philosophical food

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
~John Stuart Mill

If I had to guess, I'd say some of you would instantly take arms if it meant protecting your own. I would (and in fact have been) arguing that the US is doing this to protect its own.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I find the above enlightning and wanted to share.

Someone in my poli sci class tried to argue that Locke would have been for keeping a despote in charge. The person didn''t understand Locke''s state of nature/state of war theory.

I''m a pure Hobbsian on man''s state of nature, ""Harsh, brutal and short.""

Intrestingly, I''m also a believer in Freud and Nitzche in that its possible for man to overcome society in order to achieve ""uberman"" or self-actualized status. (more Nitzche though, as Freud thought society would crush the individual (Super Ego over Ego))

That, and I got to use ""uberman"" in a non-1337 way.

"Yomm" wrote:

If I had to guess, I''d say some of you would instantly take arms if it meant protecting your own. I would (and in fact have been) arguing that the US is doing this to protect its own.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I find the above enlightning and wanted to share.

Problem is that Mill does not apply here. That would by implying that people arguing against this war are refusing to military intervention at all. But this is not the case. Take the Kosovo intervention as an example. There were a lot less people protesting against that. Or against the second Gulf war.

Why many people are rallying against this war is that it is not a war of self defense from a juridical point of view as you proposed. There is no such law that justifies a preemptive strike as self defense.

What is also flawed about this statement is that Mill does not define what a) defines a war, what b) defines personal safety and c) what is worth war then.
There are very likely people that see defending against an invasion fighting for personal safety. And it is also likely that this is not a minority. Is defending against an invasion going to war?
Is it worth going to war for natural resources? For economic superiority? Or for the idea of forcing people into another (better?) way of life?

The other way round, how do you explain the many people fighting against the allied forces in Iraq at this time? According to Mill the people fully aware of their situation in Iraq and still fighting against the invasion are morally just as worth as the american soldier.
You cannot really believe that all these people are still fighting back because they are so frightened of the Iraqi forces themselves. Everybody in the big cities and on the frontline knows what is happening and how they are already losing this war. Still these people fight back. Apparantly at least some of these have something they are willing to fight for. What is it?

Too me this statement just means that anybody who has something willing to fight for may do so and rightly so, because they are ""better men"" than the rest. To me this can only lead to anarchy.

If you want an old, dead, smart man, then you should pick Locke.

Problem is that Mill does not apply here. That would by implying that people arguing against this war are refusing to military intervention at all. But this is not the case. Take the Kosovo intervention as an example. There were a lot less people protesting against that. Or against the second Gulf war.

Why many people are rallying against this war is that it is not a war of self defense from a juridical point of view as you proposed. There is no such law that justifies a preemptive strike as self defense.

Kosovo was not a defensive action. We killed more people in it than we have in Iraq. The anti-war movement doesn''t care about who we''re going to war with but who is in charge of the war. They hate Bush. Clinton was their guy in Hollywood so he had support. Many people protesting hate the Government, that''s fine, I sure do. But, don''t pass that political issue off on the Iraqi people.

I''m talking about the anti-war movement not people who are anti-war.

Clinton idealized a global economy and recognized the world is headed towards globalization.

Bush could care less about globalization. He wants to ""get"" the bad guys. He is on a personal christian fundamentalist crusade to instill democracy. The fact that he''s not going to let international politics interfere with his crusade is very Imperialistic. Pre-emptive self defense with apparent disregard for the consequences, because he is a bad man, is really damaging to the world politically and thus, inherently, the US.

Losing Tony Blair would have been to high a cost. Saddam for Tony is not a 1 to 1 trade.

"fangblackbone" wrote:

Clinton idealized a global economy and recognized the world is headed towards globalization.

Bush could care less about globalization. He wants to ""get"" the bad guys. He is on a personal christian fundamentalist crusade to instill democracy. The fact that he''s not going to let international politics interfere with his crusade is very Imperialistic. Pre-emptive self defense with apparent disregard for the consequences, because he is a bad man, is really damaging to the world politically and thus, inherently, the US.

Losing Tony Blair would have been to high a cost. Saddam for Tony is not a 1 to 1 trade.

What did Serbia have to do with the global economy? Iraq has more effect on the global economy and globalization than Serbia ever will. I would say that Bush understands the global economy far more than Clinton did by going after Saddam than Misloviche.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"fangblackbone" wrote:

Clinton idealized a global economy and recognized the world is headed towards globalization.

Bush could care less about globalization. He wants to ""get"" the bad guys. He is on a personal christian fundamentalist crusade to instill democracy. The fact that he''s not going to let international politics interfere with his crusade is very Imperialistic. Pre-emptive self defense with apparent disregard for the consequences, because he is a bad man, is really damaging to the world politically and thus, inherently, the US.

Losing Tony Blair would have been to high a cost. Saddam for Tony is not a 1 to 1 trade.

What did Serbia have to do with the global economy? Iraq has more effect on the global economy and globalization than Serbia ever will. I would say that Bush understands the global economy far more than Clinton did by going after Saddam than Misloviche.

By attacking them the way we did we didnt create ill will with most of our allies. The way we have attacked Iraq, we have. For that reason alone Iraq != Serbia, in my book. Again, with me its not the ends, its the means.

France created the ill will when they tricked and backstabbed Colin Powell at the UN. France, German, and Russia created the ill will when they chose their own financial interests before upholding their word or doing what''s right.

doing what''s right

Perception ahoy!

Perception ahoy!

What I agree with is always right