[JDHill]

twisting, turning...

...through the never?

Metallica references aside, I don't think I am being too pedantic; the topic at hand is, essentially, the justification of lethal aggression on a massive scale, and I think that must always remain very serious question.

Is it considered offensive towards the tyrant dictator and henchmen... or defensive, defending those who are powerless to defend themselves?

I am not using offensive and defensive loosely here. To act proactively, i.e. before first being acted against, is by definition, to act offensively (I will leave off discussing the clear and present danger concept here, as that is not at issue). Whether or not such action is undertaken in the defense of third parties cannot change this; it may indeed provide a powerful justification for offensive initiative, but it does not change its nature.

Now, given your statements so far, I would tend to conclude that, at least in part, you consider moral imperatives (i.e. defending the defenseless) to provide sufficient grounds for nations initiating offensive action against other nations. While the sentiment in this case may be noble, I do not personally find it to be a compelling justification, for two main reasons:

1. if I did, the scenarios in which I would find myself compelled to advocate for aggressive war would become virtually boundless.
2. nations do not share the same moral sentiments; to argue for aggressive war on moral grounds is to argue, effectively, for unlimited world war.

Was my argument too general? Yes, as it was meant to be.

I think it was not so much an argument as it was a rhetorical question, and one which you have already answered for yourself. My purpose here is to try to prod you a bit and learn your reasoning, but you seem fairly reticent about getting into a substantial discussion about it, and I won't try too hard to coax you into doing so.

[iker]

Alias iker, you're right, sometimes you become what you hate. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. All it takes for evil to triumph is for a good man (nation) to do nothing. Etc. etc. C'mon man! take the red pill! <---- catch phrase

[Hervé]

Well, I think the real terrorist was not hiding in a cavern as they said.. he was hiding behind some Bush(es)... hihi.. I think fossile fuel played a big role in all that story...

ok... remember..... don't stare into the sun.. and eat brocolis... believe it or not but my friend Sal worked on the Apache Heli windshield... firing frozen chicken with an air canon.. to test.. solidity I suppose..

I watched the video.. jeez better not be too sensible... ma mamia.. these heli bullets are like small grenades almost.. so much money to destroy... Imagine the render farm you could buy for the price of one single heli... amazing..

The world is a hard place to live in.. on the other hand.. Mars would be so boring...

[Bubbaloo]

1. if I did, the scenarios in which I would find myself compelled to advocate for aggressive war would become virtually boundless.
2. nations do not share the same moral sentiments; to argue for aggressive war on moral grounds is to argue, effectively, for unlimited world war.

Good points. There are bad things happening everywhere in the world. How do we decide which battles to fight? Who decides? Who is worthy of our help? Who do we ignore? Which atrocities are acceptable? Who is the judge, Ivox3? And while we are debating these things, these atrocities are continuing. The lengthy debates equal inaction. The perpetrators of these atrocities are smiling, encouraging us to debate a bit longer...

Adhering to standards of morality puts us at a disadvantage when fighting against those without morals. We have rules, they do not.

[Bubbaloo]

Well, I think the real terrorist was not hiding in a cavern as they said.. he was hiding behind some Bush(es)

[Hervé]

hey Brian..

well every war is horrible... ww2 was horrible at a point where I wish we never go anymore... but human nature is un-predictible..

I am pretty sure the heli fired because they were far from the people. That a very comon sense law of "I care" >>> "I don't give a damn"..

Look the canage I did yesterday in the forest.. with one step, I killed about 1000 ants... if I was their size... hehe..

A dictator sees things from far pov... and from a far pov.. even a human is just a small point.. now go to a close pov, the same guy is your buddy... this is also why we naturally take care of the people we love around us...

I remember a doc. where during WW1, both German and French soldiers stopped fighting on Dec24 for Xmas.. they even joined and played football.. true story... it was a big scandale and a very few poeple knew about.. it was kept secret for a long time... well Nobody wants to start a war... just poeple that have interests about it.. no..?

hey did you know Hitler was on dope all day long the second half of his life...

[ivox3]

1. if I did, the scenarios in which I would find myself compelled to advocate for aggressive war would become virtually boundless.
2. nations do not share the same moral sentiments; to argue for aggressive war on moral grounds is to argue, effectively, for unlimited world war.

Good points. There are bad things happening everywhere in the world. How do we decide which battles to fight? If your aware of a problem and turn a blind eye -- you become a part of the problem. Who decides? You decide. Who is worthy of our help? Everyone who needs it. Who do we ignore? Every one who doesn't need help. Which atrocities are acceptable? What kind of question is this ? Who is the judge, Ivox3? Correct. lol... And while we are debating these things, these atrocities are continuing. The lengthy debates equal inaction. The perpetrators of these atrocities are smiling, encouraging us to debate a bit longer...

Too idealistic ? I don't know .. still just a single planet.

The word 'help' doesn't always imply sending troops or money, ..but sometimes by just having a little empathy for the plight of others versus having an attitude of cold indifference, ... could at least begin fostering ideas that would be necessary to improve a negative situation.

Adhering to standards of morality puts us at a disadvantage when fighting against those without morals. We have rules, they do not.

Disadvantaged or not, ..if someone doesn't hold a moral standard, then the whole thing spirals downward into a morass of primal knuckleheaded-ness. I would still prefer to have the higher part of the stick. By the way, ...it looks as if that descent has already occurred.

[Bubbaloo]

primate knuckleheaded-ness.

You have deeply offended me, sir.

[Bubbaloo]

And my uncle too.

[ivox3]

Alright Bubba ... I'll give ya an lol..

[Mihai]

Which is worse, action or inaction in the face of atrocity?

We like to think morality and justice go hand in hand but more often than not it's quite the opposite. Appeals to justice (which feed the need for revenge) are what usually empower a dictator and gives the right to one group to commit atrocities against another group. The only possible outcome, the bad dictator is replaced with the good dictator (why Khomeini came to power in Iran as one example).
On a personal level the intentions can be sincere, you see someone suffer and you want to help, and there wouldn't be any moral dilemmas even killing if it's to defend your family. Perhaps in groups where historically they had to rely on making their own justice in a brutal environment, these appeals to justice have a strong emotional response. It doesn't take much propaganda of fear/justice for US citizens to allow its government to start a War on something, somewhere every 10 or so years. Act NOW, but why are atrocities commited now? Why inaction and no appeals to morality when this same government is very much dependent on selling weapons, which is also an atrocity. I'll cure you, but first I have to make you sicker...
When there's a War on money, I'll sign up for that. Where do weapons and drug dealers put their money? Big Brother technology is on maintenance in these cases...