Jump to content

America's role, PART 2!!


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Menchise, it's kind of hard for Israel to take the "moral high ground" and not use force when every day Israeli women, children, police, firefighters, civilians, and military are being indiscriminately slaughtered by Palestinians with C4 and nails.

A better way would be to find the sources that provide the C4 or whatever it is that the terrorists use. Terrorizing the Palestinian families is pointless and cruel.

quote:

Boo Hoo for the Palestinians. Israel has done nothing that bothers them except EXIST.

Take a closer look at the history of the country's formation and the treatment of Palestinians within Israel and the occupied territories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Remo Williams

quote:

(you called it 'evil', not me)

That I did. With all the anti-american bull you spew thats the immpression I get when I read your posts.

quote:

How was the invasion of Afghanistan an act of self-defense? As far as I know, the four planes didn't come from Afghanistan. The operation was implemented within US borders, and the hijackers received some of their training domestically.


Thats easy their leaders planned the attack in Afghanistan, lived in Afghanistan. The Taliban gave them support. Its only logical to go after the men that issued the orders. Making it harder or impossible for them to attack again. Thats self defence.

As far as the articles goes its amazing the garbage people can find on the net now days. As I said those people were starving when the taliban were in power and even if the allies had not invaded it was only going to get worse. because of drought and 20 year of civil war.

quote:

Terrorists only give pause if they're at risk of getting caught. Bin Laden escaped. What reason does he have for giving pause?


Because he is dead. A billion pounds of rock laying on you from a cave colapse will do that to you.

quote:

That's because the Haitian government is not the international thug that the US government is

Hehe. If you say so it must be true(sarcasm)

quote:

Besides, there is also something to be said about mass murder. The blood of millions is on Bush's hands, and he should be held accountable for his crimes, along with the institutions that deliberately concealed this fact from the American people.


It appears the only person blind to the facts lives in Australia.

Anyway I've said all I'm going to in this topic. Its pointless to debate with someone that see only what they want to see regardless of the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That I did. With all the anti-american bull you spew thats the immpression I get when I read your posts.

Nothing that I have written here criticizes the American people. I am criticizing the US government. Call it "anti-American bull" if you prefer, but don't expect me to take your name calling seriously.

quote:

Thats easy their leaders planned the attack in Afghanistan, lived in Afghanistan. The Taliban gave them support. Its only logical to go after the men that issued the orders. Making it harder or impossible for them to attack again. Thats self defence.

It's self-defense when one uses reasonable means to go after the perpetrators. The US action was not reasonable. Recent history also demonstrates that it's not successful.

quote:

As far as the articles goes its amazing the garbage people can find on the net now days. As I said those people were starving when the taliban were in power and even if the allies had not invaded it was only going to get worse. because of drought and 20 year of civil war.

That is the most lame dismissal of sources I have ever encountered. You provide no argument for why that article or its 37 citations could be questionable. You call it garbage for no reason other than its disagreement with your assertions. I've never been more disappointed in a debate.

quote:

Because he is dead. A billion pounds of rock laying on you from a cave colapse will do that to you.

There is some speculation that he is dead, but no proof whatsoever.

Another article for you to call "garbage".

quote:

Hehe. If you say so it must be true(sarcasm)

I was responding to Dragon Lady's post, which gave me the impression of a 'might makes right' argument.

quote:

It appears the only person blind to the facts lives in Australia.

I'm not the one who's calling the facts "garbage" just because I disagree with them.

quote:

Anyway I've said all I'm going to in this topic. Its pointless to debate with someone that see only what they want to see regardless of the truth.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

EDIT: I don't like to be insulting, but I also don't like to be dismissed as ignorant by nothing more than inflammatory assertions. I think I'll stay out of this thread from now on, since I'm clearly having some difficulty being civil at this time. Have fun, people (if you can).

[ 10-06-2002, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That's because the Haitian government is not the international thug that the US government is, but imagine if that wasn't the case. Would that justify Haiti bombing the USA?

Nope, but thatÔÇÖs because they couldnÔÇÖt get away with it if they tried. Like I said, it would be very amusing.

quote:

If the people had known that the Red Cross and Christian Aid were warning about the millions of lives that would be jeopardized as a result of the bombing, it would not have commenced. Every mainstream media group had this information well in advance from the Associated Press, and deliberately chose not to report it.

Good for them, IÔÇÖm not a big fan of being misinformed but thatÔÇÖs better then having a sensible military action canceled because of some bleeding hearts.

quote:

A better way would be to find the sources that provide the C4 or whatever it is that the terrorists use. Terrorizing the Palestinian families is pointless and cruel.

Well sure, criminal investigations are nice, when they work. Terrorizing Palestinian families, well, if that works then you wont here me complaining.

quote:

It's self-defense when one uses reasonable means to go after the perpetrators. The US action was not reasonable. Recent history also demonstrates that it's not successful.

Darling, self defense means doing whatever is necessary to insure your safety, and if the aggressor happens to get wasted, well, thatÔÇÖs just too bad. Our government has a responsibility to us, the American public, not the Afghanistan public, and it is our governmentÔÇÖs job to do what is necessary to protect itself and the American people no matter the cost to foreigners. DonÔÇÖt take this wrong, I have nothing against foreigners, but they arenÔÇÖt the responsibility of the US government, and if there own government doesnÔÇÖt measure up, well, that is there problem.

quote:

There is some speculation that he is dead, but no proof whatsoever.

Yep, but speculation is a pretty good deterrent, and thatÔÇÖs what really matters.

quote:

I was responding to Dragon Lady's post, which gave me the impression of a 'might makes right' argument.

Might does make right darling, or at least as much as anything makes right. Crying blood for people without might on there side is a waist of time, and foolish too boot. Oh, I have no problems with an enlightened legal system and such not and so fourth, but between nations it all boils down to might, whether political, economic, or military, it makes little difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old adage "violence never solves anything" went out the door at the end of WW2 when the Japanese were attacked domestically.

They surrendered AND straightened up their act AND went against their natural culture to do so.

Drop a few more on any country that disagrees and we probably wouldn't have war much longer.

Instead we pussy-foot around trying to find out what makes them tick and why they hate us and whah whah whah.

Screw world opinion, Israel and Palestinians will only be at peace when one does not exist.

Let them slug it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK,

I have fixed the title of this thread, DUH!!! I must have been tired when I did that.

Anyway, Menchise, I couldn't disagree you with your more.

And Bin Laden is dead, he died from the explosive decompression when a Fuel air explosive with about he force of a 5 Kiloton bomb went off at the entrance to Tora Bora. You do not survive getting sucked up 100 yards of tunnel into a fireball at the surface.

Bush has done EXACTLY what needed to be done, and is DOING exactly what needs to be done as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those in the Bush admin who push the hardest for war have conveniently never actually been in one.

The Bush people and his corporate backers see liberty and personal freedom as a hindrance to war fighting...and various other things that protect the average citizen.

Clinton was a snake but Bush is a corporate pawn....

Too many Americans are living in excess while scores of people die by our actions and inactions. We gear our foreign policy to maintain an imbalance that keeps a certain dream alive...a dream that serves a small few and a dream that has corrupted our basic ideals. There is a great hypocrisy infecting this country. One that will not go away by pretending it doesnÔÇÖt exist. It will only grow stronger as the evidence and casualties mount....

You can believe in the Constitution, freedom, due process, fairplay and equality for all, while maintaining Christian ideals without being manipulated by the hubris and greed that have come to dominate too many in this nation....you just have to believe there are alternatives....there are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Those in the Bush admin who push the hardest for war have conveniently never actually been in one.


Sorry, that is the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. Straight out of the Democrat call book. Sorry, you need to do better then that.

quote:

Too many Americans are living in excess while scores of people die by our actions and inactions. We gear our foreign policy to maintain an imbalance that keeps a certain dream alive...a dream that serves a small few and a dream that has corrupted our basic ideals. There is a great hypocrisy infecting this country. One that will not go away by pretending it doesnÔÇÖt exist. It will only grow stronger as the evidence and casualties mount....


Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? These generalities you are spouting give us NO clue as to what you are talking about. Please be more specific.

quote:

You can believe in the Constitution, freedom, due process, fairplay and equality for all, while maintaining Christian ideals without being manipulated by the hubris and greed that have come to dominate too many in this nation....you just have to believe there are alternatives....there are.


And those alternatives would be?

Again, be more specific, I love how you spout a bunch of stuff and disagree with Bush and me, but you NEVER have any alternative plans to give us, except the we are wrong of course.

Please be SPECIFIC!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Too many Americans are living in excess while scores of people die by our actions and inactions. We gear our foreign policy to maintain an imbalance that keeps a certain dream alive...a dream that serves a small few and a dream that has corrupted our basic ideals.

First of all, I have to agree with Jaguar, itÔÇÖs hard to really understand what youÔÇÖre talking about, be specific.

As to our foreign policy, it is if nothing else extremely lenient. Our government has the great misfortune of being shackled by our population regarding foreign policy, but even so it is our governmentÔÇÖs responsibility to protect the best interest of America as a whole, and if that happens to mean a few feet get stepped on, well, too bad.

quote:

There is a great hypocrisy infecting this country. One that will not go away by pretending it doesnÔÇÖt exist. It will only grow stronger as the evidence and casualties mount....

Oh dear, hypocrisy, thats horrible

Everyone is a hypocrite darling, to a lesser or greater degree, and I see nothing wrong with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Anyway, Menchise, I couldn't disagree you with your more.

I don't agree with him this time either but I value his insight as an outsider. Makes us think.

quote:

How was the invasion of Afghanistan an act of self-defense? As far as I know, the four planes didn't come from Afghanistan. The operation was implemented within US borders, and the hijackers received some of their training domestically.

Uhhh, because. Hard to answer that one. But I think it's self defense because we took away a lot of the training camps and such. Did we invade Afghanistan? In a way. But we also liberated them. Hopefully they can keep going towards some form of democratic type government without harboring terrorists thus preventing any future training. In other words self defense.

A man comes at you with a gun and you kill him. Self defense. Al-Qaida came at us and we "killed" them. Self defense.

quote:

An act of self-defense would be a criminal investigation into how these terrorists planned and implemented the operation under the noses of law enforcement agencies, and tracking down the domestic elements that made the attack possible.

We did that too.

quote:


I didn't like that article. First it only says thousands whereas you say millions. Second it was poorly constructed. No conclusive ending.

To your next statement I'll quote Jaguar. It's easier.

quote:

And Bin Laden is dead, he died from the explosive decompression when a Fuel air explosive with about he force of a 5 Kiloton bomb went off at the entrance to Tora Bora.

Hope so. A body would be nice. Would hate to have to say OOPS!

Menchise, I value your views as an outsider. I disagree with you though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Sorry, that is the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. Straight out of the Democrat call book. Sorry, you need to do better then that.


Anyone who would like to know who in the war party had some trouble actually getting in one while the getting was good....take a look...

http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html

The author served in Vietnam....prove it wrong if you can....

quote:

Oh dear, hypocrisy, thats horrible

Everyone is a hypocrite darling, to a lesser or greater degree, and I see nothing wrong with it.


Heh...please don't call me darling....it makes me feel extremely dirty coming from you...

I know you have the true answers to all these questions...but could you spare the ignorant the chance to discuss the things we care about... like our fellow citizens and the course of this nation.....I know the concept of the fellow citizen doesn't mean a whole lot to you, but for some of us, that are genuinely concerned with the plight of others, it does....we know you are the enlightened one. and when we are done chasing our tails rest assured we will come crawling....so until then...? Please.

As for the rest, I will get to it when I get a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Heh...please don't call me darling....it makes me feel extremely dirty coming from you...

Why thank you darling, you say the most wonderful things.

quote:

I know you have the true answers to all these questions...but could you spare the ignorant the chance to discuss the things we care about... like our fellow citizens and the course of this nation.....I know the concept of the fellow citizen doesn't mean a whole lot to you, but for some of us, that are genuinely concerned with the plight of others, it does....we know you are the enlightened one. and when we are done chasing our tails rest assured we will come crawling....so until then...? Please.

Darling, I have never heard it phrased so succinctly. But truthfully, who should anyone care about people who they have never met or whom they care nothing about? Oh, I see the point behind supporting policies that benefit the nation as a whole, at least when itÔÇÖs not personally disadvantageous, but why should we worry about dated ideals like fair play and equality for all? They never worked, ever, anywhere, on any scale above two people (and only rarely then). Ideals arenÔÇÖt whatÔÇÖs important, rather expediency and necessity are. You talk about all the high ideals of this country being corrupted, but they never were all that important to begin with. Some people have always grown rich off of the sweat and pain of others; itÔÇÖs the way of things, and a perfectly good way at that.

You say its hypocrisy to talk about fair play and equality while ignoring injustices being done to people elsewhere, but what you are missing is that this is good. It allows most people to be moral, kind, and generally good social drones while others are suffering. The system works, it is beneficial to us (Americans), whatÔÇÖs there to complain about? Do you have a feasible alternative that the people in power would even consider enacting, or are you simply crying about the injustices done by the powerful onto the weak? Because if itÔÇÖs the latter, darling, you are feeling bad about something which you cannot change, and that is simply pointless.

Oh, on an aside, you jokingly refer to my enlightenment, but the truth is I donÔÇÖt understand why people feel the way you do. I honestly donÔÇÖt know why anyone would care about humanity as a whole, or the sufferings of those who they donÔÇÖt know well. I would really appreciate it if you could explain this to me, it truly makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you a CEO...Republican or both?

I'm not sure your capable of understanding what I'm talking about....I think the part of you that can make a human great has somehow been removed, crushed, or neglected....

I don't think Jaguar would appreciate you talking jive about the history of this country....sweetie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I don't think Jaguar would appreciate you talking jive about the history of this country....sweetie.


Actually, I find her individualism refreshing. too many socialists in this country.

The only reason that Democrats "care about the little guy" is because they want power over that same little guy.

They want to control the lives of the masses, they don't care about anything but power.

This country was based on idividualism, capitalism, free markets and a LIMITED government.

The individual was what was important, not the entire population. Everyone looking out for their OWN welfare without interference from the government.

YOU would take responsibility for you security, YOU would take responsibility for you healthcare, YOU woul take care of your unemployment insurance etc etc ad nauseum.

This country was based on ME, ME, ME, you have responsibility for yourself, it is NOT my responsibility to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves, unless they were within my immediate family, otherwise they are their families responsibility not mine.

The government now puts a gun to my head and reaches into my wallet. If I came up to you and demanded money, it would be a crime. Guess what? The founding fathers would consider our government a criminal enterprise. Taking from some to give to others is morally wrong and reprahensible.

I find her truthfullness refreshing to say the least, and her rugged individualism as well.

I am so tired of everyone being a victim, WE'RE ALL victimes of something, get over it and move on.

You can't help everyone, they have to help themselves, all they need is the opportunity and the drive.

The opportunity is out there in this country, the drive is what is missing from this generation, or MOST of this generation. Quit worrying about the injustices of everyone else, use that energy to better yourself, it will slide on down to them in it's own fashion.

I LOVE capitalism!! Because it will float ALL boats, not just some. By raising your own standard of living, you raise everyone elses as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a level of callous inhumanity in so many of the threads in this post I'd feel sorry for you if it wasn't so sickeningly repulsive.

Since when did it become a sign of weakness to care about the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves? To joke about terrorism being acceptable against some groups(Palestinians) is

the same rationale they use to justify their actions.

If anyone wants to convince themselves that this war is about protecting ourselves from immenient danger,fine. But don't piss down my back and tell me its rain. We face a number of

critical domestic issues that have been all but ignored because they lack the political leverage the President needs. Do we really want to compound this by engaging in nation building again? One thread mentioned might making right and used the example of Japan. Bad example. Read your history or more specifically read almost any

biography of Douglass MacArthur.

We were able to bring democracy to Japan because of his stewardship and his compassion and

his humanity , a trait ignored by some of you with alarming regularity.

And can we please stop *****ing about paying taxes and referring to it as the government "putting a gun to your head" You wouldn't have to pay so much if the corporate pirates the Bush regime props up would pay their fair share. I'm sure it is much easier picking on us liberals by saying we are spending all your money on people who don't deserve it as if it isn't our money too. Ever hear these words?

"What so ever you do to the least of my brothers , that you do unto me" Even if you are not a Christian the ideal of empathy is divine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Are you a CEO...Republican or both?

At the moment darling, neither (and I think I mentioned earlier that IÔÇÖm not really too fond of either political party).

quote:

I'm not sure your capable of understanding what I'm talking about....I think the part of you that can make a human great has somehow been removed, crushed, or neglected....

Well, some explanation might be nice, I truthfully am curious. As for something inside be having been excised, I havenÔÇÖt a clue, I have never really felt much for others, though I do remember being more compassionate when I was younger, but honestly I have always worked to not care much about others.

quote:

Actually, I find her individualism refreshing. too many socialists in this country.

Thank you, darling, itÔÇÖs nice that someone here finds me refreshing (other then Litvyak that is).

quote:

There is a level of callous inhumanity in so many of the threads in this post I'd feel sorry for you if it wasn't so sickeningly repulsive.

Since when did it become a sign of weakness to care about the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves? To joke about terrorism being acceptable against some groups(Palestinians) is

the same rationale they use to justify their actions.

Darling, thatÔÇÖs more then a little rude, and I canÔÇÖt help but get the impression itÔÇÖs directed at me. And honestly darling, I donÔÇÖt want to know what it suggests about you that I have to tell you to be a little more polite. As for the actions against the Palestinians, besides a couple of jokes with Litvyak, I have been perfectly serious. Oh, I add a little humor here and there, makes things more interesting, but IÔÇÖm not saying stuff to be funny (and I didnÔÇÖt notice anyone else doing it either).

quote:

If anyone wants to convince themselves that this war is about protecting ourselves from immenient danger,fine. But don't piss down my back and tell me its rain.

Thank you for the wonderful image darling. And no, itÔÇÖs not an imminent danger, but it is danger none the less. By reacting swiftly and harshly with regards to Afghanistan and the Taliban as a whole we set an example of how we will react to future terrorists, and thereby reduce the danger of a repeat.

quote:

I'm sure it is much easier picking on us liberals by saying we are spending all your money on people who don't deserve it as if it isn't our money too. Ever hear these words?

"What so ever you do to the least of my brothers , that you do unto me" Even if you are not a Christian the ideal of empathy is divine.

Not a phrase IÔÇÖm familiar with, though I assume it is a bible quote from your reference to the Christian ideal of empathy. As for it being your money, well, sure, do whatever you like with your money, but I would rather see my money doing something useful besides propping up some dumb hobo. But the truth is, itÔÇÖs not your money, or at least not most of it, because a lot of liberals are liberal because they are getting money from the government rather then the other way around. Now, I guess I canÔÇÖt really blame someone who is benefiting from welfare for not objecting too hard, there being paid not to object after all, but for those of us who arenÔÇÖt busy bleeding there hearts (and our wallets) out for the poor and disadvantaged (and might I remind you that even the poor and disadvantaged are better off for of capitalism, with a much higher quality of living do to the reduced prices of luxuries and consumer goods) the idea is anathema.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* Here I go again.

The 'might makes right' argument is totally hypocritical for two reasons.

1. It's easy to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might. If that were not the case, the argument wouldn't be so appealing.

2. The argument is frequently used very selectively in an attempt to rationalize particular injustices, but is never applied by such advocates as a fundamental guiding principle, since it runs the risk of backfiring in their faces.

If 'might makes right' became the core value of society, it would rationalize lawlessness and the rule of thugs along any line of interest or prejudice. The result would be a brutal and utterly destructive anti-society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

1. It's easy to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might. If that were not the case, the argument wouldn't be so appealing.

And its even easier to say that might doesnÔÇÖt make right when you are on the side without might, itÔÇÖs called self interest.

quote:

2. The argument is frequently used very selectively in an attempt to rationalize particular injustices, but is never applied by such advocates as a fundamental guiding principle, since it runs the risk of backfiring in their faces.

If 'might makes right' became the core value of society, it would rationalize lawlessness and the rule of thugs along any line of interest or prejudice. The result would be a brutal and utterly destructive anti-society.

Well darling, I agree that such a society would be rather chaotic, and could very well self destruct, but thatÔÇÖs why the principle isnÔÇÖt applied on a societal level. In a small group it works just fine though, or in this case between nations (for truly, the number of powerful nations is small). LetÔÇÖs compare the principle of might makes right to democracy. A small group (or group of groups) can succeed in a true democracy, but it fails with larger numbers. I do not, however, hear you complaining about how democracy is ÔÇ£totally hypocriticalÔÇØ.

Oh, and to make the democracy comparison for your first point, true democracy is only nice when you happen to agree with the majority, it can really suck for minorities of any sort. So by your logic democracy is totally hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

And its even easier to say that might doesnÔÇÖt make right when you are on the side without might, itÔÇÖs called self interest.

In both cases it's self interest, but that doesn't nullify the hypocrisy of the former.

quote:

Well darling, I agree that such a society would be rather chaotic, and could very well self destruct, but thatÔÇÖs why the principle isnÔÇÖt applied on a societal level. In a small group it works just fine though, or in this case between nations (for truly, the number of powerful nations is small).

It's destructive on all levels. 'Might makes right' rationalizes any forceful action, including the most irrational, and dare I say the most amoral too. Small groups (and small nations) that use such tactics successfully don't stay small for long either. Soon they're running the whole society into the ground.

That's one of the reasons why we have morals in the first place, to help determine the usage of might that upholds justice for all. You may not believe that it's possible to have justice for all, but that does not justify or even rationalize supporting an anti-social movement that guarantees justice for none.

quote:

A small group (or group of groups) can succeed in a true democracy, but it fails with larger numbers. I do not, however, hear you complaining about how democracy is ÔÇ£totally hypocriticalÔÇØ.

Oh, and to make the democracy comparison for your first point, true democracy is only nice when you happen to agree with the majority, it can really suck for minorities of any sort. So by your logic democracy is totally hypocritical.

No, it's not. Your definition of 'true' democracy is that everyone votes on every issue that is put forward, which is hypocritical because it's not really democratic. I follow a libertarian socialist definition, which is that everyone has decision-making power in proportion to the degree that they are affected by the issue put forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

In both cases it's self interest, but that doesn't nullify the hypocrisy of the former.

No darling, but it nullifies your first point admirably.

quote:

It's destructive on all levels. 'Might makes right' rationalizes any forceful action, including the most irrational, and dare I say the most amoral too. Small groups (and small nations) that use such tactics successfully don't stay small for long either. Soon they're running the whole society into the ground.

Such a group wouldnÔÇÖt stay small (at least if it didnÔÇÖt self destruct), but when I was referring to nations I was talking about each nation being an entity in a relatively small group of other nations (certainly of powerful nation).

quote:

That's one of the reasons why we have morals in the first place, to help determine the usage of might that upholds justice for all. You may not believe that it's possible to have justice for all, but that does not justify or even rationalize supporting an anti-social movement that guarantees justice for none.

Of course not darling, I would never support a movement that supported lawlessness, that would be counter productive (after all, what advantage is there in being amoral when everyone is amoral). It is perfectly possible, however, to believe that might makes right while acting inside (or outside, but only very carefully) the law, but so long as law exists the kind of self destruction you are talking about. But this is an aside, I donÔÇÖt really have any interest in changing how the world views law and morality, my point is simply that small groups (of people, of nations, or whatever) can interact with each other with the premise that might makes right without self destruction or such not.

quote:

No, it's not. Your definition of 'true' democracy is that everyone votes on every issue that is put forward, which is hypocritical because it's not really democratic. I follow a libertarian socialist definition, which is that everyone has decision-making power in proportion to the degree that they are affected by the issue put forward.

I refuse to argue nomenclature with you Menchise. I was referring to Athenian democracy as being true democracy, but it doesnÔÇÖt matter, your method is an even better example, being even more infeasible in large groups while still being bad for minorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how might makes right can be viewed as a philosophy of lawlessness. Might makes right is the cornerstone of enforcing law in any nation... that's why there are millions of police officers in the United States, after all. They are the 'might' that enforces what the majority of people feel is 'right'. If we were to get rid of the police and say instead that we'd rely on the good nature of people to prevent them from commiting crimes, then we'd have anarchy.

On a global scale it's no different. Somebody needs to stand up to criminal governments and put a stop to it. Otherwise we have lawlessness at an international level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

No darling, but it nullifies your first point admirably.

Read my first point again:

The first reason why 'might makes right' is hypocritical:

It's easy to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might. If that were not the case, the argument wouldn't be so appealing.

In what way does your response indicate that it's hard to say 'might makes right' when you happen to be on the side with more might? Better yet, in what way does your response indicate that that's not hypocritical?

quote:

Such a group wouldnÔÇÖt stay small (at least if it didnÔÇÖt self destruct), but when I was referring to nations I was talking about each nation being an entity in a relatively small group of other nations (certainly of powerful nation).

Can you be more specific? That sounds like the EU to me.

quote:

Of course not darling, I would never support a movement that supported lawlessness, that would be counter productive (after all, what advantage is there in being amoral when everyone is amoral). It is perfectly possible, however, to believe that might makes right while acting inside (or outside, but only very carefully) the law, but so long as law exists the kind of self destruction you are talking about.

Catch-22. 'Might makes right' is contrary to moral law. You believe that 'might makes right' is possible within the boundaries of moral law, but one needs morals in order to make those laws. If everyone supports the concept of 'might makes right', then there would be no moral lawmakers to set those boundaries. The result is lawlessness and self-destruction.

quote:

I refuse to argue nomenclature with you Menchise. I was referring to Athenian democracy as being true democracy, but it doesnÔÇÖt matter, your method is an even better example, being even more infeasible in large groups while still being bad for minorities.

Explain how it would be bad for minorities, or how it would be "more infeasible" in large groups.

By the way, my name is not darling. It's Nick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...