GOP Presidential Debate on May 15, 2007

[JINXR]

Originally Posted by JINXR

I think mikem317 needs to get a first hand look at what war actually does, because right now his head is stuck so far up his own ass that I don't think anything but seeing bloodshed first hand will open his eyes so that he can see how disgusting his views really are.

This goes for SollyLama too.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--none of them so viable, readily available or in the near future. We can work towards that future, but it is still distant. Until then, petroleum is the only answer we have to keep up with the demand, which is only increasing.

I bet you and I agree that we are often our own worst enemy here. We'd have a largely nuclear power grid today if it weren't for the anti-nuke herd here. It's not just the Middle East- we have enough resistence here to any alternative.

It has been shown consistently that when a solution is really needed, people manage to get one invented pretty damn quickly. I would argue that part of the reason that we do not have economically viable alternatives to oil is exactly that oil has been kept artificially cheap by subsidies and military action and global bullying. If it was allowed to seek and find its open market price, then any alternatives could then be realistically assessed and developed when needed and when they make sense.

I agree that many of our polices are self-sabotaging, and that the whole anti-nuclear movement was misguided. Even now, it is stupid to be wasting the 90% of the fuel that remains in "spent" rods. Every 10 spent rods can be reprocessed into 9 good new ones, yet they all pile up in holding pools because no one wants the reprocessing done in their state.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--And look at the high cost of things as is. How many people already can't afford medicines? Now triple or more the cost of them because no other source is as usable or effiecient as oil.
Would you be able to own a home (assuming you do) if you spent 5 times as much as you already do just to get to work? Or would you be forced to take a lesser paying job closer to home?

Just saying there are alternatives doesn't make them viable.

It depends. To address your first example, 95% of the price of medicines is the cost of getting government approval to sell it, combined with the need to recoup that cost in the few years remaining before the patents expire. So even tripling the cost of feedstock of a medicine will only add about 2% to the retail cost of drugs. So that's not going to make much difference. The cost of heating and gas and such would make a much bigger dent, but it's not going to be 5 times as much, since (a) we only get 20% of our oil from that area, and (b) the current cost of extraction from tar sands or from shale is about $60/barrel, which is well under twice the current market value of oil. So you're using scare tactics here that don't hold up.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--Right isn't the issue. Killing people is a by product of having different governmental systems, moral sensibilities, and the like. One way to reduce that is to drag substandard cultures into the here and now.

Like China- almost everything you buy is from a country that virtually enslaves its population. But if a huge chunk of their economy is dependant on us, we can exert influence on them to reform thru economics.

Then it becomes a matter of whether we let the world brutalize it's citizens or should we try to change things?

What is worse, letting most of the world exist in poverty and brutality? Or Forcing them to change economically?
Before you go on about using the military, remember what the usual targets of all wars are- the economic infrastructure.
We killed something like 300,000 germans in one night in a city where there was virtually zero military presence in WWII. Why? Because that was where the ball bearing factory was. Can't make much of anything without ball bearings to keep the machines running.

Lastly- don't forget you call it their oil, but most every country over there has existed for a short period of time, mostly after WWII. It's like saying the UN has any say at all when in fact we created the UN and put every member country in the UN.

Right *is* the issue. We should do what is right, to the extent that we possibly can. Otherwise, we are then wilfully doing wrong, which (it should not need to be said) is wrong. Killing people is *not* inherently a by-product of having different governmental systems, moral sensibilities, and the like. It is possible for different people to live in peace with each other by the simple expedient of each minding his own damn business. The killing people part comes in when people like you decide its OK to make other people behave the way you think they should, at the point of a gun. This isn't unique to you by any means; in fact I agree that it is the historical norm. But it doesn't *have* to be that way.

I agree that helping the rest of the world to modernize is a good thing. But you can't force people to modernize. You can;t force them to change economically and get a good and lasting result. People have to come to it voluntarily. We can provide a good example. We can provide incentives through economic trade and engagement. We should do these things. But you can't bomb people into peace and prosperity.

Countries and governments come and go, but the people there have been there for thousands of years. The resources belong to them. Whatever system of government they are using this year is not relevant to that. Maybe if everyone else had ever given them the chance to develop and choose their own governments, they wouldn't be so unstable. Or maybe they would. Either way, it's their own business.

And yes, the U.N. sucks. It's a club of unelected "representatives" of mostly unelected governments, and is mostly engaged in justifying the bad behavior of said governments. It should be disregarded first, and disbanded second.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--Immoral in your opinion. Remember it is just that. You can label it however you want but that doesn't make it so. It is global politics and economic growth. However it is accomplished.
I spent more than enough time in the desert. I've buried more than my share of friends from this and other shooting matches. But all of them knew it was more than simply wanton killing.
No other country on earth spends as much or tries as hard to avoid collateral damage. NONE.

To call our action immoral is to call the people doing those actions immoral, and I don't see our military that way.

"However it is accomplished" is not an unimportant point. How it is accomplished has everything to do with right and wrong. The ends do not justify the means. I know we try better than most to avoid collateral damage. However, it can't be avoided entirely, which is yet another reason why war is itself immoral except in clear self-defense.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--The state is representative and can be changed. Believing we need a government is not tantamount to religion. The fact is the definition of gov't seems lost on you.
Anarchy isn't realistic. I heard it all the time from the young punk rockers that didn't know any better. But the fact is you wouldn't even have this internet without gov't military spending at DARPA.
The same rockets we use for space exploration were based on nuclear missile boosters.
Without strong gov't there would have been no program to wipe out smallpox, no standardized education.

the gov't is neccessary. How much power we give it is debatable. But to say the gov't should be a shadow of what it is, is to ignore all that you have that you wouldn't without it.

Personally I am for a much stronger state gov't system with less federal gov't. However the state themselves love tossing responsibility on the fed.

I am not, and never have, advocated anarchy. I recognize that government is a necessary evil. But it is inherently force, and should be as minimal as possible. To speak to your examples again:
> Yes, the internet we use was based on DARPA programs. But that does not in any way prove that without such a DARPA program, there would never be have been an internet.
> Space exploration has largely stalled, exactly due to government inefficiency, and the monopoly NASA holds on it. Without government, people would still have worked on space exploration, and will continue to do so. The U.S. government is now actively a drag and an obstacle to such progress.
> I suspect that without government, someone might still have noticed that smallpox was actually a problem, and worked to solve it. (Also note that the efforts to wipe out smallpox globally were largely executed by the same U.N. that you dissed a few paragraphs ago. So you need to make up your mind on that one.)
> And if you're trying to claim that government standardized education has been an unmitigated success, you're more of a moonbat than I'll ever be.

The government should be a shadow of what it is. Federally it should defend the country and deliver the mail, and mediate in disputes between the states, and thats about it. I'm fine with the idea of (potentially) a much stronger state gov't system with less federal gov't. That was the original idea. The growth of state governments would then be held in check by competition; any state that got too intrusive would see people moving to better places. It's not just that states love to toss responsibility to the fed. The fed actively grabs as much of that "responsibility" as it can. Starting with the mistake of popularly elected Senators (which largely removed the voice of state governments in the federal government). Followed by the federal tax system, which gave the feds enough money to play carrot-and-stick with the states, and thereby implement all sorts of un-Constitutional regulations and programs nationwide through bribing and/or financially punishing states.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

---I guess you never heard that for 12 years we patrolled over Iraq and got shot at daily. Nevermind that saddam signed a peace treaty- that was forced in response to unprovoked aggression- and then promptly ignored it.
My question is simply- do you believe in being such a paper tiger that we can fight to stop aggression, and then ignore enforcing the terms of that surrender?
Because that is the League of Nations (and now the UN) all over again. And what came of the Treaty of Versaille after being ignored by those who imposed it? Adolf Hitler and another world war we got dragged into.

And we have been attacked how many times by terrorists? And don't claim Iraq was innocent- exactly where was Carlos the Jackal found to be hiding? BAGHDAD. Where did al queda's number two guy run when he was injured? BAGHDAD.

Yeah, cause Saddam wasn't a supporter of terror or anything. Don't blame the people weeding out the people beheading journalists. Blame the terrorists for hiding among civilian populations- in violation of the Geneva Accords.

You're blaming the wrong people.

Yep. Heard that. And if some other country had patrols over the U.S., no one would shoot at them either? As I noted in my response to Mikem317 above, I thought (and do think) that invasion of Iraq intially was a reasonable thing to do, given that Saddam was failing to comply, and that WMDs could not be ruled out, (and that the U.N. had so badly botched management of the oil-for-food sanctions that Saddam had the resources to do bad if he so chose). But as I also said, we should have done the minimum necessary to depose Saddam and to ascertain the WMD status, and then left with the minimum damage done.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--And they choose to sell it to us. Doing that means we have a vested interest in it. And our gov't has the responsibility to provide it in turn to us. So it is in fact the responsibility of the gov't to maintain a stable source.

--I know, I have been. I'm more than aware of how little fun being shot at is. But I am also more than aware of the neccessity of that sacrifice. We don't just fight so you can say you're free. We also fight so you can flip your light switch in the morning and it works.

--We've spent more to build an infrastructure there and to start their gov't over again after evicting the genocidal maniac and his family than we have on any war to blow anything up. Get those facts strait.
We spent more getting food and medicine to the people than saddam would ever be bothered with. It's easy to claim it's all dropping bombs. But the facts do not support that.

Selling something to someone does not create a binding contract to continue to do so. We still do not have the right to be forcibly meddling in everyone else's business. And it is not the responsiblity, nor the duty (nor even the right) of the government to be providing stable sources of anything. That's something that markets and private individuals and companies can and should do. It is none of the government's business who sells what to whom at what price.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--And I am with you. You seem stuck in a pollyanna world that has never, does not now, nor will ever exist. You seem to rely on an overly simplistic worldview that I am glad the leadership of the country (who I am still no fan of for other reasons) isn't locked into.
You've watched too much Star Trek and such utopian nonsense fictions. Unchecked idealism is no worse than living in any other fantasy world.
The hippies of the 60's were embarrassing for their lack of reality and I'm afraid you are much the same.
Virtually everything you enjoy today came at the price of blood. Somewhere, sometime. To suddenly think nothing is worth that cost is flatly idiotic. It was worth it for all the luxuries you enjoy now, but not anymore now that you've made some proclimation.

--I am saying that the protection of a nations economy has ALWAYS been measured in blood spilled. And that to believe otherwise is uninformed and a pollyanna mindset.

I disagree entirely. Most of the luxuries and standard of living we enjoy today came from the free market and capitalist entrepreneurship. Most of it did not come primarily at the cost of blood, and much that did need not have.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--You mean the ones that went to war and killed how many to not have to pay taxes to England? Or that called the genocide of native americans OK under Manifest Destiny? Or that owned slaves by the hundreds?

Those fathers?

Again, leave the disneyworld existence behind. This country was bought with blood, stolen from others, and built on the backs of slaves. The same people you invoke to say we have strayed from 'the path' were the ones that invented that path.

I haven't claimed that our forefathers were infallible. Far from it. To take your examples, (a) the Revolutionary War was justifiable as defense from ongoing tyranny, and therefore good; (b) the genocide of Native Americans was wrong; and (c) the insitution of slavery was also wrong. But they did get some things right in their philosophies and designs in founding this country, and their efforts in that regard have yet to be surpassed anywhere on Earth. In the context of their time, they did a damn good job. The ideas they worked out for a just government that would not oppress the people were very good ideas; they failed in that they did not extend those ideas and protections to all people, but that's fixable (and largely has been fixed). A synthesis that would apply their good ideas of human rights and limited government, but be rightfully extended to all humans within it jurisdiction, would be a very good system.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--The problem here is your arrogance in thinking you somehow have a superior mindset or morality. All you ar doing is proclaiming, like some pope, what is right and wrong and condeming anyone who dare disagree.

I disagree with the very basis of your moral judgements. You have yet to prove yours is the proper and moral view. In your mind it may be. But thus far all you've done is claim to be the authority on what is right and wrong and then judge others based on that.
Sounds alot like any cult leader who finds themselves infallible.

I am unconvinced by your arguments that you are right in your assumptions to begin with. Much less that you are any more moral than I am.

Here's a pretty simple test of any moral system. Does the system in question advocate doing bad things to other people? If yes: bad system. If no: good system. Easy, no? So you say: but wait, we need to define our terms. What's a "bad thing"? I respond: bad thing = violence, theft, or fraud except in self-defense. See? It isn't rocket science.

You're saying you think it's OK to go to war for economic advantage. That's doing bad things to other people. I'm saying that it is not OK to do that. That's *not* doing bad things to other people. What's the difficulty here?

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

I spent a grand amount of time around the world handing food out to starving children. Protecting lines of civilians from attacks from bandits that would steal the food from a mothers mouth. Stood guard over hundreds of women lined up to be medically examined following mass rape of entire villages. Guarded UN inspectors while they cataloged mass graves.

Have you?

the difference is that I don't claim to be some moral authority from on high dictating to the world my version of right and wrong and decrying anyone that disagrees.

I'm glad you've done some good out there. Those actions you just cited are different from invading other countries for cheap oil. The difference is that the actions you cite above do not involve doing bad things to other people, while going to war does involve doing bad things to other people. See how simple that can be?

Doing good for others = good.
Doing bad unto others = bad.
Doing anything else is OK, have fun, whatever.
Decrying people who disagree with this simple set of principles is appropriate.
It doesn't even require any sort of moral authority, from on high or from anywhere else.
Just a little bit of simple sense.

PhilB

[mikem317]

Originally Posted by JINXR

Mikem, maybe you weren't as blunt about it as SollyLama, but you did say/imply the very things I accused you of in this post.

Is their any real estate available in your Candy Land neighborhood, complete with gingerbread houses, candy cane lamp posts and licorice-lined streets?

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by mikem317

Sure, I might have come off as pretty dismissive of life, but that's not what I'm trying to project here. But we need to defend ourselves. Whether you're considering this through the political, economic or whatever lens, is up to you. Varies daily. I only espouse military action where all other means have been used and have failed.

+1. I was talking with some colleagues, and while I don't like to reveal my political dispositions, esp. at work, for fear of retribution and being pigeon-holed, but I mentioned this very thing. Saddam removed from power, WMDs (or lack thereof) verified, done. Now time to leave. UN can come in a clean-up if they chose to do so. Not our job to reset the dinner table.

But we chose to stay. I don't know why. I don't think that's clear to me, or the American public as a whole. I don't think there's even benchmarks or whatever metrics to necessitate the exit even exist. But I could be wrong.

Okay, sounds like you and I have gotten to the same page.

Your last paragraph, I think, contains a key to why we're no longer getting much of anywhere. Our "leaders" seem to be unclear on the concept, or if they've got a concept they're failing to let the rest of us in on it. So nobody seems to know why we're there, how to tell what to do next, or when we're leaving. And that's a recipe for disaster.

PhilB

[mikem317]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Our "leaders" seem to be unclear on the concept, or if they've got a concept they're failing to let the rest of us in on it. So nobody seems to know why we're there, how to tell what to do next, or when we're leaving. And that's a recipe for disaster.

I think there's a plan, it's just not articulated. I hope there is, but I have reason to believe there isn't. Provided there is a plan, it should be disseminated. We ought to know. It's our sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins, aunts, uncles, wives and husbands fighting over there.

I forgot who mentioned it during the debate, but partitioning Iraq into separate federal states (akin to the United States, or perhaps more separate like East/West Germany) ought to work. There's a lot of economic considerations with is, esp. the Kurds, who have more potential to lose because of their geographic location related to the oil fields. I was hoping for more info. from McCain who has been a staunch supporter of the war.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by mikem317

I think there's a plan, it's just not articulated. I hope there is, but I have reason to believe there isn't. Provided there is a plan, it should be disseminated. We ought to know. It's our sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins, aunts, uncles, wives and husbands fighting over there.

I forgot who mentioned it during the debate, but partitioning Iraq into separate federal states (akin to the United States, or perhaps more separate like East/West Germany) ought to work. There's a lot of economic considerations with is, esp. the Kurds, who have more potential to lose because of their geographic location related to the oil fields. I was hoping for more info. from McCain who has been a staunch supporter of the war.

I agree that a federation is probably the only hope of a peaceful resolution to it, with the 3 states as independent as possible.

McCain's head is just as far up his ass as anyone else's. He 's got no plan either. He just thinks Republicans will vote for him if he makes macho enough noises.

PhilB

[TheSollyLama]

It has been shown consistently that when a solution is really needed, people manage to get one invented pretty damn quickly

--And you advocate forcing that change. How do you propose to force that change?
Mind you that you are already coming from the point that you just assume it's a forgone conclusion that a sustitute would be availaible, producable, and as or more energy effiecient and cost effective, in a reasonable timeframe.

Now that's an awful lot to dismiss off the bat, considering that there isn't anything that good availaible now, despite the fact that the person or company that discovers it will become the richest bunch of stockholders in history overnight....

See, you toss out this magic 'cure' for oil dependancy, but the empreror isn't wearing any clothes. There is nothing there, and not alot of hope in a timeframe that allows us to just walk away from maintaining that oil supply.

I would argue that part of the reason that we do not have economically viable alternatives to oil is exactly that oil has been kept artificially cheap by subsidies and military action and global bullying

--So do alot of internet geniuses that think 9/11 was an inside job and Bush is a reptilian alien at war with the 'greys'....

No one is in doubt about the limited nature of oil on earth. That behooves people to find an alternative. As of now and the foreseeable future, that alternative is not forthcoming. Hence, we need to maintain an active role in ensuring it's supply.

Right *is* the issue. We should do what is right, to the extent that we possibly can

--Again, you are locked into the false presumption that youo get to define right and wrong. That's logical fallacy number one.
Name a reasonable alternative and show evidence to support it's supportable to our current policies.

You're restricted first by maintaining the current standard of living we enjoy. It's not your right to dismiss everyone's way of life to fit your moral precepts. Just saying people should do with less because that would placate your particular notions of right and wrong is the most obvious example of jesus-complex ever.
Seriously- if you seek to impose your morality on the world, and damn the concequences for everyone else in the world- what more ego tripping point of view can there be?
So let's agree you need to keep things AT LEAST status quo, and remember that is a stagnation point, not a goal you should be aiming for....

Now- given the power tomorrow, what answer have you?

It is possible for different people to live in peace with each other by the simple expedient of each minding his own damn business.

---Yes, in the well ordered society well governed and rule of law (dispensed from gov't) enforced (by gov't officials).
Otherwise it is a tribal mob. No place of relative peace, like your suburb, would be peaceful if there wasn't law and order, for which you need gov't, which you think should take a walk from day to day life.

The killing people part comes in when people like you decide its OK to make other people behave the way you think they should, at the point of a gun

Asking nicely doesn't always work.

But you can't force people to modernize

---But to do business with them without some coersion will in fact go the other way, making immoral gov'ts see their citizens as little more than slaves. If it's a product we require, especially if it's a source we depend on to a huge degree like japan and semi-conductors, then a sudden shift in gov't somewhere, say a bloody coup that our non-interventionist policies allow to happen. And that regime, say a taliban like group virtually enslaves the women to work in the semi-conductor plant, with chemicals and no safety gear, no ethics at all.
Now we're dealing with very bad people, like the Sauds are.

See we live in a global economy. If we let the countries do what they will without our input, we end up dealing with the people we least want to see in our own society. We promote our values along with our business, our DOLLARS.

But you can't bomb people into peace and prosperity

--No, you bomb the people that make for an unstable and dangerous, repressive, not so pollyanna-ish, world over there. You take out the theocrats, the genocidal maniacs, and terrorists chopping off heads. Then you go in and try to rebuild, and give direction. Try to give people the chance to have that society you espouse where common good reigns.

We can argue about whether we are succeeding in that. I doubt we'd disagree that it's been poorly run. But we continue to fight the people trying to stop that little utopia you are describing. We'd love to have a stable, safe Iraq we can over pay for oil and not worry about it. But the bad guys won't allow for that, so we bomb THEM.

but the people there have been there for thousands of years. The resources belong to them

--They've been pushed around, rounded up, enslaved, ran an exodus, etc. So when are you suddenly claiming this possession? Got an entire powderkeg in Israel because of that thinking. Got one side that thinks a book said the land is theirs, and the people that actually lived on that land for more than a thousand years.
So what's the possession cut off? When did the oil become 'theirs'? When we created a country out of whole cloth after WWII for the exaxt purpose of giving us a friendly oil producing country?
Or did that little fact slip by?

"However it is accomplished" is not an unimportant point. How it is accomplished has everything to do with right and wrong

--And that's my point in playing devils advocate here. It's YOUR right and wrong. You have these entirely arbitrary criteria for what YOU consider right and wrong.
But you don't seem to realize that you don't hold a patent on the truth. You cannot define it for the entire world. That is monster egotism.

If the entire history of the world shows a distinct, repeatable paradigm, then it can be said to be the norm. YOU charge it is bad but in fact it is the baseline.

I don't agree your notions would neccessarily improve on that baseline whatsoever and you offer no evidence to it other than a firmly held belief you are, above all things- right.

Yes, the internet we use was based on DARPA programs. But that does not in any way prove that without such a DARPA program, there would never be have been an internet.

--You may, or you may not have one for another 10 or 20 years. The point is that gov't, and a strong, expensive one at that, is far more beneficial to your life than negative to it.
Your life is barely noticed by the gov't provided you merely pay them some amount of your earnings.
they are there day to day making your workplace safe, enforcing laws to protect you from crimes in the street and in the boardroom. Keeping your medicines safe, your borders (hehe, somewhat) defended, and oil flowing to keep the country running.
But you can do pretty much everything else you want other than a short list of things that you'd want to do anyway. And even in the things you break the law to do, they are pretty damn soft compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world.
You breeze thru a life with not much more than a nod to gov't day to day except where it benefits you, but then decry it as not capable or deserving of being in charge.

And if you're trying to claim that government standardized education has been an unmitigated success, you're more of a moonbat than I'll ever be

--I didn't say it was a GOOD standard. In fact it sucks. But in that everyone can go to school, regardless of gender or race or religious background- we're not too bad either. We make far more concessions to handicapped kids. Certainly no other country goes as far as we do to assimilate immigrants to the extreme of often not daring to ask them to assimilate.
Yes, the content of that education is lacking. But in the fact that you can get that still beats out many countries that have much less diversity or sheer population to educate.

Federally it should defend the country and deliver the mail, and mediate in disputes between the states, and thats about it

--An oversimplification to be sure, but I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make on that. And all foreign policy has to be federally mandated anyway, otherwise we wouldn't be a country at all but 50 seperate nations. So anyway you slice it- the federal gov't of a United States must be the entity responsible for foreign policy decisions as well as export/import.

But as I also said, we should have done the minimum necessary to depose Saddam and to ascertain the WMD status, and then left with the minimum damage done

--Has it not occurred to you that this IS the minimum damage done? That perhaps it wouldn't have even been this bad had we not spent the entire 90's letting Saddam stay in power, do nothing but portray a soft, cowardly country letting terrorists hit us over and over?
I am not saying that bush ran this correctly. The war- great, he had good genrals with plans drawn up for 12 years. He fucked up the nation building. It worked a little smoother in Germany and France under Marshal. Not so much this time.
But what else, given that we agree the war itself was justified for other reasons, should we have done? Any answer would have been much stronger in terms of muscle like sealing off the border to Syria? Which would have been a military campaign that would have been bombing the civilian refugees the terrorists hid among.

Flatly- given the overall situation over the time period from 1991 till now- I argue that this is indeed the actual cost of cleanig up a mess long in the making. The minimum gets higher the more we let it rot.

[TheSollyLama]

We still do not have the right to be forcibly meddling in everyone else's business.

--We do when it affects our economy. The economy we charge the gov't to keep stable.

Here's a pretty simple test of any moral system. Does the system in question advocate doing bad things to other people? If yes: bad system. If no: good system. Easy, no? So you say: but wait, we need to define our terms. What's a "bad thing"? I respond: bad thing = violence, theft, or fraud except in self-defense. See? It isn't rocket science

--No, it isn't rocket science, and not thought out beyond a painfully simplistic worldview not unlike a childs either. Hence the Pollyanna reference.

You are determning what is on both sides of the equal sign in your little world. Sadly unable to even recognize that other people do not share your version of math, so convinced of your own righteousness. And that's what this is really about.
Another self proclaimed messiah here to tell us what is right and wrong, then how we should all blindly follow that.

It's not about arriving at some right and wrong consenus- it's you preaching from on high like you have the answers and condemn anyone that's either heard it all before and calls bullshit, or dares disagree with the very platform youu are standing on.

You take moral relatavism, such as excusing some death and mayhem, while panning the rest, based purely on your definitions.
You say self defense is okay, but i ask- who put you in charge of anything to determine that? In your little world or head, fine. But your mistake is thinking that applies to the outside world.
But also- you draw up these criteria simply because you agree with them. Other people would find even killing for self defense reprehensible and find you loathesome in your advocating murder of any sort.

Blind to the fact that while standing in that glass house tossing stones, the high and mighty ego you display at how right you are and got your shit really together- someone else still finds you utterly lacking as you like to feel to others.

I've addressed your specific points and pointed out holes in them, which you largely ignore to go off on another self absorbed rant about how you hold the keys to moral relativism and thus the world should bow to thine whim.

Herein lies the fatal flaw in your entire argument- you have set up a world where you control the rules and definitions, then challenge anyone to prove your infallability.
That alone is a monument to ego.

You're saying you think it's OK to go to war for economic advantage

I am saying virtually every war is grounded solidly in economics. To believe otherwise is childishly simplistic.
There would be none of the roman trappings we still use today in forms of gov't systems, economics, free trade, and representitive gov't if Rome hadn't expanded at the point of the spear. Take it back as far as you'd like.
All wars fall upon economics eventually.

That's doing bad things to other people

--That is your opinion of bad things and your opinion on whether it is 'bad' or not. I disagree with that premise and you have only some vague Argument from Emotion to fall back on.

I'm saying that it is not OK to do that. That's *not* doing bad things to other people. What's the difficulty here?

--Yes I got the "I said it therefore it must be true" routine. We are get it- you are right, and we should all just accept it.

Those actions you just cited are different from invading other countries for cheap oil.

--First it was not mine decision either way. I was told to march for whatever reason the CinC had. In most cases it was to cover ome scandal at home. So I lost friends to nothing more than one president trying to hide his pecker stain from a dress.
Lost too many good men and close friends to people trying to stop us from trying to feed hungry people in Somalia. But we didn't go there for that, we went there so a president with a huge black voting block could be seen trying to intervene in a famine. And we cut and ran and the lives we did lose were for nothing. We weren't there to feed people. As soon as the polls turned we cut and left them to starve. So don't pretend it was cause we cared about the people.
Kosovo? We let that simmer and the genocide go on for 4 years before a blue party dress needed to share the headlines with something more distracting. Like a war.
And don't just count lost lives. Soldiers lose their families, divorces rage, domestic disputes flare, it's never easy on a soldier, even if he doesn't step on mines.

And all basically so some president can control poll numbers. Yeah, we did alot of good in carrying out his cover for scandals- but nonetheless we went and died for one man's ego.

So for all the good I have done- I bear no illusion that it wasn't merely PR for the guy in charge.

The difference is that the actions you cite above do not involve doing bad things to other people

--We didn't carry candy canes your know. Those were real assault rifles with real bullets and real bombs being dropped by real military aircraft.
Civilians died all over the place.

But I don't blame the bomber- I blame the combatant that choose to hide amongst them like cowards.
I don't take the death of innocent civilians on myself for having to blow up the building they are in. I blame the coward hiding behind them making me take extra lives because he is too afraid to leave his alone.

If the bad guys came out and fought us with honor they would lose, and so they hide like roaches forcing us to become the enemy of the people we are trying to protect. It's low budget and it works.

Quit blaming the wrong people. It's like blaming the cop for being on your street instead of the criminal that insists on residing there as well.

Doing good for others = good.
Doing bad unto others = bad

---but 'good' and 'bad' are open to interpretation. You just want to make that decision yourself then tell people they are wrong for disagreeing. Never a decent way to start any real debate.

[PhilB]

I'm not going to deal individually with all your rationalizations and justifications for unethical behavior, for that is all they are. I will cut to the chase about the moral issues, and then comment on only two bits.

About right and wrong: I'm not arguing esoteric points of theology here. I'm not parsing obscure passages in cryptic ancient texts. I'm talking about the very basics of kindergarten-level moral teachings.

Don't start fights.
Don't steal.
Don't cheat.

Everything I'm talking about here (or anywhere, really) can be derived from these simple directives. Do you disagree with these directives? It is no more moral for a country to start fights, steal, or cheat than it is for an individual to do so. And that's all it comes down to. You can weasel and squirm and rationalize and justify all you want, and accuse others of all sorts of unreality or arrogance or ego or whatever. You can go hang out with Henry Kissinger and his ilk and talk "realpolitic" all you like. But in the end it's really very simple.

Don't start fights.
Don't steal.
Don't cheat.

Damn I must be an absolute megalomaniac to think that most people on Earth are capable of understanding these complex and absurd moral proclamations of mine.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--And you advocate forcing that change. How do you propose to force that change?
Mind you that you are already coming from the point that you just assume it's a forgone conclusion that a sustitute would be availaible, producable, and as or more energy effiecient and cost effective, in a reasonable timeframe.

Now that's an awful lot to dismiss off the bat, considering that there isn't anything that good availaible now, despite the fact that the person or company that discovers it will become the richest bunch of stockholders in history overnight....

See, you toss out this magic 'cure' for oil dependancy, but the empreror isn't wearing any clothes. There is nothing there, and not alot of hope in a timeframe that allows us to just walk away from maintaining that oil supply.

The change will happen when it makes economic sense for the change to happen. That will occur (as always) when the alternatives become economically competetive with the established technology. THAT will happen when the curve of development for the new technologies (making them cheaper) crosses the curve for the existing technology (as oil gets more expensive). I'm not talking about "forcing" anything; I'm talking about letting the free market do what it does best: allow people to work on solutions to problems. If, for example, all military operations that were involved in securing oil supplies were paid for by taxes on oil, then the true cost of this would be apparent and operational in the market, and the alternatives would very suddenly be seen to make much more sense and become much more likely to be profitable sooner.

There are many companies and people working on various alternatives to oil in various areas. They will not "become the richest bunch of stockholders in history overnight"; they will make a lot of money eventually, but not until their technologies begin to supplant oil on a large scale. That does take time and investment, and is delayed by the artificial subsidization of oil, whether that is directly or militarily.

So, in addition to being unethical, all this geopolitical military meddling is part of the problem in the first place, and is delaying our ability to move forward with viable alternatives.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--First it was not mine decision either way. I was told to march for whatever reason the CinC had. In most cases it was to cover ome scandal at home. So I lost friends to nothing more than one president trying to hide his pecker stain from a dress.
Lost too many good men and close friends to people trying to stop us from trying to feed hungry people in Somalia. But we didn't go there for that, we went there so a president with a huge black voting block could be seen trying to intervene in a famine. And we cut and ran and the lives we did lose were for nothing. We weren't there to feed people. As soon as the polls turned we cut and left them to starve. So don't pretend it was cause we cared about the people.
Kosovo? We let that simmer and the genocide go on for 4 years before a blue party dress needed to share the headlines with something more distracting. Like a war.
And don't just count lost lives. Soldiers lose their families, divorces rage, domestic disputes flare, it's never easy on a soldier, even if he doesn't step on mines.

And all basically so some president can control poll numbers. Yeah, we did alot of good in carrying out his cover for scandals- but nonetheless we went and died for one man's ego.

So for all the good I have done- I bear no illusion that it wasn't merely PR for the guy in charge.

You, personally, have the responsibility and the *duty* to determine whether your own actions are right or wrong. It *is* your decision. "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. You presumably have that ability; people who do not are clinically defined as "sociopathic". So use it.

PhilB

[TheSollyLama]

I'm talking about the very basics of kindergarten-level moral teachings.

--yes, and we do not let kindergartners run the world either now do we? That painfully uninformed and simple mindset is great---IN KINDERGARTEN. But the trouble is most people grow up out of that sesame street world of tickle me elmo's and realize that Tickle me monstrosity was made by raw materials dragged out of the ground or made with chemicals in a lab, mass produced by underpaid and underage workers, packaged automatically, and shipped all the way from China- and it's ALL still cheaper than making that same horrid thing right down the road.

If you think you've suddenly solved the world's problems or shifted the paradigm the world currently works under- and your entire sales pitch is........so simple a kindergartner coulda thought it up.........

Well I'll just let that speak for itself right there...........

I'm not talking about "forcing" anything; I'm talking about letting the free market do what it does best: allow people to work on solutions to problems.

--In a free market people work on solutions to making themselves rich. Let's not get all teary eyed like in philosophy 101.
People will make as much money for themselves as they can to live as well as they can. How that happens is of little concern to them.
Now in your fantasy world you combine this sudden universal philanthropy with free enterprise. Again- not the way it works in reality. We pay people to do more menial tasks as little as possible to maximize our own profit. That's why slavery was so popular for so long........it was CHEAP.
Aot of people worked on the solution to cheap labor- alot more worked on rounding up slaves, more so transporting them about, and still more transporting the goods they made. THAT was free market at work.

The free market you speak of isn't 'free'. It is to be contained within your particular moral compass. Back to that high horse.

Free to you is free to do what YOU think is right, based on what you yourself pointed out was a kindergarten level worldview.........

Sorry if I'm not selling the farm to jump on that bandwagon.

They will not "become the richest bunch of stockholders in history overnight

--The hell they won't. The perfection of the next great fuel is bigger than curing the common cold or cancer. Like the fiasco with Cold Fusion- you will be a worldwide household name in hours if you had a real, practical, working alternative. Just that there is no such alternative right now.

Smarter, more well equipped, and more realisitic people than you are working very hard on that prize, and yet here it isn't......spectacular in it's utter nonexistence.
And yet you keep invoking this mysterious energy source as if just another couple pledge calls to the telethon will magically produce the cure....

You are arguing we are not making policy decisions based on that which we do not yet have!!!!

So, in addition to being unethical, all this geopolitical military meddling is part of the problem in the first place, and is delaying our ability to move forward with viable alternatives.

--Again, unethical in your world. But alas, you quit actually caring what anyone other than yourself says anyway.

But you also forget that even plans to come up with new power alternatives are based on a stable economy in which to research and impliment them and set them up. They are still based on manufacturing the alternatives using the current petroleum suppy.

So the alternatives exist because of the oil industry. If that weren't in place we couldn't make the stuff we are making the alternatives out of. Not the fuels themselves, but cars are still made of alot of stuff made from oil. And those machines still need oil. And getting those windmills still takes trucks to get them into the plains. And so on.
So to even realize the alternatives, we must STILL keep a steady, stable, and affordable oil industry running. Screwing that up would slow down alternative fuel research even more.

You, personally, have the responsibility and the *duty* to determine whether your own actions are right or wrong. It *is* your decision. "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. You presumably have that ability; people who do not are clinically defined as "sociopathic". So use it.

---Well what is your criteria?

Somalia for example was handing out food, protecting hospitals, calling in reports of bodies, giving shots, etc.....so call it a moral thing to do. However we weren't there for the people and as soon as it got messy for clinton we bailed out leaving it worse than before....
So you can argue it either way. We certainly got into a lot of firefights for people handing out food. So we killed for the privledge of handing out food to people we really didn't care about and abandoned shortly thereafter?

You can twist it anyway you want.

Serbia- we stopped some ethnic cleansing. But we also allowed it for 4 years prior to clinton fucking a fat chick in the oval office.
So we helped clinton try to bury his scandal thru military force elsewhere. You could call that evil. But we stopped even more ethnic cleansing and helped chart out mass graves to help sort thru the mess. We did some grat humanitarian work there. But it took bombs and bullets and civilian casualties to accompish it.

See- my point is NOTHING is so simple kindergarten thinking is going to be adequate to accomplish anything. We killed alot of people trying to 'help' them from another atrocity. We even did it more to hide a presidents sex scandal than cause we give a damn about bosnia.
But we did it by stopping genocide.

So it can be as evil or innocent as you persoannly want it to be. Bringing me back to my point that you are stuck in a world where you have already decided what is right and wrong and merely expect the world to agree with you before continuing on.

Except even KINDERGARTEN doesn't really work like that........

[PhilB]

Uh huh. So which of those simple moral principles do you think is wrong?

Don't start fights.
Don't steal.
Don't cheat.

Tell me why it's OK in your mind to do these things. Tell me in your oh-so-sophisticated world view why it's OK for governments to do these things to people.

Demonstrate that your capacity for high-level moral reasoning is any better than your comprehension of market economics.

Or don't. Just keep following orders and believing as you're told.

PhilB