Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Could you just re-print it for those who do not want to register?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Leaving aside the historical inaccuracy of the suggesting that we had a big huge stockpile of A-bombs.....


On what theory -- other than "the interests of a nation justify the deaths of millions" -- can you possibly advocate "dropping A-bombs where we think Stalin is?"


As a history prof of mine put it -- we hanged people at Nuremberg for doing what you are suggesting, but they did it on a much smaller scale.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

I don't think that's an entirely fair characterization of Spanky's ideology. If I read him correctly, I believe he would assert that we were morally compelled to attack Iraq and occupy it against the will of the Iraqi people so that we could bring them liberty and democracy whether they wanted it or not. He also apparently believes that it's okay to kill them until they do want democracy.

I hope this helps straighten things up.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Exactly what we're doing. Crazed beater is still trying to get at the kid. We've got troops there to stop him, and, if it comes down to it, they'll shoot him. His choice. - he can stop, or die.

The no-fly zone and sanctions were a joke - thank the UN for that, I guess. The kid was still getting creamed. How far in stopping the beating is too far? Once it involves pain and effort on our part? And I think you overstate - the Baathist thugs are still the small minority, not the whole extended family. You make it sound like we're fighting the bulk of society to save one deviant kid. We're not - it was the Baathists who were, and are, the deviant minority.

No. It's serving my overall values that hold that convincing the world that being a dictator/thug/murderer is a dead end make life for all, and thus for me, much better in the long run. Walking away from murderers is easy for me right now - until later, when someone surmises that they can do such things with impunity. I want them to quiver with fear every time they contemplate genocide. Only then will I feel safe from it. It's all about ME!

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

I'm don't think he's being offensive deliberately. I just think he's a simple man, without wit or art.

Open Minded
 

many in the pseudo-intellectual liberal inteligentsia accuse me of being a myopic shill for W. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth as I am nothing but a peaceful emissary of the light of the babyjesi and a philosophy of tolerance, anti-bias and love of freedom and capitalist markets for all mankind.

My break with W on the Harryette Miers thing is one example. Another is my support of the First Amendment freedoms of all artists and as such my opposition to jackbooted actions of the Justice department such as those taken against the film artiste Max Hardcore.

ALTA DENA, Calif. – The offices of Max Hardcore’s Max World Entertainment were raided Wednesday under the authority of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department.

If Max's ouevre can be classified obscene then I question who is at asleep at the wheel for failing to prosecute this subhuman filth monger:


http://www.pentoon.com/images-01/sub...re/lardass.gif

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

And Clinton for the assist.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Wow, that's not an offensive cheap PoPD shot at all. Spanky is not only the most coherent poster on this board, but he is also the most politically accomplished. This is the saddest personal attack yet that I have seen on these boards.

Open Minded
 

You better explain who this is. All the libs here deny having seen the movie.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Where do you GET this shit? Against the will of the Baathist thugs? Sure. Against the will of the people? Hardly, as any pre and post-invasion poll will show you. If I preface every argument I make with "the liberal viewpoint, which is proven to cause massive death to all", yeah, I suppose my arguments will take on greater weight. too.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

The power of a moderator, yet such a low regard for copyright. Your moral relativism will be our downfall, Penske.

Below are portions:

1. American debacle
   By Zbigniew Brzezinski, ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI was national security advisor to President Carter.
   
   Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for George W. Bush's place in history and - much more important - ominously for America's future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.
   
   Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush's speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.
   
   That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.
   
   Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York City. Yet, in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.
   
   There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in its deepening military intervention in the Middle East. Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be the brutal denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.
   
   America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of a nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons. Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the U.S. look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.
   
   Compounding such political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity. Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (a.k.a. torture) were publicly disgraced, prosecuted or forced to resign. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court now seems quite self-serving.
   
   Finally, complicating this sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends. The budgets for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security are now larger than the total budget of any nation, and they are likely to continue escalating as budget and trade deficits transform America into the world's No. 1 debtor nation. At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of its early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.
   
   It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of U.S. policy. As a result, large swathes of the world - including nations in East Asia, Europe and Latin America - have been quietly exploring ways of shaping regional associations tied less to the notions of transpacific, or transatlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.
   
   That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers and future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China - Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.
   
   In a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle. Because America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, for a while longer, a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process, America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.
   
   But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation. In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out - perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

In September of 1945 what is the difference between Russia and Japan? Russia has invaded Poland and Finland. Japan had invaded islands in the Pacific. Both were nations with a history of aggression.

At this point with Japan the United States demanded unconditional surrender. We didn't have to ask for unconditional surrender. Japane would have done a peace deal, but we demanded full surrender because we did not trust their government to be peaceful. Why was the Japanese government any less trustworthy than Russia.

The only difference between the two countrys was that we had not gotten in Russia's way when it was trying to take chunks of Europe but we had gotten in the way of the Japanese we they were trying to take chunks of the Pacific.

Stalins government was infinitely more evil than the Japanese government. Stalin stepping down would have been a lot better for the Russias than Tojo stepping down in Japan (in otherwords if Tojo has stayed in power what he would have done to Japan would have been a lot less worse than what Stalin had in store for the USSR).

So why was it OK to bomb the Japanese until their government stepped down, but it was not OK for us to bomb Russia until Stalin stepped down?

Just because one attacked us and the other one did not? If they attack us we can demand unconditional surrender, but if they attack someone else (Poland and Finland) and have a much more hostile and aggresive government we have to leave them alone?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

I could be wrong, but I think different papers have different policies on this, I didn't know the LAT policy, but if you had said, it's the same as the WSJ's, I would have respected the non-posting.

I am tolerant and fair. Fair and balanced.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Your professor was a moron. We bombed the hell out of Japan and Germany to end the war. The people in Nuremburg killed people because they thought they were inferior and were subhuman. They killed people because they wanted to enslave and exterminate other races (to create breathing room for the Germans). We killed people to stop that.

When it comes to justice intentions count. If I kill someone to stop them from killing a defenseless child, or I kill someone because I don't like the color of their skin don't you think there is a differnce. Or is it just all killing to you?

If we were planning on bombing Aushwitz but decided not to because we might kill some of the guards families because they were innocent would that have been the right thing to do because killing is killing?

Only a moral relativistic ivory tower moron would make such a stupid statement.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

This was precisely the strategy that you proposed was not only acceptable, but morally compelled by the universal moral code.

Again, as noted above, you were arguing yesterday that killing and war in the name of democracy was morally required. How does this differ from viewing Saddam as a "cancerous cell" that needs to be removed?

Note that I'm not defending Saddam. I'm simply pointing out here that you're condemning Stalin for doing exactly the same thing you were arguing in favor of, invading a nation for the purpose of imposong an ideology foreign from their own and killing all who get in your way.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

No doubt. But limiting the opposition to the occupation to "the Baathist thugs" is also questionable. The people attacking us are hiding somewhere, using someone's resources, etc.

I have little faith that the majority of Sunnis really supports the US.



Nah. It doesn't help Penske.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Personally, the fact that Japan attacked us and declared war, and the USSR did not but was our ally against Germany and Japan, is significant to me. YMMV.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Plus, had we demanded that Stalin let his people vote, they may well have re-elected Stalin.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

2. Probably a faux-intellectual psuedo elitist to boot.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

1) What makes you think the majority of Iraqis don't want liberty or democracy? Do you think all those people that voted did not want democracy?

2) Your last sentence is a joke. We are killing the people that don't want democracy in Iraq. That would be the insurgents. But we are not killing (or trying not kill) the peole that do want democracy.

Like I said before, you need to quote because I don't think you have ever correctly paraphrased me.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

My arguments just to much for you to handle so you chose the cheap way out?

Since Japan declared war on us we can bomb them into oblivion but since Russia only declared war on smaller defenselss neihbors we can do nothing about it?

Your problem is that you just don't want to recognize the evil of Stalin and the Soviet Union. What if the tables were reversed, Stalin had attaked the US and we joined up with Hitler to defeat Stalin.

At the end of the war if we had the bomb and Hitler did not, would it have been OK to demand that Hitler step down?

But wait, he was our alley and never declared war on us. It is OK that he exterminated a large portion of the population of Europe (just like Stalin) but he never attacked us, and of course bombing Germany to get him to step down would be a war crime, better to let him remain in power.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

The bully was only beatin' on the little kid, not on me.

Not my fight, man.

(There's a word for this philosophy . . .)

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Are you talking about me?

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

I would like to think he was not talking about me but thanks for getting my back.


If he was talking about me I think that statement reflects a lot more on him than me.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Hardly. I think you are bordering on psychotic. As I said, we hanged people at Nuremberg for doing what you propose, and on a much smaller scale.


We did "nothing"? Huh. Here I was, thinking that the Cold War was more than "nothing." And here I was, thinking that there was some space between "nothing" and "dropping A-bombs every place we think Stalin might be."*

*Which others might call "the slaughter of untold millions of people on an unprecedented scale," but I guess that's just fine and dandy with you because, after all, if it brings democracy then the interests of the many outweigh all those millions of dead people and the fried cities and the radiation and....

you really are insane.




Fuck you, Spanky.

Your problem is you are a fucking zealot, who is incapable of listening to anyone who does not wear the "Neo-con" badge. You are advocating the slaughter of millions through massive atomic bombing -- and then, when you say that would be justified because it would magically result in democracy (in a country that had never known it), you have the nerve to attack others for supposedly believing in "the good of the many outweighs the harm to a few (or the slaughter of millions, a la Spanky)"

Are you listening to yourself?


I'm sorry, but the notion of an alliance with Hitler is too far-fetched for me to believe.

But, given you view that we should have dropped a-bombs indiscrimately across Eastern Europe, I can see how it's something you would view as a possibility.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

The word would be "Bilmore is too big an asshole to listen to what anyone is saying."


I try to be civil with you. I try to have a discussion with you. I say that the goal of bringing democracy (had that been the original motivation) is noble and just -- but that the results and costs have been such that we should question whether invading countries to bring democracy is really such a good call.


And your response is to suggest that I would ignore someone who was beating a kid up because, after all, they aren't beating me up.



I suppose I should tell you to go fuck yourself along with Spanky.


But let me ask -- how many abused children have you taken into your house this year? How many abusive parents have you gone out and beat up? I mean, those people must exist in your part of the country -- unless this line of argument is so much bullshit, I expect you are really doing something about it.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

You really are a simpleton aren't you. Did I ever say that exterminating a section of the population was OK to benefit the body politic. There is a big difference between using force to insure justice or protect peoples rights and using force to exterminate a section of a population because you feel they are undesirable.

So you don't see a difference between killing someone to stop them from killing a room of school children. As opposed to killing someone because you think the DNA they carry might infect the gene pool. Do I really need to explain the difference? Is this just all killing to you and all killing is bad?

You really think that Stalin invading Poland, exterminating their entire officer corp and a great deal of their intelligencia, coralling a large portion of their population into concentration camps to set up a puppet government to his totalitarian regime is similar to the United States invading Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and set up a democracy?

Exact same thing? Was our invading Germany to set up a democracy the exact same thing? Was our forcing Germans at teh barrel of a gun to have a democracy the exact same thing?

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Spanky, on Sunday:

I believe this is called talking out of both sides of your mouth. Spanky, as simplistic as what passes for logic in your mind is, you still can't stay on message. When black becomes white and white becomes black, it's time to start admitting in some shades of gray.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

You left out "spanky advocates mass A-bombing to drive Stalin out of power."

A mass killing of millions that I thought only a "liberal" (as Spanky defines them) could approve.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Then why couldn't you engage me on substance? I didn't use insults or profanity. I simply tried to debate you on the substance of what you stood for and you turned and hid behind your Jesus schtick. You're no more interested in substance than a young, ignorant child simply aping the words of the adults around him. Whether he's right or wrong doesn't matter; he's saying the same thing as Daddy and that's all he needs to know.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

1) Stalin was on the verge of killing millions of people. Our dropping of Atom bombs to get rid of him could have very well saved millions of lives.

2) You did not answer the question of why it was OK to bomb Japan into oblivion if they did not unconditionally surrender? We were planning on dropping one hundred Atomic bombs. We had no reason to believe that Japan would surrender after two (the fire bombing of Tokyo killed many more people yet they fought on) There was no indication two was going to do it? Why was this mass slaughter of Japanes citizens OK to get Tojo to step down? Why was this not a nuremburg crime? We could have accepted a conditional surrender and not have had to kill millions of Japanese. Why was that OK?

3) why is our aligning ourselves with Hitler so ludicrous. We allied ourselves with Stalin and were they not the same? The Vatican initially sided with Hitler because he was anti-communist. Hitler initially thought that England would be his alley against Russia. He never really wanted to fight the west, he wanted to fight Russia. The problem was that England and France declared war on him when he hit Poland. If they had not, he would have just kept going east (have you not at least read a summary of Mein Kampf).

And why don't you just answer the question? If we had allied with Hitler to defeat Stalin (if Stalin had attacked us that would not have been inconceivable) would it have been OK to nuke Germany to get rid of Hitler if he had not attacked us.

What if Hitler had taken Britain in 1940 and we had never entered into war with Hitler. If we had invented the bomb before Germany did, would it have been OK to tell Hitler to step down or we would Nuke?

Not fair
 

Spanky, Post 2517:


What liberals fail to realize is that the greatest evil occurs when the individual can be sacrificed for the good of society. That is what "dictatorship of the prolietariate" is all about. If our rights come from man, then those rights can be taken away by man. So when government wants to improve on the state body politic, and can suspend individual rights to do so, that is when you can justify killing millions of people.

However, if rights are God given, and cannot be taken away for the common good, it is much harder to start exterminating people for the common good.

If there is a universal moral code that says we have rights then mass killings are hard to justify. But if all morality is relative, rights are just given by man and are relative and can be taken away for the common good (like in a communist society) that is when the killing fields get organized.

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

You call me a simpleton when you claim to be a moral relativist and yet think certain civil liberties are universal and are endowed to us by our our creator?

Do you really not see that there is a big difference between a government killing its own people and people get killed in a war? You need to use force to get justice. But you should only use the necessary force. But when fighting for justice people can get hurt and even killed. You can't see the difference between that and killing people for unjust end.

You can't see the difference between collateral damage in a war fought for a just cause and intentionally killing people for an unjust cause?

Answer me this. Was it OK to kill millions of Germans to stop Hitler? And if it was does that justifcy Hitler killing millions of people to serve his purposes.

Our all intentions the same?

The are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights......
 

Why is it OK to kill millions to drive Hitler and Tojo from Power, but not Stalin?

Not fair
 

Can you not see the difference that in one instance a government is killing millions of its own citizens intentionally for social engineering purposes. In another instance we are trying to remove a government in a war and in order to do it many innocent people die?

In one instance we don't want to kill the innocent people, but if we don't take action were they become collateral damage, millions more may die and millions will be enslaved for years.

In the other instance, the government not only does it not care that innocent people are being killed, but is intentionally killing innocent people, not to save more lives, but to reach some sort of "social good".

Intentions and results are everthing.

Attention Tax Wonk and Sidd.....
 

Just as a reminder, I am the epicenter of the Universe, not Penske. You two are only to respond to Penske's posts after you have responded to mine. My posts get dealt with first. I realize that my posts are not as caustic, and I don't include pictures, but I am working on my delivery, and regardless of content, my posts should be given first consideration.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

All the more reason to ketchup now -- I can't wait to see if this gambit of SAM's worked!

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

It isn't the politics of personal destruction. I think he's a simpleton and I said so. That's an insult, pure and simple. It was personal and not political.

If you can't communicate through any means other than your rather tiresome bag of cliches and stolen photoshops, just scroll on past my posts.

I'll talk to you again when you start showing signs of human intelligence. And by the way, that, too is a personal, not a political insult.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

I haven't seen any polls indicating they (a) invited us in or (b) want us to stay. And then there's that whole shooting us and blowing us up shit. But maybe I'm reading the message wrong.

And again, Bilmore, I am not one of thoise people who think that we had no reason to be in Iraq. I think the reasons for us to go in were trumped up, I think that the Bush Administration failed to properly prepare the way for the invasion, and I think that it is foolhardy and irresponsible to act as though the war can be prosecuted and taxes can be cut at the same time.

But Saddam was a genocidal thug who needed to be taken out and I'm glad we did it. I hope we can stick around long enough to rebuild in a way that will have a lasting impact, and I hope we don't bankrupt ourselves and our children to do it.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Yes, I was. I think you have an incredibly simplistic view of the world, ethics, politics, and polite discourse. You appear to see the world in completely didactic terms, and you regularly argue either side of the coin if it suits your purpose without the slightest evidence that you are even aware you were asserting the polar opposite the day before.

You may be a very nice guy. You are certainly a very committed guy. I applaud your dedication to the application of your beliefs, and you seem in general, to be a pretty easygoing person as long as you are not challenged. But I also believe you are a maroon.

Sorry.