(April 8, 2016 at 7:14 pm)abaris Wrote: Yeah, but you can frame that argument, hang it over your bed and feel good about it. It doesn't matter. For you to constantly repeat it either points to a complete inability to walk in the shoes of the ones being on the receiving end or to a complete unwillingness to do so.

It's something for the garbage bin of reality.

Actually, it does matter, but I wouldn't expect you to see it that way in your utter moral confusion.

(April 8, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: Actually, it does matter, but I wouldn't expect you to see it that way in your utter moral confusion.

So pray tell. What are the real world benefits of we have better intentions, other than making you and others feel good? How does it influence the outcome of a conflict?

And most of all, is there some reason why you shy away from answering the question of how you would react if your family was killed by a bomb? You personally. Not some lofty try at analysing. You. How would you react to your mother, father, brother, sister or whoever is close to your heartl, being killed? Would you ask for intent?

That's not an exercise at some philosophy class, that's a simple question that should be quite easy to answer.

Oh, and by the way, we talk about moral confusion as soon as Saudi Arabia and all the other darling bastards of the west get the Iraqui treatment.

(April 8, 2016 at 7:55 pm)abaris Wrote: So pray tell. What are the real world benefits of we have better intentions, other than making you and others feel good? How does it influence the outcome of a conflict?

Well, I'm guessing the "real world benefits" would be the difference between establishing a society like the one in Mosul right now--which has basically resulted in a genocide--and the one we intended (there's that strange word again), wherein there is a stable, free, democratic government which we can be partners with in trade and war. I'm not sure if spelling out that difference for you will make anything "click" because it should have already been pretty obvious.

(April 8, 2016 at 7:55 pm)abaris Wrote: And most of all, is there some reason why you shy away from answering the question of how you would react if your family was killed by a bomb? You personally. Not some lofty try at analysing. You. How would you react to your mother, father, brother, sister or whoever is close to your heartl, being killed? Would you ask for intent?

You mean, the way you've failed to answer any of the multiple questions which would seem basic to your argument (though you don't seem to appreciate what such a thing is)? What's the context of my parent's death? Oh, okay, so a bunch of religious fanatics have overrun my city, threatening to kill anyone who doesn't follow their orders, when a civilized society attempts to intervene and my family becomes victim of an unintended tragedy... and the nation that was attempting to liberate me from my barbaric neighbors makes the effort to explain that and apologize to me. Yeah, I would be pissed. What a horrible situation. But no, I wouldn't start crucifying and beheading journalists or members from other religious sects which is the reality of what our enemies do (remembering that those of us in the U.S. and the average decent person living in a region overrun by Islamists share a common enemy)... a reality on the ground that you don't seem to grasp... or maybe you would do that, or think--from a position that is admittedly gross and racist--that all "brown-skinned" people would think to react in such a horrific manner.

So yeah, I think I would understand intent, and if I didn't, you sure as hell bet I'd ask.

(April 8, 2016 at 11:27 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: So yeah, I think I would understand intent, and if I didn't, you sure as hell bet I'd ask.

So you're either a much better person than me, or dishonest to yourself or never asked yourself that question in all seriousness.

My point always was that it's easy to fart some philosophical bullshit about intent into the world. From your comfy chair in front of your screen. From the perspective of your comfy life in a first world country.

And by the way, you missed to answer my question about intent by about a lightyear. Intent doesn't solve conflicts. Diplomacy or raw power does. And by the way, if we're so good at heart that we want to rid the world of genocide and evil, why didn't we step in in Rwanda? Why do we support Saudi Arabia? Why do we look away in Turkey, where a full scaled dictatorship is in the making?

I tell you, even if you don't like it, because it doesn't interest us or it would go against our interests. So, go on, frame your well intended interventions and hang them over your bed to feel more comfortable when going to sleep. It's about interests, plain and simple.

And if you think, I'm supporting that, you got another thing coming. I'm disgusted by that approach. I'm just not mirror jerking over how much better we are.

(April 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm)abaris Wrote: So you're either a much better person than me, or dishonest to yourself or never asked yourself that question in all seriousness.

My point always was that it's easy to fart some philosophical bullshit about intent into the world. From your comfy chair in front of your screen. From the perspective of your comfy life in a first world country.

...A dissenting opinion which I'm sure you feel is even more easily expressed given that you don't live in a region overrun and controlled by religious sadists who would happily rape and stone your wife if you didn't follow their strict interpretation of Sharia law. Your antipathy towards a philosophically informed understanding of how arguments typically work is shameful really (and rather embarrassing for you), particularly, for example, when you could obviously stand to benefit from an education that might enlighten you about the validity of ad hominems. Your argument is just silly: You've never experienced war. Therefore, you cannot possibly have anything true to say about the logic of violence.

...Well, okay then. Great job.  

(April 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm)abaris Wrote: And by the way, you missed to answer my question about intent by about a lightyear. Intent doesn't solve conflicts. Diplomacy or raw power does.

Apparently, I did miss your point. So... what is it? My point--I mean the one relevant to the debate we have been having for about two days now--is that understanding intent is essential to assessing the ethical value of how wars are and ought to be waged. And in judging how we treat war, despite our blunders and the few maniacs who unfortunately don our colors, there's simply no comparison between the civilized approach we take, in which innocent life is valued and we seek to minimize civilian deaths, and those of our enemies, who do not.

That was the fucking point. Anybody home?

(April 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm)abaris Wrote: And by the way, if we're so good at heart that we want to rid the world of genocide and evil, why didn't we step in in Rwanda? Why do we support Saudi Arabia? Why do we look away in Turkey, where a full scaled dictatorship is in the making?

I think there was a case to be made that we should have stepped in and prevented the genocide of the Tutsis (And you?). There's a lot of reasons why we don't get involved in every terrible situation around the globe, such as politics or a lack of will on the part of the populace (who, in your case, apparently believe that all wars are unjustified... or maybe it is simply the wars that involve the U.S.?). And you pretty much answered your own question about Saudi Arabia and Turkey in your comments about Assad--perhaps another indication that you could benefit from philosophy, or you know, just like... thinking... and reading (your own words).

(April 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm)abaris Wrote: I tell you, even if you don't like it, because it doesn't interest us or it would go against our interests. So, go on, frame your well intended interventions and hang them over your bed to feel more comfortable when going to sleep. It's about interests, plain and simple.

And it is especially in our interests to not allow Islamists who believe it is their duty to kill the infidel or the apostate, most likely frothing at the mouth to die so as to enter into Paradise (all of which is explicitly sanctioned in the Qur'an and by the example of the Prophet, btw), to get their hands on the type of weaponry that could seriously cripple the world economy, not to mention free and open societies, on top of slaughtering thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives. And in judging how we go about this task of eliminating these assholes versus how they go about their stated aims, largely depends on questions related to intent. You are completely delusional in your failure to recognize that questions such as "Did we intend to annihilate that family?" "How can we avoid civilian casualties?" "How can we promote free and democratic movements and at the same time protect our interests?" versus the savage targeting of innocents--in beheadings, crucifixions, stonings, mass shootings, suicide bombings, etc.--make all the difference in determining the moral superiority of one side over the other, namely, in purpose and/or execution of military action.

I suppose, however, that you are so dense that you actually think the U.S. was no better than the Nazis (and certainly don't bring intent into the matter!), in their goals and execution of those goals during WWII, due to war crimes (arguably) such as those committed on Dresden, Hiroshima, and the like.

(April 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm)abaris Wrote: And if you think, I'm supporting that, you got another thing coming. I'm disgusted by that approach. I'm just not mirror jerking over how much better we are.

Well please, at least make it more coherent and interesting than what you've thus far delivered.

Holy shit, Mudhammam, this isn't hard. NO ONE HERE is saying that there's never a time when the US is justified in taking military action, even when it causes civilian casualties... what we're saying is that the US has not demonstrated that its motives are even a fraction as pure as you seem to believe.

You just said that "a case" could be made for intervening in places like Rwanda, Darfur, etc... yet we only intervene when US corporate interests are at stake (or we're trying to dominate and ensure the Capitalists/Capitalism control a region that's in danger of rejecting the "free" market). If we really were doing what we do to stop the rapes (etc) by religious radicals you describe, we'd be bombing Boko Haram with everything our Air Force and Navy can lift.

The people of the Mideast are not stupid or irrational, except for some radicals. The rest of them grasp the history of Western domination of and intervention in their regions, to ensure our own profits at their expense, and they're furious at us for doing it. Try looking up the number of identified homicide bombers who have degrees in things like engineering, medicine, etc.

And don't you dare fucking say that I'm justifying their actions, or that I dislike the USA. I'm ex-military and I still stand by my oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. I'm simply pointing out that your rose-colored-glasses version oversimplifies both our motivations and theirs, and does no justice to either group of people.

(April 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Holy shit, Mudhammam, this isn't hard. NO ONE HERE is saying that there's never a time when the US is justified in taking military action, even when it causes civilian casualties... what we're saying is that the US has not demonstrated that its motives are even a fraction as pure as you seem to believe.

Which is what? How "pure" have I argued our motives to be? "Purer" than those of madmen like Abu Bakr al-Bahgdadi, Osama bin Laden, and any of the other Islamists we've fought against? Yeah.. no shit. If you don't understand that that's the point I've been making, you're a little slow. If you think that's untrue, you're delusional.

(April 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You just said that "a case" could be made for intervening in places like Rwanda, Darfur, etc... yet we only intervene when US corporate interests are at stake (or we're trying to dominate and ensure the Capitalists/Capitalism control a region that's in danger of rejecting the "free" market). If we really were doing what we do to stop the rapes (etc) by religious radicals you describe, we'd be bombing Boko Haram with everything our Air Force and Navy can lift.

...Okay? Great point?

(April 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: The people of the Mideast are not stupid or irrational, except for some radicals. The rest of them grasp the history of Western domination of and intervention in their regions, to ensure our own profits at their expense, and they're furious at us for doing it. Try looking up the number of identified homicide bombers who have degrees in things like engineering, medicine, etc.

...What? I'm glad that you believe you're entitled to speak for every single person in the Middle East. That's very paternalistic. What does the fact that suicidal Islamist maniacs have degrees in engineering, medicine, etc., have to do with... anything?

(April 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: And don't you dare fucking say that I'm justifying their actions, or that I dislike the USA. I'm ex-military and I still stand by my oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. I'm simply pointing out that your rose-colored-glasses version oversimplifies both our motivations and theirs, and does no justice to either group of people.

You must not really be following the debate. It's not that complicated really. Try harder.

(April 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Holy shit, Mudhammam, this isn't hard. NO ONE HERE is saying that there's never a time when the US is justified in taking military action, even when it causes civilian casualties... what we're saying is that the US has not demonstrated that its motives are even a fraction as pure as you seem to believe.

You just said that "a case" could be made for intervening in places like Rwanda, Darfur, etc... yet we only intervene when US corporate interests are at stake (or we're trying to dominate and ensure the Capitalists/Capitalism control a region that's in danger of rejecting the "free" market). If we really were doing what we do to stop the rapes (etc) by religious radicals you describe, we'd be bombing Boko Haram with everything our Air Force and Navy can lift.

The people of the Mideast are not stupid or irrational, except for some radicals. The rest of them grasp the history of Western domination of and intervention in their regions, to ensure our own profits at their expense, and they're furious at us for doing it. Try looking up the number of identified homicide bombers who have degrees in things like engineering, medicine, etc.

And don't you dare fucking say that I'm justifying their actions, or that I dislike the USA. I'm ex-military and I still stand by my oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. I'm simply pointing out that your rose-colored-glasses version oversimplifies both our motivations and theirs, and does no justice to either group of people.

What was our corporate stake in Somalia or Yugoslavia as a recent example? Or our stake, corporately, in Korea? Or WW2? Sure we made some business choices after the fact but going in I don't see how that was a motive. It wasn't what was painted to the public and the public approved. You can't have it both ways. Sure some US wars have been corporate tie-ins. But that doesn't mean painting all US military action as such.

(April 10, 2016 at 2:28 am)Goosebump Wrote:

(April 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Holy shit, Mudhammam, this isn't hard. NO ONE HERE is saying that there's never a time when the US is justified in taking military action, even when it causes civilian casualties... what we're saying is that the US has not demonstrated that its motives are even a fraction as pure as you seem to believe.

You just said that "a case" could be made for intervening in places like Rwanda, Darfur, etc... yet we only intervene when US corporate interests are at stake (or we're trying to dominate and ensure the Capitalists/Capitalism control a region that's in danger of rejecting the "free" market). If we really were doing what we do to stop the rapes (etc) by religious radicals you describe, we'd be bombing Boko Haram with everything our Air Force and Navy can lift.

The people of the Mideast are not stupid or irrational, except for some radicals. The rest of them grasp the history of Western domination of and intervention in their regions, to ensure our own profits at their expense, and they're furious at us for doing it. Try looking up the number of identified homicide bombers who have degrees in things like engineering, medicine, etc.

And don't you dare fucking say that I'm justifying their actions, or that I dislike the USA. I'm ex-military and I still stand by my oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. I'm simply pointing out that your rose-colored-glasses version oversimplifies both our motivations and theirs, and does no justice to either group of people.

What was our corporate stake in Somalia or Yugoslavia as a recent example? Or our stake, corporately, in Korea? Or WW2? Sure we made some business choices after the fact but going in I don't see how that was a motive. It wasn't what was painted to the public and the public approved. You can't have it both ways. Sure some US wars have been corporate tie-ins. But that doesn't mean painting all US military action as such.

Also I don't know if you were sarcastic when you said America bombs places that reject the free market, America doesn't have a complete free market and a corporation if it's run by the state isn't free market if I understand correctly.  

Additionally when you say "we" profit, I don't know who "we" means but surely it's not all Americans who profit from the wars.  Wars cost the tax payer trillions. If wars were funded by purely free market investments by people who genuinely believed the wars were justified and deserve to be funded I can't imagine people putting trillions in and expecting to get much out.

(April 7, 2016 at 9:53 pm)Mudhammam Wrote:

(April 7, 2016 at 4:19 pm)abaris Wrote: Which usually achieves quite the opposite of what your goal is. If someone were to bomb my family and friends to smitherins, to call them collaterals, I would consider joining the enemy of my enemy also. It's a first class PR strategy, just like running a recruitment office for ISIS or any other given group fighting the west.

How high is the conversion rate? We actually do a lot to minimize collatoral damage and when that does tragically occur, we try to do something for the family and explain to them our intention. Do our enemies do that? Nope.

I don't think a State Department press release is much consolation to the aggrieved, nor do I think we're exporting much to Syria besides high explosive ... precious little food or other aid. And when we follow that up with making loud noises about barring Muslim refugees, it's a much louder message than any delivered from a lectern to a room full of reporters.