homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Just Wars? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Just Wars?
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It was one of the most shameful periods in the UN's history. And the slaughter of Tutsis (and some Hutus) reached a million, I think. I was in Uganda at the time; people stopped eating fish from lake Victoria for nearly half a year.

The US, the UK and Europe stood by and watched. Well, actually some European governments helped supply arms to the Hutu army.

Doing something about that would have required a just war - or at least a justifiable war. And that's what the RPF fought. Of course it was ugly, and the RPF soldiers did their own share of retaliation.... but they were admirably restrained in comparison with what they were fighting, and considering the resources they had to ensure discipline.

I agree with you, based on what I remember. I can still see the church with all the bodies in it, and the bodies floating in the water - it's not surprising local people didn't take water from Lake Victoria for so long. The slaughter was grotesque.

Perhaps the problem was the UN? It's very structure, I mean. The fact that the UN was there meant, did it not, that a consensus had to be achieved before action could be taken? It seems that when consensus within the UN is required, little more than mumbling and inaction is the result. Had the States been under a different leadership, maybe they would have taken the lead? Maybe not, though. They were at a different period in their history. Also, Britain was in a political mess at that stage so strong leadership from us was not a possibility.

If preventative action was in fact possible, as you suggest it was, then this makes the lack of it a crime against the Tutsis. Do you know where the country is up to these days? It's been a long time since I have seen any update.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It wasn't as if any country agitated for the UN to go in. The US certainly didn't - neither did any European countries... or Australia or Canada, AFAIR.

Rwanda seems to have done an incredible job at dealing with the genocide. There have been public reconcilliations between communities - people have been received back after making confessions of their roles - monuments are open to the public, to testify to the horror and ensure it doesn't happen again.....

Paul Kagame is the president (Tutsi), but seems to do a good job of being Rwandan first and Tutsi second. Unfortunately, he's embroiled in meddling with affairs in DRC, and the Interhamwe are still there, over the border.

Unfortunately, the Interhamwe

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The people of Rwanda are the nation of Rwanda.

The individual people of Rwanda each doing their best to protect their own were ineffective in stopping the genocide. It was only the advance of the RPF army that stopped the genocide.

I wonder on what attrocities were done in return... Given how hard it is to find a "Just" war I would hazard a guess that the reaction was probably abusive as well.

Fighting for the love of someone you want to defend is just. Fighting for the hatred of someone you want to kill is not.

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
and your attitude is so far from the love of god, finding gladness in the death of others, I wonder on who it is you serve yourself.

Isn't this a bit personal, Teapot?

I don't think anyone on here finds gladness in the death of others. Your own position appears to deny any form of justice. It appears to be saying that the only form of approved resistence is hand to hand combat. That is impossible to enact when a group walk into a church all guns blazing and slaughter men, women and children who are unarmed and defenceless. Such advocates of hatred and terror have to be stopped and the only way to stop them is by force, as was evidenced in Rwanda. The worshippers in the church in Rwanda had no darkness; they did not attempt to kill the Hutus who took their lives; they did not have any recourse to defend themselves. The darkness was in the Hutus, and the Hutus alone. Yet I know you will disagree and, as such, you give the impression of appeasement, of condoning hideous acts of tyrany, of turning away and walking on the other side of the road.

That may not be how you view things, but it is certainly how your position comes across on this thread.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
and your attitude is so far from the love of god, finding gladness in the death of others, I wonder on who it is you serve yourself.

Isn't this a bit personal, Teapot?

It is personal Littlelady. It’s a response to a personal statement from Madgeo that I'm glad those Taliban demons are dead. .

quote:
I don't think anyone on here finds gladness in the death of others.
It appears from Geo’s post that this is not the case.

quote:
advocates of hatred and terror have to be stopped and the only way to stop them is by force, as was evidenced in Rwanda.
Indeed, but not by force motivated by the same spirit they themselves were in service to.

quote:
Yet I know you will disagree and, as such, you give the impression of appeasement, of condoning hideous acts of tyrany, of turning away and walking on the other side of the road.

That may not be how you view things, but it is certainly how your position comes across on this thread.

I’d like to know how you can suggest that when I say fighting can be just…..

[ 06. January 2006, 08:36: Message edited by: Teapot ]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With an added ammendment that Force is NOT the only way to stop hatred and violence, it is not even the main way, but is a means to defend against extreme danger.

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
and your attitude is so far from the love of god, finding gladness in the death of others, I wonder on who it is you serve yourself.

Isn't this a bit personal, Teapot?

It is personal Littlelady. It’s a response to a personal statement from Madgeo that I'm glad those Taliban demons are dead. .
Except MG's statement wasn't directed at you personally; whereas yours was directed at MG personally. I am glad that Hitler is dead; he can't slaughter anyone else when he is dead. That doesn't mean I sit here and rejoice in his death, which is what you are inferring from MadGeo's posts. But this is too Hellish for Purgatory and I don't want to derail the thread.

On the issue of fighting, you have said that, in effect, hand to hand combat can be just (one to one fighting) so long as the motives of those fighting are not the same: namely, the defender is not angry but in fact is fighting out of love.

If I have understood your position correctly then I would suggest it is an impossible one to justify because no-one knows the intentions of anyone. Sometimes, not even the person themselves is aware of their intentions. So judging whether a fight or a war is just based solely upon the intentions of individuals is totally unrealistic, and you would indeed be advocating a 'pass by on the other side' position in that instance.

I believe, for example, that had I witnessed the slaughter in the Rwandan church and had I had a gun in my hands at the time, knowing the way I get when I see injustice happening and how much violence upsets me, I would be very likely to shoot the killers on sight. Yes I would be angry - they had slaughtered unarmed, innocent people in front of my eyes. But also I would be afraid - that they would go on and do exactly the same thing to someone else. In a volatile situation as the Rwandan slaughter was, there is no time to be nice, to sit in court and pass laws, to call in a negotiator. Sometimes, spur of the moment decisions have to be taken in order to save lives from people determined to kill with impunity. So far as I can see, your position does not allow for such a situation.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Except MG's statement wasn't directed at you personally; whereas yours was directed at MG personally.

If someone says “I am X” are you suggesting that saying “that also means you are Y” is not appropriate?

quote:
On the issue of fighting, you have said that, in effect, hand to hand combat can be just (one to one fighting) so long as the motives of those fighting are not the same: namely, the defender is not angry but in fact is fighting out of love.
I have said acting out of love, to defend, if fine. Acting out of hate, to destroy, is not. Mob minds and army organisation promote the latter, not the former.

An army is just mob vengeance with a hierarchy attached….

quote:
If I have understood your position correctly then I would suggest it is an impossible one to justify because no-one knows the intentions of anyone. Sometimes, not even the person themselves is aware of their intentions. So judging whether a fight or a war is just based solely upon the intentions of individuals is totally unrealistic, and you would indeed be advocating a 'pass by on the other side' position in that instance.
By the same standard marriage is also impossible [Smile]

quote:
I believe, for example, that had I witnessed the slaughter in the Rwandan church and had I had a gun in my hands at the time, knowing the way I get when I see injustice happening and how much violence upsets me, I would be very likely to shoot the killers on sight.
“Judge not, that ye be not judged”

“Love your enemy”

quote:
Yes I would be angry - they had slaughtered unarmed, innocent people in front of my eyes. But also I would be afraid - that they would go on and do exactly the same thing to someone else. In a volatile situation as the Rwandan slaughter was, there is no time to be nice, to sit in court and pass laws, to call in a negotiator. Sometimes, spur of the moment decisions have to be taken in order to save lives from people determined to kill with impunity. So far as I can see, your position does not allow for such a situation.
“Seek ye first the kingdom of god” and if in the love of god you will do what is right. If, however, you embrace the spirit of rage you will not.

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
I believe, for example, that had I witnessed the slaughter in the Rwandan church and had I had a gun in my hands at the time, knowing the way I get when I see injustice happening and how much violence upsets me, I would be very likely to shoot the killers on sight.
“Judge not, that ye be not judged”

“Love your enemy”

quote:
Yes I would be angry - they had slaughtered unarmed, innocent people in front of my eyes. But also I would be afraid - that they would go on and do exactly the same thing to someone else. In a volatile situation as the Rwandan slaughter was, there is no time to be nice, to sit in court and pass laws, to call in a negotiator. Sometimes, spur of the moment decisions have to be taken in order to save lives from people determined to kill with impunity. So far as I can see, your position does not allow for such a situation.
“Seek ye first the kingdom of god” and if in the love of god you will do what is right. If, however, you embrace the spirit of rage you will not.

Nah. That doesn't wash I'm afraid. If I had just witnessed a slaughter and there was a possibility of further slaughter, I am perfectly within my rights to judge the slaughterers as killers. And stop them. If that means shooting them down, so be it. Rage and anger are totally different. And my anger would be against the hideous atrocity I had just witnessed. If Jesus can overturn tables and call the Pharisees names, I can shoot some killers before they can kill again. I'm sure God would agree. [Biased]

No-one knows what goes on in the minds of others. The minute they think they do, they've made a mistake, imo. Remember the Yorkshire Ripper? He was apparently in a successful marriage. His wife had no idea what her husband was, however. So even marriages don't work in the way you suggest, Teapot. A lot is based on trust - and ignorance! [Smile]

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Rage and anger are totally different. And my anger would be against the hideous atrocity I had just witnessed. If Jesus can overturn tables and call the Pharisees names, I can shoot some killers before they can kill again. I'm sure God would agree. [Biased]

Yours maybe, but not mine [Smile]

quote:
No-one knows what goes on in the minds of others. The minute they think they do, they've made a mistake, imo. Remember the Yorkshire Ripper? He was apparently in a successful marriage. His wife had no idea what her husband was, however. So even marriages don't work in the way you suggest, Teapot. A lot is based on trust - and ignorance! [Smile]
You must be fun to live with! [Biased]

When you look in the mirror do you see [Paranoid] ? [Biased]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The people of Rwanda are the nation of Rwanda.

The individual people of Rwanda each doing their best to protect their own were ineffective in stopping the genocide. It was only the advance of the RPF army that stopped the genocide.

I wonder on what attrocities were done in return... Given how hard it is to find a "Just" war I would hazard a guess that the reaction was probably abusive as well.

Fighting for the love of someone you want to defend is just. Fighting for the hatred of someone you want to kill is not.

I expect many of the RPF had relatives still alive in Kigali who they wanted to save from murder. Given the conduct of the RPF since, they do seem to have behaved very well. The current tutsi president is very even handed.

I accuse you of the following reasoning;

1) There is no just war
2) It cannot be a just war if people hate or commit atrocities during or after the war.
3) The RPF, since they seem to have been fighting a real evil, must have been motivated by hate, and committed atrocities, else I might be wrong about 1).

And this from someone who doesn't do hypotheticals.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Teapot

Can I just be clear about what you're saying here? I'm a bit slow sometimes.

Are you saying that if the only way to stop the slaughter of innocents (i.e., non-combatant civilians, including many defenceless women and children as for example in the Rwandan genocide) is to take organised armed resistance (i.e., form an effective fighting army) then it is better to let the slaughter tke place than resist in this way?

Better, to take another example, to let "The Lord's Resistance Army" carry out its vile attrocites (or only take personal, unorganised, self defence measures which it is clear will be unable to stop them) than to form an army to fight them effectively?

Just trying to clear up what we're all saying.

CB

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mdijon,

You do things you way Mdijon, I’ll do things my way, and let our “fruit” determine which kind of tree we are and which spirit each serves.

[Smile]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Teapot

Can I just be clear about what you're saying here? I'm a bit slow sometimes.

Are you saying that if the only way to stop the slaughter of innocents (i.e., non-combatant civilians, including many defenceless women and children as for example in the Rwandan genocide) is to take organised armed resistance (i.e., form an effective fighting army) then it is better to let the slaughter take place than resist in this way?

I have yet to see an army that is not formed for fear and hatred, nor one that neither:
[*] treats people like cogs in a machine.
Or
[*] is nothing but a lynch mob

The closest I have seen to avoiding such has been in small groups of friends and neighbours in a militia defending their homes and loved ones.

Confusing isn’t it, that I am neither pro-war nor pacifist, but instead pro fighting, in groups of people where bound by personal relationships and where neither cold hierarchy nor mob mind takes precedence over personal relationship with the holy spirit, in order to defend hearth and heart-bound. Doesn’t fit any of the usual shoeboxes. [Smile]

[ 06. January 2006, 10:19: Message edited by: Teapot ]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Confusing isn’t it, that I am neither pro-war nor pacifist, but instead pro fighting, in groups of people where bound by personal relationships and where neither cold hierarchy nor mob mind takes precedence over personal relationship with the holy spirit, in order to defend hearth and heart-bound. Doesn’t fit any of the usual shoeboxes. [Smile]

It does, actually, yes. The shoebox of personal preference. And, of course, a guarantee that you'll never be in a position where you can say to yourself that by not fighting you were actually making a mistake. [Biased]

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
When you look in the mirror do you see [Paranoid] ? [Biased]

Not at all. I see a generally happy, bubbly and friendly person looking back at me. [Razz]

Not that I look in the mirror very often, I hasten to add. Only when absolutely necessary!

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
...a guarantee that you'll never be in a position where you can say to yourself that by not fighting you were actually making a mistake. [Biased]

Not necessarily. I dont claim infallibility or that I cannot be deceived or tempted by the spirit of darkness, just that so long as I stay true to the holy spirit I know I am doing right.

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for that, Teapot. But I'm still not sure what you're saying.

I accept that you don't think armies are unqualifiedly good things, but I'm still left guessing whether you think it is better to:

a) form/engage as "good" an army as can be got to defeat a force such as the LRA or to

b) take brave individual/small militia action if it is certain to be ineffectual through lack of proper organisation (as was unquestioably the case in Rwanda).

Better that we let, e.g., the LRA continue their mind-bogglingly wicked activities without effective opposition than to form any kind of army to defeat them?

[ 06. January 2006, 10:46: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Teapot, this line of argument seems rather unsatisfactory.

If I'm not dealing with your unique definitions, one liners like "The holy spirit will tell you" or "You do things my way, I'll do things mine" or "We'll agree to disagree" are not really what one hopes for on a discussion board.

All very reasonable if I'd approached you in the street, or a pub, and unwittingly got into an argument on a topic you didn't want to feel overly hectored or pursued over.... but I suggest rather different when you have started posting on a discussion board, on a thread titled with the specific topic.

Particularly when the implication has, on several occasions, that you have divine right on your side, in some inexplicable way. It rather suggests you have some sort of hotline to the almighty, not approachable by the rationality of us mere mortals.

We disagree. This may not represent darkness of soul, ears of cotton or blindness on my part - it may simply be a different thought process and different outcome.

I maintain these things can be approached by rational debate.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
… better to:

a) form/engage as "good" an army as can be got to defeat a force such as the LRA or to

b) take brave individual/small militia action if it is certain to be ineffectual through lack of proper organisation (as was unquestioably the case in Rwanda).

Nice word trap Chester, but “small militia action” is not “certain to be ineffectual through lack of proper organisation” as may have been the case in Rwanda.

If you are asking whether it is better to do good and lose or do a “lesser” evil and win, my answer is the former.

quote:
Better that we let, e.g., the LRA continue their mind-bogglingly wicked activities without effective opposition than to form any kind of army to defeat them?
Better that in seeking to kill a monster we don’t become one (and no that is not an advocacy for Nietzsche [Smile] )

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about the "All that evil requires to prosper is that the good do nothing"?

I don't see what the word trap was, and frankly I'd agree with Chestorbelloc. Unless by "small militia" you would include the RPF.... always possible, I suppose.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
We disagree. This may not represent darkness of soul, ears of cotton or blindness on my part - it may simply be a different thought process and different outcome.

I maintain these things can be approached by rational debate.

We each understand according to the spirit we align with Mdijon, and those who serve the holy spirit will not generally be understood by those who do not, except where open to salvation, as the human mind is limited and can only hold one alignment with one spirit at a time.

I disagree about your rational debate line. Words can act as rough signposts, nothing more. It is Epiphany (on this day of all I get to say this lol [Big Grin] ) that salvation and the understanding of the holy comes as in a mind overwhelmed by darkness there is no way of comprehending light except by an act of grace.

[Votive]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are you saying anyone who disagrees with you doesn't serve the holy spirit?
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
We disagree. This may not represent darkness of soul, ears of cotton or blindness on my part - it may simply be a different thought process and different outcome.

I maintain these things can be approached by rational debate.

We each understand according to the spirit we align with Mdijon, and those who serve the holy spirit will not generally be understood by those who do not, except where open to salvation, as the human mind is limited and can only hold one alignment with one spirit at a time.
Here I must quote your own words back at you Teapot:

quote:
“Judge not, that ye be not judged”
You do seem to be doing an awful lot of judging of other contributors' spirits.

Said in a spirit of love, of course. [Smile]

[ 06. January 2006, 11:29: Message edited by: Littlelady ]

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This time I'll be clear as I can be, Teapot. My question to you is this:

If large-scale, organised armed resistance (i.e.the forming/engaging of an army) were the only way effectively to stop such a body as the LRA, do you think it would be better to let the LRA continue their activities without that effective resistance?

I admit that part of my eagerness to get you to give a straight answer to this reasonable and utterly relevant question is that I want you to admit to the consequences or limitations of your argument about the evil of armies. But whether or not you think my motivation is fair, plese anwer the question for the sake of clarity.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
You do seem to be doing an awful lot of judging of other contributors' spirits.

Judging as understanding, yes. Judging as condemning, no. [Smile] Which do you think the gospel of love is referring to? [Biased]

Mdijon,

Know a tree by its fruit Mdijon. Do you deny “Judge not, that ye be not judged”? Do you deny “love your enemy”? Do you deny “Love god, and love your neighbour as yourself, the law and prophets hangs upon these”? Do you claim that the force of man can fight evil, rather than the love of god? Man without the holy spirit cannot destroy evil, he can only replace it with a new evil.

So fond you are of wordtraps you remind me of a Pharisee lol

If you disagree with the holy spirit, you do not serve her. If you agree with her, you do.

quote:
originally poster by Chesterbelloc:
This time I'll be clear as I can be, Teapot. My question to you is this:

If large-scale, organised armed resistance (i.e.the forming/engaging of an army) were the only way effectively to stop such a body as the LRA, do you think it would be better to let the LRA continue their activities without that effective resistance?

I admit that part of my eagerness to get you to give a straight answer to this reasonable and utterly relevant question is that I want you to admit to the consequences or limitations of your argument about the evil of armies. But whether or not you think my motivation is fair, plese anwer the question for the sake of clarity.

Lol That is like asking a Christian “if there were not a god…..”. You do not fight evil by doing evil and I have yet to see an example of a “large-scale, organised armed resistance” that has brought about good rather than simply a less heavy-handed evil.

You would have me fight a battle on your contrived landscape which fails to include within it the rock I base my position on. [Big Grin]

It is better to be good and lose than evil and win. Or to put it another way; it is better to serve in heaven than rule in hell.

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What is evil about armed police or troops putting an end to genocide or torture?

Do you just deny that, for example, a UN force could have stamped out the genocide in Rwanda, or an effective armed force could remove/destroy/seriously debilitate the evil that is the LRA?

You seem to need to argue that no army/armed police force in principle could put an end to such unspeakable horror as the LRA propounds (or at least, not without the army compounding the evil themselves) for your postion to cohere - but I don't see your argument for that assertion.

What is evil about stopping the LRA? Where is the evidence that a properly trained, disciplined and deployed army could not, in principle at least, stop the LRA?

You seem to be excusing yourself from answering my question by claiming that it is unfairly framed to exclude your view that army-fighting could not put an end to evil because it would itself be evil. But I completely fail to see why armed force of this type must be seen as "an evil not to be countenanced" in the face of the horrific evil of brutalising, torturing, mutilating, enslaving and raping children on a huge and calculated scale, and then making those same children perform those acts on others on pain of death.

Please, Teapot - do you believe that deploying an army (say, an international UN force) is worse than allowing these attrocities to happen? If so, why? If there is a genuinely effective "third way", between allowing the LRA to carry on and deploying organised armed force against them, what is it?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chester:
What is evil about armed police or troops putting an end to genocide or torture?

Nothing, so long as they don’t replace it with another evil nor achieve it by evil means.

quote:
Do you just deny that, for example, a UN force could have stamped out the genocide in Rwanda, or an effective armed force could remove/destroy/seriously debilitate the evil that is the LRA?
Nope I don’t deny that. The question is, could that have replaced it with Good, or just another evil.

quote:
Please, Teapot - do you believe that deploying an army (say, an international UN force) is worse than allowing these atrocities to happen? If so, why? If there is a genuinely effective "third way", between allowing the LRA to carry on and deploying organised armed force against them, what is it?
There is no “worse” there is only evil of various at types, and good. There are a great many ways of doing evil, some subtle, some not so, but if they are not about returning you to an awareness of the love of god, under the auspices of the holy spirit, then they remain evil no matter what.

For example: The people of Europe were freed from the yoke of Nazism by the allies….only to become slaves to the global greed market of consumerism, which relies on their buy sweatshop goods and living their lives as serfs to the robber barons of capitalism, the evil brought by the allies. An evil was defeated….and replaced by another, one with a less heavy hand but an evil non-the-less.

And before you ask, no I am not a communist/socialist. [Smile]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do you go after the Pacifists with such enthusiasm too? [Big Grin]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
The people of Europe were freed from the yoke of Nazism by the allies….only to become slaves to the global greed market of consumerism, which relies on their buy sweatshop goods and living their lives as serfs to the robber barons of capitalism, the evil brought by the allies. An evil was defeated….and replaced by another, one with a less heavy hand but an evil non-the-less.

Do you own the computer you are presently typing on? In which case, you are also part of the "evil brought by the allies". Are you typing on a computer at work? If so then you are indulging in the "evil brought by the allies", because you are using a computer bought within the system which is "evil brought by the allies".

Please, Teapot. This cannot be a serious argument for whether or not the slaughter in Rwanda should have been avoided (preferably) or stopped by a well disciplined army.

It is simply avoiding the actual issue in question. Blaming it all on the allies or on the army sent to sort out someone else's tyranny is transparent evasion of the topic under discussion.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by Chester:
What is evil about armed police or troops putting an end to genocide or torture?

Nothing, so long as they don’t replace it with another evil nor achieve it by evil means.
Good - some progress there, since you were arguing before that such a force would be "formed for fear and hatred" and would be "nothing but a lynch mob". They would be going it some to fail to repalce organised and systematic torture, mutilation and genocide with something better, don't you think?
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Do you just deny that, for example, a UN force could have stamped out the genocide in Rwanda, or an effective armed force could remove/destroy/seriously debilitate the evil that is the LRA?
Nope I don’t deny that. The question is, could that have replaced it with Good, or just another evil.
They would be going it some to fail to replace organised and systematic torture, mutilation and genocide with something better.
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
There is no “worse” there is only evil of various at types, and good. There are a great many ways of doing evil, some subtle, some not so, but if they are not about returning you to an awareness of the love of god, under the auspices of the holy spirit, then they remain evil no matter what.

No evil is preferrable to another? That's patently false. To equate the "evil" involved in taking reasonable military action against the likes of the LRA with the evil of the LRA itself is ... actaully, words fail me.
"Evil"/wickedness does not operate by an on/off switch - there are degrees of moral wrong. This is a fact which I would have thought too obvious to need stating.
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
For example: The people of Europe were freed from the yoke of Nazism by the allies….only to become slaves to the global greed market of consumerism, which relies on their buy sweatshop goods and living their lives as serfs to the robber barons of capitalism, the evil brought by the allies. An evil was defeated….and replaced by another, one with a less heavy hand but an evil non-the-less.

There's something badly wrong with your rhetoric-meter. Or you don't know the evils at the heart of Nazism. Either way, you just spat a gross insult to all those who suffered under and who fought against the Nazi terror by this comparison. You can have no idea how lucky you are not to be living in a Nazi Europe if you can equate "capitalist greed" (whose evils I'm very far from blind to) with Nazi slave-labour programmes. I'm sorry, but I find that revolting.
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
And before you ask, no I am not a communist/socialist. [Smile]

That is the least of my concerns about your outlook, Teapot.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chester:
Good - some progress there, since you were arguing before that such a force would be "formed for fear and hatred" and would be "nothing but a lynch mob".

Did I say that of all groups Chester? I recall a certain 3rd option I mentioned….

quote:
They would be going it some to fail to replace organised and systematic torture, mutilation and genocide with something better, don't you think?
Again you fall into the better/worse trap. It is either good, or it isn’t.

quote:
No evil is preferrable to another? That's patently false. To equate the "evil" involved in taking reasonable military action against the likes of the LRA with the evil of the LRA itself is ... actaully, words fail me.
"Evil"/wickedness does not operate by an on/off switch - there are degrees of moral wrong. This is a fact which I would have thought too obvious to need stating.

Nope, something is either in accord with the Holy Spirit or it isn’t. There is no such thing as a preferable evil except in a universe where there is no holy spirit. We don’t live in that universe.

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Do you own the computer you are presently typing on? In which case, you are also part of the "evil brought by the allies". Are you typing on a computer at work? If so then you are indulging in the "evil brought by the allies", because you are using a computer bought within the system which is "evil brought by the allies".

Indeed I do own and use a computer. Consumerism is about how you use, not what you use.

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is a man who eats a pear grown by a tyranical farmer a bad mad or a party to the farmers tyrany? Is a man who buys clothes from a charity shop, clothes he then learns were originally made in a sweatshop, party to the sweatshop if he wears them?

[ 06. January 2006, 14:42: Message edited by: Teapot ]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Please, Teapot. This cannot be a serious argument for whether or not the slaughter in Rwanda should have been avoided (preferably) or stopped by a well disciplined army.
*Sigh* Which part of this do you not catch on to littlelady? Such an army could quite probably stop a group of people slaughtering in Rwanda. The question is whether they can do that without bringing evil with them.

This whole argument rests on one simple principle:

In a universe with the holy spirit even "lesser" evil is not acceptable. Only where the holy spirit is not available does embracing a "lesser" evil make sense.

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"is a man who eats a pear grown by a tyranical farmer a bad mad"

Errate: should say "man" not "mad"

Why on earth is there such a tight limit on editing here?!!!

[ 06. January 2006, 14:57: Message edited by: Teapot ]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by Chester:
Good - some progress there, since you were arguing before that such a force would be "formed for fear and hatred" and would be "nothing but a lynch mob".

Did I say that of all groups Chester? I recall a certain 3rd option I mentioned….
Here's what you actually said:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
I have yet to see an army that is not formed for fear and hatred, nor one that neither:
[*] treats people like cogs in a machine.
Or
[*] is nothing but a lynch mob

Your "3rd option" was a small family/friend-based militia group - my example (with which you said you saw "nothing"wrong) was an army or armed police force.
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
They would be going it some to fail to replace organised and systematic torture, mutilation and genocide with something better, don't you think?
Again you fall into the better/worse trap. It is either good, or it isn’t.
And thus rape isn't worse than gossiping, and genocide isn't worse than vanity, and green dreams sleep furiously. Possible to utter the sounds, impossible to believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
No evil is preferrable to another? That's patently false. To equate the "evil" involved in taking reasonable military action against the likes of the LRA with the evil of the LRA itself is ... actaully, words fail me.
"Evil"/wickedness does not operate by an on/off switch - there are degrees of moral wrong. This is a fact which I would have thought too obvious to need stating.

Nope, something is either in accord with the Holy Spirit or it isn’t. There is no such thing as a preferable evil except in a universe where there is no holy spirit. We don’t live in that universe.

If that really is your opinion, Teapot, I confess I don't know what universe you live in - it certainly isn't the same one as mine. A serious obstacle in a discussion forum, that.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837

 - Posted      Profile for Teapot     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rape is an evil, it brings great suffering for which victims have been known to take their lives.

Gassing people as part of some hideous mechanised death machine is evil.

Being treated as nothing, because unlike your class mates you dont have the latest "in" stuff, the measure of worth in capitalist consumerism, isolating you and leaving you open to ridicule, brings great suffering for which victims have been known to take their lives.

It is is sheer utter nonsense that says there are degrees of evil. If it does not bring a child of god into awareness of his love, if instead it leaves them at the whim of the spirits of evil, it thus remains evil.

*sigh* it is the sad hubris of humankind that this illusion of a "lesser" evil is still taught.

[ 06. January 2006, 15:16: Message edited by: Teapot ]

--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)

Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, Teapot - further dialogue between us would appear to be pointless.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Do you own the computer you are presently typing on? In which case, you are also part of the "evil brought by the allies". Are you typing on a computer at work? If so then you are indulging in the "evil brought by the allies", because you are using a computer bought within the system which is "evil brought by the allies".

Indeed I do own and use a computer. Consumerism is about how you use, not what you use.
And I think that's a good analogy for war, too, Teapot. A just war is about how you 'use' war. That's where our difference lies. Not in the holy spirit business. But in how we 'use' war. You view it all as evil; whereas, in effect, I say it is in how one "uses" it.

I, too, am quitting here as we just seem to be going around in circles. Peace.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are all invited to join me in hell.

Do bring a friend.

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If there is anyone still in the room, I'm still working my way through the reasoning for Afghanistan being a Just War (yes, yes, I'll eventually learn to do that little TM thingie...).

It appears that there are two main rationales for the invasion of Afghanistan:

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Yes, I would venture that Afghanistan was a Just War. We went in to remove a regime that harbored the people that led 9-11. The regime was clearly morally bankrupt and as aweful to its own citizens as it was to ours.

Progress on rationale one:

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
To my knowledge, the suspects captured in Afghanistan were either (justly) slain as enemy combatants or are imprisoned in Guantanamo (and for those, rightly so, I will not speak for those that are questionable however, as I am not in favor of the Getmo system as currently practiced and that's a whole nother topic).

My problem with rationale one is that being the naive idealist I am, I thought that any 9-11 conspirators would be treated as criminal suspects and brought to trial. I didn't think they would be permanently interned under conditions that violate the very principles the USA is supposed to believe in. I personally feel it is dishonest to say 9-11 was an act of war, since wars are generally defined as being between sovereign nations (the wars on drugs, poverty and terrorism notwithstanding). If 9-11 was not an act of war, then why is war an appropriate response? I'm also unconvinced that "national security" or the ongoing activities of security and intelligence agencies absolutely preclude any form of trial. Where's that Yankee ingenuity anyway?

Progress on rationale two:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Except that the Taliban are still alive and kicking and killing people like schoolteachers who dare teach girls at all -- two deaths so far in the last fortnight alone. And that in a province supposedly fully under the control of the government -- where less than a third of the schools have been able to open, because of fear of what the Taliban will do to anyone who dares teach in them.

My problem with rationale two is that the Taliban were a nasty bunch before 9-11 and the USA did nothing other than supply weapons when they were still fighting the Soviets. And apparently the Taliban are still around, and still a nasty bunch. As Mad Geo put it, "After 9-11, the harboring of suspects AND the 14 million women were a GREAT cause." Sure, timing is everything, but am I the only person who wonders how something like the Taliban can be unimportant for years, REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT for a few months, and be back to its same old tricks a couple years later?

leo posted these requirements for a Just War:
  • 1. It must be called by a lawful authority
  • 2. It must have a just cause (Right intention)
  • 3. It must be fought in a just manner (e.g. should only aim to kill combatants, not civilians (unless indirectly, the law of 'double effect')
  • 4. The cost of fighting must not outweigh the cost of not fighting (Prudential judgement) - consequences

My scoring:

Rationale one - capture 9-11 conspirators
Passes #1 - only technically, as I'm unconvinced that war is an appropriate response to crime
Flunks #2 - the USA never had intention of trying anyone for these crimes
Flunks #3 - based on the treatment of those captured
#4 - any answer I gave would be pure speculation

Rationale two - Bad Taliban
Not final, coursework still in progress
Passes #1 and #2, but I find the timing suspect
Passes #3
#4 - as above

By my math, it looks like Afghanistan could be considered a Just War based on rationale two, but not on rationale one. However, the Just War criteria assume that every effort has been made to resolve the conflict without war. What was the USA doing before 9-11 to improve the status of women in Afghanistan? Sadly, it seems to me that rationale one was the only one that REALLY mattered, and rationale two was secondary. If Teapot is still around, we'll soon find out if the weaknesses of rationale one cancel out the strengths of rationale two. [Razz]

If anyone is still here, how would you score the rationales for Afghanistan against these criteria? OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow, in my cold-numbed-mind I am having a hard time following all that, although I am sure it is very cogent. Let me shoot at a few things I see there,

You said you thought that enemy combatants might be subjected to trial. Ultimately even with as little faith as I have in this administration, I think they will. But to me the more important thing that Afghanistan War did for us was my first posit that many if not most of the bad bastards have been "(justly) slain as enemy combatants". To me that was the largest benefit of that war. If benefit is the right word. If (IF) we keep cutting off the heads of an organization, it will stop to work as efficiently, even an organization that divides itself into "cells" such as Al Quida. They can only lose so much leadership before it starts to be less or non-functional.

I also question how much of the Taliban is "alive and kicking". For every case that JH or someone puts forth I can probably put forth one where the Taliban's acts were dismantled.

We cannot change a culture overnight. We can only hope to help them change themselves as much as they want us to.

I really do wonder if we should even be in the business of changing their culture anyway. It's kinda like the Prime Directive in Star Trek The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept totally secret.

While we are forced to stop them from enabling people that hurt us (Al Queda) perhaps we really should minimize how much we screw with their culture no matter how distateful that culture may be to us.

That view is potentially fully of double standards I realize but their are nuances to it that I think are relevant so that's why I throw it out there.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Wow, in my cold-numbed-mind I am having a hard time following all that, although I am sure it is very cogent. Let me shoot at a few things I see there,

And there have been numerous demands on your time... something about the Teapot Dome scandal, was it? [Biased]

quote:
But to me the more important thing that Afghanistan War did for us was my first posit that many if not most of the bad bastards have been "(justly) slain as enemy combatants".
True, yet I am always nervous about extra-judicial law enforcement. The process of getting shot in Afghanistan was quite different from the death penalty process in the USA.

quote:
We cannot change a culture overnight. We can only hope to help them change themselves as much as they want us to.
In the land of what-might-have-been... suppose the USA and other democratic nations had made an effort after the end of the war with the Soviets to influence Afghani society by e.g. sending teachers and health care workers, providing material aid, whatever... could it have been possible to make Afghanistan a less hospitable place for anti-US nutbars and thereby prevent some of these terrorists from even getting started? But that takes me to your next point:

quote:
I really do wonder if we should even be in the business of changing their culture anyway. It's kinda like the Prime Directive in Star Trek The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept totally secret.
Yep, I've struggled with that one too. At this point, I'm still pretty keen on influencing other cultures through non-violent means, but like you, I see the difficulties.

The Prime Directive is Gene Roddenberry's unequivocal answer to the question of how much responsibility we have to solve the problems of another society: none. It would be interesting to contrast that with our responsibilities are as individuals to solve the problems of other individuals, if any. You know, the old "Am I my brother's keeper?" thang. Why don't you start a Prime Directive thread?

Thanks for a good discussion, Mad Geo. Cheers, OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Done. Thanks backatya,
MG

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
FiliusSyon
Shipmate
# 10722

 - Posted      Profile for FiliusSyon   Author's homepage   Email FiliusSyon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Both rationales provided good reasons for starting the Afghanistan war.

9-11 may be considered a military strike executed by a partisan unit. The victims of that suicide attack put it well beyond anything usually handled by criminal law. The refusal by the Taliban to extradite the brains of this attack strengthens this interpretation. The interest to prevent similar strikes in the future is imho strong enough to justify a military intervention.

As for the second reason, I think it has some points going for it:
1. The international condemnation of the acts of the Taliban regime.
2. The significant internal oposition to the regime.

I would posit that these two points provide sufficient justification with regards to the international community. Also, they make it imho evident that the nature of the Taliban regime is such that its continued existence would be a grave hurt to the people of Afghanistan. Thus the act of disposing this regime is obviously just. The only party thats interests may be hurt that this action is the American populace, especially the soldiers put at risk in this conflict. The opinion of the Taliban is obviously out of the question because of the nature of their regime.

In my opinion, it thus becomes a problem of the willingness of the Americans. This willingness was obviously present after the 9-11 strikes. Thus - irregardless if the 9-11 strikes were sufficient reason by themself - they become the missing piece in the second argument, thus completing it.

Did I miss something, or does this sound like a reasonable treatment of the problem? It somewhat rests on the validity of international consensus, but I don´t consider this a problem here. The prime directive obviously cannot apply here, because the Taliban´s interpretation of Jihad does not support the idea that they will sit happily in their country and not bother anyone.

PS: The treatment of those considered illegal combatants in the Afghan war is obviously problematic. As far as I know, the classic procedure is to shoot them after court-martial. It is highly unusual to keep them imprisoned without trial for such a long time. And the abductions from third-party countries are more than problematic in too many ways to talk about here.

[ 06. January 2006, 23:29: Message edited by: FiliusSyon ]

--------------------
----
"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought."
- John K. Galbraith

Posts: 220 | From: Vienna, Austria | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools