Conservative Skeptics?

[punchdrunk]

Back to your question, do we betray our principles to preserve our way of life? I guess it depends on whether you value our principles or our way of life more, doesn't it. Our principles ought to be the foundation of our way of life. Like anything, with no foundation you've got something that won't last.

Just to clarify, the hypothetical is: would you betray one American principle (self-determination) now to ensure the safety of all American principles for the future?

(I'm not asking you to answer it again, I just wanted to clean it up a bit.)

I would honestly have to say no. To follow your hypothetical plan would be to change our way of life anyway and we would have thrown out our moral high ground in the process. I don't think the short term gain is worth the long term consequences.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Upchurch]

Just to clarify, the hypothetical is: would you betray one American principle (self-determination) now to ensure the safety of all American principles for the future?

Well, what exactly are the principles at stake here? I think at its core we're talking about self-determination, am I right? We fear others will take it away from us so we take some of it away from them?

 

[bagtaggar]

So now I have to ask, how far it goes. If tomorrow a major oil strike was discovered in Canada and The president decided to invade Canada to grab that oil, would you support it? How about slave labor? Slave labor would be a boon for the economy. How about if we invade Canada and bring Canadians over to be used as free forced labor? That would be good for our economy too, no doubt. At what point (if ever), in your opinion, does the morality of our actions trump the benefit to our economy?

Response in order of questions posed above:

1.)As far as it has to.
2.)No I would not, because A.) that's retarded and B.) Canada is a peaceful democratic nation.
3.)Slave labor is abhorrent and wrong. This is a silly point.
4.)How about if we declare Bush dictator for life? Or carve "U.S.A." into the moon with a giant laser?
5.)When we invade a peaceful, non-threatening nation, take slaves, and steal all of their resources.

We invaded a hostile nation and deposed an evil dictator, and are working hard to build a democracy and secure the peaceful interests of the Iraqi people. We are doing this because we want the dollar to remain strong against other currency, to secure the interests of 270 million Americans that depend on their currency every day.

It has proven difficult, and we have sacrificed the support of the international community.

Imagine a shilock who decides to bust down the door of his wife beating neighbor. The neighbor owes him money. He kills him and throws out the body, then declares, I'm the man of the house now. The wife is reluctant to accept the shilock, but he works hard to take care of her and tries to win over the kids. He knows the pressure is on, because the whole community is suspicious that he broke in and killed the neighbor because he owed him money. The Shilock loses friends fast. But he knows it's worth it, he knows that in the long run the wife and kids will be happier with the old man gone and will spread the good word about the Shilock. Plus now he has his money.

It's not an ideal situation. But it's the situation, and you make the most of it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My favorite are liberals who actively attack Creationists and then turn around and check their horoscopes.

Strange how I never meet one.

My favorites are the conservatives who attack horoscopes as occult Satanism and then try to push Creationism down the throats of children.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

 

[epepke]

Well, then I have to give you those points for honesty, because you are the first war supporter I have heard say that. Generally, all I ever hear is "We went there to overthrow an evil dictator" or "Saddam might have gotten nukes" or an attempt to link Iraq to Al Qaeda.

So now I have to ask, how far it goes. If tomorrow a major oil strike was discovered in Canada and The president decided to invade Canada to grab that oil, would you support it?

Why would anyone invade Canada to grab oil? It's much cheaper just to buy it, and the same is true of Iraq.

Oil is just the leftist version of WMDs, and just as elusive. If it isn't, let's see some of this oil that the US has grabbed. And don't go on about "control of oil" or some such nonsense, because that's every bit as feeble as saying that Iraq would have ramped up WMD production if the US had not invaded.

 

[AmateurScientist]

4.)How about if we .... carve "U.S.A." into the moon with a giant laser?

That's the best suggestion I've ever heard in the Politics section. Can we add "Bama #1?"

AS

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Response in order of questions posed above:

1.)As far as it has to.
2.)No I would not, because A.) that's retarded and B.) Canada is a peaceful democratic nation.
3.)Slave labor is abhorrent and wrong. This is a silly point.
4.)How about if we declare Bush dictator for life? Or carve "U.S.A." into the moon with a giant laser?
5.)When we invade a peaceful, non-threatening nation, take slaves, and steal all of their resources.

We invaded a hostile nation and deposed an evil dictator, and are working hard to build a democracy and secure the peaceful interests of the Iraqi people. We are doing this because we want the dollar to remain strong against other currency, to secure the interests of 270 million Americans that depend on their currency every day.

It has proven difficult, and we have sacrificed the support of the international community.

Imagine a shilock who decides to bust down the door of his wife beating neighbor. The neighbor owes him money. He kills him and throws out the body, then declares, I'm the man of the house now. The wife is reluctant to accept the shilock, but he works hard to take care of her and tries to win over the kids. He knows the pressure is on, because the whole community is suspicious that he broke in and killed the neighbor because he owed him money. The Shilock loses friends fast. But he knows it's worth it, he knows that in the long run the wife and kids will be happier with the old man gone and will spread the good word about the Shilock. Plus now he has his money.

It's not an ideal situation. But it's the situation, and you make the most of it.

You are trying to have it both ways here. Either self interest is our sole purpose for invading Iraq or it isn't. Earlier you said it was, but if "petrodollars" and prpping up the dollar against the Euro was indeed the sole reason for the invasion then it should be no different if invading Canada could acheive similar results. If 'long term economic gain' was indeed a justifiable reason for invading another country then taking slaves should be just as justifiable provided it gave the same benefit. Yet you balk at such an idea. So which is it?

My examples were extreme and intentionally so, but even your even sillier examples (Installing Bush as dictator for life or carving 'USA' on the moon) should be acceptable if economic benefit is all the justification a nation needs for its actions and those actions provided economic benefit.

So in short, either our self interest is all the justification we need for our actions, in which case you have to accept that invading Canada, taking slaves, installing Bush as dictator for life, etc are all acceptable if they bring us the same benefits, or you have to concede that other factors come into play, in which case people who oppose the war for moral/ethical reasons at least might have a point. As I said at the beginning, you can't have it both ways.

 

[bagtaggar]

Strange how I never meet one.

My favorites are the conservatives who attack horoscopes as occult Satanism and then try to push Creationism down the throats of children.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Humorous non-sequitor I believe...

You are trying to have it both ways here. Either self interest is our sole purpose for invading Iraq or it isn't. Earlier you said it was, but if "petrodollars" and prpping up the dollar against the Euro was indeed the sole reason for the invasion then it should be no different if invading Canada could acheive similar results. If 'long term economic gain' was indeed a justifiable reason for invading another country then taking slaves should be just as justifiable provided it gave the same benefit. Yet you balk at such an idea. So which is it?

My examples were extreme and intentionally so, but even your even sillier examples (Installing Bush as dictator for life or carving 'USA' on the moon) should be acceptable if economic benefit is all the justification a nation needs for its actions and those actions provided economic benefit.

So in short, either our self interest is all the justification we need for our actions, in which case you have to accept that invading Canada, taking slaves, installing Bush as dictator for life, etc are all acceptable if they bring us the same benefits, or you have to concede that other factors come into play, in which case people who oppose the war for moral/ethical reasons at least might have a point. As I said at the beginning, you can't have it both ways.

I'm glad you view the complex geopolitical game in such black and white, moral or immoral terms.

My comments were simply to point out the absurdity in your argument.

"I took a pen from the Post Office, I feel kinda bad about it, but I needed it for work."

"So... so... *sniffle*... so you, you STOLE??? What's next? Orchestrating a mass genocide? Oh where has the world gone... waaaahaaaa waaaa...."

 

[Nyarlathotep]

"So... so... *sniffle*... so you, you STOLE??? What's next? Orchestrating a mass genocide? Oh where has the world gone... waaaahaaaa waaaa...."

And I am glad that you are willing to see thousands of people killed for an economic benefit without ever dragging moralityinto it. It must be nice to live in a world with no moral or ethical dilemmas beyond "What's good for me?"

There is a vast difference between stealing a pen from the post office and starting a war that kills 2000 of our own people and who-knows-how-many of theirs, btw.

 

[Belz...]

The equivalent to "If you could go back in time, would you kill baby Hitler?", only not quite because you know Hitler will grow up to be evil. We can only guess whether or not any current threat (or non-threat, in the case of Iraq) will grow up to be some mega-evil tyranny monster.

For better or for worse, however, the result of the second world war was about 60 years of world peace. Hitler was evil, for sure, but the horrors of that war gave most of us the willies. That and the threat of nuclear warfare. I guess the was wasn't all that bad in the end. Do I make sense here ?

 

[Belz...]

Response in order of questions posed above:

1.)As far as it has to.
2.)No I would not, because A.) that's retarded and B.) Canada is a peaceful democratic nation.

Maybe someone should invade the US because it's NOT a peaceful "democratic" nation.

 

[punchdrunk]

Well, what exactly are the principles at stake here?

Well, I would say all principles could be at stake. It won't be much longer before the technology to develop and deliver a nuclear warhead will be attainable by even the smallest countries. Though I don't know how effective a strike against the United States could be in terms of compromising the very principles of our society, I think it's at least a possibility. Over time, the ability to annihilate the entire world, if so desired, will become more easily achievable. It's a scary thought.

I think at its core we're talking about self-determination, am I right?

The core American principle we would be violating is self-determination. I suppose we would also be violating the UN charter by using aggression against another member state, but I hardly hold that in the same light.

We fear others will take it away from us so we take some of it away from them?

I'm specifically talking about preemptive invasion of a tyranny, not another democracy. I believe only tyrannies are a threat to us. So in that regard, no, we aren't taking "some of it away" from them because tyrannies don't hold our principles of freedom, democracy, self-determination, etc. in the first place.

 

[Kerberos]

This was a war of opportunity. We saw an opening to win some in the geopolitical sense.

What did we win?

Nothing. Yet.

The pressure to create a stable government in Iraq is extremely high for the United States. We acted unilaterally under false pretenses (WMD's, terrorism). So we have to compensate for that by establishing a peaceful government. You'll notice that talk of an exit plan is very sketchy. That's because there isn't one. We're staying as long as we like.

What happens if we succeed? The political cachette is enourmous. It will basically serve as a "shut the hell up" to nations that get in the way of our unilateralism in the future.

Sure and if you lose it serves as a "shut the hell up" to nations that advocate it, and if you land somewhere in the large and murky area between defeat and victory both sides will be using Iraq as an exampel of why they're right in the years to come.

Who cares, it's what's happening and there isn't much we can do to stop it. The last time protesting mattered in the United States was... actually never. Woman's suffrage, Black Civil Rights, and pulling out of Vietnam were economically/politically motivated. I could argue this if you wish.

Welcome to the globalizing world.

You vote with your shares/holdings.

I'd sure like to see you argue that. American politicians must be the only ones in the world who doesn't care about reelection. Bear in mind that I don't dispute that there were economic consideration as well, just that it's the only factor. I'd also like to draw you attention to the Somalia intervention. Is 18 dead americans and 73 wounded such a stagering price that the US could no longer sustain the intervention economically, or is there perhaps another explanation for your retreat?

 

[Kerberos]

Don't be to certian remeber what happened during the Millenium Challenge war games.

I remeber that just a few years back people was using those war games as an argument that the invasion of Iraq would be a disaster which was not exactly the case (at least not for the initial fase). Now Iran is considerably stronger than Iraq was, but I'll still bet you 100 dollars to a kick in the butt that the US would win any war the two countries fought.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm specifically talking about preemptive invasion of a tyranny, not another democracy.

You mis-understood. When I speak of the self-determination of a country, I'm talking about the country's right to follow its own path of development, not the right (or lack thereof) of the individuals within the country to determine the form of its government.

For example, a country's history may lead it to becoming a tyrannical theocracy through sheer weight of history rather popular consent of its people. That form of government is a product of that country's particular background and current situation. They are what they are.

As long as it stays within their own borders, our only influence should be in terms of how we interact with them economically, politically, and socially (I suppose). In essence, if we want to be the bike-riding Jahova's Witnesses that knock on the door and ask, "Have you found democracy?" That's fine. That country still has a choice about whether or not they want to "find democracy", but the moment we kick in the door, we take away the choice that we fear will be taken away from us.

 

[Kerberos]

I suppose this comes down to whether the end justifies the means.

There was a time when this was a no-brainer philosophical question like, "Is torture ever justified?" It amazes me that neither are, anymore.

Actually they were and remain no-brainers, the answer to both is yes.

 

[Belz...]

You mis-understood. When I speak of the self-determination of a country, I'm talking about the country's right to follow its own path of development, not the right (or lack thereof) of the individuals within the country to determine the form of its government.

For example, a country's history may lead it to becoming a tyrannical theocracy through sheer weight of history rather popular consent of its people. That form of government is a product of that country's particular background and current situation. They are what they are.

As long as it stays within their own borders, our only influence should be in terms of how we interact with them economically, politically, and socially (I suppose). In essence, if we want to be the bike-riding Jahova's Witnesses that knock on the door and ask, "Have you found democracy?" That's fine. That country still has a choice about whether or not they want to "find democracy", but the moment we kick in the door, we take away the choice that we fear will be taken away from us.

Well put. I second that.

 

[Upchurch]

Thanks, Belz...

Actually they were and remain no-brainers, the answer to both is yes.

Are you being serious or ironic?

 

[Kerberos]

Thanks, Belz...

Are you being serious or ironic?

I'm being quite serious. Particuiarly the first is really a total no-brainer. Practically everybody thinks that the ends justify the means, including you, there's just this ridicilous meme going around that "the ends justify the means" is somehow bad.
Let me provide you with a difficult moral dillema:
A car crashes and several people are very seriously injured, it happens at a fairly remote location, but you are around and beside you is a parked car. On the back seat of this car there is a first aid kit and a cell phone (convenient right?). Do you:
1) Leave the stuff in the car and try to help the people without equibment and without calling 911
2) Smash the window, use the first aid kit to give more efficient aid and call 911?

If you pick 2 then you have just admitted that the ends (saving lives) justify the means (taking people's stuff and smashing their car windows). Unless of course you think that taking people’s stuff is generally acceptable behavior.

 

[punchdrunk]

You mis-understood. When I speak of the self-determination of a country, I'm talking about the country's right to follow its own path of development, not the right (or lack thereof) of the individuals within the country to determine the form of its government.

Then we are farther apart than I first thought, because quite frankly the idea that a country should follow it's own path without the will of its people is a horrible concept. Without the will of its people, the "path of development" of a country will serve no one but those few in power, and usually at the detriment of the people. That is a principle you believe is worth upholding?

That country still has a choice about whether or not they want to "find democracy", but the moment we kick in the door, we take away the choice that we fear will be taken away from us.

What is a country without its people? What choice do people have about their country under a tyranny? A tyranny only serves to perpetuate its own power, and if you live in a tyranny, that is the only option you have to choose from. That is not a choice.