En attendant Bloomberg.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
If a government is democratically elected we have no right to go in. Although there may be an exception to this if the Democratically elected government starts committing genocide. But I don't know. That would definitely be a tough call. If the government of Romania decided to exterminate all the hungarians in the country, or all the jews in its country, should we step in? I think that would be a tough call for anyone on this board.

Of all of the things you have said on this Board, this is loopier than most. I'm not much aof a moral relativist, and your hypo is not, in the abstract, a tough call for me at all.

If you believe in a UMC and you're not willing to countenance mass slaughter, you step in to stop it where and when you CAN regardless of whether that slaughter represents the will of the majority in that region/country.

One of the key tricks, though, is to recognize the limits of your power, and recognize when you're likely to only fuck things up and make it worse. [I think this last point is where you and I diverge significantly.]

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't need a UMC. I can rely on world consensus, which condemns him. You only need the UMC if you are going to argue that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You certainly don't have to believe in UMC. But I think it is pretty foolish to consciously allow the opinions of masses of people whom you do not know to set your standards of morality.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we were pretty sure they would be worse than the Karensky government. They took out a legimately elected government with a military coup and set up a dicatorship. And we knew the were communists so we knew exactly what they were going to try and do. Its not like it was a bid secret or anything.

Small point, but this was 1917. [et fix date]. I'm not sure anyone really knew what Communists would try to do when they actually seized power. Also, this was Russia and we were isolationist so no one gave a bleep.

Besides, they really weren't pure communists -- its just not practical.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
One of the key tricks, though, is to recognize the limits of your power, and recognize when you're likely to only fuck things up and make it worse. [I think this last point is where you and I diverge significantly.]

2.

But S_A_M, this just shows you don't care about genocide.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It actually was your point, and I was just agreeing with you not to be disagreeable. I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of things here, but since you've now come down squarely on both sides of this one, no matter what I say I'll both be on your side and against you, so it doesn't really matter.



You're missing my point when you talk about governments we overthrew. I'm talking about organic democracy movements. And we didn't do that much to help Aquino.



You were assuming that if we install a new government in Burma, the military won't just stage another coup again. Or maybe you weren't, but if that's going to happen, then why would we intervene? Whatever change we would bring would be futile.

do any of you ever turn off a TV show? or once you started it, do you watch it even if you are bored?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Whatever change we would bring would be futile.

That is assuming that the military would take over again. If there was a spontaneous democratic uprising the military might try another coup again. But if we invade, and take out the government, we can purge the army to the pointwhere they are not able to come back. In any case, it is impossible to predict the future, but one thing we know for sure is as long as the current government stays in power Burma is screwed. And the it doesn't look like the people have the ability to make sure the women they voted overwhelming for can take power. Therefore, I think we should lend a hand. Yes it is a risk, but I think it is worth it.

At the end of Gulf War I, it looked liked the Shia and Kurdish insurgents might throw out Saddam, but they failed. I think we should have tried to help them me. We certainly could have given them more weapons. But then again, if they had succeeded, knowing what we know now, Iraq might have turned out like Afghanistan and been in a permanent civil war with another crazed dictator coming in. No one can predict the future. All you can do make your best guess.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Of all of the things you have said on this Board, this is loopier than most. I'm not much aof a moral relativist, and your hypo is not, in the abstract, a tough call for me at all.

If you believe in a UMC and you're not willing to countenance mass slaughter, you step in to stop it where and when you CAN regardless of whether that slaughter represents the will of the majority in that region/country.

One of the key tricks, though, is to recognize the limits of your power, and recognize when you're likely to only fuck things up and make it worse. [I think this last point is where you and I diverge significantly.]

S_A_M

OK. So in your opinion, what is the minimum a democratically elected government must do to justify an invasion by the US to stop it from doing what it is doing? Start exterminating a certain percentage of its population? Putting a certain percentageof its people into forced labor camps? What?

And please understand, I don't have an answer to this question. For me the question is a lot easier if the government is not elected, then I don't really see it as legitimate, so messing with it, or overthrowing is not a big deal. But if the government is democratically elected, I would say Genocide but of course that is a huge gray area. As Less pointed out earlier, what really constitutes Genocide?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Small point, but this was 1917. [et fix date]. I'm not sure anyone really knew what Communists would try to do when they actually seized power. Also, this was Russia and we were isolationist so no one gave a bleep.

Besides, they really weren't pure communists -- its just not practical.

S_A_M

We had troops there to help try and put Karensky back in power but Wilson pulled them out. Wilson pulled them out because he thought that was the moral thing to do. I don't agree with his morality. I think he got the UMC wrong on that one.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
2.

But S_A_M, this just shows you don't care about genocide.

I agree with both of you that if you make it worse then it was a mistake. But I think I said that in the post that set off this whole argument.

I am too lazy to go back, but I think in one of your posts Ty, you talked about the expense of the Iraq war as one of the major factors to consider as whether or not our invasion was worth it. You talked about how the money could have been spent on education etc. My point is (and has been all along) that the money should be a minor factor, if a factor at all. If we made things better in Iraq, then it was worth a lot of money. I think Adder agreed with me on this point. Or maybe I should say he thinks it is worth spending a lot of money to stop genocide.

If we prevented another gassing of the Kurds, or further mass executions that was worth a hell of a lot of money. A lot more money than we spent. But if we made things worse it wasn't worth any money. That is my issue when people focus on the cost of the war in Iraq. If we made things worse, it doesn't matter what we spent, or if Bush miseld us, it was not worth it. If we had done the war on the cheap, and Bush had not misled us, but our intervention made Iraq worse, it would still have been a mistake. If we made things better, we could have spent twice as much money as we have and will spend and it would have been worth it.

I think the post I made that started this whole thing was the question about our involvement in the Iraq war was the right decision or not, should not be about how much money we spent, or whether or not Bush lied or misled the public. The sole question that we should ask when determining whether the Iraq war was a good idea is: are Iraqis better of today than they would have been had we not invaded.

That comment set off this whole firestorm. I think that post was called upsurd and I think Adder questioned whether I could really have been serious when I said it. But it now it seems that you and SAM agree with me on that point.

So do you and SAM both agree that we have made Iraq worse by intervening? If yes, then isn't that the major reason why this war was a mistake. It doesn't matter whether Bush deceived us or how expensive it was, the reason why it was a bad call was beccause we made things worse.

And if you think things are better in Iraq, wasn't it worth the money we spent?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do any of you ever turn off a TV show? or once you started it, do you watch it even if you are bored?

This is exactly what I think when the board starts discussing the intricacies of the tax code, or the minutia of constitutional law as it relates to recent Supreme Court decisions.

I will stop now. I admit: I do have a problem. But you have to admit that Ty and Adder among others were enablers to my addictive actions.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are leaving out intent. And you are a lawyer. In other words any mass killling of people is considered the same as Genocide? That is not true. Genocide is the intentional killing of an entire racial or ethnic group just because they are that ethnic or racial group.

No. The definition I quoted referred to the "intentional and deliberate extermination." I think that covers intent quite well. And a decision to invade certain countries based on their GDP growth or their political grouping as anti-U.S. would satisfy any legal definition of intent.

So, I am still stuck with the conclusion that legally and definitionally the U.S. is committiing genocide, as defined. I also remain unanswered as to my question re - under your SUMC - genocide is inherently more wrong than killing on a non-unique and non-distinct level, even at a parabolic level. Put another way, why is genocidal killing not OK under the SUMC, but other greater, mass killing OK?

I don't remember calling the systematic elimination of a political group as Genoide. If I did I was wrong. But again, the systematic elilmination of a political group, just because they are that political group is wrong. Unless of course, everyone by joining that political group, has committed themselves to killing every westerner they can. Then I don't see a problem with wiping out that political group.

You didn't. It's just the definition of the word you use, so I assumed you meant what it means.

More tellingly, though, is your inherent SUMC conclusion that groups in favor of killing "westerners" are morally fair game for massacre, while groups in favor of killing non-westerners are protected.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am too lazy to go back, but I think in one of your posts Ty, you talked about the expense of the Iraq war as one of the major factors to consider as whether or not our invasion was worth it. You talked about how the money could have been spent on education etc. My point is (and has been all along) that the money should be a minor factor, if a factor at all. If we made things better in Iraq, then it was worth a lot of money. I think Adder agreed with me on this point. Or maybe I should say he thinks it is worth spending a lot of money to stop genocide.

You sound just like the limosine liberals of the democrat party, back in their 70's salad days. They wanted to spend huge amounts of money for tiny marginal gains in health, safety, anti-poverty, environment, and such. Spending money regardless of value derived from the spending is absurd. Your proposals sound about as productive as burning piles of money to send smoke signals.

Genocide is bad, and all other things being equal we should stop it. However, inflation and taxes are also bad, and so ideas about cost and feasibility are considered by thoughtful people. There are mostly 2 kinds of people who ignore those things: salesmen and idealists. The reason the Bush administration has been a massive failure is because he hired way too many of both.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If we invade, and take out the government, we can purge the army to the pointwhere they are not able to come back.

You seem to think Burma's military is a problem because they're bad people. I think it's a problem because they have the guns and training to seize power. In a country without a political tradition of the peaceful exchange of power, that gets you power. Purging the army won't change anything.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You seem to think Burma's military is a problem because they're bad people. I think it's a problem because they have the guns and training to seize power. In a country without a political tradition of the peaceful exchange of power, that gets you power. Purging the army won't change anything.

It is because they are bad people. If Burma's military government were like Chile's, South Korea's or Taiwan's former military dictatorships It wouldn't be a problem. Ecoonmic growth would eventually mean doom for the dictatorship. Either through incompentance or intentionally they are screwing up the economy so Burma is getting poorer all the time.

Everybody esle in South East Asia is prospering and will eventually become a first world country with a stable democracy (of course that is assuming if the trend continues).

Since Burma's economy is stagnating there is no hope for the future. As long as the economy doesn't grow they can keep the dictaroship indefinitely (like with Cuba, North Korea and Belarus).

And plenty of countrys that had a long tradition of military dictatorships have turned into democracies and stayed that way. There is no reason to think Burma could go Democratic and they stay Democratic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is because they are bad people. If Burma's military government were like Chile's, South Korea's or Taiwan's former military dictatorships It wouldn't be a problem. Ecoonmic growth would eventually mean doom for the dictatorship. Either through incompentance or intentionally they are screwing up the economy so Burma is getting poorer all the time.

Everybody esle in South East Asia is prospering and will eventually become a first world country with a stable democracy (of course that is assuming if the trend continues).

Since Burma's economy is stagnating there is no hope for the future. As long as the economy doesn't grow they can keep the dictaroship indefinitely (like with Cuba, North Korea and Belarus).

And plenty of countrys that had a long tradition of military dictatorships have turned into democracies and stayed that way. There is no reason to think Burma could go Democratic and they stay Democratic.

If it were as simple as that, I could understand the temptation to invade Burma to depose its rulers. But there are a host of other explanations for Burma's plight, apart from their rulers being bad people.

etfg