Ethics 101

[Moo]

Now that George W is confirmed we can move the debate from the potential -whimpy - Is the war in Iraq just? Does not true democracy mean allowing the population of Iraq to elect a pro-Islamic non-US aligned Government? and How can we rebuild the UN and balance the world?

To the far more likely and I'm sure you agree far more interesting ethical question -

Should the United States...sorry Coalition....make a steadfast and Christian Right committment not to bomb Islamic countries during the Ramadan period. Non-festive days are still OK.

I know that senseless carnage of innocent people is such a deterrent to all those terrorists out there but I am making a stand, it just isnt right! Now some may mock me as a dove for this prose and I apologise to any I have offended with my left wing stand in this our new right wing world.

Thank you and good night - you have been a wonderful audience.

Moo ooM

(Me having a good hard look at myself)

 

[stormee]

America doesnt need ethics when it has a global hegemony.
Up Multipolarism!

 

[Tim56]

Now that George W is confirmed we can move the debate from the potential -whimpy - Is the war in Iraq just? Does not true democracy mean allowing the population of Iraq to elect a pro-Islamic non-US aligned Government? and How can we rebuild the UN and balance the world?

So to you a democratic result is one which means a fundamentalist, anti-US Islamic government is elected. If you want to say things, just have the guts to say them, don't hide behind pointless hypotheticals.

To the far more likely and I'm sure you agree far more interesting ethical question -

Should the United States...sorry Coalition....make a steadfast and Christian Right committment not to bomb Islamic countries during the Ramadan period. Non-festive days are still OK.

No. If an Islamic group is fighting against the Coalition they can live with the consequences. It is not up to the Coalition to give them time in which to consolidate their forces.

I know that senseless carnage of innocent people is such a deterrent to all those terrorists out there but I am making a stand, it just isnt right! Now some may mock me as a dove for this prose and I apologise to any I have offended with my left wing stand in this our new right wing world.

Thank you and good night - you have been a wonderful audience.

Moo ooM

(Me having a good hard look at myself)

If you oppose senseless carnage, why do you continue to support the purpetrator's, the terrorists in Iraq? A look at yourself is indeed warranted.

 

[Moo]

On some of angryboys points ......

So to you a democratic result is one which means a fundamentalist, anti-US Islamic government is elected. If you want to say things, just have the guts to say them, don't hide behind pointless hypotheticals..

Tim to me a democratic result is one in which the majority of people get to freely elect a representative of their choice who represents their views.....hypothetically speaking of course.

Me thinketh the Iraqui Election will go like this ....

Abdul: Who did you vote for?
Faranak: Agro
Abdul: You know he's a puppet

No. If an Islamic group is fighting against the Coalition they can live with the consequences. It is not up to the Coalition to give them time in which to consolidate their forces..

Ummmmm the Ramadan question was a joke but now you are kinda scaring me .......George is that you?

If you oppose senseless carnage, why do you continue to support the purpetrator's, the terrorists in Iraq?

Gees Tim, sorry for using so many big words, I think I have confused you....I would love to break this down into Good vs Evil however its fractionally more complicated.

When I say I oppose the senseless carnage of innocent people, I use the word people to represent ....well ummm people regardless of which side of the mess they are on (...and yes Tim that includes both Iraquis and Coalition troops).

Now who was it that said there is no humour on the right? ......oh thats right it was me.....always one bloody heckler

 

[coasting]

Of course its just. What are you? A communist or something? heck the Iraqis, kill them all. They are all terrorists. If you don't kill them all, a fundamentalist state will arise which will breed terrorism. We now have no choice but to kill them all. Every last Muslim man, woman and child is a potential terrorist.

 

[- PC -]

Of course its just. What are you? A communist or something? heck the Iraqis, kill them all. They are all terrorists. If you don't kill them all, a fundamentalist state will arise which will breed terrorism. We now have no choice but to kill them all. Every last Muslim man, woman and child is a potential terrorist.

You jest I hope? And if you dont kill all the Italians we will have too many mafia people..oh and lets kill those damn Hungarians before the world is overun with goulash..

But there is merit in asking '' why do we wait for ramadan?'' Did Hirohito wait till Sunday church services had finished? Hell no he bombed them before church. There was an email going round about mad jack somegeneralorother in the Phillipines in the late 1890s and how he put down the muslim revolt ..I found it quite apt in how he did it..he rounded 40 muslim terrorists and killed 5 pigs dipped their bullets into the pigs blood and killed 39....he told the last one to tell all his friends what had happened and it would be policy to despatch terrorists in the same way....it seemed to work...talking crying negotiating doesnt work...to fight fear we must use fear...if a member of my family was unlucky enough to be bombed ,killed or maimed in Bali..it wouldnt be Amrozi I would be after..it would be his family...his mother nieces nephews and let him know why I did it..and let him hopefully feel the pain I would be feeling.

 

[Mead]

These are those fun, confusing things that make the world such a mass of contradictions. Anyway, as a moderately right wing individual, here's what I'd say.

Is the war in Iraq just? )

Depends on your definition of just. I don't think the US went in with just intentions, I think that objectively, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing no matter what the original intention.

Overall, the benefits will hinge on whether Iraq can be stabilised- it becomes an unjust war when there is more long term harm done to the populace than was prevented.

Does not true democracy mean allowing the population of Iraq to elect a pro-Islamic non-US aligned Government?

Yes, certainly.

Democracy isn't successful because it provides a better standard of candidate, the US election should make that very clear- its because it provides a clear cut limits on the power of elected officials and a system set out for change of government.

From where I'm sitting the thing which distinguishes democracy from mob rule is the existence of powerful constitutional safeguards, checks and balances, independent judiciary, free press, fixed terms and so on and so forth.

Assuming the West is serious about exporting democracy to a place like iraq, all of those things have to be there in some form, and until the infrastructure can be established, the US would probably be the ones responsible for enforcing the constitution.

If there was an anti-US Islamic government elected, then so be it, but a government that was not prepared to accept the word of a judiciary when it conflicted with what the government thought was the will of god would not be a free democracy at all- they'd be an elected theocratic dictator.

Once you have a strong democracy in place it really doesn't matter what the opinions of the elected individuals are- provided they're committed to the constitutional ideals they get into power, take their turn, implement their policies and then sod off when the constitution says they have to.

How can we rebuild the UN and balance the world?

I'm not sure it can be done in its current form- people simply aren't going to listen to the UN because moral authority means zilch in practice. The US is probably one of the worst offenders at the moment in terms of trampling on the UN, but thats simply because its powerful enough to do so- give Sweden or Canada an enormous economy, 250 million people and the most powerful army in the world and they won't be a global good citizen anymore..

Personally, I think the solution is the WTO- in the modern world, financial power is everything, and if the WTO wants to make a country hurt or expel them, they have as serious an effect as raw military power. Given the global nature of the economy, I think the WTO will end up being the defacto global government.

Should the United States...sorry Coalition....make a steadfast and Christian Right committment not to bomb Islamic countries during the Ramadan period. Non-festive days are still OK.

Personally I don't see why- in practical sense you're still just as dead if you're killed in Ramadan, on Christmas Day or Halloween. Morally, I don't see any distinction between waging war at any particular time- war is war.

In a pragmatic sense, it probably makes sense for the US to respect cultural beliefs and limit the amount of propaganda value that can be gotten by doing that kind of thing, really though, its up to them- if they're stupid enough to do grossly insensitive things that alienate the populace, then more fool the yanks- they're the ones who'll be staring down the barrel of a mortar round if they pointlessly enrage civilian populations.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Well,i"m still trying to figure out if JWH knows what Ethics are.Perhaps Tim,BB etc can enlighten us,mebbe?.

 

[- PC -]

Well,i"m still trying to figure out if JWH knows what Ethics are.Perhaps Tim,BB etc can enlighten us,mebbe?.

In my best Ita Buttrose voice...'' I know where Ethics is ''''it'th in England''