Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234
This is the other thing I wanted to point out. I dont' think this is true by any means. Does the US make these decisions on it own? Does NATO make a decision on its own? Each entity what ever it is, only acts as that entity for its best interest, and changes form when needed. US acts as an individual sometimes, sometimes its administration acts as an individual. Sometimes US and taliban work as an army (so I've heard). Sometimes the American Navy works with a foreign country. Sometimes North America acts together. Sometimes Hilary Clinton makes deals with countries not fully supported by America. Sometimes certain members of government form alliances that cross multiple national boundaries. Sometimes we have double agents, sometimes we work with enemies for strategic position. Sometimes cops are gang members sometimes gang members are cops. Sometimes we commit crimes to pursue bigger crimes etc.
Not sure I pointed that out well but I take issue when we think America as a group is against a certain other group. These false divisions don't make any sense when you really break them down.
I'll respond to you here in a bit of a collective sense. Most of my posts have been from a formal/legal/rational perspective, and to some extent referring to trends and events without reflecting much upon if things could have gone differently.
How a person
should consider the same events are seen from a moral perspective, a political perspective... that isn't really something I have commented upon - and admittedly it is not something I'm overly interested in commenting upon either. Such discussions will usually just boil down to emotional sentiment thrown out without much consideration. I think the "how" and the "why" is better... and then each person can individually form an opinion if that is enough.
If one should even consider the institutions (the state model, international accords, federal laws, the constititution) involved in armed conflict as legitimate - those are monstrous and difficult debates in and of their own. Volition vs the social contract, individualism vs collectivism, freedom vs duty... all tough and lengthy discussions. I haven't touched upon it here, because from experience I know this invariably just becomes a noisefest.
Consider the most basic of all objections to war: Could one not merely say that a killing can not be morally mediated by context? That is a good question and anyone who pretends it is easy should (in my eyes) excempt themselves from ever debating the justification of armed conflict.
Last edited by tame_deuces; 02-07-2013 at 07:39 PM.