Re: The Three Trillion Dollar War

On 7 May, 01:12, ijda...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ian Davis) wrote:

Well, in that case I've been needlessly troubling myself with a perceived
position, which was not an actual position, made doubly troubling because
it was perceived to be a position held by someone who absent that one
perceived position, seemed to talk an awful lot of sense.

Have you considered the possibility that it might be your perception
which is wrong?

I hold that the right or a wrong of an action is in the action itself. My
central concern is not harm itself, but the lawfulness of an action.

That's intriguing. So you would say, would you, that the death penalty
is perfectly right in Paris, Texas (where it is legal) but wrong in
Paris, France (where it is illegal). In other words, you have no
standards of right and wrong beyond legislation?

There is no law against murder in the UK. Does that mean you think
it's OK?

It is just plain difficult for me to compute that a decision
to continue or stop doing something might or should be predicated on which
choice would cause less harm, because for me the equation is much simpler...
it is always right to cease doing wrong, even if the continuing to do wrong
might have some logistic advantage or justification.

You have said that "right" and "wrong" depend solely on legislation.
What law says that "it is always right to cease doing wrong"? You
appear to invoking moral absolutes in order to disprove moral
absolutes.

 For me, though perhaps my take is by most peoples standards
a rather extreme one, rape is to be preferred to war, because the one inflicts
trauma on the few, while the other inflicts trauma on all but a few.. likewise
child abuse is to be preferred to war, because few children are harmed by the
one while few children are not harmed by the other.

And how often are these alternatives?

 ... to a paradym (as established subsequent
to WWII) that makes the starting of war an automatic war crime, if not first
approved by the UN security council.

Pointless. The winners will always prove that the losers started it.
Britain declared war on Germany in 1939. By your reckoning, Britain
would have been guilt of war crimes if Germany had won.

Incidentally, I think we should pull out of Iraq as soon as physically
possible.

Ian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obama and the Mosque
    ... Britain declared war on Germany not the other way around. ... I must have been mistaken in my belief that Germany started the ball rolling on September 1st, ... "The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth." ... Chamberlain declared war on Germany on September 3rd 1939 but you have it your way. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Obama and the Mosque
    ... Britain declared war on Germany not the other way ... I must have been mistaken in my belief that Germany started the ball ... I know wikipedia is not always the fount of all knowledge, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Re: a good government
    ... Jews are a race of parasites anyway. ... Jews are an enemy race and should not be in Germany anyway, ... TO have a war in order to keep the economy going? ... against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Re: Racism and Behavioral Biology
    ... And I think Hitler began to severely resent those who had not ... It goes on to tell about what Hitler was doing after the war, ... He viewed the Jews as unwelcome foreigners in Germany who ...
    (talk.philosophy.misc)
  • Re: Where were you 5 years ago?
    ... Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war. ... Germany, which had not yet attacked us. ... Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. ... America was certainly not prepared for war. ...
    (rec.roller-coaster)