EPTBut sending in the marines would be a quagmire. And the taliban must be stopped. The Afghan government is not up to the task. Should they even have a government? What's the point of sovereignty when it only serves to draw some imaginary line that can't be defended, internally or externally? Respecting afghan sovereignty, that is, halting all operations there, is effectively giving terrorists a safe headquarters. No thanks!
Afghan pres wishes to shoot down US planes - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
But sending in the marines would be a quagmire. And the taliban must be stopped. The Afghan government is not up to the task. Should they even have a government? What's the point of sovereignty when it only serves to draw some imaginary line that can't be defended, internally or externally? Respecting afghan sovereignty, that is, halting all operations there, is effectively giving terrorists a safe headquarters. No thanks! | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:30 Illuvatar wrote: Ungrateful for what? For hundreds of deads on a daily basis? For a country routed in chaos after an idiotic war decided by an idiotic president? Nobody asked them to go to Afghanistan in the first place, it was a war routed in economical and geopolitical interests that destroyed the lives of thousands of people, it's unbelievable how naive some of the general public actually believe the war on "terror" had any higher moralic value, what it did was anger the majority of the arabic people, and increased the probability of a terroristic attack. That post was a waste, you're just gonna get a similarly retarded one liner as a reply. | ||
KwarK
United States42692 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:30 dinmsab wrote: So if a bunch of terrorist live in america, does it justify the american government to bomb the shit out of their own country? of course not.. and hell they wont. Its just wrong in so many ways, I dont see how it is justified. The Afghan president dude just wants to save a few innocent lives, how is it so hard for people to understand that. Solving the terrorist problem is one thing, but doing so by killing innocent people in the process is just irony. Elections are coming up. US can't vote. If he is seen to publicly represent the interests of the people it'll help him. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:32 HeadBangaa wrote: They carry out strikes against specific targets. Sometimes civilians die and that's tragic. But sending in the marines would be a quagmire. And the taliban must be stopped. The Afghan government is not up to the task. Should they even have a government? What's the point of sovereignty when it only serves to draw some imaginary line that can't be defended, internally or externally? Respecting afghan sovereignty, that is, halting all operations there, is effectively giving terrorists a safe headquarters. No thanks! what the fuck since when are your opinions rational | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
| ||
|
kazokun
United States163 Posts
Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. | ||
|
kazokun
United States163 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote: Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42692 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:41 Myrmidon wrote: Karzai's got to say whatever he's got to say to appease his own people and remain in power. US diplomats understand the situation and back him because they'd rather not face the alternative. If he didn't say such things, he'd be in trouble. If he actually shot down planes, he would also be in trouble. He's playing the game for his own sake, but it suits us just fine in the name of stability. This. He's just playing the game. Hell, he probably phoned up the US representative and asked permission before he said it. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
|
kazokun
United States163 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote: well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote: The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter. The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10711 Posts
If US-Soldiers attack Taliban and kill civilians it's colleteral damage (bombing civilian buildings is not much better then directly targeting civilians from the get go). Ya, right. Oh, and one more thing. The US is not fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, you fight a war against a clear defined faction, the Taliban. Calling your enemy terrorist makes things probably easyer... Don't missunderstand me, the Taliban are bastards... But the moral issue is a bit one sided with the * totally ultra hardcore evil* Taliban and *oh so good flower throwing* western forces. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.radgraphics.net/images/main/atomic%20explosion%20-%204.jpg) imo | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:40 IdrA wrote: what the fuck since when are your opinions rational When I agree with you, easy. When is anybody ever rational, IdrA? Duh. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
On December 22 2008 18:07 Velr wrote: Oh, and one more thing. The US is not fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, you fight a war against a clear defined faction, the Taliban. Calling your enemy terrorist makes things probably easyer... They carry out terrorist activities, therefore they are terrorists! I don't see what difference it makes calling them a faction or terrorist, but they still fight like guerrillas, they still use IEDs, and they still strap bombs to women and make them walk into a market full of people. They are a disgusting group with a backwards ideology and deserved to be brutally suppressed. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:41 Myrmidon wrote: Karzai's got to say whatever he's got to say to appease his own people and remain in power. lol You realize how stupid this is. You got it totally backwards Who put him in power? The US or the Afghan people? Only reason Karzai is in power is because of warlords that support him and that are protected from what they call the 'taliban' by the US. We already lost the war in Afghanistan. There's not much more to do then to pull out and watch the taliban take over again and put into pratice their cruel laws again. But we tolerate them in Saudi Arabia, so I don't see the issue with that. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
On December 22 2008 18:21 BlackStar wrote: lol You realize how stupid this is. You got it totally backwards Who put him in power? The US or the Afghan people? We already lost the war in Afghanistan. There's not much more to do then to pull out and watch the taliban take over again and put into pratice their cruel laws again. But we tolerate them in Saudi Arabia, so I don't see the issue with that. I don't see how we lost. Whenever I watch news about the war in Afghanistan it usually tells me that every firefight Taliban fighters are dying with little or no casualties on our side. We need to really implement a strong anti-terrorist police force in Afghanistan while rebuilding their country if there is any hope there. From what I hear, the Canadian army is really helping them rebuild villages, getting the people back in there safely, and keeping good relations with the villages. There is also a good documentary coming out about the war in Afghanistan and shows footage of firefights and all the like. Check out At War. Not sure when it is coming out, but it should be soon. It even shows a couple firefights with our famous Canadian Red Devils unit. | ||
|
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote: Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? lol, I was going to say the same thing. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote: Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Locke lives in a country that is not impotent against terrorism, so the jurisdiction is not yours. Get it? | ||
| ||
