Why do I get the impression that you would be happy if that came to pass?
-- Steve
One problem with casting this discussion around the United States, or the U.S. government, is that many people will tend to have knee-jerk reactions, both for and against. The philosophical questions at issue here is when is it moral for governments to use force.
In this context, I think it is instructive to look at when it is justified for individuals to use force:
If you stole a gun from someone, and you're outside your own neighborhood and witness someone being assaulted by someone else, is it moral for you to use the gun to try to stop the assault? I would say the basic answer is "yes," but whether actually doing so is a good idea or not will depend on many different factors. So I agree with Derek that these things should be taken on a case by case basis.
Of course unlike Derek, I would not necessarily rest my decision of what ought to be done solely or primarily on what happens to be in the best interests of the gun thief, or the people from whom the gun was stolen.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
I'm not so sure about how liberal and
representative Kurdistan and Afganistan
are or will be in the future, if there ever
even is a Kurdistan, As for Germany,
Austria, Holland, The Nethelands,
Belgioum, and even Kosovo, and
kurdistan, and Afganistan, all these
countries were ruled by either liberal
democracies, liberal monarchies, or very
loose, almost anarcho capilist, empires
prior to world war one. If the US
governmnt had not tricked and forced
the citizens to fight in World War One,
the war to make the world safe for
Semocracy and end all wars probably
would have ended in a negotiated
stalemate, Germany would not have
been humiliated and bankrupted by the
treaty of Versailes, the borders of Iraq
would never have been created out of
thin air, and all the countries you
mentioned above would have probably
been spared the horror of Nazi Germany
and World War Two, so please please,
don't tell me again how wonderful and
liberating the US government's
fabricated foreign wars have been, oh,
and the long term verdict on Japan's
Democracy is not yet in, nor, for that
matter Korea's. China seems to be
liberalizing in it's own way, and Iran was
clearly set back by the CIA's mucking
whith the hated Shah, so Derek dear,
it's time to get off your pretty derrier and
turn off Fox news.
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Derek, I think are incorrect,
Pakistan has regular gotten
into artillery battles with
India in the Himalayas over
the last thirty years, and I
believe there have been
some shots fired here and
there over the Korean DMZ
since 76, not to mention the
Pueblo? and maybe a few
downed US planes. The
point is, why are we in all
these entagling alliances,
especially now that the
Soviet threat is gone, and
what is the matter with
adopting the foreign policy
perscriptions laid out by GW
1 in 1797, the farewell
address, the world being
essentially the same plance
and human nature being
essentially the same. GW1
was a brave guy who gave
up a very cushy life fo fight
for freedom and clearly had
some success and respect.
The farewell address is still
a short and great read and
just a quick google away.
Don't forget, the British
burned down Washington
about seventeen years later,
so the threats then were
very similar to the threats
now, except the warning
time has gone from hours to
minutes and the
temperature of the burning
city has gone up a few
orders of magnitude, but
fact is, if I was to be burned
alive, I would prefer the 21st
century method to the
nineteenth century.
Derek,
Having dashed on to something else but reflecting on my note below,
I realized I have come perilously close to accusing you being like
Hitler. That was not my intent. I do not have that opinion
regarding you. I apologize for the appearance of any implication in
that direction.
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Allen Rice" <amrcheck@...>
wrote:
"Does the _belligerent_ country under consideration pose a
demonstrable, hostile _threat_, and would [our nation's] interests
be furthered by a pre-emptive strike?"Really? That's all? Why can I imagine Hitler using this
rationale,
indeed writing it all down beforehand in that book of his that no
one read?Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
wrote:
>
> Those aren't my invasion criteria. You've collected a few
remarks
and tried
> to construct an arbitrary set of criteria.
>
> Here is my criteria: Does the belligerent country under
consideration pose
> a demonstrable, hostile threat, and would American interests be
furthered by
> a pre-emptive strike?
>
> That's it. Each case is to be taken on a case by case basis.
To
have a
> formulaic approach, that certain boxes have to be ticked, or not
ticked, is
> unwise.
>
> As far as who we should invade next? I don't see anything
requiring
> imminent action right now, but Iran is close. North Korea, and
Syria
> should both be nervous. Iraq was only the down payment.
>
> By the way, we are only 5 days away from March 28th, which is
when
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
[ Attachment content not displayed ]