said that improving the Iranian economy was a very important priority.

 

About 80 percent of those polled said they would allow full inspection of Iran's nuclear activities and vow not to develop nuclear arms in return for foreign aid.

 

Some 61 percent told Terror Free Tomorrow pollsters by phone that they were opposed to the rule of their supreme leader who rules according to religious laws and can not be replaced by popular vote. About 79 percent said they preferred to have their leaders elected by the people.

 

Only 11 percent said they were strongly opposed to having their leaders elected by popular vote.

 

For sake of fairness this today:

 

In what officials have said was partly muscle-flexing toward Iran, the Navy has maintained two aircraft carrier battle groups in area since early this year and twice held major exercises in the Gulf.

 

But the force could be reduced to one carrier in the coming weeks unless one now there is ordered to stay beyond its planned homecoming or another is rescheduled to go there early, three defense officials said Tuesday.

 

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak on the subject for the record. The military tries to say as little as possible about ship movements for security reasons.

 

[Al_U_Card]

Sabre rattling at great expense to the US taxpayer....and for what?

[Al_U_Card]

And at the end times there will be war and rumors of war....

 

An "attack" on the WTC funded by the CIA, abetted by the elite and welcomed by the NWO.....

 

Remember the "declaration" of the GLOBAL WAR on terror?

W and his puppet-masters are the only ones terrorizing anything.

 

Wake up.

[helene_t]

There was an article in a Danish newspaper a couple of months ago, written by a journalist who visited a remote village in Eastern Iran. He asked people for who they voted and for whom they would vote next time, and why. The reasons people gave for voting for the present president were socio-economical: Adjamenibad promised to subsidise bread (which is something that matters to poor people), while the progressives just care for the yupees in Teheran who are their core voters. Now the village was split. Some still supported the government while others would vote for progressives which they thought were more competent and less corrupt. Some said they probably would't vote at all.

 

Nobody mentioned religion, let alone nukes.