Trooth

Praxus, I see little difference in what you are proposing to what the other extremists (in their case Islam) are proposing.

Killing tens of thousands of people to impose your will on someone can't be morally justified.

Even if you believe it is better for them, they have to understand that it is. If Iraq has shown anything, it is that people don't like being invaded, occupied and having others impose governments on them. Even if they are misguided, it is extremely easy to misguide them with actions like you are proposing.

Or are you just trolling?

Officer of Engineers

Several contradictions in term.

An American Constitution will not ban Islam from government. Freedom of Religion.

And the US Constitution does rule out certain weapons/tactics/strategy and exactly for moral reasons. I point to you the Oath of Allegiance and the Oaths of Office and Enlistment.

The Japan example should be it but unfortunately, there is no God (the Emperor of Japan) for us to dethrone and no one currently alive hold as much mystic as Khomeni did. And WE no longer tolerate Douglas MacArthurs.

For the Honour, Prestige, and the Values of our countries from which we have swore our Oaths, it is precisely why we sacrafice ourselves and continue to sacrafice ourselves. We may not able to save the innocents but I'll be damned if I allow a mission to purposely hurt innocents.

As for the rest, I found Eric Margolis (one of the few times I found him to make sense) to be accurate

__________________
Chimo

Praxus

If you hold your values higher then your life, then dieing for your values is not sacrifice.

A sacrifice by it's definition is when you trade a greater value for less value/no value. So in the end you are at a net loss.

No one is suggesting we purposely kill civilians, but we should not sacrifice American/Coalition lives to protect them.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"

Then by your logic no war's should be waged in self-defense because after all who are we to judge right from wrong. We should accept these attacks because for all we know they are right and we are wrong.

We are not building an empire we are not to add land to our empire. We are out to destroy threats to us and are means of life.

I'm saying we shouldn't rule out certain weapons/tactics/strategys to win the war for moral reasons. I never said anything about the Constitution in this respect.

But that being said, where does it say it in the Oath of Enlistmen or Oath of Office that rules out weapons/tactics/strategys?

I can't find anything.

Let's carry out this to it's logical extreme, this is how you find out if the premise goes with the rest of your beliefs...

World War Two was an unjustified war because it imposed our ideas on the people of the Japanese, Germans, and Italians.

Officer of Engineers

The Oaths are to defend the Consitution of the United States to which the US Senate has already decreed that the Geneva Conventions is the Law of the Land. Protecting those civilians is the military's obligation under the GC.

In the same paragraph is the loophole: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

We've got an Empire in Afghanistan and Iraq in every meaning of the word. How long we keep this empire is another question.

But isn't that what you advocating in your "just war?"

Praxus

So your saying everything that congress passes is constitutional law?

I have never heard of that.

I was carrying his statement to it's logical extreme.

A just war is a war fought in self-defense (against the initiator of force) and the war has to be in our self-interest to fight (all wars of self-defense are). How you win the war is up to the generals, but no weapons should be ruled out for moral reasons.

I was also saying that to solve problems in the long run they need a system based on the US Constitution. We should not accept any system that destroys rights just to gain a temporary peace.

How so, I don't get what your saying?

Yes I concede this point, however my point was that the war was fought in self-defense not for territorial expansion.

Officer of Engineers

I'm saying the Geneva Conventions is the Law of the Land in the US. A US soldier by his Oath (as am I) is obligated to observe the GC.

For moral reasons, we have not use nukes ever in any conflict though the feeling was there in Mogadishu, Khe Sanh, and now in Fallujah.

But you're doing exactly that. To impose a system based upon the US Constitution would require the destruction of their beliefs on a system based upon the Koran.

How do you prevent the majority of the Iraqi (never mind Iranian - after all, they fought a revolution for it) population from demanding Shiva Law based upon the Koran?

Praxus

They could demand it, but if it were a good just Government it would refuse to give into their demands.

This may be true but it not Constitutional Law which you claimed it was, the oath they make to defend the Constitution does not include Geneva Convention simply because Congress ratified it.

World War 2, I suppose it was immoral to nuke Japan?

If you believe that nuking is immoral all the time, then you must think it is wrong when we did it in Japan?

Don't get me wrong, nuking Fallujah would be pointless.

You are saying they have a right to institute a Theocracy and that any percieved rights they have under the Koran should be allowed simply because they think it is their right?

By rights I mean Individual Rights. The right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of ones own happiness.

Officer of Engineers

They do have the right to amend the Constitutions and through it, the bastardization into something you wouldn't even recognize.

Ok, way above my pay grade. However, the point remains that by law by which through our oaths, certain tactics/strategies/weapons are not authorized.

There are moral restrictions that we as soldiers have through our oaths and our values will never even consider. Nukes is one of them. I also believe that it is also not within our nature to kill a bus full of school girls just to get one terrorist. It is not, however, beyond the Russians and the Chinese ... And not the Israelis though I would like to believe that they would do some hard soul searching before giving the order.

What about their rights under God? Whatever they may believe that is. They think it is their right to follow the Word and the Law of God. Doesn't matter to them that the Word and Law of God is written by a man. They believe it's from God. You're pitting Man's Law (US Consititution) against God's Law (Koran). I think you know which side they would choose.

You've changed your statements while I was replying. Therefore, I didn't see this. It was immoral to nuke Japan. Burning women and children makes me sick to my stomache but at the same time, you're talking to a man who was prepared to allow just that to happen. More than that, I was prepared to allow my family to be burned. Hypocrit? Most certainly but the very nature of war, in WWII and during the Cold War, was complete victory or complete defeat. There was no middle ground.

I don't take nukes lightly. I hate the things with a passion. And it is precisely what allows me to prepare to allow them to be used.

Ray

Praxus,

Mutatis Mutandis in your mindset and a wee bit of sanity and knowledge of international relationship dawning, inter alia your going to Iraq to fight for the US and not being a keyboard warrior, will reality strike you. Sitting in your air conditioned home and fantasising while brave American fight to keep your home and hearth warm in spite of your brave words is not the answer. Go, you brave American, into the killing fields of Fellujah instead of having a sore wrist at the keyboard as your greatest contribution to the war effort.

The US Constitution de jure cannot be imposed on the World. What is one man's food maybe another man's poison! Pray do tell us what right have you got to impose your ideas of life on others who are not willing? Are you suggesting that imposing your will on others like the Communists do, is Freedom and Democracy? If so, it is not in consonance with that as visualised by the Greeks. You suggestion is more akin to the 'great thoughts' of a great 'democrat' Stalin, who gave 'power to the people'. Oddly the word 'people' and 'Stalin' does not appear synonymous! Neither does yours! I feel you should change your handle as 'Stalin'.

Can you take on the world? Had you an iota of the US capabilities (not the nuclear option) you would realise that the US is overstretched. And you suggest that Iran should also be taken on. Hold your horses. First thing first is the key. One at a time. You are not a soldier of the US Army and I daresay you will have the gumption to be one because silent waters run deep and shallow waters rumble, gurgle and go in spate as you are displaying. Imagine the condition of the US soldier in Iraq. Their tenures keep increasing. If the tenures increase, there will be a lot of hassles. If the draft is imposed, there will be too many draft dodgers. Remember Vietnam? Your ranting reminds me of the statement: 'The heart is willing, but the flesh is weak'.

If the US takes on the whole world, then the whole world will take you on. The US maybe the greatest power in the world, but she cannot take on the world at the same time. Learn from the British. They built an Empire where the sun never set by the policy of 'divide and rule'. You didn't rule any Empire and you cannot if Iraq is an example. Go ahead and take on the world at the same time and I sure would like to see what happens. If indeed the US could take on the world, then there wouldn't be the massive **** up that is on in both Afghanistan and Iraq and the whimpering to call in the UN to set up the govt in Iraq! I have seen enough of posts here to suggest that most feel that the UN is redundant. Go ahead and sort your mess out yourself. Why ask the silly old UN and what was it said here? Goofy Anan!

The coalition of the Willing is the Coalition of Lotus Eaters. They came to win brownie points with the US and dollars in return. That is why at the sound of the first Iraqi bullet, they scamper out!

Indeed, if the ham handed approach of the US was correct, they would not be alone dying. The British and others would also be on the line. The British are a wise race. Note that they are no less keen on the war, but they are humane and not haughty - the last rait that you display in abundance! The Bible says The Meek shall Conquer the earth. Sceptre and Crown shall tumble down say a poem (Palgrave).

Odd that you feel the WW II was unjustified and yet screwing Saddam who was screwing the Islamist fundamentalist justified. He was doing just what the US wanted. He contained the Islamic fundamentalist - even if in rather immoral ways. Do I see a racist WASP tone in your statement about WWII and Saddam?

Just war is fought in self defence you state. True. Did Saddam attack the WTC? Bin Laden did. He is laughing all the way at the idiotic wild goose chases you are leading. Imagine a frail and sick old fogey making an ass out of the powerful US. It may not bother you. It bothers me. It is only adding bravado to the Islamic vermins fervour to take on the US and making a fool of the US. Musharraf is now giving free access to the wild ones to go out of Pakistan. The poor man Musharraf, is up shitcreek. He is trying to do good for Pakistan and you have him backing up to the ropes!

My advice to you let your mind rule supreme and not your heart. Then and then alone will the debate be on an even keel.

I am equally concerned about Islamic fundamentalists, but I believe that all Moslems are not bums. Some maybe. Give the sane Moslem chaps a chance to surface. It may also interest you that Islam cannot be interpreted anything beyond the scriptures, while Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism can and its scriptures debated. Not so for Islam. The sane Muslims are in a bind. They require help more than anything else. Help them.

Let me assure that I know many Americans who are educated and sane and it has always been a great pleasure to interact with them and learn from them.

Don't go after the Islamist balls, even if they are bigger than yours and ideal for a quick squeeze!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

Praxus,

Ad populum you said? Acutally it is argumentum ad populum. You must realise that I am not a high school drop out like some By the way I speak 7 languages Everyone in India has to know a minimum of 3 languages.


Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)

Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

Examples:


If you were beautiful, you could live like this, so buy Buty-EZ and become beautiful. (Here, the appeal is to
the "beautiful people".)

Polls suggest that the Liberals will form a majority government, so you may as well vote for them.

Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?

So Praxus, my boy, who are you kidding? Trying to be clever by half? Rabid racism and neo Fascism is not the answer for winning an argument or a war.

You don't sway anyone excepting the racists, harbouring imperialism and fascism in their heart.

Go back to the Bible my child and let it clease you from your hateful ideas. Others who are nuts like the Islamist fundamentalists can rot in hell, but you need not stoop as low as them. If you do, then how are you any different?

I still harbour hopes in you my child!

Praxus

Ad Populum...
You are appealing to popularity, you are saying because others think it would be a bad idea that therefor my premise is wrong.

Let my just clearify my beliefs, perhaps I jumbled it up in all these posts.

1.) A just war is a war waged in self-defense, against the initiator of force.

2.) I believe that no weapons should be ruled out for moral reasons (for practicle reasons nuclear weapons and other WMD will be ruled out almost always). The weapons used should be determined by the Generals and respective military commanders.

3.) All deaths in a war are the moral responsibility of the initiator of force.

Therefor civilian casulties should be avoided but not at the cost of American Soldiers lives. No civilized nation goes out of it's way to kill civilians for the heck of it.

For example if there are a few civilians hovering around tanks in a major city and you bomb thoose tanks and the civilians die. The death is the result of the Initiator of Force which started the conflict which allowed these men to die.

4.) We have a right to force our form of Government because it is the most moral system of Government (hardly perfect, I know, but never the less the best yet) Ours was the only one in the history to treat the individual as a souverign entity worthy of individual rights.

5.) If we do not force our form of Government on them we should pull out of the Country (after we have completed our OPOBJ) under the pretext that if they initiate the use of force against us again we will come back and destroy them again.

Trooth

The US system of government is a brilliant system of government for the United States of America. Its debatable if it is a brilliant system of government for other parts of the world, but it is the citizens of those parts of the world that should have that debate, not the US. If they want to recreate the swampland on the shores of the Potomac, they can. If they do not, they needn't.

My view is that they won't understand or take to a US system of government because they would like laws to come pretty directly from the Koran. Therefore you will end up with Iran - Iraq II. Interestingly, when the invasion of Afghanistan was first mooted, Pat Buchanen said exactly the same thing "What do you want to do, re-create Denver in the Hindu Kush?" The only time the man has ever made sense to me.

We haven't even figured out why Iraq was invaded. But we do know that we have arsed that up quite spectacularly. Without knowing why we are at war, we don't know what our objectives are.

Praxus

My point is, that this sick ideology of militant islam is comming from the very thing you think it is alright for them to create, a Theocracy. Islam having Governmental power is the problem.

There is no such thing as different systems being better for different people. The best system for mankind and has been shown all through out history is a system that allows man to pursue his own happiness through reason. In other words a system that protects individual rights. Just look at Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc. Just because you are not from the west does not mean this system isn't the best system. Hong Kong is a perfect example of this.

It doesn't have to be identicle to our political system but they need something pretty close.

I have no idea the real reason Bush choose to invade Iraq, and I do not believe this has anything to do with wether it was a just war or not.

The fact is Iraq did pose a threat through supporting terrorism and he did have the capacity to build WMD even if he did not have them.

This being said Iran would have been a much better target, we are going to eventually have to knock them out (or there will have to be a popular revolution) if we intend to win the "war on terror" which is in fact the war on Militant Islam.


Burning women and children makes everyone sick to their stomach, in fact I would be very suspicious about anyone who it doesn't.

My point is that the Japanese Government bears ALL responsibility for the deaths caused by that war.

Trooth

It is for them to decide their own government.

Can you pass on your information to the Whitehouse, David Kaye etc where unable to come to the conclusions you have made. In fact they are now retracting to Colin Powell's position of 2001, that Iraq was contained and his WMD programmes smashed.

The words are changing. It is interesting to watch how the words change in this war on terror (sorry War on Militant Islam). WMD, becomes programmes, programmes becomes violations which become non-registrations, Terrorists become insurgents, become "the enemy".

From your words, Praxus, i think Bush should have stayed with "operation Crusade for Freedom".

Its a tenuous use of language, though isn't it? Its intended to imply anything goes, but we in the west don't engage in lethal force on such basis.

Praxus

It was "Operation Infinite Justice", then they changed it because Muslims claim that only God can deliver "infinite justice".

They do not have a right to create a Government that is hostile to the west, because what would be the point of fighting the war. So you lose hundereds or thousands of lives (not to mention billions of dollars) only to have a dictator replaced by a new dictatorship or theocracy.

They had the capacity to create WMD, and they did support terrorism. These are undisputable facts.

Even if they did not have the technology presently available to them, they had the know how to create them.

If you want legal justification, they broke the terms of surrendur, therefor nullifying any peace and restoring us to a state of war.

Civilized nations don't firebomb cities for no reason, however any civilian deaths that are incurred are the direct result of initiator of force (as I have said many times).