Hindsight 20/20, Pt III

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Just to be clear, which tyrants are being held at bay at the moment?

Well if you cant' think of a handful on your own just off the top of your head, then you need to keep up more with the news.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

OK. so that's why my tax dollars are paying for us to garrison the planet??? Anytime & everytime some asshole takes over some shithole country it is OUR job to stop it? .. Tell me where it says in the Constitution that it is the US government's job to police the planet.

It's not in the Constitution. It's a moral imperative. When you have the power to stop bullies from picking on little guys, you should. To stand by and do nothing, is to allow evil to triumph and grow stronger.

But that's okay, I'll put you down in the list for people who don't give a crap about anyone else.

JohnRich, you lean to the Right politically.

But your argument is a similar to the political Left: "If the US Government doesn't supply healthcare and re-distrbute wealth, there will people dying in the streets! Or don't you care about the dying citizens?"

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

(and as for bullies, how many times are we going to go overseas defending the bullies of one side from the bullies of the other side, only to have to go back there a decade later and fight against the same bully we previously defended? and I'm not just talking about Saddam here, there are other instances)

If we followed your advice, can you begin to imagine all the shit we'd be in in Africa?????

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Just to be clear, which tyrants are being held at bay at the moment?

Well if you cant' think of a handful on your own just off the top of your head, then you need to keep up more with the news.

Or, he could be asking a question and that response would simply appear to be dodging it.

[misaltas 0]

Quote

I think no one has a right to invade anyone unless they are attacked.

I for one am not ok with allowing that kind of sacrifice.

Confirmed hostile intent is good enough. A choice for war should be about minimizing tragedy, not maximizing it. It's about striving to return to a peaceful situation, not the other way around.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think no one has a right to invade anyone unless they are attacked. I don’t think disagreements on life or government philosophy is reason to start wars.

So if millions of people are being massacred in a genocide, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

And if another country invades someone else, as long as it's not our own, then again, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

Yours is a recipe for letting the tyrants of the world to get away with mass murder.

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Were America to become the isolationist that you desire, you wouldn't like what would happen to the rest of the world.

Depends on which country you speak of and whether or not the left and the media loves the dictator/leader of said country, or not.....

It's a pity that all the mainstream media you complain about are owned by capitalists. Kind of spoils your argument.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,006]

>It's not in the Constitution. It's a moral imperative.

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will America's heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. . . . She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

-John Quincy Adams

> When you have the power to stop bullies from picking on little guys, you should.

Not if you become the bully in the process. Then everyone loses.

>I'll put you down in the list for people who don't give a crap about anyone else.

Better add the Founding Fathers to that list.

[klingeme 1]

Quote

No.

I think no one has a right to invade anyone unless they are attacked.
I don’t think disagreements on life or government philosophy is reason to start wars.
Anyone who is 100% sure that there way is the only way or the only right way is an idiot. We simply do not live long enough to know the consequences of our actions.

By this rationale, Going after Hitler just for the treatment of Jews would not be justified?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

So if millions of people are being massacred in a genocide, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

And if another country invades someone else, as long as it's not our own, then again, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

Yours is a recipe for letting the tyrants of the world to get away with mass murder.

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Were America to become the isolationist that you desire, you wouldn't like what would happen to the rest of the world.

John,

Do you realize that what you are describing is humanitarian intervention or Wilsonian foreign policy?

Humanitarian intervention is *the* guiding principle of Wilsonian idealism and foreign policy. You are describing the dominant liberal foreign policy of the 20th Century. You are arguing President Clinton’s argument for military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo.

(The counter to Wilsonian idealism is realpolitik, i.e., the dominant foreign policy of Kissinger, Pres Nixon, and Pres Reagan.)

As far back as John Stuart Mill conservatives have argued that humanitarian intervention is symptomatic of paternalism, i.e., all the conservative arguments against welfare, and that one gets the government one deserves/earns.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think no one has a right to invade anyone unless they are attacked. I don’t think disagreements on life or government philosophy is reason to start wars.

So if millions of people are being massacred in a genocide, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

And if another country invades someone else, as long as it's not our own, then again, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

Yours is a recipe for letting the tyrants of the world to get away with mass murder.

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Were America to become the isolationist that you desire, you wouldn't like what would happen to the rest of the world.

Depends on which country you speak of and whether or not the left and the media loves the dictator/leader of said country, or not.....

It's a pity that all the mainstream media you complain about are owned by capitalists. Kind of spoils your argument.

Not at all sir. You speak to who owns it. I speak to who runs it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think no one has a right to invade anyone unless they are attacked. I don’t think disagreements on life or government philosophy is reason to start wars.

So if millions of people are being massacred in a genocide, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

And if another country invades someone else, as long as it's not our own, then again, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

Yours is a recipe for letting the tyrants of the world to get away with mass murder.

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Were America to become the isolationist that you desire, you wouldn't like what would happen to the rest of the world.

Depends on which country you speak of and whether or not the left and the media loves the dictator/leader of said country, or not.....

It's a pity that all the mainstream media you complain about are owned by capitalists. Kind of spoils your argument.

Not at all sir. You speak to who owns it. I speak to who runs it.

Oh, the people HIRED by the capitalists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think no one has a right to invade anyone unless they are attacked. I don’t think disagreements on life or government philosophy is reason to start wars.

So if millions of people are being massacred in a genocide, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

And if another country invades someone else, as long as it's not our own, then again, we should just mind our own business, look away, and let them do it.

Yours is a recipe for letting the tyrants of the world to get away with mass murder.

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Were America to become the isolationist that you desire, you wouldn't like what would happen to the rest of the world.

Depends on which country you speak of and whether or not the left and the media loves the dictator/leader of said country, or not.....

It's a pity that all the mainstream media you complain about are owned by capitalists. Kind of spoils your argument.

Not at all sir. You speak to who owns it. I speak to who runs it.

Oh, the people HIRED by the capitalists.

Made a HUGE difference for the company I work for

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Just to be clear, which tyrants are being held at bay at the moment?

Well if you cant' think of a handful on your own just off the top of your head, then you need to keep up more with the news.

Ok, so you can't or won't name any, fair enough. For my part, I can think of plenty of tyrants of various sizes who seem to be running their corners of the world quite contentedly.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like it or not, America is the world's biggest super-power. And the only thing holding tyrants at bay, is the threat of American force.

Just to be clear, which tyrants are being held at bay at the moment?

Well if you cant' think of a handful on your own just off the top of your head, then you need to keep up more with the news.

Ok, so you can't or won't name any, fair enough. For my part, I can think of plenty of tyrants of various sizes who seem to be running their corners of the world quite contentedly.

Correct. And the reason they're not spreading their tyranny, is because of the threat of American defense and retaliation.

So, do you the US to go isolationist so those guy can run amok? Or do you want the US to carry a big stick in the world to keep those guys contained? Which is it?

[billvon 3,006]

>So, do you the US to go isolationist so those guy can run amok?

Let's start by not creating them to begin with.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
And the reason they're not spreading their tyranny, is because of the threat of American defense and retaliation.
....

... which slowly but surely started to crumble away.

Quote

So, do you the US to go isolationist so those guy can run amok? Or do you want the US to carry a big stick in the world to keep those guys contained? Which is it?

Take that big stick and start to walk around within your own borders. There's plenty to be cleaned up.

But, as long as the US is dealing with these so-called tyrants, what are you complaining about?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>So, do you the US to go isolationist so those guy can run amok?

Let's start by not creating them to begin with.

I'm pretty sure we're not creating all of them.

based on history, these sorts of leaders seem to be the norm rather than the oddity. Power vacuums get filled by power seeking people.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

for one am not ok with allowing that kind of sacrifice.

Confirmed hostile intent is good enough. A choice for war should be about minimizing tragedy, not maximizing it. It's about striving to return to a peaceful situation, not the other way around.

So the threat alone is enough to kill people over?

So at a bar if some guy says "i am going to kill you" i can take my gun out and empty all 16 rounds? and if i hit a few people who just happen to be at the same place that's ok?even if he is smaller and is sure to lose the fight?

Another problem with that logic; Who tells us of a threat? we know what has happened in the past when the people we trust say a country is an eminent threat. how do you justify the hundreds of thousands of Innocent men, woman,and children killed?

Also if the US uses the threat of violence or nuclear devastation do the words alone justify an attack on us? Or is that different some how?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[misaltas 0]

So the threat alone is enough to kill people over?
No. The threat is enough to take action proportionate to the threat. If the attack is confirmed and imminent, then I'd rather not wait for MY innocents to die before doing something.

So at a bar if some guy says "i am going to kill you" i can take my gun out and empty all 16 rounds?
No. But if he has a weapon, he threatens, and I assess that he's going to use it, he's going down first. Want to prevent that, don't threaten. I'm not waiting for him to shoot, stab, bash me before I feel I have the moral high ground to do something to protect myself, friends, family.

and if i hit a few people who just happen to be at the same place that's ok?
No. You're normally good for logical debate. You went a little over the edge with that one. But ok. Are those people in the same place there before he shoots me or after I'm down bleeding?

even if he is smaller and is sure to lose the fight?
Ugh. You're slipping dude. C'mon Darius, we were almost having an honest debate here. But ok, mark me down for "proportionate response +1". Small != less deadly.

Another problem with that logic; Who tells us of a threat?
I used the word "confirmed" in my OP. Perfect? Nope, sorry we're humans. That's the risk you take when you threaten another imperfect human. Me? I'd rather live in peace with everyone.

we know what has happened in the past when the people we trust say a country is an eminent threat.
how do you justify the hundreds of thousands of Innocent men, woman,and children killed?
War is always tragic of course, and it is only justified if you're convinced that not engaging in it will cause more tragedy. My concern is to minimize tragedy and innocent suffering, not maximize it. That would be ridiculous. Is that what you're advocating? I doubt it.

Also if the US uses the threat of violence or nuclear devastation do the words alone justify an attack on us? Or is that different somehow?
Yes, it's different somehow. It's different if the threat is defensive or offensive. Since the 40s, you could say the US has always had a standing threat of using nuclear weapons in very certain proportional defensive situations. As I said in another thread, war can only be morally justified when it is engaged as a struggle to return to peace and when you're convinced not doing so will be worse.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

By this rationale, Going after Hitler just for the treatment of Jews would not be justified?

No, they'll just say they are not sure it was happening.

[Skyrad 0]

We'd all be speaking Russian now if they did.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Darius11 12]

Quote

and if i hit a few people who just happen to be at the same place that's ok?
No. You're normally good for logical debate. You went a little over the edge with that one. But ok. Are those people in the same place there before he shoots me or after I'm down bleeding?

Quote

Another problem with that logic; Who tells us of a threat?
I used the word "confirmed" in my OP. Perfect? Nope, sorry we're humans. That's the risk you take when you threaten another imperfect human. Me? I'd rather live in peace with everyone.

The reason i mentioned other Innocent people is as you have stated your self war always comes with collateral damage. I was trying to see how one could justify that. As you said you can not be sure if the country threatens you they take the risk as no one is perfect. i understand that it is logical, but Iraq was not threatening us in the slightest. The threat was made up the decision was made before the facts were lined up. how can we justify it then?

using your logic we have committed mass murder. So what do we do so this does not happen again? i don't think anyone can take that amount of unnecessary death that lightly

Quote

even if he is smaller and is sure to lose the fight?
Ugh. You're slipping dude. C'mon Darius, we were almost having an honest debate here. But ok, mark me down for "proportionate response +1". Small != less deadly.

IMO i think we have switched from a defensive position to an offensive one. this is not good, what can any of those countries do to us? if Iraq would have done anything within minuets of their first strike there whole world would be on fire. that threat alone is enough for no country to fuck with us. Just think if a country in the Middle East actually declares war on us, do you know what would happen? they would be sent back to the stone age.

for me being aggressive when you are the United States is ridiculous. We go from the strong good guy to the bully who no one likes. we simply do not need to be so ready to go to war.


I think deadly force/war is only justified when someone comes in to your place, home, country, etc with intent to harm. I think we lose all moral ground when we become the aggressor. If we only act on fear then we have already lost the fight.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[misaltas 0]

...but Iraq was not...
Hmm, this thread started about the Soviet Union, so for many reasons I'm going to resist having us slide this into yet another tired Iraq thread. That topic is played out and anyone who has an unflinching view has already exhausted their opinions years ago. Your comment that I first replied to was of a generic nature, my reply was generic. Let's keep it that way and assume that the concepts apply to any offense, defense, attack, or war; including Iraq if you wish.

The reason i mentioned other Innocent people is as you have stated your self war always comes with collateral damage. I was trying to see how one could justify that.
Yes, I understood what you were asking. And I'm sure I answered that at least a couple different ways IMO the only manner under which this could ever be justified.

but _(whoever)_ was not threatening us in the slightest.
In general, UN resolutions to disarm typically aren't imposed upon regimes who are not threatening in the slightest. But then that assumes that all parties consider the UN to be an impartial body, which not all do.

using your logic we have committed mass murder
Since you choose to use *my* logic, then use it all the way. Let me help. One could argue that if a war was started by a group whose objective was more tragedy than if war wasn't engaged, and that their objective was away from peace and not towards it, then yes, one could say that was mass murder, war crimes, etc.

So what do we do so this does not happen again?
Already answered that. IMO one last time. Ensure that if you choose war it's because the tragic cost of not doing so would be worse, and that your motivation is to achieve a more peaceful result in the end. Who assesses this cost? Let's also assume that the person making this assessment is a reasonable person acting in good faith. Imperfect humans will often disagree on what exactly figures to be 'reasonable' and 'good faith'. We're not going to solve that on a skydiving forum.

i don't think anyone can take that amount of unnecessary death that lightly
I agree. Never can this be taken lightly.

IMO i think we have switched from a defensive position to an offensive one.
And that there is the conflict of ideas.

what can any of those countries do to us?
We've already seen what a minutely tiny group of determined people can do to the most powerful nation in the history of humanity. Imagine if they had a covertly deployed wmd.

if Iraq would have done anything within minuets of their first strike there whole world would be on fire. that threat alone is enough for no country to fuck with us. Just think if a country in the Middle East actually declares war on us, do you know what would happen? they would be sent back to the stone age.
You are using an outdated model. I agree with you that the deterrent value of the US having the strongest military and economy in the world is enough to prevent a frontal, exposed attack from a recognized nation who openly declares war on us (say, pearl harbor). No doubt. Enemies however are smarter and more wily than that. Attacks on the US are sure to be much less transparent, and it could take quite a while to figure out who the true aggressor was.

we simply do not need to be so ready to go to war.
Any nation who wishes to survive should be ready to go to war against a nation or organization who threatens them and has the motive and capability and intent to attack. My original point to you was that if we wait for the first strike, that's a sacrifice I'm not willing to accept, imo.

I think deadly force/war is only justified when someone comes in to your place, home, country, etc with intent to harm.
But in a previous post, you said that deadly force can only be used after you are first attacked. Perhaps we're in a semantic stuggle over the word "attacked"?

I think we lose all moral ground when we become the aggressor.
True. But one person's aggressor is another's active defender/preventor. What I learned in infantry school is that every defense must be an active defense. You still run patrols and establish your influence otherwise you're a sitting duck.

If we only act on fear then we have already lost the fight.
If we only act on fear, yes, I agree.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts