GOP ready to "Cut n Run" from Iraq

[Gordon Gekko]

I was talking to my advisers yesterday ... if oil hits $70/barrel, put everything you have into futures.

GECKO, where are you when I need you.

Transfer your American stocks over to an International fund. Our dollar sucks now, and with the latest downturn in housing the pied-a-terre of cards is about to come crashing down.

The domestic exception is "Bud Fox's Magic Member Cream with real Inuit DNA", which of course I'm long on.




(Just between the two of us I'm shorting the republican party for 08, it's a dog with fleas.)

[norway]

quote from Bud Fox:

"Well, we're not just there for oil-it's really all about the freedom, and purple fingers. Dick Cheney loves purple fingers."

 You gotta love those purple fingers.

Purple fingers, served Sunni side up...

Yeah, but what the fuck where the muslims thinking "bombing" USA, who'd they think they are.
They are only alive cause the western world is civil, as they used american planes for it and it was an inside job...that says much.

What else they were gonna do? Throw rocks at america?

[25]

Yeah, but what the fuck where the muslims thinking "bombing" USA, who'd they think they are.
They are only alive cause the western world is civil, as they used american planes for it and it was an inside job...that says much.

What else they were gonna do? Throw rocks at america?

A few pedantic corrections:

America was attacked by terrorists. Religious affiliations irrelevant.

They probably think they're freedom fighters. You know, fire-fighters fight fire, crime-fighters fight crime, etc.
 
Muslims, in general, are "alive" because they managed to survive or defend themselves against the many invasions, crusades and regime changes that the civilized western world has embarked on from time to time over the last few millenia.

What else could they do? I don't know. I remember the Aum Foundation set off a bunch of homemade sarin gas bombs or something in Japan, and they were just a cooky compound-based cult. I guess that with better resources and a global reach they could have done more.

[stolat]

No doubt about it, what was done on September 11th was pure evil...........but you never fight evil with more evil.

The age old battle has always been Good Vs Evil.

[25]

The age old battle has always been Good Vs Evil.

Yes, with both labels applied after the fact by the winner of the conflict.

[stolat]

The age old battle has always been Good Vs Evil.

Yes, with both labels applied after the fact by the winner of the conflict.

But if you consider War and the impact it has upon a human life and the human suffering that is caused by war you would label it evil.

So with the knowledge that war is indeed evil, then good must be a better way.

[25]

But if you consider War and the impact it has upon a human life and the human suffering that is caused by war you would label it evil.

So with the knowledge that war is indeed evil, then good must be a better way.

So you're saying that it would have been a lesser evil for the Allies not to go to war with the Nazis, what with war being inherently evil and all. They should instead have taken the relatively (by your definition) good position of inaction? For example.

[stolat]

But if you consider War and the impact it has upon a human life and the human suffering that is caused by war you would label it evil.

So with the knowledge that war is indeed evil, then good must be a better way.

So you're saying that it would have been a lesser evil for the Allies not to go to war with the Nazis, what with war being inherently evil and all. They should instead have taken the relatively (by your definition) good position of inaction? For example.

No the allies had to deal with what they were dealt with and face the beast of war on it's level. Think of comic book heros.
There is nothing more evil sounding than a Stukker about to drop. The Nazis did actually change the face of war for good. Warfare became very nasty - Prussian ideals were no longer to be seen and the allies had to get to know the nature of the new beast very quickly.

No human being should be asked to do that.

[25]

But if you consider War and the impact it has upon a human life and the human suffering that is caused by war you would label it evil.

So with the knowledge that war is indeed evil, then good must be a better way.

So you're saying that it would have been a lesser evil for the Allies not to go to war with the Nazis, what with war being inherently evil and all. They should instead have taken the relatively (by your definition) good position of inaction? For example.

No the allies had to deal with what they were dealt with and face the beast of war on it's level. Think of comic book heros.
There is nothing more evil sounding than a Stukker about to drop. The Nazis did actually change the face of war for good. Warfare became very nasty - Prussian ideals were no longer to be seen and the allies had to get to know the nature of the new beast very quickly.

No human being should be asked to do that.

Your reply suggests that your previous black & white, good & evil definition is woefully simplistic, given that it can't possibly account for the statements you just made. There is no room for nuance in the "age old good vs evil" idea nor the "all war is evil" statement you made, and both fly in the face of your rationalization above. Hello, cognitive dissonance!

Aside: I prefer not to think "comic book heroes" when defining anything more complex than comic book logic. 

[stolat]

But if you consider War and the impact it has upon a human life and the human suffering that is caused by war you would label it evil.

So with the knowledge that war is indeed evil, then good must be a better way.

So you're saying that it would have been a lesser evil for the Allies not to go to war with the Nazis, what with war being inherently evil and all. They should instead have taken the relatively (by your definition) good position of inaction? For example.

No the allies had to deal with what they were dealt with and face the beast of war on it's level. Think of comic book heros.
There is nothing more evil sounding than a Stukker about to drop. The Nazis did actually change the face of war for good. Warfare became very nasty - Prussian ideals were no longer to be seen and the allies had to get to know the nature of the new beast very quickly.

No human being should be asked to do that.

Your reply suggests that your previous black & white, good & evil definition is woefully simplistic, given that it can't possibly account for the statements you just made. There is no room for nuance in the "age old good vs evil" idea nor the "all war is evil" statement you made, and both fly in the face of your rationalization above. Hello, cognitive dissonance!

Aside: I prefer not to think "comic book heroes" when defining anything more complex than comic book logic.?

Let me use the example of the Warsaw Uprising:

The Poles had been occupied for 5 years under some of the most extreme war circumstances that a human being could find him/herself in. The Poles knew that the Russians were simply waiting to take over the country and subject it to communist rule after the Germans left.

I think it is good that the Poles decided to make a defiant stand in the face of such odds. They had been living under war conditions for 5 years, their survival instincts would have been peaking. The took up arms and faced the enemy and made a stand and said I'm sick of it and I am not going to put up with it anymore! Now is that not an example of a human being living up to his /her peak and rising up against pure evil? These human beings provided future generations with a massive statement about war.

So in weighing up their actions, under those circumstances I say that what they did was ultimately good. My great aunt is totally against any war. Here is something taken from "Fifty Years of Europe: An Album" by Jan Morris.

"Who could fail to be touched, though of whatever nationality, whatever age, whatever ideaology, whatever background of faith or experience, by the sculpted monument to the Little Insurgent which stands beside the ramparts of the Old Town in Warsaw/ It remembers the heroism of the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, when the Poles in a splurge of hopeless romantic courage rose in arms against the overwhelming forces of the Nazis who oppresssed them.

A very small boy, in a steel helmet far too big for him, holds a sub-machine-gun as if ti were a toy, and bears himself ready for all corners, as so many children did at that great and awful time".

It stands for what Poland would never be again after WW2, and the rest of the world also lacks for it.

No good and evil is never black and white but the ideals behind it should be. No cognitive dissonance there at all - ultimately!

[25]

No good and evil is never black and white but the ideals behind it should be. No cognitive dissonance there at all - ultimately!

You could argue that there's less dissonance in that statement (even if it doesn't entirely make sense) - largely because you've added a number of qualifiers, your black & white statement has been forcibly nuanced 

However, it still doesn't solve your "all war is evil, except for these good wars" problem.

If: All war is evil
And: The Warsaw Uprising is an act of war.
Then: The Warsaw Uprising is evil.

So either the Warsaw Uprising is evil or acts of war aren't inherently evil therefore war itself isn't inherently evil. You can't have it both ways. Dissonance!

[stolat]

No good and evil is never black and white but the ideals behind it should be. No cognitive dissonance there at all - ultimately!

You could argue that there's less dissonance in that statement (even if it doesn't entirely make sense) - largely because you've added a number of qualifiers, your black & white statement has been forcibly nuanced?

However, it still doesn't solve your "all war is evil, except for these good wars" problem.

If: All war is evil
And: The Warsaw Uprising is an act of war.
Then: The Warsaw Uprising is evil.

So either the Warsaw Uprising is evil or acts of war aren't inherently evil therefore war itself isn't inherently evil. You can't have it both ways. Dissonance!

In all ethical discussion about good and evil, one must consider the unique circumstances particular to the situation and then apply a universal yardstick to it as a means of measurement.

You usually start with the statment "All war is evil" and then define what is evil. A good universal yardstick to use is one that considers "human suffering".

Then one must consider what is good - and that's where the rationalisation comes into it. And then you have to think about "the common good".........

All war is evil in that a 24 year old female (my aunt) should haven't to live in a world where she has no choice but take up arms - that decision was made with the higest ideals becuase otherwise why do it at that level? It is done in the hope and view that no 24 year old woman should have to do that again.

[25]

All war is evil in that a 24 year old female (my aunt) should haven't to live in a world where she has no choice but take up arms - that decision was made with the higest ideals becuase otherwise why do it at that level? It is done in the hope and view that no 24 year old woman should have to do that again.

If you engage in an act of war with the justification that it should be the last ever act of war then question of good and evil are moot, lofty principles be damned, because you're engaging in a fool's errand.

If your justification is the liberation of your people from oppression then it could be said that your justification is "good," though that does not mean that your war is inherently "good," the justification and the act being distinct and separate functions.

If the execution of your war aspires to the "loftiest" principles of war-making, in that it follows rigidly the agreed ethical framework for the execution of acts of war (whatever they may be at any given time according to any internationally agreed conventions) then you could say that the justification and the execution of your war were "good."

That leaves a third and equally important factor, the result of your war. And if the result does not match the justification and honor the conduct of your war then regardless of the initial two factors your war cannot be "good." If the result were, for example, to replace external oppression with internal oppression (or like for like) then your war cannot logically be "good."

So, if the above is correct, I've outlined three factors which must be met in order to conduct war ethically. No "universal yardsticks" nor rationalization required, isn't that (or any other logical dissection) a more just way of evaluating a war? And doesn't it eliminate the need to generalize with bland labels like good & evil? No philosophy required!     

[stolat]

Yes, your way of putting the argument is very good, provided the logic is there in the first place, Mr Spock.....

Some people need the human empathy factor though. Then you are acting with your heart as well (Mind and Body), not just on pure logic. And in every aspect of learning 'discussion' is central to it. Good and evil must be discussed so one knows exactly what the 'loftiest of principals' must be.........

And yeh, the result of the Uprising is all good.

It gave birth to the Solidarity movement - the first bloodless revolution that restored Poland to full Independence. This was the beginning of the end of Communist domination in all of Central Europe? In turn,? this inpired some workers in Africa..........

[25]

Some people need the human empathy factor though. And in every aspect of learning 'discussion' is central to it. Good and evil must be discussed so one knows exactly what the 'loftiest of principals' must be.........

Exactly. And to be discussed they must first be defined. And to be considered defined there must be consensus. And if there is consensus there is ethicality. So to be defined consensually and ethically there must be discussion. And what we end up with is a whole lot of people talking endlessly and way less time for war.

[norway]

A few pedantic corrections:

America was attacked by terrorists. Religious affiliations irrelevant.

 

Ok, terrorist that just happened to be muslims...and what religion does most terrorist doing these kind of things belong to?

I agree tho, religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Women were tortured and burned in name of christianity but that has nothing to with christianity either.

You gotta look at things as childhood, knowledge, wealth and lifestandard.?

I guess that with better resources and a global reach they could have done more.

So thats why America has purple fingers!

They are everywhere tho, I even got in touch with one my age she just seems so isolated.
You can think in the banes of "the kid who isn't allowed to play with the other kids" thats the impression I get.

I hope to see that changed sometime

[stolat]

Some people need the human empathy factor though. And in every aspect of learning 'discussion' is central to it. Good and evil must be discussed so one knows exactly what the 'loftiest of principals' must be.........

Exactly. And to be discussed they must first be defined. And to be considered defined there must be consensus. And if there is consensus there is ethicality. So to be defined consensually and ethically there must be discussion. And what we end up with is a whole lot of people talking endlessly and way less time for war.

And that is the point. In this day and age we should be able to talk to one another without having to take up arms.
I just got the funny image of "The War Room" in Dr Strangelove. ?

[25]

Women were tortured and burned in name of christianity but that has nothing to with christianity either.

You mean the witch-finding thing? It would be unfair to lay that at the door of christianity in general. It was entirely the Protestants. Damned, dirty Protestants, jumping on the Inquisition band-wagon.

[stolat]

Women were tortured and burned in name of christianity but that has nothing to with christianity either.

You mean the witch-finding thing? It would be unfair to lay that at the door of christianity in general. It was entirely the Protestants. Damned, dirty Protestants, jumping on the Inquisition band-wagon.

Oh, I thought it was the misogynists.

[25]

And that is the point. In this day and age we should be able to talk to one another without having to take up arms.
I just got the funny image of "The War Room" in Dr Strangelove. 

War usually begins with people talking. It's when they can't have what they want that the toys are thrown from the pram. As long as there's greed or envy or politicians there'll always be war. I'll simplify; As long as there are people, there will be war. Just another symptom of OPS, Other People Syndrome.