Wait - so are you now arguing that the standard of Illegal and/or Immoral is not the standard for justification of means? But rather than illegal or immoral means may or may not be justified by ends?
Alright, I'll add an option.
Boo, you stated that Illegal and Immoral Means were Never Justified by the Ends. Later you waffled on the "illegal" standard.
Did you mean:
A. Either Illegality or Immorality of the means is enough to disqualify a means from being justified, regardless of the ends
B. Immorality alone disqualifies a means from being justified, regardless of the ends
C. Only if a Means is both Immoral and Illegal is it disqualified from being justified, regardless of the ends
or
D. You mis-spoke, and would in reality only argue that certain ends do not justify certain means, such as (you offer) torture for potentially life-saving intelligence.
Well, for example, where I was in Fallujah, AQI and associates were pretty much driven out, attacks dropped from about 200 a month to 1 every two months (and were poorly conducted and ineffective at that), the local populace completely lost their fear of the M&I campaign and began to stand up for themselves (I remember knowing that we had won when I read a report about local shop owners beating an AQI operative with broomsticks for trying to dig a hole for IED's near their shops), local government became responsive to the needs of the populace and began to effectively coordinate public resources towards those ends, and the infrastructure of modern life (schools, trash disposal, power) were back up and running. Parents could send their kids to school without fear of violence on the streets.
I remember being out at night and we ran across a group of people out on the street outside a shop playing some game or another, talking, laughing. It was odd because there was still technically a curfew, but nobody enforced it because it wasn't needed anymore, but also because people used to be terrified to be out at night. The interpreter was going back and forth with a couple of the leading men of the group and turned back to us with an odd look and told us that it was all very odd - he hadn't seen it before: the people were hippy. "They're hippies, Mike?" (to help protect identities, interpreters were given American nicknames). "No, no no, they are hippy. You know (he cavorts around for a second, grinning). Hippy." "Happy, Mike?" "Yes, yes, Happy, happy happy, people are finally happy."
I had a friend roll through Fallujah a year and a half or so after that - he said there was a Kentucky Fried Chicken right on top of an old Tier One IED Site where we used to get blown up all the time. (shakes head) Never woulda thunk it when we first got there.
it's changed.I think success was defined by the Bush administration as oil prices going up and Haliburtan's stock soaring. Obama's idea of it is out of sight out of mind.
My idea of success would have been an independent country that governs itself without civil war.
U.S. sends Hellfire missiles to IraqThe United States is committed to supporting Iraq in its fight against terrorism through the Strategic Framework Agreement," she said, referring to a 2008 pact between the two nations.
"The recent delivery of Hellfire missiles and an upcoming delivery of ScanEagles are standard foreign military sales cases that we have with Iraq to strengthen their capabilities to combat this threat
The Strategic Framework Agreement and the Future of Iraq | EPICWhen President Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki meet on November 1, one of the main topics of conversation will be the Strategic Framework Agreement. This agreement, which was signed in 2008, outlines the terms for political, economic, cultural, and security cooperation between the United States and Iraq.
This document was meant to serve as the basis for a lasting relationship between Iraq and the United States in which the U.S. would work to promote peace, stability, and democracy in Iraq.
While some progress has been made over the past couple of years, much of the self-reported US activity in Iraq has been vague and uneven and the United States has failed to tackle the main obstacles which Iraq is facing today.
Fair enough. Just hate people that reiterate that which they hear on Fox (or whatever)..... I have heard this allegation as I have heard many allegations that it is taken out of context. I do know how often the Bible is taken out of context, so my default opinion is that the notion that Muslins want all non-Muslims converted or killed, I believe is misunderstood. I confess, however, that I do not know, as I have not read the Quran myself (though I have read parts).
Your retort, however, is you have an extensive library. You did not say you actually read the Quran. I also have the Quran (translated) in my library, as I do the Book of Mormon, the Torah, the Wisdom of Laotse, a two shelves of nothing by philosophy books and a multitude of Bibles of various translations. Just because I have all of those books in my library, I can't say I could speak authoritatively or even knowledgeably about any except maybe the Bible and the Torah (which, of course is a subset of the Bible).
No, this is simple:
You can't say that something like torture, illegal and immoral, is justified based on the ends. You can't. MLK made a stand, morally correct, breaking a law, and not saying don't prosecute. They are not the same thing. Stop trying to make them comparable.
I think success was defined by the Bush administration as oil prices going up and Haliburtan's stock soaring.
My idea of success would have been an independent country that governs itself without civil war.
Don't be so sure. I actually think I am right...remember, I'm not as invested as you.Then you are attempting to be cute, but stupid. The Bush Administration never defined success in Iraq by either of those standards.
We had that when they greeted us as liberators in 2003. But, Bush and company screwed that up...perhaps not on accident.Mine to, would include that. And we were headed there, before we got yanked down and out. We will see the same thing happen in Afghanistan if the President does indeed decide (as he has promised to do) to withdraw according to a political schedule that is beneficial in Washington, rather than an on-the-ground standard, that is beneficial in Afghanistan.
I'm not trying to compare right now - we will get to a discussion of the particulars as soon as you are capable of making a decision. I am asking you to explain YOUR claim that illegal or immoral means are never justified by the ends.
Did you mean:
A. Either Illegality or Immorality of the means is enough to disqualify a means from being justified, regardless of the ends
B. Immorality alone disqualifies a means from being justified, regardless of the ends
C. Only if a Means is both Immoral and Illegal is it disqualified from being justified, regardless of the ends
or
D. You mis-spoke, and would in reality only argue that certain ends do not justify certain means.
It seems like you are choosing D with your differentiation between torture and civil disobedience - is that your answer?
Don't be so sure. I actually think I am right...remember, I'm not as invested as you.
We had that when they greeted us as liberators in 2003. But, Bush and company screwed that up...perhaps not on accident.
I do wish you would debate honestly.
Immorally alone disqualifies it. Illegal is a secondary component, but important. I've explained clearly the category both I and the phrase speak to. You're smart enough to follow so don't play otherwise.
I wish you would debate at all rather than try to obfuscate, spin, and weasel your way out of the meaning of your words. Trying to get you to say or defend anything is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Okay. So all you had to say was that. Why couldn't you have done that pages ago, when I first asked?
So how do you deal with the fact that whether or not a means is immoral is often determined by the end under pursuit?
The claim of immorality always reminds me of 'An American Dream'.
I was referring to your service. It's hard for you to face that your friends died to stuff the pockets of George's friends and political benefactors.:shrug: I'm not particularly invested in the Bush administration - my critiques of Rumsfeld thus far on this thread have been better informed than your own, if anything. And you are actually incorrect - the Bush Administration never measured success in Iraq by an increase in oil prices or an increase in stock prices.
That protracted occupation was very profitable. So, in many ways, a quick war would not have been considered a success. It is what it is. Follow the money.Sure. :roll: Because if there is one thing every President wants as part of his legacy, it's a massive loss of political support due to ineffectively waging what becomes a deeply unpopular war effectively ruining his second administration and losing his party both houses of congress.
Hey, you know what else? Obama wants unemployment to stay high because it keeps people dependent, and Clinton let Osama go back in the 90s because he knew that the 9/11 attack would occur on the next administrations' watch, and was betting it would be a Republican one.
I mean, as long as we are spitballing idiotic conspiracy theories with no basis in reality.... but there is a forum for that.
Well in this context it usually reminds me of Theodore Roosevelt.
I was referring to your service. It's hard for you to face that your friends died to stuff the pockets of George's friends and political benefactors.
That protracted occupation was very profitable
The moralist?
Like I said, I really don't give a crap since I have no dog in that fight. It's just my opinion that our soldiers died to get a lot of rich people richer...and, a quick in and out in Iraq would not have achieved that.They didn't. Though it is typical of someone who has no personal experience with the service that they might think so.
However, if you can demonstrate any Administration use of the metric of per barrel or per stock pricing as an indicator of the success of the effort in Iraq, I would urge you not just to share it here, but to get it as quickly as possible to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and every other major media source you can. Apparently you have figured out a new angle that no one has clued into before.
That. Or you are making it up and have no sourcing whatsoever to support your ridiculous claim.
Not for the Bush Administration it wasn't. Not only was it disastrous, they very clearly did not expect it and did not plan very well for it at all.
Like I said, I really don't give a crap since I have no dog in that fight. It's just my opinion that our soldiers died to get a lot of rich people richer...and, a quick in and out in Iraq would not have achieved that.
Ah. Well it is my opinion that your claim that the Bush Administration (which had many deep flaws in its Iraq policy) scored victory by a metric of oil prices or stock prices is unverifiable petulance posing as cynicism. Which is why no credible decision-making study of the Bush Administration has come up with it.
I wish you would debate at all rather than try to obfuscate, spin, and weasel your way out of the meaning of your words. Trying to get you to say or defend anything is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Okay. So all you had to say was that. Why couldn't you have done that pages ago, when I first asked?
So how do you deal with the fact that whether or not a means is immoral is often determined by the end under pursuit?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?