What to do about North Korea...?

Jose wrote:
I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
have already lost.

Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.

Including wars we shouldn't be in.


Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand. I
have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am
well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who
are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my
family, and all that I know.

But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

A few weeks ago I visited the American Cemetery in Manila. It is a
beautiful spot. I took photos of seemingly endless rows of crosses and
stars against a backdrop of flame trees. There are more than 17,000
graves there. More than 3,000 of the markers have no names on them;
they are unidentified. And there is a great circle of stone tables on
which are inscribed many thousands of more names of those whose bodies
were never recovered. And these are just those Americans (and others
from several other nations fighting under the American flag) who died
in order to kick the Japanese out of the Philippines and a few islands
in the Pacific. Was it worth the cost? I wonder what the world would be
like if, after Hitler had sunk a single ship or if the Japanese had
massacred a battalion of Marines assaulting the beach, if we had just
said that the cost of opposing Hitler or Tojo was too great, if we had
just made our separate peace, abandoning our allies to their fate.

Maybe it would not have made any difference at all. Who knows?

Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons? What do
you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
finally stop the killing and find peace? And how would we appease their
mortal enemies, who might very well adopt the same tactics of terror
that these Islamic extremists now use? Do we just do whatever anybody
holding a gun orders us to do? And what if the person holding the gun
orders you to kill somebody, perhaps a friend, perhaps even your wife
or your children?

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions, and stop playing the shill for
domestic and foreign politicians who would sell their country out in
return for political gain. That is, if you want peace, give me
something other than the sophomoric arguments of Michael Moore or
Barbara Streisand. Tell me what you are really willing to do in order
to achieve peace.

Jose wrote:
I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
have already lost.

Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.

Including wars we shouldn't be in.


Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand. I
have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am
well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who
are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my
family, and all that I know.

But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

A few weeks ago I visited the American Cemetery in Manila. It is a
beautiful spot. I took photos of seemingly endless rows of crosses and
stars against a backdrop of flame trees. There are more than 17,000
graves there. More than 3,000 of the markers have no names on them;
they are unidentified. And there is a great circle of stone tables on
which are inscribed many thousands of more names of those whose bodies
were never recovered. And these are just those Americans (and others
from several other nations fighting under the American flag) who died
in order to kick the Japanese out of the Philippines and a few islands
in the Pacific. Was it worth the cost? I wonder what the world would be
like if, after Hitler had sunk a single ship or if the Japanese had
massacred a battalion of Marines assaulting the beach, if we had just
said that the cost of opposing Hitler or Tojo was too great, if we had
just made our separate peace, abandoning our allies to their fate.

Maybe it would not have made any difference at all. Who knows?

Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons? What do
you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
finally stop the killing and find peace? And how would we appease their
mortal enemies, who might very well adopt the same tactics of terror
that these Islamic extremists now use? Do we just do whatever anybody
holding a gun orders us to do? And what if the person holding the gun
orders you to kill somebody, perhaps a friend, perhaps even your wife
or your children?

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions, and stop playing the shill for
domestic and foreign politicians who would sell their country out in
return for political gain. That is, if you want peace, give me
something other than the sophomoric arguments of Michael Moore or
Barbara Streisand. Tell me what you are really willing to do in order
to achieve peace.

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:54:22 +0000, Jose wrote:

As I wrote above, human rights cannot be imposed. The very idea is
silly (how does one "impose" "free choice"?).

One does so by forcibly removing the obstacles to free choice.

That's not really "imposing". But I'm not sure what word does apply.

[...]

Whether this is morally justified, or morally reprehensible, is the
question, and like many such, it is a tangle of intersecting rights.

We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
situation in our home town, eh? Of course, we've hired the police - in
that example - as a collective.

- Andrew

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions, and stop playing the shill for
domestic and foreign politicians who would sell their country out in
return for political gain. That is, if you want peace, give me
something other than the sophomoric arguments of Michael Moore or
Barbara Streisand. Tell me what you are really willing to do in order
to achieve peace.

Bravo! Excellent post, all 'round.

And it points up a terrible, possibly mortal weakness in the Left in
general, at least since I was in college, some 25 years ago: They only
stand AGAINST things -- they never stand FOR things.

For the Left (or, if you prefer, for the sake of this discussion, the
anti-war movement) to answer your questions would require them to make
a stand four-square FOR something, which means that moral relativism --
their central philosophy -- would cease to function. In other words,
if nothing is "right" and nothing is "wrong" -- only varying shades of
gray -- how can you possibly ever decide that *anything* is worth
fighting for?

THAT, in a nutshell, is why the Democrats (in America) and the Left
(worldwide) can't seem to get any traction in the polls. Voters may
not be able to put it into words, but people intuitively understand
that only standing against things isn't a workable solution to
anything.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"cjcampbell" wrote

Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand. I
have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am
well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who
are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my
family, and all that I know.

But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

Thanks, CJ. You are in a unique place and situation, to have thought about
these issues, at some length. You have expressed many thoughts that some
here must think, and expressed them quite clearly and rationally.

What you have written seems so plain, and truthful, that I can not
understand how everyone does not think as you do. I too do not want war, or
to see young men killed, but theirs is a noble sacrifice, to hopefully
prevent some many thousands of other young men and women, children and
elders, from losing their lives.

Again, thanks. Also, thanks for what you do, in bringing new ideas and
understandings to the people that your group is attempting to reach.
--
Jim in NC

But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

In short (but mindful that real life is never this simple),

When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend ourselves,
to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation attacks our
allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according to the terms of
our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in exchange presumably
they would do the same or some equivalent for us.

When a nation attacks a non-allied nation, we have no moral obligation
to send our children to risk their lives in something that is none of
our business. In fact, we have an obligation to stay out of it.

In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked
by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and moral
obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other countries
just because they "look the same", nor do we have the right to use this
attack as an excuse to the American People to wage war on other
countries not involved.

Hitler and his allies attacked us (with Japan as the proxy).

Saddam did not. (at least not since 9-11)

There is a difference between an attack, a threat of attack, and a
threat of threat of attack. Blurring the line risks turning us into the
very demon we claim to fight. It must be done with extreme caution,
because there is no hindsight, and I don't trust our politicians to have
foresight.

Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons?

No. But our inaction may not cause it to happen. In fact, our =action=
may hasten it. We are dealing with a differnet kind of enemy.

What do
you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
finally stop the killing and find peace?

I don't think they can be appeased. Nor can they be destroyed.

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions...

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
situation in our home town, eh?

I don't know. If there's a murder in your home town, would you want
the police from the neighboring state to drive in and blow up all the
houses that look like crack houses, in case the murder were drug related?

The end result may be a safer and more peaceful city. But there is a price.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

In short (but mindful that real life is never this simple),

When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend ourselves,
to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation attacks our
allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according to the terms of
our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in exchange presumably
they would do the same or some equivalent for us.

When a nation attacks a non-allied nation, we have no moral obligation
to send our children to risk their lives in something that is none of
our business. In fact, we have an obligation to stay out of it.

In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked
by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and moral
obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other countries
just because they "look the same", nor do we have the right to use this
attack as an excuse to the American People to wage war on other
countries not involved.


Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Hitler and his allies attacked us (with Japan as the proxy).

Saddam did not. (at least not since 9-11)


Apparently a lot of people believe he did by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

There is a difference between an attack, a threat of attack, and a
threat of threat of attack. Blurring the line risks turning us into the
very demon we claim to fight. It must be done with extreme caution,
because there is no hindsight, and I don't trust our politicians to have
foresight.


Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
trust any of them?

Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons?

No. But our inaction may not cause it to happen. In fact, our =action=
may hasten it. We are dealing with a differnet kind of enemy.


Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
destroyed. He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
before attacking him?

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?


What do
you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
finally stop the killing and find peace?

I don't think they can be appeased. Nor can they be destroyed.


So we just cave into their demands?

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions...

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.


Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
a logical corner?

Jose wrote:
But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

In short (but mindful that real life is never this simple),

When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend ourselves,
to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation attacks our
allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according to the terms of
our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in exchange presumably
they would do the same or some equivalent for us.

When a nation attacks a non-allied nation, we have no moral obligation
to send our children to risk their lives in something that is none of
our business. In fact, we have an obligation to stay out of it.

In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked
by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and moral
obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other countries
just because they "look the same", nor do we have the right to use this
attack as an excuse to the American People to wage war on other
countries not involved.


Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Hitler and his allies attacked us (with Japan as the proxy).

Saddam did not. (at least not since 9-11)


Apparently a lot of people believe he did by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

There is a difference between an attack, a threat of attack, and a
threat of threat of attack. Blurring the line risks turning us into the
very demon we claim to fight. It must be done with extreme caution,
because there is no hindsight, and I don't trust our politicians to have
foresight.


Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
trust any of them?

Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons?

No. But our inaction may not cause it to happen. In fact, our =action=
may hasten it. We are dealing with a differnet kind of enemy.


Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
destroyed. He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
before attacking him?

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?


What do
you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
finally stop the killing and find peace?

I don't think they can be appeased. Nor can they be destroyed.


So we just cave into their demands?

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions...

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.


Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
a logical corner?

"Jose" wrote

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.

Jose

Your arguments have as much rationale as the above statement.

Anymore, you seem to argue, just for the sake of argument. If the opinions
you are expressing are what you really believe, you are in a vocal minority,
around here. All you seem to do is argue, with nobody you are responding to
getting one bit closer to believing in what you are saying. All it does, is
prolong the pointless postings.

I for one, am tired of hearing it. You and everyone else, give it up!

I know, don't read it, you say. It is coming close to me not reading any of
it, because it is not worth the effort of sorting out the garbage, for the
occasional jewel. Is that what you want to do? Run me, and many others
like me away from the group? It would be a shame if it continued, but I
have a feeling that you will not have enough self control to restrain
yourself.
--
Jim in NC