Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Ozzone wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Speaking of Switzerland, they've obviously got a better plan than the US does.

Switzerland has the benefit of existing in a natural fortress that is practically impossible to invade.

Switzerland has banks that contain anonymous accounts where billions are stored legally or illegally.

That is another reason Switzerland is safe from attack.

That's loot. :lol: Good thing they live in a mountain fortress.

[Black Sheep 5]

Nathyn wrote: lovebush wrote: Nathyn wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: What war?

I say this speaking from a military point of view, but a "war" according to the US military is when the nation is under extreme danger in such a way that it might make the US a part of history in a bad way. If something is presenting an obvious threat to our homeland, the US military decalres a state of war nation-wide.

Put simply.....according to the US military September 11th was a war.
A state of war can only consist of a conflict between organized factions, whether between governments or militias. The "terrorists," are no organized faction. Al-Qaeda has been virtually eliminated. But rather, the threat we face now is from an ideological movement which has caused various disaffected groups to want to cause mass destruction in America. The difference between war and this conflict being that, in the former case, there is a possibility of a conclusion. War cannot be defined as when a nation is under extreme danger because most nations usually are, which is why "national security," is established. If we define war the way you do, then this "war on terror," is likely to last at least a hundred years or more.


So the hundred year war wasnt a war because it lasted too long? :P
The 100 Years' War was, in fact, a series of wars.

Also, it was Jeremy Bentham which advocated torture, though it's particularly problematic for a Conservative to cite him because he and John Stuart Mill were, for all intents and purposes, modern American Liberals. Bentham was an avowed atheist and supported animal rights, feminism, gay rights, anti-trust law, universal healthcare, and universal education. John Stuart Mill was once quoted as saying of Britain's Conservative Party (largely of the same ideology as today), "While it is not true that all Conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are Conservatives," and before John Stuart Mill died, he openly advocated Socialism

When Bentham died, he requested that his corpse be stuffed, preserved, and placed in a wooden box, on public display at the University of London (The idea seems to be that if he wasn't going to live forever, at least people would have something interesting to remember him by -- and also, it was probably meant as a joke.)

Black Sheep 5 wrote: Nathyn wrote: The following list is from Kant's work, "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch."

Immanuel Kant, a renowned philosopher, listed several conditions necessary for everlasting peace. The non-bolded text is my commentary.

1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War" -- We invaded Iraq, not because of any new criminal acts, but because of what happened in the past. This would be the equivalent of committing a crime, facing a jail sentence, and then years later, having the police randomly arrest and jail you again for the same crime. We cannot claim to be at peace if we do not at the same time put past grievances behind us. If Iraq had suddenly invaded Bosnia again or gassed its citizens, or even if we had invaded immediately following one of our planes being shot down, war would've been justified. But the only precursors to war were in President Bush's mind.

2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation" -- Aside from subjugating smaller countries through our alliances, America has conquered nations. We invaded Hawaii and conquered their people. Stealing land from the mid-western natives was not enough. We had to steal from the eskimos of Alaska as well. And today, America has countless territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, where they are governed by America yet have no Constitutional rights. The Marianas Islands have now become notorious for their sweatshops. These are nothing more than modern vassal-states. Anyone who opposes their freedom are the ideological descendants of those who opposed American freedom. Oh, and of course, I should mention our continuing occupation of Germany and Japan.

3. "Standing Armies (miles perpetuus) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished" -- Oh, and this sure as hell isn't going to happen. Despite the fact that Costa Rica and Switzerland have proven that a nation doesn't need an army to exist peacefully, we're still too stubborn to change.

4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States" -- Today, America has contracted substantial debt for precisely the reason Kant described: to make war.

5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State" -- I need not explain this one.

6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State" -- The intelligence community's budget has skyrocketed in recent years (the NSA's budget is more than both the CIA's and FBI's). We tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein in previous years and though I'm no fan of Hugo Chavez, we're no doubt trying to assassinate him now too. I really don't think anyone can deny that America employs assassins and spies who do more than look around. Wasn't Kant into moral absolutism too? Its never ok to lie, its never ok to kill; even if it means saving someones life.
Yes. As I said, he was a deontologist. Something is only right or wrong because it is objectively wrong. The main part of his moral philosophy was the categorical imperative, which meant that everything was either good or bad because of how universally applicable it is. In other words, murder is bad because if everybody commit murder, society would be unstable. On the other hand, charity is good, because if everybody gave to charity, society would be far better off.

Heinz wrote: Quote: A state of war can only consist of a conflict between organized factions, whether between governments or militias.

That's the Geneva conventions. The military issues "war" when we are under extreme danger. Notice that I put war in quotations. It's not literally a war. It's used more to prepare the military just in case an invasion occurs after the initial attack. That's why it was used on 9/11.
Only Congress has the power to declare war. Putting it in quotations does not give the Executive any extra power, because of "the Constitution" which has given us "civil rights" through "limitations upon governmental power."

This idea that -- well, it's not a war, it's a "war" (*wink-wink-nudge-nudge*) is rather silly and quite Orwellian. Not to get into philosophy, but if you had Stalin in your crosshairs in say 1910 you would pull the trigger? Would it be morally acceptable? I say yes & yes. I don't believe in moral absolutes, never have, never will.

[Heinz]

Quote: Only Congress has the power to declare war. Putting it in quotations does not give the Executive any extra power, because of "the Constitution" which has given us "civil rights" through "limitations upon governmental power."

Let me say this slower.....

Quote: That's the Geneva conventions. The military issues "war" when we are under extreme danger. Notice that I put war in quotations. It's not literally a war. It's used more to prepare the military just in case an invasion occurs after the initial attack. That's why it was used on 9/11.

Do you get it now? It's mainly a thing to put military members on stand-by in case something happens after the inital attack/occurance. IT ONLY EFFECTS THOSE IN THE MILITARY. IT HAS NO AFFECT ON THE GENERAL POPULATION It isn't declaring an actual war, it's just preparing their staff in case something further takes place.

They consider it "war," but it is not.

Make sense now?

Even though I've already said this same thing about 10 times.

[Fionn mac Cumhaill]

For those of you not familiar with Kant and his work, he's a very highly respected douchebag.

[leftneckredwing]

sLiPpY wrote: If it were up to me, we'd keep the Coast Guard. Disband the Army and Marines...disband the Navy.

The National Guard units would remain and meet once a month as usual.

Fund NORAD, and the Air Force to the extent it defends North America.

Close all military bases on Foreign soil.

That would eliminate the Budget Deficit and let us pay down the debt x 10. :-D

I would start with all bases on foreign soil. Remove all property or sell it off, Cut diplomatic staff by 95%. Sell all foreign embassies and make them rent a cublicle and live in apartments.

I would issue immediate discharges to the roughest, toughest, deadliest Marines, Army and whatever branch of military and offer a $1billion reward for the head of UBL.

In about 6 months things would start looking up.

End the war on drugs and double the number of heavily armed cops on the street.

Things would start looking up there, almost immediately. And it would provide some jobs for some Vets.

[leftneckredwing]

Fionn mac Cumhaill wrote: For those of you not familiar with Kant and his work, he's a very highly respected douchebag.

But a douchebag, none the less.

The height of douchebaggery is that we still hear his name.

Kant never did anything.

[Nathyn]

leftneckredwing wrote: Fionn mac Cumhaill wrote: For those of you not familiar with Kant and his work, he's a very highly respected douchebag.

But a douchebag, none the less.

The height of douchebaggery is that we still hear his name.

Kant never did anything.
Wow. I'm amazed that anybody could say that. Critique of Pure Reason was a huge step forward in philosophy. Virtually all philosophers fully now recognize the concepts or a priori and posteriori reasoning. His categorical imperative, whether justified or not, advanced the idea of equal rights and responsibilities. You share Libertarian views, well, unless you're an Objectivist, I can't really see how you can have any hatred of Kant.

[leftneckredwing]

Nathyn wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Fionn mac Cumhaill wrote: For those of you not familiar with Kant and his work, he's a very highly respected douchebag.

But a douchebag, none the less.

The height of douchebaggery is that we still hear his name.

Kant never did anything.
Wow. I'm amazed that anybody could say that. Critique of Pure Reason was a huge step forward in philosophy. Virtually all philosophers fully now recognize the concepts or a priori and posteriori reasoning. His categorical imperative, whether justified or not, advanced the idea of equal rights and responsibilities. You share Libertarian views, well, unless you're an Objectivist, I can't really see how you can have any hatred of Kant.

I am somewhat of an objectivist. Kant never did anything for me.

[beachbum bob]

leftneckredwing wrote: sLiPpY wrote: If it were up to me, we'd keep the Coast Guard. Disband the Army and Marines...disband the Navy.

The National Guard units would remain and meet once a month as usual.

Fund NORAD, and the Air Force to the extent it defends North America.

Close all military bases on Foreign soil.

That would eliminate the Budget Deficit and let us pay down the debt x 10. :-D

I would start with all bases on foreign soil. Remove all property or sell it off, Cut diplomatic staff by 95%. Sell all foreign embassies and make them rent a cublicle and live in apartments.

I would issue immediate discharges to the roughest, toughest, deadliest Marines, Army and whatever branch of military and offer a $1billion reward for the head of UBL.

In about 6 months things would start looking up.

End the war on drugs and double the number of heavily armed cops on the street.

Things would start looking up there, almost immediately. And it would provide some jobs for some Vets.

makes too much sense.....and kills too many bureaucracies and their patrons

[lovebush]

[quote="Nathyn"][
Also, it was Jeremy Bentham which advocated torture, though it's particularly problematic for a Conservative to cite him because he and John Stuart Mill were, for all intents and purposes, modern American Liberals. Bentham was an avowed atheist and supported animal rights, feminism, gay rights, anti-trust law, universal healthcare, and universal education. John Stuart Mill was once quoted as saying of Britain's Conservative Party (largely of the same ideology as today), "While it is not true that all Conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are Conservatives," and before John Stuart Mill died, he openly advocated Socialism

even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I do beleive in doing what will cause the least pain to the most innocent people.