Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Laura, I swear to you that when I told Karl that I wanted to 'fuck Paris,' he didn't realize that I was talking about Old Eur....ouch!"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"As you know, I'm a natural blond, so you know what my choice is."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm going to have to read the piece you linked to if we take this much farther so that I can tell you specifically what I disagree with, but there are a bunch of different reasons why we shouldn't do what you call the moral thing all the time. Some have to do with the limits of our power. If some foreigners are trying to kill other foreigners, often there is little we can do about it. Also, there are questions about what gives us the right to impose our views on others. To me, the latter objections evaporate in the face of genocide. But less so the former. What could we do in Zimbabwe to change things in the long run? And then there are the practical problems. How do we intervene in Zimbabwe if none of its neighbors want us to?

I try to look for the most practical solutions. Sometimes I find the answers because I don't object to immigration. Where the newly oppressed minority (formerly part of the oppressive minority class) is anything resembling 1% or .5% of the population, this country and old europe and whoever else oughta be bringing em in. At least, in the case where they are all of British or Dutch (or some basically single or identifiable) origin. I like to think about the Netherlands as a sorta Israel for Dutch people everywhere. Let these oppressed people move back to their fatherland.

Hell, I'll kick in a bit of money, just so I can quit hearing about them getting raped and killed as Zimbabwe slides completely into chaos and anarchy.

To more directly address the point, military intervention? No way. There are way easier and justifiable/defensible solutions out there, and it doesn't involve intervening on behalf or a formerly-oppressive white minority in Zimbabwe, even if they are the best farmers in the country.

As a really, really good example of what you are talking about with the limits-of-power, I think North Korea is the model case. What in the world can we do there militarily, within reason? The only way we take that country out is by nuking it. And to save its starving people? No thanks. Its an impossible choice, but I'll take their starvation at their G's hands to their destruction at our hands.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Describing a brief raid into Khan Younis today, from an article:

>>During the raid, pilotless aircraft fired five missiles at Palestinian targets, killing a total of four people and wounding 18. <<

From a distance, this shit is interesting to watch. Its amazing that they weren't aggressive about the pilotless drones when they were proposed for the Israelis before 1973, they would have been usefel seeing the Egyptians massing on the far side of the Suez before the attacks.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course I do.



Invading? If that's what it takes. But certainly we should be doing something.

So basically you are now completely abandoning your original position. Fine with me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"As you know, I'm a natural blond, so you know what my choice is."

if her video starts being rentable at hotels isn't there the potential for a "vertical integration" antitrust suit? and who do you want in the WH to minimize the liklihood of anittrust suits? QED

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
According to hello, God is the sole source of morality. God told me the war against Iraq was immoral. Therefore, it was immoral. QED.

Muhammad told the 9/11 hijackers to wage war against Christians and Jews and fly planes into buildings. Muhammad says God told him to have sex with 9 year olds, too.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was just trying to limit the discussion to the moral issue, to see if anyone could come up with a MORAL argument against the invasion.

You really think it is hard to come up with a moral argument against INVASION? Really?

And weren't you just saying that the moral imperative was to do something, rather than to invade? What moral belief do you hold (much less have you cited) that requires invasion?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if her video starts being rentable at hotels isn't there the potential for a "vertical integration" antitrust suit? and who do you want in the WH to minimize the liklihood of anittrust suits? QED

Ask Oracle.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Muhammad told the 9/11 hijackers to wage war against Christians and Jews and fly planes into buildings. Muhammad says God told him to have sex with 9 year olds, too.

Where do these guys get this at? I said the possibility of God (for that, oh, 100% of us who can't prove there is one) is what forces us to naturally worry (okay: fear) the outcome. I think the basis of most acceptable morality is likely to be found in a social compact basis (scratch my back I'll scratch yours, or do unto others, or whatever). I know that I'm hard to follow sometimes, but its amazing how many things are attributed to me when I've actually stated something entirely different.

As it is, most religious texts seem to incorporate almost everything from a social compact standpoint and then add other stuff (72 virgins or whatever). As an example, honor they father and mother? Let me guess, God told that to someone who didn't have children, right? Mmmm, hmmm.

Not directed at you Not_Me. Rather, I could spend all day on these boards saying, nope, never said that, not that either, ooooh, yur getting warm, yada yada yada.

Hello

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if her video starts being rentable at hotels isn't there the potential for a "vertical integration" antitrust suit? and who do you want in the WH to minimize the liklihood of anittrust suits? QED

Hey, I saw it on the internet, which Al Gore invented. Scratch the QED. Your slide continues.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
amazing how many things are attributed to me when I've actually stated something entirely different.

I was responding to SS. Don't take what gets said here so seriously. Some of us are just trying to break up the monotony of the work day (Hi Sebby!) others are trolling for sex partners (sniff, I miss Penske).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I try to look for the most practical solutions. Sometimes I find the answers because I don't object to immigration. Where the newly oppressed minority (formerly part of the oppressive minority class) is anything resembling 1% or .5% of the population, this country and old europe and whoever else oughta be bringing em in. At least, in the case where they are all of British or Dutch (or some basically single or identifiable) origin. I like to think about the Netherlands as a sorta Israel for Dutch people everywhere. Let these oppressed people move back to their fatherland.

Hell, I'll kick in a bit of money, just so I can quit hearing about them getting raped and killed as Zimbabwe slides completely into chaos and anarchy.

To more directly address the point, military intervention? No way. There are way easier and justifiable/defensible solutions out there, and it doesn't involve intervening on behalf or a formerly-oppressive white minority in Zimbabwe, even if they are the best farmers in the country.

As a really, really good example of what you are talking about with the limits-of-power, I think North Korea is the model case. What in the world can we do there militarily, within reason? The only way we take that country out is by nuking it. And to save its starving people? No thanks. Its an impossible choice, but I'll take their starvation at their G's hands to their destruction at our hands.

While Western countries tend to view the situation in Zimbabwe through a post-colonial prism that focuses on the white minority, what Mugabe is doing is using the few remaining whites as a scapegoat. The minority (or majority, depending on which election results you credit) party is black-led. The white farmers forced off their land can often emigrate. The blacks who starve to death cannot.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While Western countries tend to view the situation in Zimbabwe through a post-colonial prism that focuses on the white minority, what Mugabe is doing is using the few remaining whites as a scapegoat. The minority (or majority, depending on which election results you credit) party is black-led. The white farmers forced off their land can often emigrate. The blacks who starve to death cannot.

Fair enough. Than the first thing any military intervention oughta do is remove the white people and send em to Minnesota, just so its clear that we aren't intervening to put whitey back in charge. After that, I'm not sure what we really hope to accomplish, but whatever.
Democracy? Long shot? Who knows.
Ending genocide? I'm not aware that its whats occurring there now.

Not_democracy should not be the pretext for us to invade someone. If it was, Cuba would have been taken out as soon as the Russians pulled their last people out. Anyhoo, all I'm saying is that those white people should be oughta there. For whatever reason, it seems that the bulk of the stories I read about there focus on whats happening to them.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Don't take what gets said here so seriously.

Yeah, I haven't been exposed to sarcasm very much in my past, so a lot of the time I'm not really sure when people are being sarcastic. I would greatly appreciate it if people would label their sarcasm with a "sarcasm appears below" tag, just to avoid any confusion.

Hello