Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: No American has been 'secure' in their supposed invulnerbility since 11th September 2001 | |
Author: Roberdin | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:52:16 11/08/04 Mon In reply to: Trixta (UK) 's message, "Rumsfeldian English" on 22:48:45 11/08/04 Mon [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Interests versus self-defence | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:14:15 11/10/04 Wed Don't worry about becoming a lefite - I'm a closet fascist anyway (hey, I try not to be but even I have to admit that, at the core, I'm significantly right of centre). The difference between, for example, battering the old biddy because she annoys you and preventing the old biddy from battering you is consistent with what I'm saying. It is, in my arrogant opinion, morally defensible to act to defend something (e.g. your bodily well-being) but not to act to attack something (e.g. the old biddy). The problem comes when what you are defending is your own exploitation of something at the cost of others. In world terms: it would be morally defensible to invade Iraq because we know (for a fact) that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction aimed at us and intends to use them without provocation. It is morally indefensible to invade Iraq because oil prices are high and Iraq has a lot of cheap oil. The former acts to prevent loss of life at the expense of profit, the latter acts to prevent loss of profit at the cost of life. Look at another example - free trade. It would be acceptable to act against someone or some nation that is preventing free trade between two consenting nations (e.g. UK and Australia). You are defending a legitimate, mutually-beneficial agreement made without duress on either party and advantageous to both. It would not be acceptable to attack a nation that is undermining your trade agreement by selling lower-priced goods to your opposite number in that agreement, or against the opposite number themselves, for that matter. Possibly the best example I can think of at this time in the morning are the two Iraq wars. In the first we all acted against an Iraq that had invaded Kuwait and taken an oil supplier from the market. In the second we acted against an Iraq that was staying at home and keeping its own oil for itself (I don't buy the whole WMD thing or the selective liberation of Iraq's disadvantaged). In essence, our primary 'interest' should be the defence of ourselves and our allies. When our 'interests' include the global price of oil - to my mind that's just greed. As for your neighbour - well I'm anti-European anyway. So I say just batter the bint (claim she's an Al-Qaeeda cell posing as a good Catholic to avert suspicion). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hehe | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:20:54 11/10/04 Wed Sounds about right. Although, of course, if oil were the principle motive for invading Iraq, then that makes us very stupid, since all crises in the Middle East drive up oil prices to the benefit of the House of Sa'ud and to the detriment of poor oil-purchasing nations such as ourselves. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |