John Stewart Mill

[burmafrd]

“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”.’

[zrinkill]

“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”.’

I agree with that statement.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg Tribunal

[burmafrd]

John Stewart Mill vs Herman Goering.
So I guess we all know who your hero is, Brain?

[BrAinPaiNt]

John Stewart Mill vs Herman Goering.
So I guess we all know who your hero is, Brain?

What should scare you more is this administration following the philosophy of a nazi.

And if you honestly think a nazi is my hero than you are worse off than I thought you were...but it would appear you like nazi like government by your words and actions on this board and willingness to turn a blind eye away from the constitution when it fits your agenda.

Next

Here are a couple of quotes from american heroes that YOU would seem to disagree with.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin

Give me liberty or give me death.

And

Fear is the passion of slaves.

- Patrick Henry

[burmafrd]

And those who ignore history- are doomed to repeat it. I have pointed out in the past that Lincoln and FDR abused the Consituition MUCH more then Bush has. And we survived those hard times. BUT I argue that it is because they were willing to go to the wall to fight the enemy is the reason we are still around. Half measures and FAINT hearts NEVER win ANYTHING.

[jterrell]

nice quote but you might wanna spell stuart properly....

utilitarianism is a very interesting if somewhat adolescent/naive philosophy in actual practice.

[jterrell]

I agree with that statement.

I agree as well but of course many things are worthy of war, Saddam being mean to Bush's daddy just wasn't one of them; and of course Exxon's profits is not either.

[ConcordCowboy]

The majority of people will always support going to war if it is necessary.

War in Iraq...NOT necessary...hence no support.

This really isn't that hard to figure out...if you get your head out of Bush's rectum.

[zrinkill]

I agree as well but of course many things are worthy of war, Saddam being mean to Bush's daddy just wasn't one of them; and of course Exxon's profits is not either.

I agreed with the statement ..... I did not compare it to anything.

I think removing the threat of Saddam was reason in itself to go to war .... he broke every sanction he was under many times over ..... unfortunately the war effort was not run very well.

People should have a problem with HOW the war was fought ..... not whether Saddam should have been removed.

They should have let us remove him 16 years ago.

But at least the War effort is on the right track now.

[Sasquatch]

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering at the Nuremburg Tribunal

That card trumps them all, each and every time you play it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

And those who ignore history- are doomed to repeat it. I have pointed out in the past that Lincoln and FDR abused the Consituition MUCH more then Bush has. And we survived those hard times. BUT I argue that it is because they were willing to go to the wall to fight the enemy is the reason we are still around. Half measures and FAINT hearts NEVER win ANYTHING.

Yet you would brush aside history when it is not in your favor?

Sorry...the iraq issue is a mess and no matter what quote you pull out it will not make it any different.

This is not WWII we are talking about no matter how many times you keep trying to pass it off as the same.

This is closer to a viet nam type war than WWII.

[jterrell]

I agreed with the statement ..... I did not compare it to anything.

I think removing the threat of Saddam was reason in itself to go to war .... he broke every sanction he was under many times over ..... unfortunately the war effort was not run very well.

People should have a problem with HOW the war was fought ..... not whether Saddam should have been removed.

They should have let us remove him 16 years ago.

But at least the War effort is on the right track now.

We didn't remove him 16 years ago because Senior Bush who had been a CIA head was aware of the ramifications. He pimp-slapped him but left him in charge to fight off Iran and keep torturing the extremists. Best of all we didn't provide security for the friggin country.

Now we have Saddam's head; um, yay, right?
The situation over there is better for some, worse for others and Iran and extremism in general is more scary than ever.

Let's all light those victory cigars....

Not exactly how I felt while watching the ragged-headed wave white flags and see our planes rain down on Saddam's bases 16 years ago....

[BrAinPaiNt]

I agreed with the statement ..... I did not compare it to anything.

I think removing the threat of Saddam was reason in itself to go to war .... he broke every sanction he was under many times over ..... unfortunately the war effort was not run very well.

People should have a problem with HOW the war was fought ..... not whether Saddam should have been removed.

They should have let us remove him 16 years ago.

But at least the War effort is on the right track now.

The problem is that the war effort is NOT on the right track now.

And it will never be on the right track with the politicians in Iraq.

It is not a matter of if our army can beat the terrorists. It is a matter if the Iraqi Politicians and Iraqi army can work without us there and keep the terrorists at bay.

So far they have proven they can not do that on their own and show very little to no signs that they will be able to accomplish that goal.

[Sasquatch]

I agreed with the statement ..... I did not compare it to anything.

I think removing the threat of Saddam was reason in itself to go to war .... he broke every sanction he was under many times over ..... unfortunately the war effort was not run very well.

People should have a problem with HOW the war was fought ..... not whether Saddam should have been removed.

They should have let us remove him 16 years ago.

But at least the War effort is on the right track now.

The only morally just war is one of self-defense. Until the citizens of the United States find our moral compass and reject unnecessary, premeditated, offensive warfare the beacon on the hill will continue to flicker feebly.

[paladin78749]

Bush views it as a fight for the very existence of our nation.
Why he hasn't seen fit to even talk about reinstituting the draft or raising taxes to pay for a "generational war" is befuddling.
But then, even on his best day, Bush befuddles me.
We gave Republicans control of all 3 branches of the gov't and this is what we got. I suppose he is doing the best he can, which is even more frightening.

[ConcordCowboy]

I agreed with the statement ..... I did not compare it to anything.

I think removing the threat of Saddam was reason in itself to go to war .... he broke every sanction he was under many times over ..... unfortunately the war effort was not run very well.

People should have a problem with HOW the war was fought ..... not whether Saddam should have been removed.

They should have let us remove him 16 years ago.

But at least the War effort is on the right track now.

Removing Saddam was not a reason to go to war and Bush Sr knew this as did his infinitely smarter administration...and they REALLY had a reason to go to war...Saddam had invaded a allie...Kuwait...yet they STILL didn't go after Saddam.

You see the mess we have now...this is what Bush Sr wanted to avoid...unfortunalty W isn't a smart as his father and of course you have the whole renegade Cheney thing...which W is to blame for...because he could have put a stop to it.

[theogt]

nice quote but you might wanna spell stuart properly....

utilitarianism is a very interesting if somewhat adolescent/naive philosophy in actual practice.What a very adolescent thing to say.

[zrinkill]

We didn't remove him 16 years ago because Senior Bush who had been a CIA head was aware of the ramifications. He pimp-slapped him but left him in charge to fight off Iran and keep torturing the extremists. Best of all we didn't provide security for the friggin country.

Now we have Saddam's head; um, yay, right?
The situation over there is better for some, worse for others and Iran and extremism in general is more scary than ever.

Let's all light those victory cigars....

Not exactly how I felt while watching the ragged-headed wave white flags and see our planes rain down on Saddam's bases 16 years ago....

Saddam needed to be removed. Sorry we disagree on this subject but I saw what the man was capable of.

[zrinkill]

The problem is that the war effort is NOT on the right track now.

I am sorry that you do not believe the War effort is going well now .... but It is night and day from what it was last year.

[zrinkill]

Removing Saddam was not a reason to go to war and Bush Sr knew this as did his infinitely smarter administration...and they REALLY had a reason to go to war...Saddam had invaded a allie...Kuwait...yet they STILL didn't go after Saddam.

You see the mess we have now...this is what Bush Sr wanted to avoid...unfortunalty W isn't a smart as his father and of course you have the whole renegade Cheney thing...which W is to blame for...because he could have put a stop to it.

Saddam was a constant threat to our nation. Do not let your dislike of Bush blind you to that.

[ConcordCowboy]

Saddam was a constant threat to our nation. Do not let your dislike of Bush blind you to that.

Dislike Bush?

Me?:D

Come on man...Saddam was no threat to the U.S. and deep down you know it.

[zrinkill]

Come on man...Saddam was no threat to the U.S. and deep down you know it.

The billionaire who absolutely hated the U.S., had his own Military, and desperately wanted Nuclear Weapons?

Yea that guy was no threat to us at all ...... :rolleyes:

I will be the first to admit that the current administration messed up the running of this military operation. But a strong Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the U.S., Israel, and every one of our very few allies on that side of the world.

The way it was planned out and executed is what you should be complaining about.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I am sorry that you do not believe the War effort is going well now .... but It is night and day from what it was last year.

Actually death tolls are up this year.

But that is not what I am talking about.

I am not talking militarily.

I am talking Politically and the Iraqi Military.

Those have showed little to no improvements.

Without those two situations working we will not prevail.

If we can not get that country to stand up and do it's own we will never win.

It is not dependent on our military to keep that country free of terrorism forever.

[zrinkill]

I am not talking militarily.

Well thats what I was talking about.

After they are defeated in a War it takes Countries time to pull themselves together ...... look at Germany and Japan.

[ConcordCowboy]

The billionaire who absolutely hated the U.S., had his own Military, and desperately wanted Nuclear Weapons?

Yea that guy was no threat to us at all ...... :rolleyes:

I will be the first to admit that the current administration messed up the running of this military operation. But a strong Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the U.S., Israel, and every one of our very few allies on that side of the world.

The way it was planned out and executed is what you should be complaining about.

If we went after everyone who hated us...we'd definitely need a draft...because there would be worldwide war.

Give me a break on the military...we crushed them in the first Gulf war and it was absolutely NO threat what so ever to the U.S. or any Allie in the area.:rolleyes:

He had no nuclear weapons...wanting them is AGAIN no reason to go to war.

As far as how it was planned out and executed speaks for itself...it was a total cluster#@$%.

[zrinkill]

and it was absolutely NO threat what so ever to the U.S. or any Allie in the area.:rolleyes:

It scares me how people allow politics to cloud their judgment.

[ConcordCowboy]

It scares me how people allow politics to cloud their judgment.

I know what you mean.

Look into this.

http://www.hickorymanor.biz/French-Curved-Mirror-7133F-.gif

They were the proverbial paper tiger.

[paladin78749]

He was a far greater risk to Iran.
Now the counterbalance to the Iranian threat is gone.
The world would have been better served if we had just let Iran and Iraq bleed themselves dry.
I see no real positive outcome to the sceanario that Bush has placed us in.
We shouldn't be surprised, Bush Jr doesn't really have a track record of sucess.
This is really just "par for the course"

[ConcordCowboy]

He was a far greater risk to Iran.
Now the counterbalance to the Iranian threat is gone.
The world would have been better served if we had just let Iran and Iraq bleed themselves dry.
I see no real positive outcome to the sceanario that Bush has placed us in.
We shouldn't be surprised, Bush Jr doesn't really have a track record of sucess.
This is really just "par for the course"

Iraq already took on Iran for 8 years 1980-1988 and couldn't get any better than a stalemate...I doubt he was going to go through that again.

Even if he did go after Iran again...so what..good for us.:D

[zrinkill]

He was a far greater risk to Iran.
Now the counterbalance to the Iranian threat is gone.
The world would have been better served if we had just let Iran and Iraq bleed themselves dry.
I see no real positive outcome to the sceanario that Bush has placed us in.
We shouldn't be surprised, Bush Jr doesn't really have a track record of sucess.
This is really just "par for the course"

Iraq already took on Iran for 8 years 1980-1988 and couldn't get any better than a stalemate...I doubt he was going to go through that again.

Even if he did go after Iran again...so what..good for us.:D

Swoosh ..... right over his head.

[paladin78749]

I'm just a boy whose intentions are good
O Lord please don't let me be misunderstood.

FWIW
GREAT sig pic zrin

[ConcordCowboy]

Swoosh ..... right over his head.


http://www.turfsm.com/uploaded_images/nike-swoosh-723361-739079.gif


:D

[jterrell]

What a very adolescent thing to say.

Utilitarianism is not meant to be teleological. Mill offered up differences in qualities of experience making it a very hard calculus to do in reality. Mill's insistence that pleasures do differ in quality gives rise to difficulty in calculating. Even with his panel of experts are we comparing apples and oranges? Mill's view complicates Bentham's simple calculus of summing up quantity of pleasure. By emphasizing the "higher" pleasures of the intellect , Mill is adding other criteria to the criterion of pleasure. Morality is proportionate to the happiness in being truly human and not to the sum of units of pleasure. Further, is the intellect alone what is essentially human? Even if it is, it is not the intellect alone that gives humans pleasure.

BTW, perhaps I should define an argument for you so you understand how to make an argument, back it with evidence and offer a point.

Your posts here are simply troll posts.

I am certainly going to be wrong on various issues but it will no be simply because someone thinks it is so.

I have over 60 credit hours in Philosophy. It was my major in college for the first three years. If you want to debate it you'll need more than aphorisms.

[jterrell]

http://www.turfsm.com/uploaded_images/nike-swoosh-723361-739079.gif


:D

Saddam kept Iran in check.
There was not Iranian weaponry flowing to Iraq.
Saddam would have went to a stale-mated war to prevent that.

Sadly, crazies can have their uses.

[ConcordCowboy]

Saddam kept Iran in check.
There was not Iranian weaponry flowing to Iraq.
Saddam would have went to a stale-mated war to prevent that.

Sadly, crazies can have their uses.

Yeah I laughed after Zrinkill swooshed me.:D

[arglebargle]

The billionaire who absolutely hated the U.S., had his own Military, and desperately wanted Nuclear Weapons?

Yea that guy was no threat to us at all ...... :rolleyes:

I will be the first to admit that the current administration messed up the running of this military operation. But a strong Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the U.S., Israel, and every one of our very few allies on that side of the world.

The way it was planned out and executed is what you should be complaining about.

Problem: Iraq was very weak before we invaded. Saddam was being contained through various methods. Sure, he'd mouth off, talk nice about our foes, or otherwise poke the bear, but he was not that strong. Personally, I have no problems with a shooter team or a well placed cruise missle taking out Saddam. He certainly deserved it. And while he was a threat to our interests, he was not a real threat to our country.

Looking at the history of the movers and shakers in the Bush Administration, they are on record as early as the early '90's for invasion ('regime change') in Iraq. They already wanted to go, regardless of the circumstances. Their blindness to any possibility other than the fairy tale outcomes they spun is frightening. And I don't think this is an abberation. I think it is standard operating procedure.

While there is, finally, a general in charge who understands the territory, I think the 'plan' from on high is to delay things long enough to dump the blame on the next administration.

[burmafrd]

what most of you convienently forget is that Saddam was patient. He was willing to wait untill the sanctions were lifted. And that was coming. THEN he would have rebuilt his WMD capability. Maybe not nuclear, but chemical and biological. He still had the scientists and the infrastructure to do so. And therefore there was always the threat of terrorists getting some of it. One way or another.

[BrAinPaiNt]

what most of you convienently forget is that Saddam was patient. He was willing to wait untill the sanctions were lifted. And that was coming. THEN he would have rebuilt his WMD capability. Maybe not nuclear, but chemical and biological. He still had the scientists and the infrastructure to do so. And therefore there was always the threat of terrorists getting some of it. One way or another.

We had wood for the guy and those sanctions were not going to be lifted.

It is funny that people cried that the sanctions were not working so we had to go in and get him...only to find out that the sanctions were indeed working.

We were told the inspectors were not doing their jobs well enough, that saddam was hiding stuff, that blix was a fool.

Only to find out that blix was not a fool, there were no WMDs and active nuclear programs.

The one thing one could have a legit argument about was the oil for food scam that was going on.

Even with that he still was not getting the materials and weapons we claimed he had.

The only reason he even fought the inspections and kept acting tough was because he had Iran next to him and did not want to appear weak.

So many excuses being used leading up to the war, when one would prove to be false they would start another slogan, then another slogan and so on.

Even Rummies "snowflakes" alludes to using bumper sticker style slogans to keep things going.

I believe that they just wanted a base of operations to go into Iran, profits for large corporations to go into Iraq, possible future oil deals and everything else was smoke and mirrors.

[paladin78749]

So many excuses being used leading up to the war, when one would prove to be false they would start another slogan, then another slogan and so on.



Your absolutely correct.
Remind me, which rationale are we up to?
WMD's
9-11 Links
spreading democracy
ending secret prisons and torture

[BrAinPaiNt]

Your absolutely correct.
Remind me, which rationale are we up to?
WMD's
9-11 Links
spreading democracy
ending secret prisons and torture

Stay the course?

Well...no they now say they were never stay the course...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iGBrYKQkZo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhxB_SveSc

[silverbear]

“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”.’

Look at you, quoting an ultraliberal... but hey, at least you dissed him by getting his name wrong (Stuart, not Stewart)...


The question is, who do you know who thinks that "nothing is worth war"?? The act of being opposed to THIS war does not automatically make one opposed to ALL wars... for example, I oppose this war with all my heart, but I supported the war in Afghanistan, and I supported Desert Storm...

They had legitimate justifications, the invasion of Iraq does not...

So, though your agenda was clearly to insult those who oppose the invasion of Iraq, all you really did was make yourself look pretty foolish...

[silverbear]

John Stewart Mill vs Herman Goering.
So I guess we all know who your hero is, Brain?

LOL... BP offered that quote not to praise Goering, but rather to point out that Dubya is doing EXACTLY what Goering warned us against all those decades ago...

It figures that you lacked the mental capacity to grasp the intent behind the post, even if it was quite obvious...

the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

Which is EXACTLY what Dubya did when he was conning us into going along with his invasion of Iraq-- he told us that we were being attacked, and that Iraq was part of the conspiracy to attack us, which was categorically untrue...

Then, he and his little gang tried to label anybody who expressed a doubt about his plans a traitor, said they were "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...

And these are the guys you're still trying to defend, Herr Burma...

[silverbear]

And those who ignore history- are doomed to repeat it.

ROTFLMAO... you might want to reconsider trying to float THAT argument, when Dubya clearly forgot the lessons we learned in Vietnam, and as a result, has us mired in yet another Vietnam-esque quagmire...

BUT I argue that it is because they were willing to go to the wall to fight the enemy is the reason we are still around. Half measures and FAINT hearts NEVER win ANYTHING.

And I'd argue that the problem with THIS war is not "faint hearts", but rather that we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place...

This country was nearly unanimous in its support of Desert Storm, and I don't recall much of a protest when we went into Afghanistan... clearly, the American people will support a war that they think is morally justifiable... so the fact that they don't support this war is not an indication that America has lost its will to defend itself (despite your repeated efforts to make it appear that way)... instead, it's an indication that the American people have repudiated this war, and the men who gave it to us...

The most unpatriotic people in America today are the ones still trying to justify the completely unjustifiable invasion of a sovereign nation... it is a naked act of aggression on our part, nothing more, nothing less...

[silverbear]

I agreed with the statement ..... I did not compare it to anything.

I think removing the threat of Saddam was reason in itself to go to war ....

Saddam never posed us any threat at all... he posed a threat to his own people, and to his neighbors in the Middle East, but he was utterly powerless to do anything that could harm us...

he broke every sanction he was under many times over .....

But we had no right to unilaterally enforce UN sanctions... and they chose not to enforce those sanctions themselves...

People should have a problem with HOW the war was fought ..... not whether Saddam should have been removed.

No, they should have an issue with us invading Iraq in the first place...

But at least the War effort is on the right track now.

Oh yeah, things are just GREAT over in Iraq these days... so great, that we're frantically trying to keep the Turks from invading Northern Iraq to smack down the Kurds up there... so great that 2007 has been the deadliest year for American troops since the invasion was launched (this with 2 months still to go in 2007)... and Iraq is nowhere NEAR a resolution of the sectarian strife that has racked that country since we removed Saddam from power...

You've got one uncommonly messed up conception of "on the right track"...

[silverbear]

The only morally just war is one of self-defense.

I don't entirely agree with that, Sas... Desert Storm was a morally just war, and we were defending Kuwait, not ourselves... it was the same with the Korean War, we were over there to defend a sovereign nation that was invaded, and could not defend itself...

[silverbear]

Saddam needed to be removed. Sorry we disagree on this subject but I saw what the man was capable of.

You saw that he was capable of being quite brutal to his own people... you saw that he was capable of using banned weapons against his neighbors in battle...

None of this posed any threat to us... no matter how badly he might have wanted to, Saddam Hussein never had the capacity to do any real harm to the United States...

[silverbear]

I am sorry that you do not believe the War effort is going well now .... but It is night and day from what it was last year.

No, it's not... that country is still in the middle of a civil war... that government only exists because we keep it propped up at the point of our guns... if we weren't there, that government would fold so fast it would make your head spin...

The invasion of Iraq remains a disastrous mistake from our incompetent leadership...

[silverbear]

The billionaire who absolutely hated the U.S., had his own Military, and desperately wanted Nuclear Weapons?

Wanting and having are two entirely different things... bottom line, Saddam Hussein did not have any weapon that posed a danger to the United States...

[Sasquatch]

I don't entirely agree with that, Sas... Desert Storm was a morally just war, and we were defending Kuwait, not ourselves... it was the same with the Korean War, we were over there to defend a sovereign nation that was invaded, and could not defend itself...

I have no problem with this. I should have said "defensive wars" which would cover obligations to defend allies who are being attacked. Thanks for clarifying my own thoughts.

[silverbear]

Well thats what I was talking about.

After they are defeated in a War it takes Countries time to pull themselves together ...... look at Germany and Japan.

Germany and Japan were recovering from YEARS of war, Iraq is recovering from WEEKS of it... it's been four and a half years since Dubya arrogantly proclaimed "Mission Accomplished", and Iraq is still FUBAR'ed... I mean, no solution in sight, anywhere out there on the horizon... if we're still there five years from now, there will still be violence on a wide scale...

[silverbear]

It scares me how people allow politics to cloud their judgment.


There's no politics to it, Saddam Hussein had no weapons that he could use to strike at the United States... he had NO ability to hurt us... and in the global war on terror, he was a small fish...

[silverbear]

what most of you convienently forget is that Saddam was patient. He was willing to wait untill the sanctions were lifted. And that was coming. THEN he would have rebuilt his WMD capability. Maybe not nuclear, but chemical and biological. He still had the scientists and the infrastructure to do so. And therefore there was always the threat of terrorists getting some of it. One way or another.


And you justify invading a sovereign nation for THAT??

I have to assume, then, that you're all in favor of invading EVERYBODY we dislike, starting with Iran and North Korea... they all have equal or greater capability to harm us...

You're gonna need a bigger army if you're intent on invading everybody we don't like, though...

[silverbear]

The only reason he even fought the inspections and kept acting tough was because he had Iran next to him and did not want to appear weak.

BINGO!!!

I believe that they just wanted a base of operations to go into Iran, profits for large corporations to go into Iraq, possible future oil deals and everything else was smoke and mirrors.

Exactly...

[silverbear]

I have no problem with this. I should have said "defensive wars" which would cover obligations to defend allies who are being attacked. Thanks for clarifying my own thoughts.

In the end, it was just an awkward bit of phrasing, which you have now sharpened...

"Defensive wars" is a good way to put it...

[ConcordCowboy]

LOL... BP offered that quote not to praise Goering, but rather to point out that Dubya is doing EXACTLY what Goering warned us against all those decades ago...

It figures that you lacked the mental capacity to grasp the intent behind the post, even if it was quite obvious...



Which is EXACTLY what Dubya did when he was conning us into going along with his invasion of Iraq-- he told us that we were being attacked, and that Iraq was part of the conspiracy to attack us, which was categorically untrue...

Then, he and his little gang tried to label anybody who expressed a doubt about his plans a traitor, said they were "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...

And these are the guys you're still trying to defend, Herr Burma...

:laugh2:

[jterrell]

There's no politics to it, Saddam Hussein had no weapons that he could use to strike at the United States... he had NO ability to hurt us... and in the global war on terror, he was a small fish...

He wasn't even a GWOT target honestly.
He did more to fight terrorism than almost any single individual middle eastern leader.

Iraq had the most secular, least extreme society amongst that Middle-East bloc.

He didn't bow to Mullahs or house Bin Laden either directly or indirectly. Sure he said we suck and are worthy targets but he never did anything to aid that cause. Guess he wasn't afforded free speech.

Saddam was clearly a scumbag. But intelligence gathered over a period of 30 to 40 years suggested he was a stabilizing anti-extreme force in Iraq and if he was removed we'd be in trouble. We all wondered why he was never simply taken out by Sr. Bush and the CIA/Mossad and now we know.

So to wrap up this wonderful exercise we have NOT gotten Bin Laden who spreads extremism and has planned attacks on US soil but did get the brutal Iraqi Dictator who forced secularization on a region wholly against that secularization.

We are good!

[ConcordCowboy]

He wasn't even a GWOT target honestly.
He did more to fight terrorism than almost any single individual middle eastern leader.

Iraq had the most secular, least extreme society amongst that Middle-East bloc.

He didn't bow to Mullahs or house Bin Laden either directly or indirectly. Sure he said we suck and are worthy targets but he never did anything to aid that cause. Guess he wasn't afforded free speech.

Saddam was clearly a scumbag. But intelligence gathered over a period of 30 to 40 years suggested he was a stabilizing anti-extreme force in Iraq and if he was removed we'd be in trouble. We all wondered why he was never simply taken out by Sr. Bush and the CIA/Mossad and now we know.

So to wrap up this wonderful exercise we have NOT gotten Bin Laden who spreads extremism and has planned attacks on US soil but did get the brutal Iraqi Dictator who forced secularization on a region wholly against that secularization.

We are good!


That's my biggest problem and I've argued about this many times in this forum with people.

Bin Laden the man who planned 9/11 STILL walking around...but oh boy we got Saddam...so all is good.:rolleyes:

Que the but Bin Laden in but a small part of the war on terror...it's more important than just him...what can he really do from a cave...blah...blah..blah.

[jterrell]

That's my biggest problem and I've argued about this many times in this forum with people.

Bin Laden the man who planned 9/11 STILL walking around...but oh boy we got Saddam...so all is good.:rolleyes:

Que the but Bin Laden in but a small part of the war on terror...it's more important than just him...what can he really do from a cave...blah...blah..blah.

a cave we can't get to too because its so well defended with a multitude of folks willing to die for bin laden as if he is the messiah that we are scared to send in even legions of armed troops....

saddam was found in a hole, not a cave but a stinking hole. wonder who has more power?? wonder which guy had people train in the us to fly planes? wonder which guy has enough hatred in his heart to plan things years in advance?

[ConcordCowboy]

a cave we can't get to too because its so well defended with a multitude of folks willing to die for bin laden as if he is the messiah that we are scared to send in even legions of armed troops....

saddam was found in a hole, not a cave but a stinking hole. wonder who has more power?? wonder which guy had people train in the us to fly planes? wonder which guy has enough hatred in his heart to plan things years in advance?

http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/UncleBush.jpghttp://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/kni/lowres/knin318l.jpg

[Ben_n_austin]

“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”.’

My favorite Philosopher of all time. Also, notorious for Mills methods, which is still "a line of thinking" that many scientists use. Not only a great philosopher, but a flat out genius in other areas of thinking as well.

He was a utilitarian. But I don't get the same meaning out of John Stuart Mill as a lot of people do.

He would be in disarray due to blunder of George W. Bush-- a man who has ruined hundreds of millions of lives, if not billions.

Our country is on the verge of becoming the next Argentina.

O, If John Stewart Mill were alive today.

I've come up with my own term for people who try to use Mill's readings the way that Mill would never have intended them to be interpreted... "Ashcroft interpreters". LOL

[Ben_n_austin]

I agree as well but of course many things are worthy of war, Saddam being mean to Bush's daddy just wasn't one of them; and of course Exxon's profits is not either.

Exactly, bro.

[Ben_n_austin]

Utilitarianism is not meant to be teleological. Mill offered up differences in qualities of experience making it a very hard calculus to do in reality. Mill's insistence that pleasures do differ in quality gives rise to difficulty in calculating. Even with his panel of experts are we comparing apples and oranges? Mill's view complicates Bentham's simple calculus of summing up quantity of pleasure. By emphasizing the "higher" pleasures of the intellect , Mill is adding other criteria to the criterion of pleasure. Morality is proportionate to the happiness in being truly human and not to the sum of units of pleasure. Further, is the intellect alone what is essentially human? Even if it is, it is not the intellect alone that gives humans pleasure.

BTW, perhaps I should define an argument for you so you understand how to make an argument, back it with evidence and offer a point.

Your posts here are simply troll posts.

I am certainly going to be wrong on various issues but it will no be simply because someone thinks it is so.

I have over 60 credit hours in Philosophy. It was my major in college for the first three years. If you want to debate it you'll need more than aphorisms.

I racked up quite a few hours as well. And I loved this post. :)

[Ben_n_austin]

In the end, it was just an awkward bit of phrasing, which you have now sharpened...

"Defensive wars" is a good way to put it...

That's actually the last step in Mill's methods, generally speaking... refine, refine, refine!

[jterrell]

That's actually the last step in Mill's methods, generally speaking... refine, refine, refine!

Mill got a lot of the base thought from Aristotle which I admire greatly, but(imho) as with Hegel and many others they felt they needed a full-fledged system and in defining things to the minute detail it diminished the overall beauty of the simplistic point that doing the right thing is good and doing good makes us happy and being happy is the only worthy goal.

In many ways Ethics begins and ends with Aristotle...(says the aristotlean, lol).

Happiness is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. But honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient.

Reading philosophy can be either rewarding or frustrating. I really do enjoy it and feel it makes me a better person. I make more mentally balanced and less emotional decisions. It gives me the same kind of feeling I get after a really good church experience.

[Ben_n_austin]

Mill got a lot of the base thought from Aristotle which I admire greatly, but(imho) as with Hegel and many others they felt they needed a full-fledged system and in defining things to the minute detail it diminished the overall beauty of the simplistic point that doing the right thing is good and doing good makes us happy and being happy is the only worthy goal.

Yeah, It's called science which is to me the ultimate nature of reality, as to where "God" is the ultimate nature of complexity.


In many ways Ethics begins and ends with Aristotle...(says the aristotlean, lol).

Yeah, the logical arguments taught in philosophy are still deeply rooted in Aristotelian logic.



Reading philosophy can be either rewarding or frustrating. I really do enjoy it and feel it makes me a better person. I make more mentally balanced and less emotional decisions. It gives me the same kind of feeling I get after a really good church experience.

I like not only reading it, but analyzing it.... I've been thinking about applying to law school... We shall see.

[Ben_n_austin]

Reading philosophy can be either rewarding or frustrating. I really do enjoy it and feel it makes me a better person. I make more mentally balanced and less emotional decisions. It gives me the same kind of feeling I get after a really good church experience.


Regarding this, philosophy is my "church". The things I learned from the greatest thinkers and various modes of thinking through studying philosophy and reflecting on known genius' thoughts make me a more morally guided and rounded person than a Bible ever would have.

[vta]

He wasn't even a GWOT target honestly.
He did more to fight terrorism than almost any single individual middle eastern leader.

Iraq had the most secular, least extreme society amongst that Middle-East bloc.

He didn't bow to Mullahs or house Bin Laden either directly or indirectly. Sure he said we suck and are worthy targets but he never did anything to aid that cause. Guess he wasn't afforded free speech.

Saddam was clearly a scumbag. But intelligence gathered over a period of 30 to 40 years suggested he was a stabilizing anti-extreme force in Iraq and if he was removed we'd be in trouble. We all wondered why he was never simply taken out by Sr. Bush and the CIA/Mossad and now we know.

So to wrap up this wonderful exercise we have NOT gotten Bin Laden who spreads extremism and has planned attacks on US soil but did get the brutal Iraqi Dictator who forced secularization on a region wholly against that secularization.

We are good!

Saddam's words, regarding American forces in Afghanistan...

“As we said before to those who launched aggressions on us, including the US, in and before Um-Almarik (the mother of the battles), the world, like Iraq and its Arab nation, needs steadfastness to face the aggression, make it miss its targets. It must not allow the US to be victorious. The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)