That ignores injustice. If we agree that Socrates' death was unjustified, yet you feel he was correct in dying at the whim of the athenian elite, than you are advocating support of one's government regardless of ethical/moral issues or injustice within legislation. That's a rather frightening viewpoint. Socrates' death was a statement to avoid such thinking.
He's was entitled to his opinion, but its nothing more than that. With such sweeping generalizations I find little value in it. I'm not sure why the intervention in Korea or Somalia or Bosnia was a 'racket.' His view is at best a myopic view of foreign policy.
No, remember that he had a trial. It wasn't just a couple of Athenians making the decision. Although he felt he shouldn't have been convicted (although he pretty much gave the finger to the whole procession), in the end he felt the just decision was to abide by the outcome. Not sure I follow you here, if his death was a statement to disregard the outcomes you don't like then he would have just gone into exile. And there is nothing to be frightened about - I've already said I struggle with reconciling the two sides of the argument.
I don't think being an isolationist is being far sighted (hence myopic). So I'm not sure why you'd put me in the same boat. And? Do you think it is reasonable to declare that ALL of those in the military never have a thought of their own? There are also military men with equal or greater records that would disagree (although I'll point out that there is a reason the military doesn't run the country). It's still just his opinion and frankly I don't think isolationism if fairly supportable.
I note the lack of "fair" before trial. I guess you are right that Socrates was being principled in abiding by the jury's decision. In hindsight, I just take the lesson a differant way. It was a statement in that it revealed (one of) the problems within the democracy he supported. Well here's an obvious reply: I think the neoconservative stance is definitely myopic. Nevermind that I really don't think isolationism (sp?) was being directly advocated. No. But they are assuredly trained to "act" not "question". And that's a fine standpoint to take. I don't think neoconservative aggressiveness is fairly supportable either. Certainly it lends itelf to the same issues with regard to rackateering.
There are values in opinions. Many great American soldiers have died for personal opinions. Major General Butler's opinions were made in another time. But their are applications to be understood. We should study our history diligently and accurately. I have several books I could recommend concerning root cause analysis for war in Korea, Somalia and Bosnia. I can't think of a war that wasn't connected to bankers, Wall Street and profits. And I have read my eyes sore on the subject. War is complicated business. To simplify it in terms of patriotism is best left to soldiers guarding Iraqi streets, I don't think a G8 summit, global financier or global politician would frame a war in terms of patriotism. Racket is just a word, like conspiracy, treason and patriotism. I think dying for one's flag is honorable. I would never tell a patriot who died for our flag that he fought for a rich man's profit even if it were true. Let patriots have their opinions like the rest of us. They deserve it. I believe in the America the Founder's framed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am a patriotic American. I would die for that Constitution today at my old age. But I hate deception and lies. I don't watch TV news and I read alot. I am always searching for truth, because I love truth. I know opinions in themselves are not necessarily true. But I never throw them out because anyone who loves truth will search for it like gold, sifting the smallest grains. Debating the justness of war is the most difficult subject I know of. So I posted an opinion, you are right about that.
I'm not sure that it wasn't fair. His 'apology' was hardly that, right? It revealed one of the problems I guess, but you're not addressing the core of our debate which is the impact of the choice to disregard any decision you don't like in a democracy. Is the thief ok stealing and the murderer killing?
This is ridiculous. Either he was unjustly sentenced or not. First you say he was unjustly tried, now you imply it was fair. Be consistent. Don't be silly - the issue is ethics, not the absence thereof.
Even if true one that doesn't make isolationism far sighted. Of course, I don't agree that it IS myopic. We don't have military action except to defend our homes or the bill or rights - that's pretty much at the core of isolationist sentiment. The ability to improvise goes hand in hand with accomplishing objectives so the military are not robots. But then again the same thing you say can be said of most employees of most companies. More to the point the statement goes to his credibility - its pretty self serving to claim all who don't think like himself don't think. Sure, but there is a difference between saying there is war profit for some corporations and saying all intervention is for corporate profit (ironic that mearsheimer and walt's thesis provides a bulwark to this belief .
I don't agree with some of this - but very nice post. First you said he wasn't isolationist. Be consistent.
Ah-ah-ah Hayes, don't be hasty. I said I agreed with the definition, as written above. Not that he was advocating such a policy. I, myself, do advocate that policy. Hayes, I believe you have been Hayes'd.
Then you should start a thread declaring your support for isolationism. If you concur with the definition, and I took it word for word from his advocacy - how do you dispute he was advocating isolationism? Right back at ya: No, actually I said 'I am not saying his death was just.' I don't think he should have died for what he did. However, I do not know that his trial was not 'fair' because his apology is not a defense in the normal sense - its a big **** you to his peers. Er, I'm not sure what this means. If it is ok to disregard what you find unjust then where does the brightline exist? And I thought we were taking a more civil tone - if you're getting frustrated we can continue at another time.
We may still have time We might still get by Every time I think about it I want to cry With the bombs and the devils And the kids keep coming Nowhere to breathe easy...no time to be young But I tell myself that I’m doing alright There’s nothing left to do tonight but go Hayesy on you Wild man’s world is crying in pain What you gonna do when everyone is insane So afraid of wanting, so afraid of you What you gonna do....ahhhhhhhhhh Hayesy on you, Hayesy on you, let me go Hayesy Hayesy on you
Here's a sad story about why Hayes' claimed nobility of being among the dwindling ranks of the hard core Iraq supporters while not volunteering to demonstrate his support is hurting the war he claims is so necessary. Rcruiters signing up disabled autisitic people, Recruiting Abuses Mount as Army Struggles to Meet Goals BY MICHELLE ROBERTS c.2006 Newhouse News Service \ PORTLAND, Ore. -- Jared Guinther is 18. Tall and lanky, he will graduate from high school in June. Girls think he's cute, until they try to talk to him and he stammers or just stands there -- silent. Diagnosed with autism at age 3, Jared is polite but won't talk to people unless they address him first. It's hard for him to make friends. He lives in his own private world. Jared didn't know there was a war raging in Iraq until his parents told him last fall -- shortly after a military recruiter stopped him outside a Portland strip mall and complimented his black Converse All-Stars. "When Jared first started talking about joining the Army, I thought, `Well, that isn't going to happen,"' said Paul Guinther, Jared's father. "I told my wife not to worry about it. They're not going to take anybody in the service who's autistic." But they did. Last month, Jared came home with papers showing that he had not only enlisted, but signed up for the Army's most dangerous job: cavalry scout. He is scheduled to leave for basic training Aug. 16. Officials are now investigating whether recruiters at the U.S. Army Recruiting Station in southeast Portland improperly concealed Jared's disability, which should have made him ineligible for service. What happened to Jared is a growing national problem as the military faces increasing pressure to hit recruiting targets during an unpopular war. Tracking by the Pentagon shows that complaints about recruiting improprieties are on pace to again reach record highs set in 2003 and 2004. Both the active Army and Reserve missed recruiting targets last year, and reports of recruiting abuses continue from across the country. A family in Ohio reported that its mentally ill son was signed up, despite rules banning such enlistments and the fact that records about his illness were readily available. In Houston, a recruiter warned a potential enlistee that if he backed out of a meeting he'd be arrested. And in Colorado, a high school student working undercover told recruiters he'd dropped out and had a drug problem. The recruiter told the boy to fake a diploma and buy a product to help him beat a drug test. Violations such as these forced the Army to halt recruiting for a day last May so recruiters could be retrained and reminded of the job's ethical requirements. ... Doctors diagnosed him with moderate to severe autism, a developmental disorder that strikes when children are toddlers. It causes problems with social interaction, language and intelligence. No one knows its cause or cure. School and medical records show that Jared, whose recent verbal IQ tested very low, spent years in special education classes. ... Last fall, Jared began talking about joining the military after a recruiter stopped him on his way home from school and offered a $4,000 signing bonus, $67,000 for college and more buddies than he could count. Matthew told his mother that military recruiting at the school and surrounding neighborhoods was so intense that one recruiter had pulled him out of football practice. ... The Guinthers are not political activists. They supported the Iraq war in the beginning but have started to question it as fighting drags on. Brenda Guinther said that if her son Matthew had enlisted, she "wouldn't like it, but I would learn to live with it because I know he would understand the consequences." But Jared doesn't understand the dangers or the details of what he's done, the Guinthers said. When they asked Jared how long he would be in the Army, he said he didn't know. His enlistment papers show it's just over four years. Jared also was disappointed to learn that he wouldn't be paid the $4,000 signing bonus until after basic training. During a recent family gathering, a relative asked Jared what he would do if an enemy was shooting at him. Jared ran to his video game console, killed a digital Xbox soldier and announced, "See! I can do it!" "My concern is that if he got into a combat situation he really couldn't take someone's back," said Mary Lou Perry, 51, longtime friend of the Guinthers. "He wouldn't really know a dangerous thing. This job they have him doing, it's like send him in and if he doesn't get blown up, it's safe for the rest of us." Steinagel, the processing station commander, told The Oregonian that Jared showed up after passing his written exam. None of his paperwork indicated that he was autistic, but if it had, Jared almost certainly would have been disqualified, he said. On Tuesday, a reporter visited the U.S. Army Recruiting Station at the Eastport Plaza Shopping Center, where Velasco said he had not been told about Jared's autism. "Cpl. Ansley is Guinther's recruiter," he said. "I was unaware of any type of autism or anything like that." . The Guinthers are eager to hear whether the Army will release Jared from his enlistment. Jared is disappointed he might not go because he thought the recruiters were his friends, they said. But they're willing to accept that. "If he went to Iraq and got hurt or killed," Paul Guinther said, "I couldn't live with myself knowing I didn't try to stop it." May 7, 2006 http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/roberts050806.html
I don't think "defense of homes and the bill of rights" necessarily precludes combat elsewhere. For example, I think the US was just in declaring war on Germany in WWII, even though they were not directly threatening the US. Right, he made a statement. It was indicative of his feelings that the outcome was already decided. He certainly was more principled than those who convicted him, but that doesn't make the outcome any more acceptable. He was convited because he made them look like fools - that's hardly a rational or fair trial. Say I was on trial for murder - if I convinced the jury that I did not perform said murder, yet I called them all idiots, does that mean I should be convicted anyway? That's a silly assertion. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's a pretty good starting point for what one man should not impede another man from obtaining. I think forcing him/her to go to war unjustly would qualify. As for frustration, I believe you mentioned previously that glynch got you "pissed". My apologies if using the word "silly" irritated you - but perhaps it is you who are frustrated?
Just an opinion... I think isolationism is being bantered about a little unfairly. If I decide never to send troops overseas I can be called an isolationist. But if I decide to know for certain there is a just threat to our national borders and a legitimate national security crisis prior to deploying military actions abroad and there is no other course of action but self defense- before intervention- then I am still an isolationist? If I must know the motives and reasons are true and compliant to the Constitution prior to intervention I am an isolationist? If intervention and pre-emptive actions truly secure the liberty of the American citizen and it is self defensive then it certainly is necessary and Constitutional. But IMHO only someone who has not studied well would try to reason the root cause of wars is so honorable and true to justice and integrity. Wars are too complicated for me. I'm shocked and awed by what I have read and researched. It's over my head.
Er, Germany declared war on us. One might consider that directly threatening us. Not at all. The AQ dude, Massoudi or whatever - he did not try to sway the jury and he got his just dessert. That does not mean the trail was unfair. Yes, and a thief would think not allowing him to steal would qualify. You don't provide a brightline - a criteria to determine what laws are immutable and which are ok to ignore. A thief could easily argue stealing fits under that. I could, after all, only steal from the rich and they would still have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A murderer could certainly argue that putting him in jail is a violation of his right to liberty, no? 'Silly' and 'ridiculous' actually. But you only started with those in the last couple of posts. That's why I suggested if you were getting frustrated that we could break for awhile.
Meh. A point for Hayes. I don't think that really changes my opinion per say, but my example obviously sucked. Completely different. Moussoui was guilty. The trial cannot be unfair if he was guilty and was justly sentenced. I mean, that's the point. Being an ******* shouldn't change the outcome of "innocent" or "guilty". Thus, Socrates was unfairly tried. Nevermind that in the Apology, Socrates insists he was falsely charged, whereas the aforementioned terrorist moron plead guilty. You know, it's really not difficult. Either you believe he was innocent, and therefore unjustly sentenced to death, or the opposite. His actions during the trial, including his obvious disdain of the jurors in question, are completely irrelevant. If you disagree with that, I don't think you and I have the same definition of "fair trial" and "justice" and we're just wasting time and bandwidth. You are going to great lengths (comparing Socrates and Moussoui, for example) to try and proclaim the nobility of Socrates' adherance to principle, yet in doing so you contradict the assertion that the same nobility was being applied by the jurors in question. I am rather confused as to what stance you are even taking anymore, since you appear to support both Socrates and his unjust sentence. Oh, I'd love to debate this more with you, but work is calling me away right now. I will say this really quick: I think you are using a standard Hayesian technique - comparison with bizarre absolutes. Perhaps this might be a marvelous discussion for a seperate thread - that way we both know the "bounds" for the issue. nah - no frustration - I use those to keep myself from saying something truly offensive, like "idiotic" or "assinine". Regardless, my apologies.
