A coalition without the US?

giddyup: You shouldn't make statements if you don't check the stats.

The same study I cited earlier also found that 70 percent of extramarital affairs began as a short-term consideration (that's all the married person wanted) but 45 percent of all affairs were long-term with long-term being defined as longer than 1 year.

As for European infidelity, a French researcher in a study done in 2000 found that the European rate of infidelity was lower than the US (about 50 percent for men and 35 percent for women) but still rather high in reality.

To address your other issues:

Public nudity - IMO, if it happens "everywhere" as you put it, then I don't think it is particularly positive, but I doubt very seriously any of us would accept it "everywhere" anyway. That's overly broad.

Playground bullies - We're dealing, in this issue, with the protection of kids from other kids who could be doing physical or emotional damage to one another. Kids can't always protect themselves so we have to help.

Public drunkenness - Being drunk in public isn't a problem for me unless they intend to drive.

Consumption of illegal drugs - Honestly, there are prescription drugs that are just as harmful as their illegal cousins yet we allow long-term use of them in patients for pain. There are health issues at work with illegal drugs that make them a threat to all of us financially as well as crime issues, so I understand why they are illegal, however, if someone smokes a joint regularly (like a number of people I know), I'm fine with that.

The main problem I have with all your worries here is that it doesn't effect either of us. Your question, "Is that what I should do if MY wife were to have an affair? Would you?" is not applicable here. There are no infidelity police that come to your house and force you to have an affair. If, to use the example of the French president, he, his wife and his mistress were all ok with it, why should it effect you or me?

I don't want to have an affair. I don't want my wife to have one either but it isn't for me to judge someone else's behavior if they do. That is their choice as an adult. It seems to me that this is much more of an emotional issue for you, personally. None of this obviously effects you in a negative way whatsoever. Yet, you seem particularly annoyed that Europeans are just different in how they handle it. What's all the huff about?

 

Well, he's not a reporter but a columnist. Big difference as far as claims of bias are concerned. And yes, he's lived over here for quite some time, but he keeps up with the foreign (esp Brittish) press daily. Also, I know he talks to his friends & peers across the pond to keep up with popular opinion. I posted the article because it basically hits the nail on the head regarding our place in this "coalition".

I never insinuated that conservative media outlets are completely objective, which anyone who's read the Weekly Standard, WSJ, etc... would know is not true. Are you denying that the papers I mentioned have a significant left-leaning slant (esp The Guardian)?

 

Social decay.

What is admirable about French society publicly (in front of the world) acknowledging Mitterand's mistress in his funeral procession?

Nothing to my mind, yet this is the standard of not-passing-judgement that you would hold the US to?

I just don't get it. That betrayal does hurt people. Spouses. Children especially!

It's not just the so-called innocent fornication of college years. Infidelity involves deception and real hurt in most cases.

Isn't that a reason to stand against it instead of turning blindly away?

I have two friends that have been unfaithful to their wives. One told me. One didn't. Neither of them got any kind of lecture from me.

That doesn't make my stance weak!

 

So, if Mitterand was your friend, you wouldn't say anything? I have also been in those situations. I've been in the middle of them with friends using me as an alibi when I didn't know about it and the wife asking me about it.

I realize it hurts and involves deception. I've had family members who have had long-term affairs as well. It's no fun. It sucks.

However, I look at it in this way. If it is something that people accept as part of the way that they live, it is not my place to tell them otherwise because it doesn't effect me directly. However, if it is a friend, I do feel an ethical responsiblity to NOT turn blindly away and ask that friend about it. Do I judge him/her? Absolutely not. Do I approach them with my concerns? Damn right! That's what friends do.

As for moral decay, . There are far bigger fish to fry in this world than that.

 

It should be noted that the French public adored Mitterand - which is rare for them and politicians in general, Chirac gets blasted for everything. It is easy to see why just by walking around Paris - he led a political and cultural revolution that is still in evidence and will be remebered and, frankly, the negatives will be glazed over in the presence of such things (all the new architecture, public services, etc).

Additionally, the public was shocked that the mistress and child showed up - it was unexpected and she certainly was not invited by the French government or society. If Lewinsky just shows up out of the blue (or by Hillary's request) to Clinton's funeral, does that mean that that is what the US society wanted?

I agree that France is more apathetic/accepting with such things, but I don't think this is a true example of national condoning.

 

Jeff -- remember when i asked you about my dog??? i told you i was a "responsible" dog owner...that I knew it wasn't just something to take lightly.

why do i get the feeling that you would judge more harshly an irresponsible dog owner than someone who cheated on their spouse??? i would argue that the consequences of cheating on your wife are far more reaching than not taking care of your pooch...that it hurts real people...that it is incredibly irresponsible. I do not believe it's just an "adult decision". That's a bit too permissive for me.

there's nothing wrong with discernment...harshfully judging someone and being able to discern the rightness or wrongness of someone's actions are two entirely separate things. And I hope a good friend would use that kind of discernment to tell me when I'm screwing up.

are there other signs of social decay?? absolutely!! but to roll your eyes at the idea that this is a symptom of that social decay is not fair, i think. I think when people don't honor their word that is an absolute symptom of social decay...and when someone chooses not to honor something as important as their marriage, i'd say that's a pretty big sign of decay...particularly when others, like children, are hurt by their actions too.

 

Uh, you even put his quote at the top of your response. Strange you would do that without READING what he wrote, lol. As you can see from the quote you used from Buck, he said not to believe that the Guardian etc are not the TOTALITY of foreign opinion. He did not say leftists were the only biased sources or that some people didn't believe what they wrote. Meaning that to represent their opinion as 'the European view' of this debate is misleading.

What a suprise to see a knee jerk answer from the Guardian readership ...

 

I weigh life as life. If your treatment of an animal results in the death or harm of that animal physically, for me, it is like the death or harm to a human. I don't place a higher or lower value on human or animal life. It is just a belief that I hold.

However, "judge harshly" is a wierd way to put it. I'm human. I make judgements sometimes harshly. It comes with being a human being. With an animal, I have a tendency to view them as helpless at the hands of humans - much like children. However, if two adults have a problem, they are still adults. Now, if one was physically harming the other, that's another story.

You don't have to agree with my stance on life, but it is how I view the world so it will color my judgement.

I thought that is what I said. I pointed out the irony that giddyup would judge someone at a distance but he wouldn't place that same judgement on a friend. IMO, you can do something about your friend, but you cannot control the practices of a continent. So, having moral outrage over a group of people over which you have zero control but not having that same outrage over a friend seems bizarre. I guess it is easier to be pissed at strangers, but the act itself is no different.

My point was that there are far more problems that receive less attention today that are more serious than marital infidelity. There are still sweat shops in other parts of the world where women are forced to labor all day for minimal pay so we can have tennis shoes to wear. There are children starving and dying of massive disease on the sub-Saharan plain. 1 in 3 women are sexually abused (the majority by a friend, family member or teacher) by the age of 16 - 1 in 5 men.

My problem with the concept of moral decay is that the focus is on how horrible society is. Remember the Inquisition, child labor, slavery, etc, etc? Our society has stemmed the tide of quite a bit of moral and ethical decay. I just don't see the value in using infidelity as the benchmark for the same level of decay today.

 

Buck:

Are you denying that the papers I mentioned have a significant left-leaning slant (esp The Guardian)?

Nope. Sorry for misinterpreting your implication.

(HayesStreet, if I may quote Lloyd Dobler: 'you must chill'. I was reading fast and, as it turned out, inaccurately in this instance.)

 

I have been called a relativist by some of the people, like treeman, who are supporting Bush's "axis of power" declaration, it's implications, and the excercise of unilateral Ameican power in other regions of the world. While I am not certain that this lable applies to me, for the purposes of this argument, let's assume that I am. Therefore, those in opposition of my position are not relativists, and as such believe in absolutes such as 'good' and 'evil', and indeed many of thse people have said as much. I find these statements to be highly subjective, hence these people will cry 'relativism'. Ok, if 'evil' is an absolute truth, and as cited applies to empires such as the Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Nazi Germany,ect. based on the 'evil' nature of some of their actions, I would ask one question...

How can you possibly exclude the United States from that label based on your own criteria, without getting into relativism?

Let's see...Subjegation/genocide of large groups of people? Hmmm..Native Americans, African-Americans,turning away exiled Jews before WW1 because we couldn't 'afford' them, and sending them back to Nazi Germany, etc...check.

Restricition of a people's freedoms to further own ends...Hmmm..Noriega, DuValier, Batista, Pinochet, Marcos, etc... attemoted/successful assassinations of such popularly elected political leaders as Castro and Kaddafhi, the 1st of which, at least, we we had not declared war against...not to mention the afore-mentioned Native and African-Americans...check.

Acts of atrocity....Hmmm...Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Wounded Knee, destroyed villages in Viet-Nam, bombing of civilian areas in Panama, Andersonville, ect. ect....check.

'Wicked' experiments....hmmm...Govt. experiments with such things as LSD and other potential drug-weapons on ignorant people, resulting in deaths, hysteria-induced suicides, ect., Atomic experiments in South Pacific, New Mexico, etc. resulting in hundreds of cases of radiation-based deaths, ....check.

And I ( and others) could give many other examples of these kinds of 'evil' acts. Ok, now the inevitable defenses...

1) The Long Time Ago argument...While I disagree, and many of these have taken place fairly recently, it is not only convenient to examine one's own record, pick a cut-off point which suits your needs, and say "Let's only talk about the period AFTER X...", it is also relativist.

2) The Numbers Argument...It was evil Stalin who said that killing one man is murder, killing a million is a statistic, and his point is relevant here. How can you possibly say that one empire is MORE evil than another, because it is responsible for, say, 6 million deaths, while we are responsible for 'only' a couple of million, all told, or even say a few hundred thousand. Not only is that making another convenient distinction, it is once again a relativist argument. Either mass murder/subjegation is evil, or it's not.

3) the Middle Man argument...Some apologists will point out that several of these 'evil' acts were actually carried out by 3rd parties, such as Marcos, and as such are not the responsiblity of the United States...My counter-arguments would be these..Our own justice system, and that applied in the World court in such examples as Der Haag and Nuremberg have dismissed this clean hands defense...if you hold the strings, you are responsible for the puppets actions. Secondly, we have enough 1st hand actions to make this another relativist defense. 3rd, once again, we're talking about 'evil' here, and as such, we cannot adopt even a Pontious Pilate argument, as 'evil is both of commission and omission, and financing/ supporting these dictators facilitated their ability to commit these 'evil' acts.

4) We Had Good Reasons/Have Done More Good Things Than Bad Things argument...aka the Princess Defense...Both of these are subjective, and both invoke relativism. Every naton has 'good' reasons for doing what it does, according to it's own reasoning. The fact that some of us will agree with our own bias does not remove the guilt of our actions, and again, it's a relativist argument. And the Good Things argument is the definitve relativist argument, and also wholly subjective.

And I'm sure there are others, although I would venture to say that, short of either an ignorant or false denial of ALL of these actions, any argument which tries to excuse these 'evil' acts as not being enough to qualify America as an 'evil' empire' will have to be an excercise in relativism. The only viable argument, is the one that Treeman or Hayes ( or both?) has said to me in the past, ie..." I admit that our policy is hypocritical"...Obviously, the limitations of that argument preclude adopting any absolute moral high-ground, but oh well...I, for one, do not think the United States are 'evil', but then again, I'm supposedly a 'relativist'.

 

And the counterpoint is that your representation of a European bloc that is opposed to US action is a misrepresentation. There are critics, certainly, as there are in the US. But to assert that Europe believes containment and diplomacy are stopping these countries from developing WMD is simply too great a leap in logic. In fact, several of the articles point to the fact that the Europeans want to be more involved in the military aspects of the world stage, mainly for prestige and to maintain equal footing with the US in the world power structure. At the same time they are unable to meet the military requirements such equal footing would necessitate. Which means they end up trying to drag their feet on any action. Precisely why the US acts alone if necessary. Which is the justification to ignore a lack of consensus on the part of our 'allies.' As for the economic initiatives, when has the US opposed that?

Sorry buddy. In ANY decision making process, 12% leaves you out in the cold. Go start a petition drive or something and get back to us when you've got enough opinion to make a difference. In fact, your argument is kinda funny since my point is that you are misrepresenting that 12% as a consensus among our allies. 12% does not a consensus make.

Uh, yeah. I find it so funny for a leftist to be arguing the case for nuclear deterrence. The times, they are a changin... Do you seriously think that you can compare deterrence between relatively equal Superpowers in a bi-polar world to the current situation? The Soviets were extremely conservative when it came to brinksmanship on the nuclear stage. Rogue states are much less likely to be so.

The situations are not comparable. Rogue states involve different dynamics than did possible Cold War scenarios.

Oooohh, 12%. More than 12% think you're wrong.

OK, cool.

Well, no. International institutions are prone to paralysis. Too many cooks spoil the broth. And that is precisely why we act in unison with multilateral institutions when consensus can be reached, and unilaterally when it can't. Lack of international consensus does not show, however, that a particular action is either unwarranted or unwise.

Well, Iraq and Afghanistan were multilateral actions, which you said you approved of. So where's the beef? I also believe in multilateral action, but do not believe in the exclusion of options, including unilateral ones. And I grew up an Army brat, and my old man SERVED in Vietnam, and I've friends whose fathers didn't come back from Vietnam, so please don't patronize as if you have a monopoly on the 'truth' about of war.

Ha! Let the silly Japanese/Asians and Euros have manufacturing. The Euro's will be take the hit down the line, as the Japanese are now, since they can never compete with the low wages from the third world. People decried the massive shift away from manufacturing in the 80s because we were losing auto jobs and steel jobs etc to the Japanese. Now what do we have. Slimmed down corporations. Emphasis on intellectual property and information technology. You can't low wage that out like manufacturing, cause it isn't as easy to educate a whole country as it is to put them on an assembly line. In fact, the top talent is coming to the US which will only solidify our gains in the future. So, while you want the government to spend their money in the Japanese mold, where they take our innovations and try to build a better mousetrap, I want the government to be inventing the technology that removes the need for a mousetrap. Defense spending has proven verifiably capable of doing that. My example stands unrefuted, unless you think the internet is not an advancement spurring the next economic revolution, and ensuring our economic prosperity on the horizon. It is, in fact, the most productive R & D investment of our time.

Ridiculous economics to blame that soley on Vietnam. Gee, do you think the oil embargo had anything to do with that? And even if that were true, what is the relevance. That was a TWELVE YEAR engagement, in a world where our opponents were supported by an equal Superpower. Which intervention that will happen now is comparable? Get over Vietnam, glynch. Every intervention is not Vietnam played out over and over again. And, BTW: 1983 to 1989 was the longest peacetime expansion of our economy since WWII. 93 straight months of growth. No, I don't call that 'hitting the skids.' And economics are cyclical. What goes up, must come down etc etc.

Uh, well we're not a small island short on resources, last time I checked. We're not dependent on colonies that generate our wealth. Another bad comparison. We are, in fact, the lynchpin of the international economy. Lack of access to our markets could crush any economy on earth.

First and foremost the US government is charged with the security of the United States and the citizens of the United States. In a zero sum situation, the US government should defer to that criteria. Anything else would betray the very justification for having a government in the first place. Next, if the US interest is to keep entities that might use WMD out of business, that is also in the interest of China, India, Europe, and Russia. That is not faulty logic. Assuming that the countries you listed (and the countries that comprise 'Europe') must come to a consensus for it to be the 'correct' decision is silly. You'll rarely find that those entities agree on ANYTHING. Talk to the Chinese about cutting their greenhouse gases, lol. They'll tell you to go piss up a rope.

Uh, well a nuclear explosion generally involves a mushroom cloud. The point of naming these three states as 'the axis of evil' is the spread of WMD, especially nuclear weapons. And I've yet to see you refute the article I posted that clearly delineated the benefits of Reagan's similar 'evil empire,' which was also derided by the Guardian and their ilk. In the end, the US record is plain for all to see. We will work within multilateral framework's when possible. When it is not we will act unilaterally, as is our right, and as is in our interest. To defer to 'allies' unwilling or unable to act is not sound policy.

And what exactly is wrong with calling them evil? They are repressive. They are destabilizing influences on an international scale. They are either run by sole dictators or heavily influenced by religious zealots. They are pursuing WMD and/or supporting international terrorism. What's 'good' about that? Maybe the question we should be asking is 'Why does that piss them off?' Sure it pisses off Saddam and Iran and N Korea. Why does it piss off Muslims? Oh, I know. Because they sympathize with Hezbollah? Or the poor victim Saddam? Well, guess what. If you support terrorists organizations, you are not our allies. Our interest are diametrically opposed.

One final caveat. Very nice. 'In case you do a better job, its because you've got the technique to "whip this out more quickly than I do." Typical. Look, I really do understand that it would be better if we could share the cost, the responsibility, and the decisionmaking with other countries through multilateral institutions. I just don't think that is always possible, and I don't think that is justification for inaction in the absence of consensus. If we have a consensus among US policymakers, who WE put in place to MAKE those decisions, that is good enough for me. And I don't see what's wrong with calling it like we see it. Those countries are 'evil.'

I disagree. This sends a clear signal to the world what it means to be on the team. It clearly delineates who we are moving against. It clearly states what we believe of those current regimes. As I've detailed previously, using the word 'evil' to describe these three regimes is useful rhetorically, and leaves no ambiguity in communicating our position. Bush is straight-arrow- Genaro, and that will only help prevent miscalculation in the future.

Dimsie,

I prefer Conrad Dobler. Did you see what glynch wrote about you?

 

<b>jeff</b>: I didn't say anything because I didn't know about it. When the one friend confided in me we talked. It was not necessary for me to say much except do a lot of listening. He was sorrowfully aware of his error.

The other friend is just coming out of his delusion. I have counseled his wife informally about this for 3 years now. That friend missed his son's birth to be "away" and at least one Christmas Day that I know of. He has some reckoning to do. Four kids who never see their dad and will grow up not trusting as much as they should. THAT IS THE PRICE. They are moving this weekend and I'm going to go over and help. This friend has not called me in 5 years; that's a price to pay if you ask me.

<b>rimbaud</b>: I understood the flap to be that the mistress actually was treated like part of the family would be not that she was an unwelcome face in the crowd. Anybody know for sure?

 

I've had them hit me too. My mother was involved in a long-term affair with her boss when I was just a child. I've had several friends in the situation. Those just are the tip of the iceburg. Sadly, my experience with this has been more frequent than I'd care to remember. Yet, our opinions are near polar opposites. Obviously, our approach to the subject is very different. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I think it is possible to say 'Yes, all those actions were wrong,' and still support US intervention. You consistently say 'why do we have the right?' Two reasons why intervention can be justified: (1) security and (2) because it is consistent with our ideals.

(1) Security. This does not mean that any action that is justified as necessary for security IS justified. Some are because the threat is credible and almost no one will argue against self defense. Not even JAG. Those that are red herrings are not justified.

(2) Consistent with our ideals. I do not have a problem supporting our values or even using force to implement them. For example, I believe we can use force to remove an oppressive regime. In many cases the indigenous population does not have the capability to overthrow the regime themselves. This is consistent with American ideals just as French aid to the colonies was consistent with those ideals (although they may have done it out of self interest - just to piss the British off). I do not have a problem with intervention to stop genocide or other crimes against humanity. For example, removing a legitimately elected Allende in Chile was probably NOT a necessity for (1) and definitely not justified by (2). However, pressuring Pinochet to step down, which is still the US intervening in the affairs of Chile, is justified by (2).

I do not have a problem using our moral value criteria to decide which specific actions we try to prevent. To make other countries cultural traditions and sovereignty inviolable is to be, IMO, a relativist: It is to ignore both (1) and (2). To refuse to intervene in any cultural practices and in other nations sovereignty would result in the decisions to stand aside despite genocide, or ritual sacrifice, or Jonestown cultism. I do not think standing aside is what we should do in those cases. In those cases we CAN take the high moral ground as it pertains to our intervention. The fact that the US has not always acted in a manner consistent with the values we call American is irrelevant to these decisions. Acting to stop these things neither absolves us for those actions, nor is inconsistent with our ideals.

Finally, temporal analysis is important when considering these issues. For example. You could say Germany was 'evil' because of the holocaust, and their aggression in Europe revolving around WWII. Does that mean Germany is now 'evil?' Does that mean Germany cannot view another country in a moral lens? I do not think so.

 

Lol! We're dancing again, are we?Okay, one by one..

1) My point was that those actions qualify us as 'evil' by the standards of absolutism, and therefore negate any moral highground, thus leaving might is right as the only subsequent argument to support 'intervention' from an absolutist point of view.

2) The problem with your 'security' argument is, who decides what is and isn't justifiable? No one has demonstrated infalibility in that regard, and as such, I say we err on the side of omission when the alternative is to become tyranical.

3) This is the area of the most contention between us..i, and others, would argue that the foundation of your argument is oxymoronic. It is inconsistent with our beliefs to say that we can force those beliefs on others. It was one of thr initial tennants of the revolution, and it's continuation was strongly ensured by Washington himself. It has only changed in practice as the United States has evolved from the role of 'oppressed by a superpower' to a 'superpower itself', therefore supporting my argument that might is right is the enacted principle, and America has become a national hypocrite.

4) You say that "in many cases the indigeneous people does not have the ability to overthrow the regime themselves" which may be true, but there are plenty of examples of U.S. 'intervention' being in direct opposition of popular support, both in military actions such as VietNam ect, but also in assasination attempts on popularly elected foreign leaders. ONE example of this, let alone several, invalidates our moral highground, or any claim that we act in a principled, democratic manner, especially when it is known that we have supported the opposite form of government ( tyranny) when it suited our purposes. It is hypocritical to keep looking at these two kinds of occurences as isolated events;ie. when we support non-'evil' actions, we are the leaders of freedom and self-determination, when we support the opposite, we are merely acting in 'self-defense'...That double standard could be used to excuse the actions of the Soviet Union, for example..When they acted in support of popular movements, such as Cuba, they were the defenders of 'freedom', and when they acted in opposition to freedom, as in Afghanistan, they were justified because it was in their own interests...

5) Unlike America, Germany's past 'evil' actions were held against the system of government of that time, it was destroyed, it's leaders were tried and found guilty, and an entirely new form of government was put in place. Without getting into the various moral arguments for and against this process, it is obviously not a parallel.Were the system ogovernment and institutions responsible for the actions of the Nazi's still in place, in power, and living off the profits of those 'evil' actions, those who label the Nzis 'evil' would be very consistent and justified ( by their standards) in calling Germany evil still.

 

HayesStreet,

I think the admins should triple your post count due to the short novels you scribe.

 

I thought you needed a dance partner.

I disagree. I can believe that there are universal rights. I cannot be perfect. I can act in accordance with those rights. I cannot be perfect. I can say 'what you are doing is wrong' even if I am not perfect. The legitimacy of my action does not come from the fact I can force it on you, it comes from my justification of why a particular right is universal.

We can try and evaluate which are or are not true security threats. No one is infallible, true, but your alternative is paralysis. To be afraid of making the wrong decision should temper your actions, but not stymie them totally. For you the greater evil is to act and risk being a tyrant. For me the greater evil is to stand aside and allow tyranny or other actions counter to my principles stand.

And the fact that these actions are inevitable means that your threshold of ONE action is crossed by every country and every individual. Why does that matter? Because we know that we will be hypocrites. We know we will take actions that involve these dilemmas. By principle alone we are already hypocrites. Every society does this to some degree. You put someone in jail and say 'they are a threat.' Do we KNOW they will act again? No. But by your definition we are tyrants. I'm sorry but you nullify the distinguishing characteristics of the word when you adopt this interpretation, since we are all inevitably tyrants.

Also you should consider that it is possible, and argued by many, to merge our principles with our evaluation of security. For instance, a democratic Iraq is probably less likely to try and nuke us or the Saudi oil fields or Kuwait. Or at least those of you who argue how we should separate out the people from the regime would say this. Is it antithetical to remove a non-democratic regime? No. How could it be?

I, and 'others,' would disagree. The tenets of the revolution were that some rights were universal. To take action to insure those rights is in conflict with these principles only in a superficial analysis. Was it tyrannical to remove the government in Germany, that was oppressing not only its own population but those in places around it as well? Was it oppressive to stop Serbia from ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? I do not believe it is inconsistent with American ideals to do so. Is it oppressive to remove a repressive regime in Afghanistan, which prevented half its population from equal liberties? I do not think so.

Right, like when we tried to seize Quebec? Or when we expanded west (and the aforementioned genocide). We only need make sure we apply those principles to our decisions to avoid the pitfalls of the past.

Well, America started with an ideal, but to act as if it started in some nirvanic state without imposition is naive to the tenth power. We may be hypocritical only in that we are not without fault, and have mistakenly taken action contrary to some of those ideals. That does not invalidate action in support of the founding principles. Acting in self defense is not contrary to the founding principles. Acting to stop oppression or genocide is not contrary to the founding principles.

And we can look at those actions where it does not meet the criteria and condemn them. If hypocracy stopped action then there would be no action, as there are no perfect people who've never erred or contradicted their beliefs in some way. And the story of genocide is written as much in the history of those who committed the acts, as those who stood by and watched.

No, that's silly. That's like saying since we killed native americans we can never act in support of principles we believe are universal. The opposite is true, we would want to act all the more to preserve those principles. The principles are universal. What actions we may or may not have taken contrary to that changes the principles themselves not a whit. When we are able we should still act in accordance of ensuring everyone those universal rights. Refusing to ever act would be more antithetical to those universal principles than to act and err.

When we act against evil in support of the princples we believe are universal, we are justified. When we truly act out of self defense, we are justified and not in contradiction with those values (which include life) which we hold dear. When we do not act out of self defense or to ensure those principles for others, but merely use it as a pretense for some other agenda, it is not justified. Why is that hypocritical?

Who is the arbiter? I can only say we SHOULD do the best we can. To err is human. But to not act is to err as well.

Just not true. The institutions and leaders are still the same in Germany. Do you think Beyer or Hoechst or IG Farben are not still running Germany? Do you think all of the regional and local officials that were prefunctory Nazis never returned to power? You image of a purified Germany is interesting.

And It would seem to me that those leaders who committed the genocide against Native Americans are no longer part of the apparatus, no? Even those from Vietnam and Chile and Panama are gone. Is that relevant? Was our support of removing Pinochet and Noriega hypcritical? Of course, we put them there. Was our action to remove them consistent with our ideals? Absolutely. In fact, by the criteria you used for Germany, should the 'evils' committed when we had Allende assassinated be forgiven, the hypocracy forgotten, since we acted to restore the democratic process in Chile?

You seem to seek 'absolutes.' We must somehow be absolutely pure in our history and application or we must be absolutely still. I disagree. When we see a situation we apply our criteria. We evaluate it by our universal principles. If they are not consistent, then we act as best we can towards the advancements of those principles.

 

How funny that I was writing one of those posts as you wrote that ! I agree on the post count idea! Although my long posts must not be popular (despite the time the freakin things take) since I lost out (in that poster tournament) to the damn Hun, Det the Threat, and all he does is post smilies


(j/k Det)

 

1) Give me a 'universal right', and I'll give you 20 interpetations of it, and 20 perspectives on when it is and isn't applied. That's the danger of basing things on absolutes, everyone's got a different version, and enforcing yours on someone else comes back to might = right. We are all subject to cultural bias.

2) This (and later points of yours) is based on the assumption that we are dealing with alternatives; aggression or paralysis. I am of the opinion that there are a whole range of options between the two, and in fact, most countries on the planet, not having the option of simply enforcing their point of view, live in those options. Excusing worngfull action under the guise that error is human and therefore inevitable is once again operating under the assumption that we have the right to interfere with other nations in the first place, or else cease to be a nation. I disagree...how have the Australians 'erred' with us? Or the Canadians? Or the Swiss? ect. ect...And, were they to err in their interferance with us, would you be so blythe to agree that they must continue to interfere with us, only condemn the error itself? I make a distinction between what we are justified in doing in our own nation, and what we are justified in doing in others. To me, the fact that we have the might to make borders and sovereignty a moot point does not give us the right to do so.

****************************************************
I have asked this question many times,and I ask again that you please answer this:

Would you accord other nations the right to 'intervene' in the United States if they found our actions objectionable? Suppose the Swiss invent a Death Ray that gives them military superiority, would you agree that that also gives them the right to judge us according to their standards, and come in and replace our system with a version of theirs if they found us wanting, or considered us a threat? I don't mean pragmatically, I mean morally. Or, suppose that the Europen nations, such as Great Britain, who had done away with slavery , had looked at us back in the early 19th century, and rightfully seen us as violating "universal rights", do you accord them the same right you have given us? Should they have 'intervened', and replaced our system with a model of theirs? They could have easily argued that the world, and in particular the black man, would have been 'safer' for it...or did we have the right to figure it out for ourselves? Would the 'world' have been better if we had become a puppet of England again?

****************************************************

3) The German system which was responsible for those actions has indeed been destroyed and replaced...I think you are trying to argue semantics here, and I am not sure that someone who seems intelligent would seriously see a parallel between a completely overhauled German power structure, and the continual American political system...I said that the individuals were removed/tried, condemned, AND the system which fostered them. To point out that those responsible for Wounded Knee, for example, have since passed away from old age as a parallel seems ludicrous to me.

4) I think you both missed and proved my point about absolutes. I was not seeking them, I was responding to them, and the criticism levelled against me by some as a relativist. I was saying that:

A) Absolutists who condemn other nations as 'evil' based on their actions cannot fail to do the same to us for ours without using relativism, something which you quite openly did, throughout your last post.

B) If we are saying we have the right to overthrow others because they are 'evil', and are in fact 'evil' ourselves, we are hypocracy in action.


I will say that we, you and I, do have one thing in common. It has also been noted of me that my posts tend to be, shall we say, a tad verbose...