Dr Rock said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brainzz_n_dong
Are your beliefs about the world pretty much summed up by: Nobody is qualified in any instance/matter to hold the moral high ground, which in turn means nobody is available to judge the moral low ground.
correct
Quote:
Therefore, if someone wants to do something totally amoral (eradicate an entire nation worth of people) then nobody has the standing to criticize it on any grounds?
not what i said, you knee-jerking clown. I said that the positive consequences of dissolving the state of israel would far outweigh any negative ones. I don't believe that should involve slaughtering people who currently live there - although i can't pretend i'd shed a tear if the whole of the middle east wiped itself out through internecine genocide, as it happens.
Gee, forgive me for taking something you said out of context you
triple-lutz-sowcow-off-the-dishwasher-nothing-but-net belly dancer.
I know you'd never do that yourself. I don't doubt you'd not care if Isreal, the rest of the mid-east, or (pick a country...or two) were wiped out as weren't you the one championing earlier this year how much sense it would make to wipe out several billion people to "correct" our population "problem"?
*************
GBO, yes I intended to sit down and write maybe a paragraph and instead turned it into a term paper

That's what happens when you don't have to get up and go to class, do projects, have group meetings, etc., for four weeks (yaaaah).
Yes, we have some wide areas of overall agreement and if we had to sit down in a room and iron out a policy if we are nominated to be co-presidents I think we could. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
I'd say that pre-emptive action should be one military option always on the table. I do not love it just because I'm a conservative. I just see the value in having it for the times when you have knowledge available - the best knowledge that your intel can provide - that suggests without a doubt you are about to be attacked. The enemy merely possessing the ability to execute an attack isn't grounds enough. If so, then we'd have attacked the Soviets, the Chinese, the N. Koreans, et al, a long time ago.
If you took it to a man-on-the-street level, then any person you meet could theoretically kill you, so if you're "all pre-emptive, all the time" you would indeed have to kill them...which is the argument I believe you were making (without quoting or re-reading your threads as I'm typing fast cause I have to run soon - so I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth).
But, change the dynamics a bit and put yourself in the situation where you are sitting in your house, the front door is knocked down, and a man is standing there. If you happen to have your gun in your hand, do you at least point it at him or hold it down at your side and wait to see what he does next? What he does next might render you unable to defend yourself at all - you might be wounded or dead. Perhaps not perfectly transferrable to a terrorist or terrorist-state view, but where I'm coming from.
Even though I've defended Bush's war in Iraq, most of my defense is couched in the sense of "we're there" and the best way out is through, not backing out, based upon consequences of both actions . I wasn't part of this forum in 2002/03 during the run-up to the war nor did I spout off anywhere about my war views. Being the son of a former military man, I have a deep abiding respect for the usage of military might, but also can see that it doesn't cure all that ails the world. We are fighting a ground war I would not have begun, but neither would I have turned a blind eye towards Saddam. He showed enough over time to be like that man who has burst down your door - do you trust him or do you at least draw your pistol and keep an eye on him?
Anyway, good talking with ya and I'll catch you later.
Steve