Why is it better for someone else to take the lead? Is it more moral if we don't?
I don't understand why it's only OK if the UN or a European country says so.
Why is it better for someone else to take the lead? Is it more moral if we don't?
I don't understand why it's only OK if the UN or a European country says so.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
You mean like we've been doing for years regarding North Korea, Iran, China and others? This obviously is an emotional issue. In this day of ubiquitous video, no one wants to see 'freedom fighters' be crushed. But in terms of money and human lives, we cannot afford to be the world's police force everytime a large group of protestors wants help against an oppressive regime.Originally Posted by alan
But if you think we should be, are you willing to pay more taxes to finance this sort of involvement? 'Yes' or 'no' will do.
If 'no' do we then start cutting even more from science, education, women's health care, 'click and clack' and the like to pay for it? Or do we say again 'just charge it'?
moo
We're already charging all those things, borrowing 40% of every dollar spent. If we're going to mortgage our future for immediate gain, I'd rather fall on the side of life and liberty than 'click and clack'. It's less a matter of cost than priorities.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
So that's a 'no'. Got-cha.
We are already involved in two useless wars. If you consider the US as an Empire that controls the world than yes we should take the lead in all wars. What about our friends in the governments of Bahrain and Yemen. These dictators are also killing unarmed civilians and we are not sending in jets.
No, I don't think you do 'got-me'. But carry on.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I would not consider the US as an Empire. I'd rather consider us a force for good in a troubled world, but maybe that's just me.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well people are also being killed by our bombs in the middle east right now. And that is a DIRECT result of our meddling. Yes, yes, Saddam, was also a bad guy. He was more than that: he was evil. But look at the mess we made by intervening.People are being killed by an insane despot with heavy weapons. We should probably just look the other way and sing 'la la la'.
Wouldn't want to meddle.
So I can pretend the U.S. military is some saint whose only decision is "who should I save today?" (mother Teressa in a stealth bomber or something). But I would have to ignore all factual evidence right in front of me (the current wars) to do so. There's a lot, lot, of U.S. intervention in the world that has not been positive but the current wars are an example that's not even very controversial. Note that I don't argue, the U.S. military has never done any good ever anywhere. That would simply be incorrect. Just that the force you want to mobilize, another dog of war let loose ... have done an immense amount of damage in the world also.
From a real politic perspective we just don't have a lot of moral credibility left in the world (nope this isn't saying other countries don't also have some pretty bad foreign policy on their record, it's just we don't have a lot of credibility). And if it's not purely us doing it, it won't purely be us paying for it (of course the U.S. often ends up bankrolling much of even consensus endeavors and if so this is only so much help but ...).Why is it better for someone else to take the lead? Is it more moral if we don't?
I don't understand why it's only OK if the UN or a European country says so.
On the deficit: I don't like how insanely in debt we are either, really it's extremely troublesome. But if we are going to spend money, and even money we don't have, I would rather it be on peace than war. What I'd love to see funded beyond all else is green energy and sustainability (yea I know it's just a little matter of the planet we live on but ......). If we are going to mortgage our future on a monetary level, lets gain something that is worth far more than money: that of which all wealth assumes and takes for granted: natural capital. So that might be my top choice, but yea I'd also rather finance education (though truth be told I prefer this done on a state level, now if only the federal government wasn't stealing so much more from my state than it gives back!), food stamps, social security. Click and clack over bombs and fighter planes.
Yep. Note that wars are always either justified on humanitarian grounds or else on rightful vengeance (punishment) grounds. The Iraq war was justified on both at one time or other: phony revenge for 9-11, then bringing democracy etc., never mind that the reasons kept switching. And yet very few wars are actually justifiable if you take a long term perspective (no wars since world war II I'd argue, yes fine I throw warmongers the bone of WWII, now throw me the bone of all the wasted wars since then!). They were all justified at the time, they were none justifiable with the long view of history. Lives and wealth and hope were squandered on them. Ha, I'm almost arguing "I'm already against the next war" makes sense from a probability perspective, even when we don't even know where that war is yet.
As for where we decide to intervene to "save" people militarily: It's either completely selfless or must be selfish (and warmongers often can't even make up their mind on this). In one minute it's because it's moral to intervene because people are being killed. And the next minutes it is: we should only intervene where we have a strategic interest. Some kind of: yes we have a moral obligation but only if I also get mine. Now what would the strategic interest in Libya be again? I forget, I need to go to the store and maybe FILL UP THE TANK on the way
If we, as a people, never attempt good for fear of less than stellar results, we cannot call ourselves moral. If we are not willing to do what's right for fear of what others may think of us, we have no principles. Ambiguity is never a virtue.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote