Winchester Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Look, kids, utilitarianism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 i didn't see "besides the aid to africa" part of your question. but never mind - I'm curious why you think "single person most responsible for ending African AIDS epidemic" is not strong enough to dilute the Darth Bush narrative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1353514442' post='2514246'] Look, kids, utilitarianism! [/quote] ideological purity sux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1353513993' post='2514240'] 1. Pretty much everyone in the foreign policy establishment reveres Richard Nixon. With China rising now, I think his grade will get better, not worse. Already there are smart people who think what he did saved our bacon with regards to them. [/QUOTE] Right. Nixon (by which I mean Kissinger) had some solid foreign policy accomplishments and he did some good things domestically. That's a long was from Nixon being 'revered.' He was a pretty cretinous and corrupt man. And that has only become more clear over time [QUOTE]2. Hasan, tsk. tsk. Even Elton John knows this. People in Uganda name their kids George Bush. The political capital he spent on the continent of Africa will probably end up saving millions of lives there -all poor, non-constituents by the way. He got next to zero reward for it. His friends, the conservatives, bashed him for spending money on non-Americans and liberals met his efforts with derision and suspicion. He did it anyway. The media does not talk about it because it does not fit the dominant narrative. Woe to you who do not question the dominant narrative. [/quote] Which is why I said 'aside from aid to Africa.' He did a really good thing in Africa (parts of Africa). But if you are claiming that Bush was something other than a disaster overall then I'd have to ask you to spell out your case. He became somewhat less awful in foriegn policy in his second term. At the very least he didn't manipulate the country into entering an unnecessary and horrendously destructive war. Edited November 21, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Now I am to understand that it was morally wrong for the United States to participate in WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1353515207' post='2514257'] ideological purity sux [/quote] I wasn't aware you'd abandoned Catholic moral theology in favor of modernism. Maybe it'll make you less unpleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1353520184' post='2514291'] Now I am to understand that it was morally wrong for the United States to participate in WWII. [/quote] What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1353521121' post='2514303'] I wasn't aware you'd abandoned Catholic moral theology in favor of modernism. Maybe it'll make you less unpleasant. [/quote] Actually, Catholic moral theology gave me the idea that ideological purity sux, and indeed, sux hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1353521399' post='2514306'] What? [/quote] [size=5][color=#282828][font='Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Now I am to understand that it was morally wrong for the United States to participate in WWII.[/background][/font][/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1353516359' post='2514269'] Right. Nixon [i][u][b](by which I mean Kissinger[/b][/u][/i]) [/quote] NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Bob Haldeman: "The President intends to go to China." Henry Kissinger: "Fat chance." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1353523090' post='2514323'] [size=4][color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Now I am to understand that it was morally wrong for the United States to participate in WWII.[/background][/font][/color][/size] [/quote] [color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] Well certainly the Allied powers are guilty of very grave transgressions of moral law in their waging of the Second World War. If one is sticking to Catholic principles, that conclusion is not deniable. It does not necessarily follow that American participation was necessarily unjust, so do not think I am saying that. [b]2312[/b] The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the [i]moral law during armed conflict[/i]. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties." [b][url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm"]2313[/url][/b] Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide. [b]2314[/b] "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."[sup]110[/sup] A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.[/background][/size][/font][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1353515089' post='2514254'] i didn't see "besides the aid to africa" part of your question. but never mind - I'm curious why you think "single person most responsible for ending African AIDS epidemic" is not strong enough to dilute the Darth Bush narrative? [/quote] The African AIDS epidemic has not ended. I don't understand what you mean by dilute the Darth Bush narrative. I think that most people will admit that Bush did the right thing in supporting giving funding to PEPFAR. That has nothing to do with horrendous policies in, for example, laying the foundation of the national security state. If you're trying to make a utilitarian argument then I would disagree that PEPFAR will save more lives than, for example, doing nothing on climate change. You have provided one good decision, and it was a very good decision and Bush deserves every bit of credit he gets for it and probably more, he surpassed the somewhat racist and patronizing view the Africans were unable to take their medications properly like Europeans and Americans could, in an eight year period. Which I think says a lot about your suggestion that Bush will someday be venerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1353523269' post='2514325'] NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Bob Haldeman: "The President intends to go to China." Henry Kissinger: "Fat chance." [/quote] Are you saying that Kissinger was not the key figure in laying the foundation for the trip? I mean you're right that I was not being fair to present it as though Kissinger was the sole driving force in everything Nixon did that could be viewed as positive but I think that acting as though Kissinger wasn't the major force in making most of those policies possible is a bit silly as well. Edited November 21, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1353523090' post='2514323'] [size=5][color=#282828][font=Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Now I am to understand that it was morally wrong for the United States to participate in WWII.[/background][/font][/color][/size] [/quote] what makes you say that? I don't think anyone here on this phorum indicated such a thing. When a country actually attacks another country, the right of self defense is obviously present. And indeed friends of the attacked country may morally come to the attacked country's aid, that is certainly a potentially moral war. On these grounds it is possible to see the First Gulf War as morally acceptable (if you ignore the recent WikiLeaks revelations that we actually indicated to Saddam that we were cool with him going into Kuwait behind closed doors only to attack him for doing so) The atomic bombs were not moral, no utilitarian argument for them holds any weight in a debate of Catholic morality. The most basic way to phrase just war theory is to say that all wars must be defensive last resorts that attempt to avoid civilian casualties. Iraq was not defensive, it was offensive; it was not a last resort, it was the culmination of a decade of a passive aggressive state of war and it was pushed for by the Bush administration who demanded the answers they wanted to hear from the intelligence community. That decade of sanctioning and no-fly zones over Iraq killed more than half a million children (Ms. Albright of the Clinton Admin said that was worth it), we were constantly aggressors in that war. Honestly, it is possible that had we not been so aggressive Saddam may have begun to become an actual threat (pretty unlikely given general Saudi-American hegemony in the Middle East and the balance of Iran, but let's pretend for a moment), at which point actual defensive action against his potential aggressive actions may have been morally justifiable; but it was not at that point, not even close to that point, when George Bush acted on manipulated intelligence (whether he personally sought for it to be manipulated or others in his administration and the intelligence community did so on their own is not entirely clear, many people ascribe to Dick Cheney a relatively large hand in the events of the Bush Administration and I would not be surprised if he played a big role in having the intelligence be manipulated). You can also argue from a Catholic morality point of view in favor of wars to end genocides or whatever, because the group that is being defended in a defensive war need not be officially a "state", it could be a people, but that was not happening in Iraq either. Pre-emptive strikes are not a good solution. Even a pre-emptive strike against Hitler would likely have ended badly... why do you think the Germans turned to such a mad man in the first place? Because the international community was humiliating them and utterly destroying them through the punitive Treaty of Versailles. If we had pre-emptively struck Hitler, it would likely have been a sort of First Gulf War, and decades of occupation later we'd have more of an enemy in the German people. pre-emptive strucks don't work, but that's not the only reason Catholic morality rightly rejects them: Catholic morality rejects them because they inherently non-defensive and when you become the instigator of a war, no matter what theories you either believed or concocted (and it is altogether more likely for bad men to concoct them when we accept the pre-emptive doctrine, they don't even need to fabricate a Gulf of Tonkin incident if we accept the Bush Doctrine, how convenient for the men who make profit on wars), you have lost the moral ground of it, and any hypothetical utilitarian arguments about what might have happened had you not acted remain just that: hypothetical, no one will ever know; it's like beating someone up because they looked at you funny and you thought they were going to punch you first--it is you who would get charged for assault, not the one who looked at you funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1353522584' post='2514318'] Actually, Catholic moral theology gave me the idea that ideological purity sux, and indeed, sux hard. [/quote] So a little bit of making evil actions morally good by their outcome is okay. Is there a little util equation you use to determine that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts