Ok. As I said, what else is there in the context of sovereignty?
All kinds of things, including will - culture, perceived royalty, enforcible boarders, etc. In some ways it's kind of an ambiguious term. However, in some ways it isn't. Despite Saddam's villany, Iraq was considered by just about everyone to be sovereign.
I completely agree with you, but do you agree with you? It seems like everyday I hear you telling me or others why I'm responsible for people I didn't vote for, didn't make poor, didn't make homeless.
I don't know. I suppose I could be read that way. To clarify, I'd say you're responsible to them, not for them.
There's a much more viable argument that neither sanctions nor war would have worked, depending on the standards you're discussing. But I think the fact remains that Saddam Hussein could have been captured without a massive invasion and occupation of Iraq.
A capture that would have led to a war anyway. Maybe not one we'd be involved in, but still a war. These things happen when there's a power vacuum.
Not at all. A collectivist may hold one man guilty for the crimes of the masses. An individualist judges all men for what they are as singular entities.
Neither fits where the other sits.
A collectivist may hold one man guilty or may apply it to the masses. An individualist feels he can judge all men. For what doesn't matter.
All kinds of things, including will - culture, perceived royalty, enforcible boarders, etc. In some ways it's kind of an ambiguious term. However, in some ways it isn't.
How do "culture" and "enforcible borders" pertain to sovereignty. How can an entity be more or less sovereign based on those categories?
Despite Saddam's villany, Iraq was considered by just about everyone to be sovereign.
Yes, Iraq was considered by just about everyone to be sovereign, hence my original question.
I don't know. I suppose I could be read that way. To clarify, I'd say you're responsible to them, not for them.
Please clarify further. What's the difference?
A capture that would have led to a war anyway. Maybe not one we'd be involved in, but still a war. These things happen when there's a power vacuum.
Certainly! The current problems the Iraqi people are experiencing would be much the same. The current problems the American people are experiencing, however, would not.
One implies you are responsible for what they do - the other doesn't. Instead, it is an aspect of necessity for the health of the nation. It has it's ups and downs.
Certainly! The current problems the Iraqi people are experiencing would be much the same. The current problems the American people are experiencing, however, would not.
Well, if Saddam's what-if ousting happened, I'm sure our country would have had a hand in it; and, while we might not be facing the current problems, we'd be facing other ones.
Where did I say a collectivist would hold his own masses guilty? There are many masses.
Certainly. But the moral qualifications of his own masses are so often manifested in the other that an indictment of one set of masses is an indictment of his own. That is why the collectivist is typically left with only two non-individual enemies: those with instutional power and those with wealth. The only exception to that rule is the situation where the collectivist deems another set of people to be sub-human.
Careful of the interdependence involved in judgement. You may lose your individualist status.
How so? Judgement is the most important tool the individual man has.
If the murder wasn't ordered and planned by somebody, it wouldn't have taken place.
And if someone hadn't followed those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't paid for those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't sanctioned those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If the victims had left, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If previous regimes hadn't given reason for those orders, the murders wouldn't have taken place.
Again, if your standard for guilt is only participation, the guilty far outnumber the innocent.
By your thinking, if Bush didn't order troops to be sent to Iraq they would've killed Iraqis just the same?
No. By my thinking, Bush wouldn't have had any opportunity to order anyone to do anything. But that's a different argument.
Certainly. But the moral qualifications of his own masses are so often manifested in the other that an indictment of one set of masses is an indictment of his own. That is why the collectivist is typically left with only two non-individual enemies: those with instutional power and those with wealth. The only exception to that rule is the situation where the collectivist deems another set of people to be sub-human.
How so? Judgement is the most important tool the individual man has.
Not so. Judgement is so often based on "other" standards even if the one judging believes them to be his own. Plus, judging interrelates the judge with the judged and the effect goes back as well as forth. No, the most important tool the individual has is individualism.
Not so. Judgement is so often based on "other" standards even if the one judging believes them to be his own. Plus, judging interrelates the judge with the judged and the effect goes back as well as forth. No, the most important tool the individual has is individualism.
"Individualism" is not a means, it is an end. Furthermore, it is dependent on the judgment of one's self as a distinct entity. Without judgment, there is no such thing as individualism.
And if someone hadn't followed those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't paid for those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't sanctioned those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If the victims had left, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If previous regimes hadn't given reason for those orders, the murders wouldn't have taken place.
Again, if your standard for guilt is only participation, the guilty far outnumber the innocent.
No. By my thinking, Bush wouldn't have had any opportunity to order anyone to do anything. But that's a different argument.
I feel that now we're going in circles. I did say before that everyone is guilty of something. But that doesn't mean that George Bush, as the leader, should not be tried for crimes. Look at the Nuremberg trials.
My whole point was that no one would bring charges against him because they're too afraid... of political fallout (not being re-elected into office), of incuring the wrath of the only superpower left, or whatever.
I don't believe, by any means, that the blame lies solely with him. Or that all wrongs would be magically be right if he, and only he, is tried for those crimes. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did.
well, some people here believe that international law means nothing. by their observation, it will not matter.
i feel that he will be put on trial...i do not believe that he will be convicted.
I'm sure you are referring to our other conversation about Rumsfeld. For clarification, I never said it means nothing. I said that with Rumsfeld, and even more so with Bush....if they are tried and found guilty they would never ever suffer any consequence from it other than being restricted on their travels. The American government is not going to imprison a former President or let anyone else imprison a former President for the Iraq war.
I feel that now we're going in circles. I did say before that everyone is guilty of something. But that doesn't mean that George Bush, as the leader, should not be tried for crimes. Look at the Nuremberg trials.
My whole point was that no one would bring charges against him because they're too afraid... of political fallout (not being re-elected into office), of incuring the wrath of the only superpower left, or whatever.
I don't believe, by any means, that the blame lies solely with him. Or that all wrongs would be magically be right if he, and only he, is tried for those crimes. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did.
He should be held accountable for what he did. And we should be held accountable for what we did. The problem with doing the former is that it will be done to forget about the latter. Scapegoat-ism solves nothing.
In two years, George Bush will no longer be a singular threat to the world. The same can not be said for those who will continue to believe their whims override the rights of others. George Bush will be replaced, and it's very likely he'll be replaced by another criminal-in-waiting just as he replaced the one before him.
In two years, George Bush will no longer be a singular threat to the world. The same can not be said for those who will continue to believe their whims override the rights of others. George Bush will be replaced, and it's very likely he'll be replaced by another criminal-in-waiting just as he replaced the one before him.
But don't you think that impeaching or (gasp) bringing Bush to trial would deter future presidents from doing the same?
Also, it's our responsibility as the electorate to hold the Senate accountable as well by doing the only thing we can do, and that's electing more responsible people and booting the guilty Congress that brought us to war out. But, sadly, as we just saw last week, that won't happen.
But don't you think that impeaching or (gasp) bringing Bush to trial would deter future presidents from doing the same?
Of course not. American presidents will continue to involve themselves in bad wars so long as the public demands it.
This is a revenge ploy. It would simply give the world someone to blame and help them sleep well at night knowing that someone has been punished.
Also, it's our responsibility as the electorate to hold the Senate accountable as well by doing the only thing we can do, and that's electing more responsible people and booting the guilty Congress that brought us to war out. But, sadly, as we just saw last week, that won't happen.
Now this I can get on board with, and the same goes for the presidency.
Well, we now know that Bush was aware of prisons constructed outside of the U.S. for suspected terrorists (now known as "black sites"). He signed documents authorizing their implementation !
Comments
I don't know. I suppose I could be read that way. To clarify, I'd say you're responsible to them, not for them.
A capture that would have led to a war anyway. Maybe not one we'd be involved in, but still a war. These things happen when there's a power vacuum.
A collectivist may hold one man guilty or may apply it to the masses. An individualist feels he can judge all men. For what doesn't matter.
How do "culture" and "enforcible borders" pertain to sovereignty. How can an entity be more or less sovereign based on those categories?
Yes, Iraq was considered by just about everyone to be sovereign, hence my original question.
Please clarify further. What's the difference?
Certainly! The current problems the Iraqi people are experiencing would be much the same. The current problems the American people are experiencing, however, would not.
A collectivist can never hold the masses guilty of anything, because it is within the masses that he finds his highest moral standard.
That one is true. An individualists not only can judge all men, he should judge all men.
The question "how is it sovereign?" Well, then. Because it is.
One implies you are responsible for what they do - the other doesn't. Instead, it is an aspect of necessity for the health of the nation. It has it's ups and downs.
Well, if Saddam's what-if ousting happened, I'm sure our country would have had a hand in it; and, while we might not be facing the current problems, we'd be facing other ones.
How so?
Careful of the interdependence involved in judgement. You may lose your individualist status.
Certainly. But the moral qualifications of his own masses are so often manifested in the other that an indictment of one set of masses is an indictment of his own. That is why the collectivist is typically left with only two non-individual enemies: those with instutional power and those with wealth. The only exception to that rule is the situation where the collectivist deems another set of people to be sub-human.
How so? Judgement is the most important tool the individual man has.
By your thinking, if Bush didn't order troops to be sent to Iraq they would've killed Iraqis just the same?
let those without error judge another...
from my window to yours
And if someone hadn't followed those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't paid for those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't sanctioned those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If the victims had left, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If previous regimes hadn't given reason for those orders, the murders wouldn't have taken place.
Again, if your standard for guilt is only participation, the guilty far outnumber the innocent.
No. By my thinking, Bush wouldn't have had any opportunity to order anyone to do anything. But that's a different argument.
Not so. Judgement is so often based on "other" standards even if the one judging believes them to be his own. Plus, judging interrelates the judge with the judged and the effect goes back as well as forth. No, the most important tool the individual has is individualism.
Really? How do you feel about George Bush?
now, you're getting into opinion vs. judgment.
from my window to yours
An opinion is not possible without a judgment.
"Individualism" is not a means, it is an end. Furthermore, it is dependent on the judgment of one's self as a distinct entity. Without judgment, there is no such thing as individualism.
I feel that now we're going in circles. I did say before that everyone is guilty of something. But that doesn't mean that George Bush, as the leader, should not be tried for crimes. Look at the Nuremberg trials.
My whole point was that no one would bring charges against him because they're too afraid... of political fallout (not being re-elected into office), of incuring the wrath of the only superpower left, or whatever.
I don't believe, by any means, that the blame lies solely with him. Or that all wrongs would be magically be right if he, and only he, is tried for those crimes. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did.
I'm sure you are referring to our other conversation about Rumsfeld. For clarification, I never said it means nothing. I said that with Rumsfeld, and even more so with Bush....if they are tried and found guilty they would never ever suffer any consequence from it other than being restricted on their travels. The American government is not going to imprison a former President or let anyone else imprison a former President for the Iraq war.
He should be held accountable for what he did. And we should be held accountable for what we did. The problem with doing the former is that it will be done to forget about the latter. Scapegoat-ism solves nothing.
In two years, George Bush will no longer be a singular threat to the world. The same can not be said for those who will continue to believe their whims override the rights of others. George Bush will be replaced, and it's very likely he'll be replaced by another criminal-in-waiting just as he replaced the one before him.
Hopefully by stoning.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
But don't you think that impeaching or (gasp) bringing Bush to trial would deter future presidents from doing the same?
Also, it's our responsibility as the electorate to hold the Senate accountable as well by doing the only thing we can do, and that's electing more responsible people and booting the guilty Congress that brought us to war out. But, sadly, as we just saw last week, that won't happen.
Of course not. American presidents will continue to involve themselves in bad wars so long as the public demands it.
This is a revenge ploy. It would simply give the world someone to blame and help them sleep well at night knowing that someone has been punished.
Now this I can get on board with, and the same goes for the presidency.
Absolutely.
Will he?
No way in hell.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Sad, but I believe, true.
Justice really should be done as to his atrocities.