Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
Because that's not the way we do things.
We don't arrest people for being inclined to commit robbery. We arest them when they commit robbery. Or attempt it. Really attempt it. Not just talk about it.
|
We have a constitution in this country. We also have a government and various organization that enforce the law. If we lived in a lawless land with no government and your neighbor bought weapons, and said they were going to kill your family wouldn't the prudent thing to kill them before they took out one of your children.
Until there is an international organization that effectively enforces a just and reasonable international law, the defense of our citizens falls onto us.
Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
I want you to think for a second about what you are saying. It was justified/good/okay/prudent to invade Iraq because other countries (not Iraq) pose a greater danger than Afganistan.
|
I have thought about it a lot and many people hold this position, not just me. Did you miss the whole post 9-11 reassessment of the rules of engagament. I remember watching Al Franken (who supported the invasion at the time) saying that in a post 9-11 world we can't wait to be hit first. And it is not that these countrys just pose a greater danger, they have not only said they want to destroy the US, but they have taken affirmative steps in that direction.
Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
This is not a debate on the wisdom of the premptive strike. This is stupid.
|
Arrogance and ignorance: again you demonstrate why they are such an annoying combination.
Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
You aren't going to convince me or anybody similarly inclined this way.
For you, security is paramount. For me, I have higher ideals.
It's ironic that you are the one who defends moral absolutism.
|
The problem is that your morality is not well thought out and that leads you to absurd conclusions. We are not talking about invading switzerland. The regimes I have listed already are opressive, abuse their people, are not democratic, keep their people poor plus they have it in for the US. You support an international system that protects such regimes. I have trouble in seeing the morality in that.
The US consitution gurantees a Republican and Democratic regime in all its members. The moral international law you defend protects all regimes, no matter how heinous, as long as they are "recognized".
The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were heinous rulers who abused their people. From a moral perspective taking them out was a good thing for their people.
Keeping murderous thugs in power may be prudent from a national security perspective, but its pathetic to try and defend their existence from a morality perspective.
From my perspective, not attacking until you have been attacked first, in the international arean, can be and often is an immoral position. If you have the ability to stop genocide, I believe it is a moral imperative stop the genocide, regardless if the country perpetuating the genocide has attacked you.
