Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The argument can be made, I have made it, that Afghanistan is a useless war. We achieved our objective in the first 90 days with the toppling of the Taliban and have been spinning our wheels there ever since because we are not ruthless enough to do what it would really take to reform Afghan society and culture. There is much more at work in Afghanistan than just Islam and the radicals it spawns. It is probably the closest thing to a criminal culture the world has ever seen and is so resistant to change that said change is almost impossible. To really change Afghanistan we would have to (to paraphrase) destroy the country in order to save it.
Funny how that is not the typical narrative we've been hearing from the news all these years. In the media, it was always that the Iraq War was the problem, and not really Afghanistan. Your comment is interesting, since the conventional wisdom wisdom after WWI seems to have been that the process of post-conquering reconstruction is vital to the success of war….perhaps only now (after Iraq and Afghanistan) we are beginning to realize the parameters by which reconstruction is even possible.
I am going to step in here out of necessity. If I understand correctly, this appears to be a problem that started in the thread discussing the nature of the word genocide, and I think the biggest disagreement came about between Scout and Aetheling. I don't want to revisit that discussion/argument here, but just to point out that it became somewhat heated, and seems to have been offensive in part. I could tell that at the time and perhaps could have locked the thread, but I let it play out, and it is evident that there were hurt feelings in the process.As I see it, online forums are great at causing rifts among people, and not always so great at bridging them. I don't know if there's a way that both of you can find common ground on the issue, but if there is a way to discuss them gently, perhaps that is one avenue. You are both valued members here and provide distinctive voices on the forum. Aetheling, I would really prefer not to lose you permanently as a member. I realize it might seem like you sip soda of a different political flavor than many of the rest of us, but I think it adds to the spice of life here. So if there's anyway I can help here, please let me know. I know that others here are willing to help and to mend if need be as well.
That's a good point. Notice I didn't say “strong promotion by the state” of education. What I meant is that successful nations have a deeply-ingrained sense that people are expected to study hard and learn the basics (I didn't mean that “culture” is the thing that is promoted). I can't imagine a society being highly successful without having an educated populace. Despite the vast sums of money spent on education in the U.S., I think the populace is probably becoming less educated over time.
Ok, so here are some of my thoughts for a good design of a nation:1) Geography/topography – largely non-montaneous, fertile land suitable for agriculture with access to one or more coasts, and with major inland river/channel2) Economy – free market; unions discouraged3) Economic sectors – roughly 20% agricultural, 50% manufacturing, 30% service4) Political – benevolent constitutional dictatorship; absolutes clearly and concisely defined in the constitution5) Religion – Christianity predominant, though practice not enforced or required for citizenship6) Education – strong cultural promotion of education
The outcome of a war can by judged by this quotation, the origin of which I forget and paraphrase: A successful war produces a better peace than the one that preceded it.
That is one interesting way of considering which of the World Wars was more successful.
It is a good quote, but….I suppose it depends on what your goal is. This advice seems right, as well: “if you want to write an academic work, don't take instructions from the Harry Potter lady…”. It seems that the rules for successful fiction are going to vastly different from the rules for scholarly, non-fiction works.
I have slowly shifted toward the pacifist's position that there is no just cause for going to war (especially from the point of view of Jesus). Jesus would prefer us to surrender to our enemies and be patient until the He returns to put our enemies under our feet. Having said that, I totally understand why going to war can be a necessity. To save those we love and the way of life we hold dear, is always a “rational” reason to go to war. But as a Christian, there is nothing in this current world that trumps God's word to love our enemies and consider no flesh and blood an enemy at all. I know this is a hard thing to follow, but even when men win wars, they have already lost a portion of their souls in the victory. When a person kills their fellow man, he kills a portion of himself in the deed. I just long for the day when man makes war no more.
I guess I wasn't that far off when I asked if it was you or Fit2betied talking! It does seem like you have changed based on what you have said before. However, are you really a pacifist? A pacifist would seemingly allow an enemy into one's village to pillage and rape and kill one's family without raising an arm (as far as I understand). I think this is different than another position which simply requires a higher set of requirements before one will resort to violence. I think one could legitimately have disagreed with the U.S.'s decision to go to war without being a pacifist.
a flexible and enduring legal code
Seems kind of like an oxymoron if you ask me. But I think I know what you're getting at. In light of what Ski said, a legal code which preserves certain moral absolutes while being open to adaptation in more regulatory matters.
geographical location, intelligent leadership, moral absolutes
Anything more specific? What kind of geography? What does “intelligent leadership” mean?
I think the word “Just” refers to the reasons for going to war, rather than the war itself, and JWT seems to take into account the idea of “necessity”. Obviously, the killing of innocent civilians can never be considered “just” in the scheme of things. Whether it is morally permissible, however, is a different matter. At the same time, issues of moral permissiveness can still be seen as objectively evil. A bomber is taking out an aggressor's military installation in a city, and a bomb accidentally lands outside the intended zone and an innocent civilian is killed in the process. While the death of the civilian is in no way “good” or “just”, it is not necessarily morally blameworthy. See the Principle of Double Effect.The bottom line is that getting into war is not something that nations should take lightly, and when push comes to shove, there needs to be some consistent, ethical framework by which decisions are made.
Seems like Russia has a great deal of social problems. I know the abortion rate is sky high there as well, and we have discussed the dangerously low birth rate as well. I suppose if Communism had not fallen apart there, the USSR would have eventually fallen apart through other means.
That was pretty good. So was the lego castle about 30 feet away when you fired? Also, how many takes did you have to do before you finally hit the target?
