Has war started with Iran?

[caffiend]

And so it builds: http://www.stuff.co.nz/3962059a12.html

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sgt Seb

ok i see the link you are trying to make. the problem is, to rumsfeld, cheney, bush and so on, these actions are not immoral. they believe, whether you agree with them or not, that the US is the force of good in this world, and that democracy must be spread by force. the ends justify the means, and hence manipulating intelligence (which i agree they DID do) was okay, because the end result would better for mankind in the long run.

seee how easy it is to manipulate morality to serve your own ends?

thats what your problem is with defining international relations in moral terms, it distorts the reality, which is power. power is how internatational relations is best explained and predicted..

So total global war with lots of little side conflicts is a justified end?
Because that is the only end that the actions of the US and others will bring about.

See, you didn't manipulate morality to serve your own ends - you merely justified immoral actions in what you thought were morally acceptable terms. The US invaded Vietnam on the justification that they attacked first (reported incident that never happened), they invaded Iraq using the same BS excuse by tying Iraq to 9/11. Everybody agrees that violence in self-defense is morally acceptable so the intel was manipulated to make it look like they were acting in self-defense. The Bush administration knew it wasn't moral so they had to make it seem like it was. Hitler used the same manipulation to launch WWII - he certainly didn't say "these people are less than us so therefore we are justified in attacking them".

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

Perhaps the US considers securing a supply of oil for it's citizens, so it may continue to advance socially, economically and technologically - providing what it sees as large utility to the world, as a moral obligation.

You gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.

They could've used trade - it's lot less expensive but the profits aren't as high.

But all perspectives are not equal. Just as all opinions are not worthwhile, valid or interesting. They may have a right to be, but existence does not lend something an inherent value.

I didn't say all perspectives were equal - I said that they had to be considered equally and opinions aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.

Perhaps at some point in the future, through I'm sure, hard work by yourself and those likeminded, there may come a point where this would be true. Since we ain't in those times, and for all of human history the right of power has existed, I cant see this changing any time soon.

It may not be moral, as you define the word. Woe to the vanquished, conquered we conquer, etc.

Human society is evolving (you do believe in evolution don't you?) and so at some point I'm pretty sure it will come about it just seems that we have to go through some hellish times (and yes, hard work by me and those like me) for the needed paradigm shift in our consciouness to come about.

[caffiend]

It's refreshing to see an informed, well-argued, intelligent debate in an NZG thread which (for the most part) hasn't deteriorated into name-calling and posturing.

[BloodDonor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6362307.stm

Bush maintains pressure on Iran

George W Bush addresses the media at his first press conference of 2007
Mr Bush spoke as Congress debates his Iraq plans

Bush statement
President Bush has insisted a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guards is linked to some attacks on US troops in Iraq.

Unnamed US officials in Baghdad said at the weekend that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government were supplying weapons to Shia militants in Iraq.

But top uniformed personnel - including the highest-ranking US military officer, General Peter Pace - have refused to confirm that accusation in recent days.

[caffiend]

I thought Petraeus was the new highest-ranking US military officer?

Edit - ahh, Pace is highest ranking overall. Petraeus is highest ranking on the ground in in Iraq.

[Tranquil^]

Originally Posted by caffiend

It's refreshing to see an informed, well-argued, intelligent debate in an NZG thread which (for the most part) hasn't deteriorated into name-calling and posturing.

Can you point me towards those posts please?

As far as i can tell, one person's copying and pasting, another person's reconstituting feces and claiming it as fact.


Wank, ctrl-v, wank "my nerd moral's are superior to yours, wank, ctrl-v "ive never faced hardship in my life, infact I haven't done anything beyond play CS and goto Uni. Which gives me all the life experience I need to pass judgement on those who have spent a vast portion of their life dedicated to Statehood and nationalism" Wank Wank, Ctrl-v.

Get of you high horses you idiot's, it really seems to be that people here live in My Little Pony world, frolicking in the meadow's and braiding each others hair. With your only concern in the world being to find a new partner to rim you out every night.

[caffiend]

I was worried that my comment would immediately ruin everything. Thanks for proving me right.

[?>Superman]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

Can you point me towards those posts please?

As far as i can tell, one person's copying and pasting, another person's reconstituting feces and claiming it as fact.


Wank, ctrl-v, wank "my nerd moral's are superior to yours, wank, ctrl-v "ive never faced hardship in my life, infact I haven't done anything beyond play CS and goto Uni. Which gives me all the life experience I need to pass judgement on those who have spent a vast portion of their life dedicated to Statehood and nationalism" Wank Wank, Ctrl-v.

Get of you high horses you idiot's, it really seems to be that people here live in My Little Pony world, frolicking in the meadow's and braiding each others hair. With your only concern in the world being to find a new partner to rim you out every night.

LOL

Thanks caffiend for producing this result.

[TnT]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

Diatribe

Can I ask what makes you the definitive expert on the subject?

[?>Superman]

Because he knows military shit. Like all the lettering that goes with gun names n shit...amazing stuff.

[Tranquil^]

Originally Posted by TnT

Can I ask what makes you the definitive expert on the subject?

Where did i actually state i was the authority? I guess all that smoke form the bushfires is getting to you eh.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10424103

"If I thought we could achieve success, I would sit down (with the Iranians)," Bush told a news conference in Washington. "But I don't think we can achieve success right now."

Paraphrased: "I think we could achieve success but we better not chance it"

[chubby]

You gotta break some eggs to make an omelette

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by Tranquil^

Get of you high horses you idiot's, it really seems to be that people here live in My Little Pony world, frolicking in the meadow's and braiding each others hair. With your only concern in the world being to find a new partner to rim you out every night.

Yeah, but that's quite a fucking concern, that's damn hard when you're stuck in a meadow.

Also, what is wrong with being pretty?

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by chubby

Picture

Should this not be funny? I am confused.

[chubby]

Should this not be funny?

depends on your moral outlook i guess.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Paraphrased: "I think we could achieve success but we better not chance it"

Paraphrased: "we don't talk to evil"

[Simon]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

Should this not be funny? I am confused.

His face is depressing. HERS is funny.

[Wally Simmonds]

She doesn't look particularly stoked, does she?

[?>Superman]

She's got that "fuck i'm stuck with this hunchback for life now" look.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

But she's alright though isn't she. I bet he'd have a huge stiffy if it wasnt fused to the inside of his thigh.

[Slothking]

I would assume the hunched back is the least of her problems.

[caffiend]

You gentailmen are vary funny.....

....


NOT!

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

So total global war with lots of little side conflicts is a justified end?
Because that is the only end that the actions of the US and others will bring about.

you have no proof that that will happen.

See, you didn't manipulate morality to serve your own ends - you merely justified immoral actions in what you thought were morally acceptable terms.

argh thats the whole point man. for rumsfeld et al., their actions are moral, i already explained why, they are spreading democracy and liberty! there are undoubtedly other strategic considerations for which they went to war, but their ideology does support the idea that they THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD. if you, as many liberals/radicals/ believe, think that they ONLY invaded iraq for oil, and to reinforce their strategic foothold in the middle east, you are ignorant of the ideology of the bush administration.

so we are going to have to agree to disagree here, because we are starting to go around in circles.

i dont believe there can be universal morality unless there are is a police force to punish immoral behaviour. i believe in the international system, its basically every state for themselves, and they decide morality on the run, according to their national interests.

The US invaded Vietnam on the justification that they attacked first (reported incident that never happened), they invaded Iraq using the same BS excuse by tying Iraq to 9/11. Everybody agrees that violence in self-defense is morally acceptable so the intel was manipulated to make it look like they were acting in self-defense. The Bush administration knew it wasn't moral so they had to make it seem like it was.

this is because america has a long history of idealism. they like to think they are moral and the force of good. this is why idealism is so much more popular than realism in american universities. because many americans, especially democrats, hate the idea of an international system where morality doesn't exist. unfortunately for them, this morality inhibits their functioning in the international system. but the republicans have learnt to get around this by either deceiving the public (as bush did in iraq), or by painting the enemy in immoral terms (reagan and the soviet 'evil empire') the point is that they are acting in their national interests, and morality is almost like some fancy wrapping paper surrounding it. ie it doesn't really mean anything but everyone likes it to be there anyway.

Hitler used the same manipulation to launch WWII - he certainly didn't say "these people are less than us so therefore we are justified in attacking them".

i think you are being a bit disingenuous here. you must know about the high level of anti-jew/anti-slav/anti-anything-not-aryan propaganda the nazis spread through germany during the 1930's. i think the millions of german soldiers who were exterminating slavs like they were rats were well aware of their morally-just war of genocide.

you are probably right about him not announcing a press conference and saying 'hello, we are going to exterminate the russians tommorow' but thats a result of the formalities of diplomacy. im not sure how much this relates to our argument, as i am talking about states pursuing what they believe are moral actions.

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by caffiend

It's refreshing to see an informed, well-argued, intelligent debate in an NZG thread which (for the most part) hasn't deteriorated into name-calling and posturing.

word up nugga

unlike american forums ay

[Sgt Seb]

Originally Posted by chubby

man thats fucking depressing

poor cunt

[Sgt Seb]

also a bit OT: after seeing some of the hardcore videos to come out of iraq, even some of the relatively tame ones like IEDS going off, fuck thats some horrible shit. it makes me realise what idiots all those people are who think violent video games decrease sensitivity to violence. i think ive been playing violent games for hmmmm, 14 years out of my 24? yet when i see REAL violence, that shit hits you deep. just horrible thinking about the poor bastard whose hoping hes going to get through the mission and then boom, life over.

[JP]

Regardless of all this moral relativism bullshit. War is fucking brutal, and fucking horrible. And we as a species should be doing as much as we can to avoid it and move on from it. I find it hard to believe there's so many fuckheads still out there that are so gung ho that war is a fine answer to everything. I don't find it surprising most have no experience with war or war zones.

Disease, poverty, exploitation, much of which is avoidable by people, however we don't make huge efforts to cause them.

War on the other hand. We focus massive amounts of resources to destroy, to kill, to maim, to bring misery on others.

Fuck moral relativism, I hope any fucker who thinks a war for profit is justified gets burned like that soldier. You selfish fucks.

War should be reserved for intervening to STOP conflicts. Not to fucking secure resources. If you believe that's fine, then you deserve to fucking suffer as much as any of these people have.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Aw what.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Cont...&site=5&page=0

[chubby]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021201537.html

[chubby]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021401819.html

[chubby]

Originally Posted by [WanG] Wandarah

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Cont...&site=5&page=0

US defence sources reported

US officials in Baghdad

A Foreign Office spokesman

woah- good to see so many people are prepared to attach their names to that one. can anyone say 'deniability'?

[Rep]

If you really what to have that PIC hit home , just realise that if past conflicts are any gauge , most badly injured soldiers live much shorter lives , on account of poverty , depression , social isolation (can't be around people at the mall anymore) , drungs , alcohol and suicide amongst other things.

Before their wedding , you can just imagine the Bride convincing the Groom it's all gonna be worthwhile , hope their strength lasts , I really do.

[chubby]

i cant help but believe that the bride just couldnt find a way to rationalize being "the bitch that dumped the hero 'cause he was ugly"
i say 6 months from now he eats a 9mm.
war is hell.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Sgt Seb

you have no proof that that will happen.

1. Dude the US bases it's economy on the fact that those who make the guns write the Foreign Policy , and unlike other countries , the US has a war every 3 or 4 years. If you want proof , just open a history book. I predict the US causing a regoinal conflict between Sunni and Shia , it will be a cross between the war in Congo and the Iraq/Iran conflict that the UK and US sold arms to both sides. And after their are satisfied that they are weak and compliant enough the US will then be able to role back in and re-write the national borders like the Neocons want to. They have a long term plan and we all know it.

argh thats the whole point man. for rumsfeld et al., their actions are moral, i already explained why, they are spreading democracy and liberty! there are undoubtedly other strategic considerations for which they went to war, but their ideology does support the idea that they THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD. if you, as many liberals/radicals/ believe, think that they ONLY invaded iraq for oil, and to reinforce their strategic foothold in the middle east, you are ignorant of the ideology of the bush administration.

2. Their morals can be demonstrated to be NOT good. This is anchored to what most of the world thinks of as morality ; ie killing is wrong. Their belief in them selves being moral is not relevant. Do you belief what they are publishing because they say so?

How do you know yer daddy's ya daddy? 'cause your mama told you so...

so we are going to have to agree to disagree here, because we are starting to go around in circles.

3. He is expressing opinion based or we common refer to as right and wrong. You are saying that what ever the Neocons
are doing is moral as long as it's in their national interests.
That's merely the base logic of a criminal , eg.

Give your jacket or I'll smash you.

Give your resources or we'll bomb you.

i dont believe there can be universal morality unless there are is a police force to punish immoral behaviour. i believe in the international system, its basically every state for themselves, and they decide morality on the run, according to their national interests.

4. How you do it is you have an Internationalist Organisation similar to the UN , that realises that they can make more money via trade during peace , than on going futile conflict without end. They maintain this by agreeing to settle disputes by mediation , and failing that , the rest of the countries come together to enforce it with trade sanctions , (that don't cause civilian suffering ie food and medicine) , and ultimatley through force. And if the offending country has nukes , then someone else has offers theirs to counter. Actual force could include microwave range emp weapons , naval blockades to allow only essentials though , burt have enough aid at the borders to enable low loss of life. But would NOT include destroying a country though causing massive inflation etc. The trick would be harm reduction , but it would be hard to do this against the US as they could actually nuke every city in the world that has million people of more. With them you would cause political change over the long term , and hopefully disarmament.

Basically a strong UN without a security council , that is basically Internationalist in nature.

Thats about as millarist as I can conjure up , it's a big bad world out there.

this is because america has a long history of idealism. they like to think they are moral and the force of good. this is why idealism is so much more popular than realism in american universities. because many americans, especially democrats, hate the idea of an international system where morality doesn't exist. unfortunately for them, this morality inhibits their functioning in the international system. but the republicans have learnt to get around this by either deceiving the public (as bush did in iraq), or by painting the enemy in immoral terms (reagan and the soviet 'evil empire') the point is that they are acting in their national interests, and morality is almost like some fancy wrapping paper surrounding it. ie it doesn't really mean anything but everyone likes it to be there anyway.

5. The founding fathers of the US are dead and buried along with their system of govt. The US is a Demoracy in name only.
Hell you can't even form a Union there with out getting fired.


i think you are being a bit disingenuous here. you must know about the high level of anti-jew/anti-slav/anti-anything-not-aryan propaganda the nazis spread through germany during the 1930's. i think the millions of german soldiers who were exterminating slavs like they were rats were well aware of their morally-just war of genocide.

6. The SS did a lot of that , Reg soldiers usually only did it under pain of death.

you are probably right about him not announcing a press conference and saying 'hello, we are going to exterminate the russians tommorow' but thats a result of the formalities of diplomacy. im not sure how much this relates to our argument, as i am talking about states pursuing what they believe are moral actions.

7. Does believing in Santa make him real? Does Namba believing in the destroying of young lives make it real love?

No , no and no.


Edit sucks ass...

[?>Superman]

Originally Posted by chubby

i cant help but believe that the bride just couldnt find a way to rationalize being "the bitch that dumped the hero 'cause he was ugly"
i say 6 months from now he eats a 9mm.
war is hell.

Sorta sucks knowing that could possibly very well be the situation.

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by chubby

woah- good to see so many people are prepared to attach their names to that one. can anyone say 'deniability'?

Hnnghh.

[ZoSo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

They're itching for it now. A win/win situation for the US. An Iranian backdown due to the threat or the final groundwork for a chance to attack.