On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
So far nothing of what you've posted has made any bit of sence... Are you honestly saying that if you gain on it, it's morally justifiable? That's the biggest load of horseshit I've heard yet, and I have to say that you have some fucked up moral values.
I assume you want legalized rape, murder, theft, robbery and child sex, as all of these can provide a 'gain' for the purpetrator? Because that's what you said earlier. And now it's a huge leap of logic? Oh well.
One thing's for sertain, an invasion is NEVER justifiable, as it's a violation of international law. Aggression wars are always illegal. I dunno what you're trying to tell yourself, and I don't know where you get your moral values, but honestly I recommend you to take an extra look at them.
"The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.". Wow.. just wow...
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is unfair depending on what you consider self-interested. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
To be completely fair, anything truly rationally self interested is morally justified but I refrain from saying so because self interest is more complicated than most people believe. Any violation of rights is a self destructive action. Most people don't realize this but if you do, then it would be fair to say that anything truly rationally selfish is morally justified.
Why so? What makes you say that it's morally right because it's motivated out of self interest, also why is it morally objectionable because it's self destructive? I really don't follow this line of thought
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
So painful and joyful at the same time. It is great for the troops and their families, but that decade long war for what? Through these mixed emotions however, I do feel happiness for all of the troops and their families, congratulations
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
So far nothing of what you've posted has made any bit of sence... Are you honestly saying that if you gain on it, it's morally justifiable? That's the biggest load of horseshit I've heard yet, and I have to say that you have some fucked up moral values.
I assume you want legalized rape, murder, theft, robbery and child sex, as all of these can provide a 'gain' for the purpetrator? Because that's what you said earlier. And now it's a huge leap of logic? Oh well.
One thing's for sertain, an invasion is NEVER justifiable, as it's a violation of international law. Aggression wars are always illegal. I dunno what you're trying to tell yourself, and I don't know where you get your moral values, but honestly I recommend you to take an extra look at them.
"The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.". Wow.. just wow...
I actually just said the exact opposite of that. You've misunderstood me again and that is your fault, not mine. I've been clear but you've failed to demonstrate any reasonable level of reading comprehension. It saddens me that I have to do this but let me break down my pre-edit post, piece by piece.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe.
In my first sentence I am saying that your post is unfair and that it took a huge leap of logic for you to come to the conclusion that I believe that "Anything self-interested is morally justified". In my second sentence I am confirming that what you posted is not what I believe. You seem to fail to understand this as your response to my post continues on assuming that that is, in fact, what I believe.
The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not.
I think the reason that you are misunderstand this sentence is that you've failed to realize that it's not that I deem all other moral objections to the Iraq war to never apply anywhere, I'm saying that those moral objections don't apply to the Iraq war. For example, I do believe that it is immoral to initiate force but I don't believe attacking Iraq was an initiation of force. Also, I do believe it is sometimes immoral to kill children but I don't believe this applies to the US in the Iraq invasion because those innocent children were the responsibility of the force initiating state, i.e. Saddam's regime. Again it's not that the only moral objection that can possibly exist is that something is self destructive. Many others exist, it's just that they don't apply to the US in the case of the Iraq war.
It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Third time I've posted this but it seems you just fucking ignored it or something. Read it then re read your response and you'll realize that your response makes no sense.
I assume you want legalized rape, murder, theft, robbery and child sex, as all of these can provide a 'gain' for the purpetrator? Because that's what you said earlier. And now it's a huge leap of logic? Oh well.
No, I've been consistently and radically for the protection of individual rights. I believe that individual rights should be protected and that people should take rationally selfish actions which will never include the violation of rights.
As for you saying an invasion is never justifiable, you're wrong. The initiation of force is never justifiable but an invasion is not necessarily an initiation of force. For example, it would have been justified to invade Nazi Germany in 1938. As for international legality, you're even wrong about this. An invasion is not ALWAYS internationally illegal. For example, the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of North Korea. Even if it hypothetically was, it would mean nothing. There is nothing wrong with violating a bad law. The simple fact that you're tying moral justification to legality shows what an immature view of morality you have.
Edit: Sorry, I actually was unclear in the first part of my analysis. I've fixed it now.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
The responsibility of the force initiating state. The Western casualties are part of it being self destructive.
Plus, you know, all the torture.
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote: [quote]
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
ya we're just gonna leave a massive base that is basically a small city inside of a city. No dude we may "stop" having a combat role but we will never leave until we are forced.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote: [quote] 1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote: [quote]
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the any legitimate government justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country but you should only do it if it is self interested.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma. It's a completely unfair and unsubstantiated conclusion.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote: [quote]
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
edit: I would also argue that none of those things are consistent with individual rationality because they help terrorists recruit and breed hatred toward the U.S. Torturing gives our enemies the moral justification to torture our soldiers, and killing their civilians gives them moral justification to kill our civilians. Ignoring international law, well, I don't have to dive too deep into what the world would look like if we all ignored laws that we thought were "wrong".
There's no point in replying to OsoVega. No one can seriously defend killing/torturing civilians on the ultra flimsy notion that they have forfeited their rights by what a 'dictator' has done, when that same dictator was trained, installed and supported by the country now claiming moral immunity in it's actions in removing him. Nothing he has said has followed a rational line. He's probably trolling. If he isn't, he's an idiot. Don't respond to him. -_-
On October 22 2011 15:52 DannyJ wrote: Sadly, George Bush and his lackeys were so stupid I don't think America even got anything out of Iraq. Who the hell lies to start a war then doesn't have a clearly attainable goal of self interest!? Why aren't my gas prices lower? GEORGE!?!
I think the benefit was to various private companies in rebuilding contracts. Sadly not for the US as a country.
On October 22 2011 16:47 Subversive wrote: There's no point in replying to OsoVega. No one can seriously defend killing/torturing civilians on the ultra flimsy notion that they have forfeited their rights by what a 'dictator' has done, when that same dictator was trained, installed and supported by the country now claiming moral immunity in it's actions of removing him. Nothing he had said has followed a rational line. He's probably trolling. If he isn't, he's an idiot. Don't respond to him. -_-
Okay, good point. Thank you for pulling me out of the troll pit. It's time for bed anyway
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote: [quote] So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote: [quote] It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote: [quote]
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
So if you say something is wrong, and I say it isn't - it obviously means one of us doesn't know what these "objective truths" are. How do we determine who that person is - objectively?
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote: [quote]
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
Some arbitrary date does not matter. It was the same government. Even under your circumstances Saddam was in fact a dictator in 2003.
Well, I'm going to take Subversive's advice and stop responding. Your arguments have become very hollow and I don't even need to pick at them anymore to discredit them. They speak for themselves. Your values are obviously quite unique, and I won't try to convince you to change them. I'm off to bed
On October 22 2011 15:38 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
[quote] The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is completely unfair and a huge leap in logic. Nothing about my post indicates that that is what I believe. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
Okay. The "reason" given was a series of intentional lies. The "justification" is inconsistent and self serving. Really, it's solely a matter of convenience. We didn't give two shits about Saddam's abuse toward his people while we were supporting him. He did not initiate force in 2003.
I actually misunderstood your argument about anything self-interested being morally justified. Although to my knowledge you still stand by your stance that the world court is irrelevant if it contradicts our interests, so it seems that at the end of the day self-interest is the only justification necessary.
Your only moral objection that applies is that the war was not self-interested. I, however, have a few moral objections that I think apply.
"The major virtues tend to disintegrate under the pressures of convenient rationalization. But good form is good form, and it stands immutable in the storm of circumstance." -Shibumi
Just because the UN says it is always a violation of human rights doesn't make them right. When you fight for a force initiating, rights violating state you give up your rights.
Just so we're clear about your positions:
The world court doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. International law doesn't matter if the U.S. disagrees. Torture is fine if the U.S. decides it is. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
And we still haven't established how Saddam "initiated force" in 2003. We have established that the "reasons" given for invading Iraq (WMD's) were intentional lies. Maybe Saddam planned 9/11? Why not. If the U.S. says he did, who can disagree?
The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
I've already stated the ways in which Saddam initiated force. Go back and read my posts. Stop trying to act like I treat the words of the US as dogma.
Okay, we have established your principles. I think they speak for themselves. Under these principles I don't see anything to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, as long as it decides that everyone who disagrees is "wrong".
You haven't adequately supported your case for how Saddam initiated force in 2003. As I said, the "reasons" were intentional lies and the "justification" that you promoted is inconsistent, self-serving, and a matter of political convenience.
It's not about "deciding" what is wrong. It's about what is wrong. Do you believe that A is A, that existence exists, that red is not blue, that right is not wrong? If you can not realize that there are objective truths in this universe, you have little hope.
So if you say something is wrong, and I say it isn't - it obviously means one of us doesn't know what these "objective truths" are. How do we determine who that person is - objectively?
Rational thought, the checking of premises, searching for contradictions, etc.
EPT
