NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep. That's right. The real reason why the US goes around policing the world. It's because "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". The US, naturally, sees itself as the good guys, and definitely has the power to do something - something rather violent, but if it improves things, it's all good, right?

There are at least three major problems with this attitude that I can think of:

1) The more people you're dealing with at once, the harder it is to tell good from bad. Is a whole nation bad because they support a dictator of questionable morals? Or are they just good men doing nothing?

2) Given the problem of mixed motives when dealing with large numbers of people, there's the issue of hypocrisy: the US permits any number of things which some (let's say, for instance, an Iranian) find unethical and wicked. Who's to say?

3) The UN claims the right, as being more or less sort of representative of the world, to be the good guys in the world and do the clean-up operations; most of the world's nations seem to support it. On the other hand, we know it's at least a little, possibly very corrupt.

In short, what justifies or does not justify an assault on another country? Is perceived evil sufficient (the "Boondock Saints" mentality I mentioned in the title)? Perceived threat (so that a pre-emptive strike can be made, a la Imperial Rome and Byzantium, or Chinese theories of warfare)? Declarations of ill-will/intent to attack (reaction to threats)? Declaration of war? Actual movement of troops (obvious aggression)?

Discuss.

The thing is, there is no objective good and evil. There are only varying interests, one's side is usually the good side only because it is one's own side and not someone else's. And sooner or later, ideals and pragmatism get intertwined. Allies are chosen, which are indistinguishable from enemies, merely out of expediency. Allies become enemies, enemies become allies, according to need, not their characteristics.

Most Americans refuse to accept this, but they are able to do so only because they have always been able to keep conflict at a distance, and the games played in the third world are not readily visible. But for other people, in the midst of it all, this reality is quite plain. It only takes having a grandfather who survived Stalin's starvation of the Ukraine, only to become a career military man and fight the Nazis on behalf of an equal tyranny, and aid in the creation of communist China and North Korea, to see what bullshit traditional notions of good and evil are.

To truly grasp the nature of such maneuvering, one has to contemplate a choice between two 'evils'. And which does one choose? One's own.

That tells you everything you need to know about the morality of war and intervention. What really justifies an attack on another country? Ultimately, selfish national interests, or even the interests of the ruling elite rather than the nation. After that, the justification offered to the international community is of purely academic interest. You can say it was because of threatening behaviour, a general hostile stance, ideological incompatibility or some existential issue. But ultimately, because one's own side are the good guys by default, and one fights for oneself.

hey we're only human
every single wolrd power has done the same thing or worse

in fact we're the nicest superpower the world has ever seen.
We didn't colonise Europe after WWII like the soviets (small bases don't count) and even if you considar the War in Iraq to be Imperialism we aren't burning the cities and killing everyone just becuase some resist us, so over all I'd say we're doin a good job.

and yes we're hypocrits but who isn't?

That tells you everything you need to know about the morality of war and intervention. What really justifies an attack on another country? Ultimately, selfish national interests, or even the interests of the ruling elite rather than the nation. After that, the justification offered to the international community is of purely academic interest. You can say it was because of threatening behaviour, a general hostile stance, ideological incompatibility or some existential issue. But ultimately, because one's own side are the good guys by default, and one fights for oneself.

Then why the hell do people call the US "wrong" for invading Iraq, or whatever, in our own interests? Just because it's not in their interests? No, I really think humanity has an idea - right or wrong - of higher good. As twisted as the ideal may become when used to justify policies that are really just "practical", I don't see how you can deny the existence of some ideal, subjective as it may be.

In order for criticism of war to make any sense, except on pragmatic "it's not doing what we wanted" grounds, there has to be some morality. Which then leaves my original question.

Then why the hell do people call the US "wrong" for invading Iraq, or whatever, in our own interests? Just because it's not in their interests? No, I really think humanity has an idea - right or wrong - of higher good. As twisted as the ideal may become when used to justify policies that are really just "practical", I don't see how you can deny the existence of some ideal, subjective as it may be.

In order for criticism of war to make any sense, except on pragmatic "it's not doing what we wanted" grounds, there has to be some morality. Which then leaves my original question.
Most people cannot reason in such terms, thus they have the illusion that there is 'right' and 'wrong'. If they could place themselves, perhaps via relatives, in the shoes of a citizen of a tyranny under attack, a proxy force, a disposable ally, a nation in the way, then they would understand that there is more than one side to the geopolitical game. More than just their side. That the concept of 'good guys' depends only on the location of the observer, not on some special quality.

Thus the war in Iraq can indeed be viewed as a legitimate war, if one places oneself in the feet of the US political/corporate elite as the 'good guys'. Those who criticise it, do so because it does not serve their interests. Even because it hinders their interests. But of course the usual vague language of "it's just wrong" ends up getting used.

Most people cannot reason in such terms, thus they have the illusion that there is 'right' and 'wrong'. If they could place themselves, perhaps via relatives, in the shoes of a citizen of a tyranny under attack, a proxy force, a disposable ally, a nation in the way, then they would understand that there is more than one side to the geopolitical game. More than just their side. That the concept of 'good guys' depends only on the location of the observer, not on some special quality.

Thus the war in Iraq can indeed be viewed as a legitimate war, if one places oneself in the feet of the US political/corporate elite as the 'good guys'. Those who criticise it, do so because it does not serve their interests. Even because it hinders their interests. But of course the usual vague language of "it's just wrong" ends up getting used.
I'm not so sure I agree with your assumption that geographically isolated nations see the world in black and white due to their uninvolvement with war. Australia is as removed from the world as the US (if not more so), and yet there is little or no cultural affinity to moralistic rhetoric. Instead I would suggest it had something more to do with the strong methodist religious influence upon US culture. Or even perhaps the myth of the self made man in harmony with Blaming the poor syndrome which has lead to a wealth based cultural conceit, thus magnifying the 'my side' effect.

In short, what justifies or does not justify an assault on another country?

above all else, love

we are a Christian national, Christ has called us to love all as we would love our own

if somone commited unspeakable acts of violence and hate against my family I would do all in my power to see the criminals brought to justice and peace brought to the survivors. if the things that happend to the civilians of Iraq happened to say, the civilians of Maryland the world would understand our rage and our response because we, as Americans are sworn to protect them. we as Christians are sworn to protect the Iraqis. every arab, every persian, every kurd, every sunni, every shite, every Christian, every jew is my brother - I will do all that I can to see them safe. if there was another way to remove saddam we would have taken it, but there was not

even zarkawi was my brother - if there were any other way to remove him as a threat to Iraq - if there were any realistic option that didn't involve killing him we would have taken it, but there was not

we fight becuase we love, we pray for better way but we can't find it

You make me deeply asahmed to be an American. We are NOT a xtian country and hopefully never will be. We fight because of several reasons
idealism, pragmatism, economic gain, BUT NOT LOVE.





Schrandtopia']above all else, love

we are a Christian national, Christ has called us to love all as we would love our own

if somone commited unspeakable acts of violence and hate against my family I would do all in my power to see the criminals brought to justice and peace brought to the survivors. if the things that happend to the civilians of Iraq happened to say, the civilians of Maryland the world would understand our rage and our response because we, as Americans are sworn to protect them. we as Christians are sworn to protect the Iraqis. every arab, every persian, every kurd, every sunni, every shite, every Christian, every jew is my brother - I will do all that I can to see them safe. if there was another way to remove saddam we would have taken it, but there was not

even zarkawi was my brother - if there were any other way to remove him as a threat to Iraq - if there were any realistic option that didn't involve killing him we would have taken it, but there was not

we fight becuase we love, we pray for better way but we can't find it

We are NOT a xtian country and hopefully never will be.

the figure I've been quoted is that 80% of Americans proclaim themselves to be Christian - we elected a man who says his foreign policy is directed by God - its on our money and in our pledge - the Christian faith has been and is the back bone of this country

we are a Christian country and the world is a better place for it

Schrandtopia']above all else, love

we are a Christian national, Christ has called us to love all as we would love our own

if somone commited unspeakable acts of violence and hate against my family I would do all in my power to see the criminals brought to justice and peace brought to the survivors. if the things that happend to the civilians of Iraq happened to say, the civilians of Maryland the world would understand our rage and our response because we, as Americans are sworn to protect them. we as Christians are sworn to protect the Iraqis. every arab, every persian, every kurd, every sunni, every shite, every Christian, every jew is my brother - I will do all that I can to see them safe. if there was another way to remove saddam we would have taken it, but there was not

even zarkawi was my brother - if there were any other way to remove him as a threat to Iraq - if there were any realistic option that didn't involve killing him we would have taken it, but there was not

we fight becuase we love, we pray for better way but we can't find it
As an American (from the USA) I can proudly say this :headbang:.

I don't like your logic... That's pretty similar to what the "terrorists" say. Whatever happend to "Thou shalt not kill"?

That's pretty similar to what the "terrorists" say.

how so?

Whatever happend to "Thou shalt not kill"?

oh its still there

if a man is starving and needs to feed his family Christian theology has consistantly said if there is no other way but to steal a loaf of bread then he should steal that loaf even though "thou shalt not steal"

if there is any way killing can be avoided it must, but if it can't....

Schrandtopia']above all else, love

we are a Christian national, Christ has called us to love all as we would love our own

if somone commited unspeakable acts of violence and hate against my family I would do all in my power to see the criminals brought to justice and peace brought to the survivors. if the things that happend to the civilians of Iraq happened to say, the civilians of Maryland the world would understand our rage and our response because we, as Americans are sworn to protect them. we as Christians are sworn to protect the Iraqis. every arab, every persian, every kurd, every sunni, every shite, every Christian, every jew is my brother - I will do all that I can to see them safe. if there was another way to remove saddam we would have taken it, but there was not

even zarkawi was my brother - if there were any other way to remove him as a threat to Iraq - if there were any realistic option that didn't involve killing him we would have taken it, but there was not

we fight becuase we love, we pray for better way but we can't find it

Have you ever thought that not everyone wants to protected by you, or were you too busy feeling sorry for those less holy than you to notice?

Have you ever thought that not everyone wants to protected by you

I know not everyone does, not everyone needs to be

you think we like to spend billions of dollars and thousand of lives?

Schrandtopia']I know not everyone does, not everyone needs to be

you think we like to spend billions of dollars and thousand of lives?

Here's an idea: if you don't like doing it, don't do it anymore!

Here's an idea: if you don't like doing it, don't do it anymore!

and let those at risk die? why don't these objections ever surface when we're saving your ass?

Schrandtopia']how so?



oh its still there

if a man is starving and needs to feed his family Christian theology has consistantly said if there is no other way but to steal a loaf of bread then he should steal that loaf even though "thou shalt not steal"

if there is any way killing can be avoided it must, but if it can't....
They blew a missile into his hideout! Hardly an attempt to preserve his life. If a rich man is hungry and can buy a loaf, but stealing it is easier and/or more advantageous to his alterior motives (whatever they may be) then he should steal the loaf even though "thou shalt not steal".:rolleyes:

Schrandtopia']and let those at risk die? why don't these objections ever surface when we're saving your ass?

I just told you that not everybody wants to be saved. It's not your place to make decisions and step in when there is "saving" to do. If you think it is, you're bloody arrogant.

They blew a missile into his hideout! Hardly an attempt to preserve his life.

what other realistic option was there?

I just told you that not everybody wants to be saved. It's not your place to make decisions and step in when there is "saving" to do. If you think it is, you're bloody arrogant.

tell me

who's place is it?

Schrandtopia']tell me

who's place is it?

The UN, for one thing.

The UN, for one thing.

rwanda, somalia, yugoslavia, the congo, iraq....the list goes on



come on now, if it was your family at stake would you really say "the UN"? would you want those imcompetent blue helmates who are as likley to rape your daughter as they are to get food aid in let alone stop a war looking after your back?

Schrandtopia']rwanda, somalia, yugoslavia, the congo, iraq....the list goes on



come on now, if it was your family at stake would you really say "the UN"? would you want those imcompetent blue helmates who are as likley to rape your daughter as they are to get food aid in let alone stop a war looking after your back?

Yes, I would say the UN. If you're trying to make me sound like a selfish hypocryte, it's not going to work.
Besides, give me proof that the UN employees rape women. If they don't, you're an ignorant liar. If they do, the UN needs reformation.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060621-2034-un-congo.html

not only do they rape women they rape children


and on top of it all they couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel - do you really expect them to stop a full blown civil war? LOOK AT THEIR TRACK RECCORD!

Schrandtopia']what other realistic option was there?
With the world most highly funded, high tech militaries with more black ops forces you can poke a stick at, I'm sure you could find a way.:rolleyes:

With the world most highly funded, high tech militaries with more black ops forces you can poke a stick at, I'm sure you could find a way.:rolleyes:

do you really think he would have gone without a fight? he would have started shooting, we would have had to shoot back

Schrandtopia']http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060621-2034-un-congo.html

not only do they rape women they rape children


and on top of it all they couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel - do you really expect them to stop a full blown civil war? LOOK AT THEIR TRACK RECCORD!

Fine, the UN needs reform. But do you really think that's going to happen with the way major countries like the US are disrespecting it? Your nation already killed the Leauge; why don't you knock of another one, just for the hell of it?

If the US wasn't the world police and rather the UN, the US would be fucked.

Fine, the UN needs reform. But do you really think that's going to happen with the way major countries like the US are disrespecting it?

disrespect it? we bankroll it!

Your nation already killed the Leauge;

killed it? we were just the first ones to point out how much it sucked - look at how they handled ethiopia! did they really need us there to figure that out?

it was flawed from the begining

why don't you knock of another one, just for the hell of it?

again - do you think thats what we want? do you think W sits back in the evil castle of neo-conservatism and ponders "how can we f*** with the world today"?

a strong UN is in our best intrest - we want one and are doing what we can do see one developed

but in the mean time - people are dying and we're not just going to stand by

Schrandtopia']do you really think he would have gone without a fight? he would have started shooting, we would have had to shoot back
Flashbangs, tear gas, rubber bullets, tranquilizers, smoke granades, non lethal shooting, the list goes on. Nevertheless, any tactic imaginable weilds a lower chance of loss of life than an airstrike.

Schrandtopia']disrespect it? we bankroll it!



killed it? we were just the first ones to point out how much it sucked - look at how they handled ethiopia! did they really need us there to figure that out?

it was flawed from the begining



again - do you think thats what we want? do you think W sits back in the evil castle of neo-conservatism and ponders "how can we f*** with the world today"?

a strong UN is in our best intrest - we want one and are doing what we can do see one developed

but in the mean time - people are dying and we're not just going to stand by

Face the facts; by not supporting the league, you killed. Now, I could go a step further and say that that caused WWII, but I'm not in the mood to be a prick.
If a strong UN is in your best interest, why do you keep disobeying it? I believe the UN specifically requested that Dubya not invade Iraq.
People are dying? If you guys hate to see people die, why, may I ask, are you killing them?

Schrandtopia']disrespect it? we bankroll it! [The UN]
*snip*
The USA owes more dues to the UN than any other member country (And show no intention of paying). To be precise 1.7 Billion dollars. Keep bankrolling.

I've said this time and time again.

Lets have a popular vote. Each area of iraq and afghanistan(America has states, canada has provinces, not sure the proper names for similar divisions in those countries) has a popular vote to say whether or not they want foreign forces there. We are bringing democracy, right? So if the majority wants to deal with their own problems instead of having american/CoW forces patrol the streets, shouldn't they be allowed to make that choice?

Very few people, especially war supporters, ever back my suggestion, because they know, subconsciously if not more overtly, that in many areas, we would be kicked out, because the majority in many areas don't want us there.

When we have people in america dying of diseases that could be cured, have trouble getting enough energy to some places, though less of a problem recently, etc... I fail to see why we shouldn't be working on fixing our problems before fixing other people's problems.

160k soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars would have been able to do a great amount of public works in the US, but instead, we use the money mostly to kill or bring about the death of insurgents and terrorists. Most of them, insurgents especially, people who normally wouldn't have picked up a gun for anything other than home defense and maybe some target shooting.

If we wanted to help people, we could have invested the money spent on the war, on alternative fuel sources. If/when we can make it so the middle east isn't very prominent, they will fall to popular revolutions, when the governments dont have oil money to pay the military and police with.

Hey! People need to lay off America! It's just too much pressure sometimes! You try being the United States for once.

you know, if the United States did stay out of everyones buisness, you know what they'd say? they say, "hey, you fuckers just watched that shit happen over the news and didnt do anything about it! we need help, we need your help, you have the power to help and you arent doing it!":rolleyes:

besides the boondock saints were fucking sweet.

you know, if the United States did stay out of everyones buisness, you know what they'd say? they say, "hey, you fuckers just watched that shit happen over the news and didnt do anything about it! we need help, we need your help, you have the power to help and you arent doing it!":rolleyes:

If you're so sure, why don't you give it a try?

If you're so sure, why don't you give it a try?

hey, I would gladly, but I dont hold any power, becuase america bashers are right about one thing, the current government is corrupt and is taking power away from the people, my opinion is its headed towards a police state.

Schrandtopia']and let those at risk die? why don't these objections ever surface when we're saving your ass?
Let them die. It's not your fight.

Schrandtopia']above all else, love

we are a Christian national, Christ has called us to love all as we would love our own

if somone commited unspeakable acts of violence and hate against my family I would do all in my power to see the criminals brought to justice and peace brought to the survivors. if the things that happend to the civilians of Iraq happened to say, the civilians of Maryland the world would understand our rage and our response because we, as Americans are sworn to protect them. we as Christians are sworn to protect the Iraqis. every arab, every persian, every kurd, every sunni, every shite, every Christian, every jew is my brother - I will do all that I can to see them safe. if there was another way to remove saddam we would have taken it, but there was not

even zarkawi was my brother - if there were any other way to remove him as a threat to Iraq - if there were any realistic option that didn't involve killing him we would have taken it, but there was not

we fight becuase we love, we pray for better way but we can't find it

Please don't protect me mr. American bibblebabbling nutjob.

Anytime any country has demonstrated a worse than average disregard for human rights, it is our duty as Americans to overthrow their government and foster a pro human rights government. Furthermore, if a government were to fairly seriously threaten the American way of life with little justification, then I don't see any reason why we should not overthrow that government and foster a more acceptable government. Frequent war keps our military properly trained and lets our boys get plenty of nifty medals. There are plenty of rat bag nations out there for our boys to go and hone their fighting skills against.

Anytime any country has demonstrated a worse than average disregard for human rights, it is our duty as Americans to overthrow their government and foster a pro human rights government. Furthermore, if a government were to fairly seriously threaten the American way of life with little justification, then I don't see any reason why we should not overthrow that government and foster a more acceptable government. Frequent war keps our military properly trained and lets our boys get plenty of nifty medals. There are plenty of rat bag nations out there for our boys to go and hone their fighting skills against.

Is it also your duty as an American to rape and torture "ragheads" in concentration camps?

I must say, this is the first time I've ever heard "There will be cool medals" as a reason to wage war on someone.

I must say, this is the first time I've ever heard "There will be cool medals" as a reason to wage war on someone.
The old kingdoms of Europe used to stay stuff like that to their troops, before they stopped being nubtards.

The old kingdoms of Europe used to stay stuff like that to their troops, before they stopped being nubtards.

Interesting. I wonder if they invaded countries to look for really sharp spears or something.

Schrandtopia']above all else, love

we are a Christian national, Christ has called us to love all as we would love our own

if somone commited unspeakable acts of violence and hate against my family I would do all in my power to see the criminals brought to justice and peace brought to the survivors. if the things that happend to the civilians of Iraq happened to say, the civilians of Maryland the world would understand our rage and our response because we, as Americans are sworn to protect them. we as Christians are sworn to protect the Iraqis. every arab, every persian, every kurd, every sunni, every shite, every Christian, every jew is my brother - I will do all that I can to see them safe. if there was another way to remove saddam we would have taken it, but there was not

even zarkawi was my brother - if there were any other way to remove him as a threat to Iraq - if there were any realistic option that didn't involve killing him we would have taken it, but there was not

we fight becuase we love, we pray for better way but we can't find itFunny. This is exactly the sort of mentality I was talking about in the "Muslim Doublespeak" thread.

Oh well, I'm glad you're not my neighbour. Praise Dog for that little blessing.

Interesting. I wonder if they invaded countries to look for really sharp spears or something.
Generally it was gold.

You have to hand it to Europe, at least it was completely honest. The rulers would announce that they will send their armies to conquer foreign lands and bring back gold, silver, fabrics, all sorts of commodities and slaves too, and the nation will be stronger for the practice.

And it retired all cashed out like a gangster, after settling a few internal scores. Europe basically won the big game. Woot.

Now America wants a slice of the action, but it is late on the scene, culture has moved on and so it and its acolytes are forced to spout wishy-washy liberal bullshit about freedom and saving lives, when really they want all of the above, just like Europe. And they're getting it I suppose, but it is just so funny sitting watching it all, observing the same predictable "Here it comes...OOH!!! That must have HURT!" mistakes we made centuries ago, which they stubbornly refused to learn from us when we offered.

Ah well. If nothing else, it makes great television.

Our country (the US) was founded by Masonic Diestist(except Franklin who maky have been a Satanist) not xtians the refereneces are to GOD not Jesus. It could be Allah or Apollo. The UNDER GOD in the pledge is was a knee jerk reaction to "godless" Communism.
If his forgien policy is directed by anything other than a dice roll or a dart board THAT would be a miracle.






Schrandtopia']the figure I've been quoted is that 80% of Americans proclaim themselves to be Christian - we elected a man who says his foreign policy is directed by God - its on our money and in our pledge - the Christian faith has been and is the back bone of this country

we are a Christian country and the world is a better place for it

Yeah, sure. One of the main reasons the United States entired Iraq for was gold, except this gold was black, slippery and used in automobiles.


But I want to point out one thing. The United States may be the world police (we took over that mantle from Britain a while back.. haha) but its our government that is fucked up, not our people. You have to say we did have a reason, if a bit hot-headed, to do something about Afghanistan, and one of the biggest reasons we're in Iraq is because our president lied to us about WMD that we still haven't found significant proof of. There's been alot of coverup in this country, and you can trust that most Americans (myself included) really don't have much of a clue of what is really going on. Its actually pretty pathetic, something that makes me somewhat ashamed of my country for, but I don't blame the people.

And for the record, the United States is founded many things, but one of them is freedom of religion, and though we have a large majority of Christian and Catholic believers, we are by no means a Christian country. We do have a little bit of road left on that freedom road though, as alot of our public judgements are based off of Christian morals, but we are a democracy, not a theocracy.

Wow. So I accidentally started a flame war, go me.

Lets have a popular vote. Each area of iraq and afghanistan(America has states, canada has provinces, not sure the proper names for similar divisions in those countries) has a popular vote to say whether or not they want foreign forces there. We are bringing democracy, right? So if the majority wants to deal with their own problems instead of having american/CoW forces patrol the streets, shouldn't they be allowed to make that choice?

I still think we should have just kicked Saddam out and left, although the result probably would have been an Iranian (or Israeli?) invasion, torching off the Middle East. If nothing else, it would have spared the US a lot of nonsense (or maybe it isn't nonsense) about ulterior motives, oil schemes, etc. But I'm all for letting the Iraqis have a Pharoah, if that's what they want. (I'm not a particular fan of republicanism. Democracy is fine, but that's not what we're instituting.)

Schrandtropia]above all else, love

we are a Christian national, Christ has called us to love all as we would love our own

I'm not sure how on earth you get US=Christian nation. Theistic, maybe. But considering the number of laws contrary to Christian morals, the lack of direct involvement by the churches in politics (on the whole a good thing, imo, but still), and the fact that most Christians tend to see politics as dirty and beneath them and so forth, I don't think you can make that claim. At least not right now.

Anytime any country has demonstrated a worse than average disregard for human rights, it is our duty as Americans to overthrow their government and foster a pro human rights government. Furthermore, if a government were to fairly seriously threaten the American way of life with little justification, then I don't see any reason why we should not overthrow that government and foster a more acceptable government.

Define "worse than average", "human rights", "American way of life", and "little justification". If we reverse your thinking, the Middle Eastern countries should all gang up on the US and Europe, because of our acceptance of infidels, allowing homosexuals to have rights (like, to start with, the right to not die), and so forth, which threaten the "Arab/Islamic way of life". But then, I forgot, you too are assuming we're the good guys.

Which I'm not. I'm looking for a way to classify a war as justified or unjustified, generally. Tactical Grace suggested the only justification for war isn't really a justification at all, it's just realizing that war is in one's interest. Which is all fine and dandy and would relieve a lot of stress, except that it doesn't explain the almost universal desire to make sure a war is acceptable ethically, or at least to pretend it's ethical in order to cover up an ulterior motive.

Most Christian or Christian-derived derived theories of just war will give the following three justifications for war:

1) If you're attacked, or one of your allies. Mostly nobody argues with this one.

2) If you possess the means to right a great wrong or injustice, and the consensus of the majority (this is vaguely defined, usually - I think in the modern world we would say "world opinion") is with you. This is sort of vague, but it's the justification for a lot of modern wars/peacekeeping efforts.

3) If you are otherwise unable to settle a political dispute. This isn't so much considered a justification of war as an expedience clause. The, "Fine, you stupids have been arguing over that same three square miles of territory for the last 500 years, just fight it out, k?" mentality. Incidentally, as in the 100 Years' War, it tends to end up accomplishing nothing except to provide material for good stories.

The fact of the matter is that the World is currently undergoing a Golden Age, for the first time ever geopolitical power is concentrated in what is (in essence) a Liberal Democracy, this situation won't last forever (as we can see from the ascent of countries like China, India, etc.).

This is the first and possibly the last for a long time in which it will be possible to strangle away political power from Tyrants. The trend for democratisation has been good, but some Tyrants need to be physically helped in giving their people power, and that is why we have militaries.

Schrandtopia and I share an opinion, while in his case it comes from his Christian faith, for me it comes from Humanism. And it is not hypocritical, it is Hippocratic, I say that it is immoral to stand by while people are killed and oppressed.

A lot of people live in some sort of fantasy world where they believe that the people of this Earth have a culture that does not place the same respect upon freedom as us (BS, no culture has ever disrespected freedom in abstract), and that their governments are representitive in their anti-American opinions. Of course they are not, the oppressive governments of the World are anti-American because they view America as a threat to their authoritarian regimes, their enslaved people are then fed lies about the West.

However, I admit the USA is not perfect. There is a duplicitousness in the way it engages in War, on the one hand freedom _is_ delivered, but it is also plain to see that it is not delivered to places where it is not profitable, ie. Zimbabwe. I think we need to selfless in our Liberating Wars.

Let them die. It's not your fight.

did you really just say that?

listen pal, when women are being raped to death - when the bodies of children are being stacked like cordwood it fucking becomes everyones fight. hate us all you want, we're not going to back down

Schrandtopia']did you really just say that?

listen pal, when women are being raped to death - when the bodies of children are being stacked like cordwood it fucking becomes everyones fight. hate us all you want, we're not going to back down

"Wherever women cry out for help, we will be there. Whenever children starve as greedy warlords steal their food, we'll be there. Where despotic rulers violate human rights and deprive most of their citizens of a decent standard of living, we'll be there...


...once we've finished up putting back together the last country we invaded. Seriously, do you have any idea the kind of manpower and money it takes to invade most of the nations in Africa and the Middle East? Not to mention Asia and South America, dear God, don't get me started..."

Schrandtopia']did you really just say that?

listen pal, when women are being raped to death - when the bodies of children are being stacked like cordwood it fucking becomes everyones fight. hate us all you want, we're not going to back down


you god-damn right man.

"Wherever women cry out for help, we will be there. Whenever children starve as greedy warlords steal their food, we'll be there. Where despotic rulers violate human rights and deprive most of their citizens of a decent standard of living, we'll be there...


...once we've finished up putting back together the last ocuntry we invaded. Seriously, do you have any idea the kind of manpower and money it takes to invade most of the nations in Africa and the Middle East? Not to mention Asia and South America, dear God, don't get me started..."

So, who cares if it costs money. people need help.

...once we've finished up putting back together the last country we invaded. Seriously, do you have any idea the kind of manpower and money it takes to invade most of the nations in Africa and the Middle East? Not to mention Asia and South America, dear God, don't get me started..."

thats why we're taking it one at a time

Schrandtopia']thats why we're taking it one at a time

...

Yes, of course, we can avoid bankrupting the national economy by taking on every third-world country one at a time. Surely advances in cloning could fill our ranks with the millions of soldiers we'd need, and the international community wouldn't act to cut off any of our resources outside the country when we unilaterally invade every despo-...

Crap, the sarcasm dripping of that reply clogged the keyboard.

Schrandtopia']did you really just say that?

listen pal, when women are being raped to death - when the bodies of children are being stacked like cordwood it fucking becomes everyones fight. hate us all you want, we're not going to back down

Lets stop the rampant rape, etc in our own country first.

Sorry if I don't enjoy thousands of americans dying, tens of thousands of americans being wounded, and hundreds of thousands of iraqi's dying as a result of our invasion, as well as hundreds of billions of our dollars and a ruined iraqi infrastructure, just for an attempt at stopping some crime in iraq(which is up at the moment, and I doubt things will be much better in the ensuing civil war).

Our country (the US) was founded by Masonic Diestist(except Franklin who maky have been a Satanist) not xtians the refereneces are to GOD not Jesus. It could be Allah or Apollo. The UNDER GOD in the pledge is was a knee jerk reaction to "godless" Communism.
If his forgien policy is directed by anything other than a dice roll or a dart board THAT would be a miracle.

You're right that it was founded by Deists and Masons. Although, the latter isn't religiously exclusive to Christianity. Washington was a Mason, but drifted in and out of Deist and Christian leanings. Ben Franklin was a Mason too, but definatley not a Satanist. He attended what we know today as the "Hellfire Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club)" where they used to mock religion and do blasphemous things as a joke.

Its very true that our founding documents don't refer to Jesus, but rather a humanist-deist concept of God, like that outlined in the writings of John Locke from which a lot of our political founders copied.

As far as I'm concerned the rest of the world can cry foul of the US "playing police" the minute that they pay their fair share of the UN's monetary requirements.

Maybe the US does overstep its bounds more often than can be done in good taste, but this doesn't change the fact the US contributes many many times more to the UN than any other nation.


Have every country supply an equal share of the monetary requirements necessary to fund the UN, and then you can righteously demand that the US respect the UN's authority over the matter and do so with full moral condemnation of the US' actions.


Until then, I say: "Put your money where your mouth is."



I'm all for the UN; I think the US should back out of the UN entirely and let the other people play "Sim World" with the US reverting back to its more or less politically/military isolation stance of pre-WWII (not economically though; love free trade). And if the US did do that then it would become immediately clear just how nations actually believe their own bullshit and how many are just crying foul of the US to feign moral superiority.

NT

As far as I'm concerned the rest of the world can cry foul of the US "playing police" the minute that they pay their fair share of the UN's monetary requirements.

Maybe the US does overstep its bounds more often than can be done in good taste, but this doesn't change the fact the US contributes many many times more to the UN than any other nation.


Have every country supply an equal share of the monetary requirements necessary to fund the UN, and then you can righteously demand that the US respect the UN's authority over the matter and do so with full moral condemnation of the US' actions.


Until then, I say: "Put your money where your mouth is."



I'm all for the UN; I think the US should back out of the UN entirely and let the other people play "Sim World" with the US reverting back to its more or less politically/military isolation stance of pre-WWII (not economically though; love free trade). And if the US did do that then it would become immediately clear just how nations actually believe their own bullshit and how many are just crying foul of the US to feign moral superiority.

NT

So the US should do whatever the hell it wants, because it has so much money it can hardly figure out what to do with it(see:Iraq)?

The UN isn't perfect, but its done a hell of lot more good than it's done bad. I think preventing multiple world conflicts well justifies any bad that has come from it so far.

So the US should do whatever the hell it wants, because it has so much money it can hardly figure out what to do with it(see:Iraq)?

The UN isn't perfect, but its done a hell of lot more good than it's done bad. I think preventing multiple world conflicts well justifies any bad that has come from it so far.

Where did I say that the US should have license to do whatever it wants because it has the money? No where that's where. What I did say is that it is entirely hypocritical of other nations to cry about how "world policing" is conducted under a US agenda and then turn around and make the US foot the bill for doing so. If you all are so keen on an unbiased "world police" then why won't you pony up for it?


That's an illusory argument if I ever saw one. The same reasoning could be used for anything, since a prevented war is one that never happened and so how do you know what prevented it? I could say that the US' existence stopped the occurrence of two more world wars and how would you prove me wrong?

And as far as your last statement goes it might as well read: US money buys good peace.

NT

Schrandtopia']the figure I've been quoted is that 80% of Americans proclaim themselves to be Christian - we elected a man who says his foreign policy is directed by God - its on our money and in our pledge - the Christian faith has been and is the back bone of this country

we are a Christian country and the world is a better place for it

You are fuggin insane.

You are the reason there is a clear distinction between church and state in this country.
I suppsose you may feel at home in 16th century England, where the King ruled by direct authority from God, but here, god plays little more of a role, than recieve lip service.

I would also say that the majority of those Christians are also strong believers in the separation of church and state.

If the world is so much "better off", ask yourself why it is that so many other countries HATE YOUR CHRISTIAN GUTS.

the u.s. isn't honesly "policing" anything. to say that it is is only a lieing pretention behind which the reality is the vesed interest of superficialy legitimate corporocratic defacto mafia. protecting so called economic intrests from any defence against their deprivations against anyone's life, survival or environment, anywhere.

=^^=
.../\...

Is it also your duty as an American to rape and torture "ragheads" in concentration camps?

I must say, this is the first time I've ever heard "There will be cool medals" as a reason to wage war on someone.

Rape and torture are unamerican. We have a duty to overthrow governments that persecute their people based on their beliefs or race. In fact, any country that tortures anybody for any reason should be overthrown. If an American does it they should be arrested and shot for dishonoring their uniforms.

Where did I say that the US should have license to do whatever it wants because it has the money? No where that's where. What I did say is that it is entirely hypocritical of other nations to cry about how "world policing" is conducted under a US agenda and then turn around and make the US foot the bill for doing so. If you all are so keen on an unbiased "world police" then why won't you pony up for it?


That's an illusory argument if I ever saw one. The same reasoning could be used for anything, since a prevented war is one that never happened and so how do you know what prevented it? I could say that the US' existence stopped the occurrence of two more world wars and how would you prove me wrong?

And as far as your last statement goes it might as well read: US money buys good peace.

NT

Sorry if I'm not going to play your little game. I think its blatantly obvious that the UN has been instrumental in bringing parties to the table to resolve conflicts before they evolve into shooting wars.

Guess what? Yes, the richest nation in the world is paying its full share of the bill of the UN. Doesn't mean nobody else is putting in money. Many nations put in large amounts of money, troops, and political capital into the UN. Just because the US pays its full share of the bill, doesn't entitle it to ignoring the UN.

And for your information, I'm american. But wow, I actually think we should use the UN as it is intended, so we can stop conflicts. I'm not some penny-pincher who thinks money is more important than world peace.

Rape and torture are unamerican. We have a duty to overthrow governments that persecute their people based on their beliefs or race. In fact, any country that tortures anybody for any reason should be overthrown. If an American does it they should be arrested and shot for dishonoring their uniforms.

Glad to know we live in a dream world where anything bad can be solved by invading a country.

As an American (from the USA) I can proudly say this :headbang:.

I don't like your logic... That's pretty similar to what the "terrorists" say. Whatever happend to "Thou shalt not kill"?

"Thou shalt not kill" refers to murder, not justifiable homicide.

You are fuggin insane.

You are the reason there is a clear distinction between church and state in this country.
I suppsose you may feel at home in 16th century England, where the King ruled by direct authority from God, but here, god plays little more of a role, than recieve lip service.

I would also say that the majority of those Christians are also strong believers in the separation of church and state.

If the world is so much "better off", ask yourself why it is that so many other countries HATE YOUR CHRISTIAN GUTS.

Take a chill pill man.

Go read some of the original documents, the constitution, US coins, etc and tell me we are an atheist country. You can't.

And we have a CHRISTIAN in the white house :D

Because most other countries aren't the US. We don't need them.

Take a chill pill man.

Go read some of the original documents, the constitution, US coins, etc and tell me we are an atheist country. You can't.

And we have a CHRISTIAN in the white house :D

Because most other countries aren't the US. We don't need them.

We are an atheist country. We have a clear seperation of church and state. Most of the founders were diests. The Treaty of Tripoli clearly states we are not founded any way on the christian religion.

The additions to our money and our pledge, that say under god, were created in the cold war, hardly when we were founded.

Yes, we have a christian as our president. Bush =/= america.

Less than half of americans attend church regularly, any church, not just christian ones.

We are without theism in our government. Some people in our nation are christian, that hardly makes us a christian country.

You claim to not be playing my game, but by your statements you profess ignorance of the nature of the game.



The US isn't paying its "full share" its paying its own share and half the rest of the bloody world's share. Take a look at how much of the UN is payed by the US.

I never once said that the US should be able to ignore international law. Find for me where I said that. That's right you can't because I am not and will not suggest that.


What I am suggesting is that other nations don't have a right to complain if they won't do anything about it. And until you can come up with a convincing argument to the contrary (which actually addresses what I am talking about), then my position remains unchanged.



The UN is a tool. If it isn't working correctly and no one else is willing to do anything about, then by what right do they complain about its misuse?


The US should be above abusing political relationships, but the same holds true of every nation on earth. The fact is no nation is entirely honest and upright in its behaviors, and being unwilling to commit resources to addressing this problem is accessory through ommission.

NT

I agree. Boondock Saints is a cool movie.

What?

We are an atheist country.


Check the facts. More people believe in paranormal beings (deities/spirits of some sort) and an afterlife than don't in this country. This country is FAR from atheistic. It is far from being agnostic. It simply doesn't agree that Christianity is the correct religion. This is far from arguing that no religion is correct.


And if you look at the US historically while it may not be a Christian nation on paper it was most definitely a Christian nation in practice. Perhaps you can explain why the ten commandments made its way onto state property in just about every supreme court in the nation. Perhaps you can then explain why no President in the history of the US has ever professed any religion other than Christianity (for the longest time it was even more exclusive: protestant christianity).


Our nation has managed to establish a more well-defined separation of church and state than other nations, but that is a far cry from actually being separate. Religious influences make its way into the government's policies and legislations all the time. To suggest otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.



You would be correct to suggest that the US' Christian influence has been on the down swing, but to suggest that it is non-existant is clearly false.

NT