Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by R1Gami on May 29, 2011 at 5:55pm

[Disclaimer: I have not read the bulk of the thread, I apologize]

Self-defense is justifiable...which is probably why there was a lot of back and forth on which wars could be justified by self-defense.

 

But more substantially, it really does depend on what you mean by "mind its own business".  Do you mean:

1. An internationalist stance, whereby the USA participates in international institutions and diplomacy while restricting the use of the military?  

OR

2. An isolationist stance where the USA would not only restrict the use of the military but also withdraw from international institutions like the UN?

 

Both could constitute the US "minding its own business" but there are very important differences between them.  Personally, I support the internationalist stance.

 

As far as spinning off topics...it would be interesting to talk about differing countries perceived moral standing around the world - How it is measured, on what basis, and is it all justified?  Having gotten into related discussions about the Iraq War as much as I agree that the justification was weak and the war was unwarranted - there is sometimes a sort of moral grandstanding that occurs by opponents of the war.  They sometimes get drawn into the claim that countryX is more moral than the United States because they/we didn't and wouldn't start an Iraq II style conflict.  It's at this stage that I tend to diverge in my viewpoint because the claim about 'relative morality' is typically presented without justification or analysis.  It would be interesting to see it properly justified (or not).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on May 29, 2011 at 10:00pm

I would say it's morally unjustified to spend 4k American lives, 10s or 100s of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars (which could have been used constructively to SAVE lives in different ways in America), as a reaction to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda's killing of 3k Americans.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 29, 2011 at 10:04pm

Pretty straight forward math - but nobody seems to listen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on May 29, 2011 at 10:12pm

Sadly, we officially don't even care enough about the number of Iraqi dead for a ballpark count.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 29, 2011 at 10:16pm

I've done what I can to look into it - there are two peer reviewed studies, but Bush just scoffed at them.

 

http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/iraq-war-civilian-fatali...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on May 29, 2011 at 10:25pm

I missed that post before. Thank you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 3:30am

Exactly how many American and Iraqi lives would it then be morally justified to spend?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 3:32am

On Iraq, that had no part in 9/11, perhaps 0.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 3:34am

And seeing as most of the 9/11 people were Saudi, how many lives are worth spending taking that regime down?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 3:40am

Since the regime had nothing to do with 9/11, perhaps 0.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 30, 2011 at 3:56am

Saudi support for Sunni insurgency is as evident as Iran support for Shia insurgency. That's usually why it's referred to as international state sponsored terrorism. Note the usage of "sponsored" and not "financed" - the Wahabis in Saudi are highly sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda cause.

Al-Qaeda (and later Taliban) is an offshoot of Egyptian led Sunni revolutionaries. Their aim is the restoration of the Islamic Khalifat in a pan-Arab state which aim is to eradicate Jews, Persians, and Capitalists. Iran, which is not an Arab state, feels the threat of Sunni encroachment and therefore directly support puppets in Lebanon (Hizbollah) and Gaza (Hamas), and to a certain extent Syria (which is also developing nuclear weapons) to defend its borders.

All this means is that Al-Qaeda=Sunni, Hizbollah/Hamas=Shia. Sunni countries at least tacitly support AQ. So if combatting AQ is the main aim then Saudi should probably be invaded. (That would make the Ayatollas very happy. (US and Iranian interests in the region is more similar than dissimilar.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 30, 2011 at 4:01am

So the evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11 is what?  When was it discovered?  Why has it not been acted upon?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 21
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• Next ›
• Page