LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 128
0 members and 128 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 10-10-2005, 11:37 PM   #2629
Spanky
For what it's worth
 
Spanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
Not fair

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
What you don't seem to grasp is that IT ISN'T OUR RIGHT.
It may not be a great thing but it is justified. It sucks to have to kill innocent people but some times it is the right thing to do. Bombing aushwitz would have killed innocent people but it would have been the right thing to do. It woudl have been better if we could have done it without klling innocent people but sometimes you don't have that optoin.

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk We don't get to say who is and who isn't being sufficiently democratic.
Why not? If we don't who will? Wasn't it OK for us to assume that Hitler was not being sufficiently democratics. Stalin, Pol Pot etc. We have to make those moral choices. It is imperative because if we don't we just encourage evil.

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Just as we don't get to play God.
I don't know what this means but if it means we don't get to kill people that is wrong. Like I said, sometimes it is a moral imperative to kill people. Especially if killing people will save innocent lives. More Especially if killing guilty people will save innocent lives. Sometimes it is wrong not to kill people.

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Given that we don't have the right to enforce our ideals on anyone else any time we want to, acting as if we do makes us just a group of murderous thugs.
No sometimes it makes us enforcers of justice. We should missed a big chance in Rwanda. You think it was a good thinkg we stayed out of there and did not "impose our ideals on those people".

Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Vigilantism is illegal and immoral.
It may be illegal but it is not always immoral.



Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Why do you have the audacity to suggest that it's okay, BUT JUST FOR US, to do it on a global scale?
I have no problem with other people doing it. I wish more countrys would. When vietnam invaded cambodia to stop Pol Pot I was all for it. When Israel bombed Saddams power plants I thought that was a great thing. I wish some other western country had intervened in Rwanda. If France and England had invaded Iraq on their own to get rid of Saddam I would have been cheering them the whole way. If Thailand invaded Burma right now to get rid of the Burmese government I would support them 100%. Problem is that most of the time the US seems to be the only country with the moral center and cajones to do this stuff.
Spanky is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:44 PM.