Cindy Sheehan Has No Moral Authority

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

On top of that, he was the Taliban's equivalent of Rumsfeld.

You should contact the Talibans and suggest a trade: Rumsfeld for Bin Ladin

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklas -- if you choose to refuse deployment in the Gulf because you see this as a blatant war of agression, based on "false witness" (as in "Thou shalt not bear...") by this administration, I would support you, even during your courts martial. As in not going to work today - closet libetarian.

Or you could choose to be an unarmed conscientious objector medical corpman if they still have those - one of the highest loss rates and rates of decoration in Vietnam. Or, as I suggested using both US and Israeli examples, you could volunteer for more hazardous but more clearly defensive deployments, i.e. Afghanistan or West Bank border crossings.

Az - apologies for my assumptions. However, there is an interesting implication to your beliefs, besides the simultaneous convergence/divergence with Berz which I will have to roll around on my tongue and taste a while - the two of you are so close and yet so very far apart...

What societies meet your criteria? The reason I am asking is that your definition seems so broad that no societies meet it - which would then bring your views into line with Berz. You can see where I am struggling with this - I would suspect that only a few European country's are going to fit your criteria, and maybe some of the Commonwealth countries.

And if you live in a country right now that does not fit those criteria, and you do not have that open debate - then would the actions I or Berz describe be reasonable, especially if like Martin Luther King one was willing to live with the consequences? I am curious, your argument has some interesting nuances - and unless I am going to be a hippocrit, then I should be willing to consider them.

[Patroklos]

I would support you, even during your courts martial.

Would you send me print outs of Poly threads to my prison cell?

[Mr. Harley]

Actually - yes I would. But NOT OT.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What exactly are you saying?

One of the important ideas of a democratic culture is that we all have equal standing in the public square. That doesn't mean stupid ideas should be taken as seriously as smart ones. It means that the content of an argument should be judged on its own merits.

[Az]

Az - apologies for my assumptions. However, there is an interesting implication to your beliefs, besides the simultaneous convergence/divergence with Berz which I will have to roll around on my tongue and taste a while - the two of you are so close and yet so very far apart...

Berzie and I are ethical purists, in that we have strong, internally logical ethical systems. The only difference is that his isn't based on anything while mine is. I've always respected extreme libertarians for this. I am an act utilitarian, and of course, while our ideas on the perfect society and it's rules may collide day and night, there are also many points of view we might share the same trench.

What societies meet your criteria? The reason I am asking is that your definition seems so broad that no societies meet it - which would then bring your views into line with Berz. You can see where I am struggling with this - I would suspect that only a few European country's are going to fit your criteria, and maybe some of the Commonwealth countries.

I don't think that any do, in the full sense, but there are many societies that come close. private capital and it's control of media, as well as the strength of international media hurt flaw this, as well as organized religion.

And if you live in a country right now that does not fit those criteria, and you do not have that open debate - then would the actions I or Berz describe be reasonable, especially if like Martin Luther King one was willing to live with the consequences? I am curious, your argument has some interesting nuances - and unless I am going to be a hippocrit, then I should be willing to consider them.

This is an interesting question, and it's possible that there is no real answer to that, since any debate on whether a certain action is "reasonable/ethical/OK/etc." tends to be less and less meaningful the less there is a defined concensus of truth, and ethical value, or in the case that that this value is scewed, as it is in the US. However, in my book, his refusal would be wrong, since he isn't ordered to commit murder of innocent civilians, for example.

[Agathon]

Whether the tactics are offensive or defensive is irrelevant, it is the strategy. The strategy is to defend America.

Sorry, you have no credibility left.

[Patroklos]

Credit from you equates to debt everywhere else.

So, Thank You

[Velociryx]

quote:
The sooner we get OUT of that $hithole, the better for everyone, including the Iraqi people.


Jesus, how can anyone think this? The disconnect from reality is staggering...

Which reality would that be?

The one in which we found Iraq's vast stores of Weapons of Mass Destructions, or the one where we captured their fierce "Nucular Arsenal"?

-=Vel=-

[Mr. Harley]

Az - the problem with your description of the individual in the armed forces, in this case, is that even if he is per se not killing civilians, he is by his very nature lending support and aid to this unjust war. If I did not have my little girl, and had a little more guts, I would withhold taxes from the government. But then making my little girl suffer for my own personal code of ethics now falls into your category of examining all the consequences of your actions. More revolutionaries are defeated by marraige and family than by any government.

I am VERY interested in what countries/governments/systems/cultures - they are all going to be involved in meeting your criteria - you view as coming closest to your ideal of a truly free county. FYI I consider myself an ethical realist, and what I mean by that is that I largely agree with both your and Berz's approach, except for one caveat. Once you get into the real world pure ethics can get awfully muddled - for example, if I withheld my taxes I would be hurting the effort in Afghanistan, which I consider ethical correct (except we put too few resources into it) versus Iraq which I do not think meets that criteria. Those confounding real world applications...

[Az]

Az - the problem with your description of the individual in the armed forces, in this case, is that even if he is per se not killing civilians, he is by his very nature lending support and aid to this unjust war.

This is the place where we disagree. I just fail to see how this war is in any way blatantly unjust. I think that if it will be handled properly, if not by this administration then by the next one, it will still come out as a great ethical triumph.

I am VERY interested in what countries/governments/systems/cultures - they are all going to be involved in meeting your criteria - you view as coming closest to your ideal of a truly free county.

Oh, I fear that I am too ignorant of the indepth of most systems around the world to give out such an assessment. However, I am certain that some countries are more and some countries are less close to that ideal model, and their morals, will be self consistent and ethical. ( morals as in codes of law, and ideals of behavior of humans holding wide concensus, ethics as the logical theories of human behavior )

FYI I consider myself an ethical realist, and what I mean by that is that I largely agree with both your and Berz's approach, except for one caveat. Once you get into the real world pure ethics can get awfully muddled - for example, if I withheld my taxes I would be hurting the effort in Afghanistan, which I consider ethical correct (except we put too few resources into it) versus Iraq which I do not think meets that criteria. Those confounding real world applications...

I realize what you're saying, and this is only natural. However, maybe you shouldn't worry yourself too much. It all depends on what is your ethical theory. For me, ethical purity doesn't really collide with realism. Ethical purity manifests itself, or to be more precise, is in whether the ethical valuation of different actions or scenarios is consistent and logical. Realism is nothing but the proper assessment of the chances of each of those hypotheticals actually coming to life.


Vel:

Which reality would that be?

The one in which we found Iraq's vast stores of Weapons of Mass Destructions, or the one where we captured their fierce "Nucular Arsenal"?

If you supported Iraq 2 over WMD, you've supported the war for the worst reason possible. OTOH, it does explain you switching sides .

[Berzerker]

Az

Lies, or unpure causes. Afghanistan was just the same. If you're telling me that Afghanistan was invaded and siezed just because of 9/11, you're deluding yourself. There certainly were much bigger concerns.

Sometimes people are just attacked to get what they have, and sometimes by people who dont have to lie about their motive(s). The Spanish wanted to rob and convert latin America and it did. If the Taliban handed over Al Qaeda, I'm pretty sure they'd still be in power. We were giving them money to wage a drug war and were not unhappy with the results. But this isn't about Afghanistan, its about Iraq.

I would love it if you pointed out the contradiction, but it seems that you've missed my point entirely

You went from:

all battlefields are created by lying politicians.

to

The number of wars that were started by people due to motives that were pure and logical within the borders of their own belief systems is very low, and usually enjoyed the dubious honor of being wars waged by insane fanatics. Not all of them, mind you, but many of them.

All to some

History reveals a pattern - the big swallow the small until the big becomes too bloated and gets lazy and keels over from heart disease.

We cannot and shouldn't judge the justness of wars because of their motives. That doesn't mean that "we are morally obligated to fight for their lies", but that we are morally obligated to fight for good, and if it entails going to war over the commands of lying politicians, so be it.

So this "good" over rules the law? I'd agree with that on so many issues because of government corruption outlawing our freedoms, but the question is whether or not the mother of a son who died in a war resulting from lies has the moral authority to demand answers from those who lied. Seems obvious to me...

A contract was violated in the extreme and we dont judge the guilty party innocent because we can see a "good" (and distant at best) result come of it. I'd remind you that we were in Afghanistan helping them gain their freedom from the USSR a few years back and that led to 9/11. So this "good" is so beholden to the future it is debatable, but not a justification to lie to others to purchase their existence.

I think we've covered it. "Signing up to defend your country" isn't in the contract.

If that is what the Constitution desires, but that same Constitution desires a CinC who wont lie us into a war. A President can be impeached for bribery and other high crimes and misdeamoners. Lying to attack another country is a bit more serious than bribery.

One can't also claim to be fooled by the US military's media messages and propoganda in this matter, because those never limited the goal of the US military to the defence of the US, but also have always implied that the US military is a force for good in the entire world. Thus, there isn't any fraud in the moral contract.

Very true, "society" has taught us the government tells us what the Constitution says and most go along with it. But when we're talking about moral justification, majorioty rule is not the standard. The fault here lies with Congress, not Sheehan. It is Congress who should have the President answering for his conduct.

What made Afghanistan just? It certainly had little to do with the purity of US intentions, because there was no such purity.

Take a poll of the American people and you will see the difference between pure and impure motives. About half believe Iraq was justified, and alot of those people cant or wont even figure out Bush and his cronies lied. Most people agreed with Afghanistan and no lies were needed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Whether the tactics are offensive or defensive is irrelevant, it is the strategy. The strategy is to defend America.

That's interesting.

Has Saddam ever attacked the US, or threatened to?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
One of the important ideas of a democratic culture is that we all have equal standing in the public square. That doesn't mean stupid ideas should be taken as seriously as smart ones. It means that the content of an argument should be judged on its own merits.

Is this your position or are you merely quoting somebody else?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


You woke up angry, but can't use that energy to add anything of value. Focus!

Originally posted by Sikander

You aren't a real poster, but a retarded spam bot from moveon.org!

I love every post where I talk about "Swiftboating," some Reactionary comes in here and shows us a perfect example.

And by the way, Ming can trace my IP and my email account to a real person.

Thanks.