Can we please stop referring to the Secretary Rumsfeld as

[Tim]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

When they scrapped a program where people were convicted for crimes they hadn't commited yet by an unreliable system?

Not really.

You remember Hitler? I assume you've read some of Ahmadinejad's latest speeches and found no similarities.

You didn't like that they scrapped the system? That figures. You would prefer to judge people before any action takes place... our judicial system, our society, our religion, and our morals are all based on the opposite.

And Hitler wasn't guilty of anything until he invaded Czechoslovakia. Everything before that was just politics.

Tim

[Colly Wolly]

Down with liberals.

[JohnnyLingo]

You didn't like that they scrapped the system? That figures.

No. You asked me if I hated the ending of the movie.

I said not really.

I need to make a list of people who pull stuff out of their ass and claim I said it.

And Hitler wasn't guilty of anything until he invaded Czechoslovakia. Everything before that was just politics.

That's fine. And the man standing out front of your house yelling threats at your family and waving a gun around isn't guilty of anything until he shoots your wife in the head and kills her.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tim

the Secretary of Defense? There is very little defending going on these days in the military. Can we please refer to him as the Secretary of Warmaking instead? It would be more appropriate.

Thanks in advance.

Tim

I'm actually with Tim on this, but maybe not for the same reason. Same cabinet post used to be call the Secretary of War at first (though later Secretary of the Navy was added and then the posts were recombined in 1947). That is, of course, what he really is. It is really just semantics, but I think "War" is at leadt as apt as "Defense." Really both functions are entailed.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tim

Most reasonable people have come to realize that preemption is morally unjustifiable. Looks like you missed the boat on that one. Oh, wait. You're not a reasonable person.

Tim

Which people are those? You might argue that pre-emption was wrong in this case (and I might agree), but I'd love to have the debate with you that it is NEVER justified. Aren't you overstating your case just a little?

[Tim]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Which people are those? You might argue that pre-emption was wrong in this case (and I might agree), but I'd love to have the debate with you that it is NEVER justified. Aren't you overstating your case just a little?

I'd love to chat about that... what cases can you give of examples in which you feel preemption was justified?

Tim

[mpfunk]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

That's fine. And the man standing out front of your house yelling threats at your family and waving a gun around isn't guilty of anything until he shoots your wife in the head and kills her.

Actually I believe under most states he would be guilty of something by waiving a gun and making threats.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tim

I'd love to chat about that... what cases can you give of examples in which you feel preemption was justified?

Tim

I believe that are a few scenarios where pre-emption is justified. Here is the first:

Another nation states its intention to attack you or your ally, and you can lower the net loss of life through pre-emption or gain strategic advantage in the coming fight. A man places his hand on the gun in his waistband and declares his intention to shoot you or your wife. You don't wait for him to draw, you presume he will do as he has said and you shoot first. This way only he dies. If you wait for him to shoot your wife before you kill him, two people are dead. Minimally, you place him in a defensive posture.

The rejoinder, of course, is that it may turn out that that gun in his waist band was a squirt gun. But in the case where he makes the threat and you cannot be certain about what is in the waist band, he creates the peril and assumes the risk of your mistake.

Actually, this is very nearly where Israel is with Iran. Iran is openly developing nukes and has stated its intention to use them to annihilate Israel. Under such circumstances, Israel is not morally required to wait for the first missle to launch or the first smuggled in bomb to go off.

As the Wermacht massed on the Czechoslovakian border and Hitler declared his intention to invade, if the Czechs had had the ability to attack first to cripple Hitler or to gain a strategic advantage they would have been justified in doing so.

So the first example involves a clearly stated present or future intention to do harm under circumstances where the recipient of the threat is at least unsure as to the intetions of the one making the threat.

Lets start with this one. There are othersituations which are less clear (though still justified IMO), but I think I am on my strongest moral footing for pre-emption in the above scenario.

Thoughts?

[Tim]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I believe that are a few scenarios where pre-emption is justified. Here is the first:

Another nation states its intention to attack you or your ally, and you can lower the net loss of life through pre-emption or gain strategic advantage in the coming fight. A man places his hand on the gun in his waistband and declares his intention to shoot you or your wife. You don't wait for him to draw, you presume he will do as he has said and you shoot first. This way only he dies. If you wait for him to shoot your wife before you kill him, two people are dead. Minimally, you place him in a defensive posture.

The rejoinder, of course, is that it may turn out that that gun in his waist band was a squirt gun. But in the case where he makes the threat and you cannot be certain about what is in the waist band, he creates the peril and assumes the risk of your mistake.

Actually, this is very nearly where Israel is with Iran. Iran is openly developing nukes and has stated its intention to use them to annihilate Israel. Under such circumstances, Israel is not morally required to wait for the first missle to launch or the first smuggled in bomb to go off.

As the Wermacht massed on the Czechoslovakian border and Hitler declared his intention to invade, if the Czechs had had the ability to attack first to cripple Hitler or to gain a strategic advantage they would have been justified in doing so.

So the first example involves a clearly stated present or future intention to do harm under circumstances where the recipient of the threat is at least unsure as to the intetions of the one making the threat.

Lets start with this one. There are othersituations which are less clear (though still justified IMO), but I think I am on my strongest moral footing for pre-emption in the above scenario.

Thoughts?

I understand the situations you have listed... obviously we would all do whatever we could to protect our loved ones, although it could be debated whether adding a second gun to the equation would make the situation doubly dangerous and would end all chance of the situation calming down...

As far as preemptive attacks are concerned, who's to say that the "we're going to attack such-and-such country" are true plans and not just political rhetoric? Looking at the way the world works, it seems like there is more political rhetoric than actual battle plans. If we attack a country in the name of "protecting ourselves," and there really wasn't a plan to attack us, we've become the agressor. And that is what I have no tolerance for. I would rather lose my life because of someone else's sin than to commit the sin myself. That may sound dramatic, but it's (and I hate to say this) the Christian way to be. I don't know how we can call ourselves Christians if we've become agressors? Shouldn't we let eternal justice be served by allowing the sin to be committed before we pass judgement and act? Again, I'd truly rather lose my life than to be an agressor. If we are attacked, then goodness yes, we can blow them to high hell in response. Because then, and ONLY then, would that be DEFENSE. Anything else would be starting a war.

I guess my concerns with the Iran situation are these:

1) Iran is nothing but talk. They will not attack us. ESPECIALLY not with nuclear weapons. No one will attack us with nuclear weapons. I don't know why any one of us would think that another nation would be so stupid as to attack us and our 5,700+ active nuclear warheads. Think about it. They all know that we have them, and they know that we would use them back on them if they used one against us. No way would they use their weapons on us.

2) From several reports I've read, they are still 7-10 years out from having viable weapons.

3) This is Israel's issue. If Iran wants to fight Israel, they can fight Israel. If Israel wants our help after Iran has attacked them, then we can help them. But we don't have room in our budget to do Israel's dirty work for them (meaning: doing their preemptive attacks for them).

If Iran amassed troops on our border and then declared an intention to invade, or if they had planes in the air heading for our coasts, then yes, by all means we would be justified in fighting at once. But all we've seen from Iran is rhetoric. Why act on that?

So I ask you this: would you rather be an agressor or lose your life because of someone else's agression? Which do you think fits better in the eternal scheme of things?

Tim

[Parrot Head]

Originally Posted by Tim

3) This is Israel's issue. If Iran wants to fight Israel, they can fight Israel.

I think that if you think about this one more you'll just edit it out. I know you're not a "turn a blind eye" kind of guy in situations of pain and suffering, are you?

This is ______'s issue.

Darfur, the Jews, Rwanda, Ethiopia, poor people....