Iran (so far away)

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29652
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Warren »

thoreau wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 16:23
Jason, you need to work on your bloodlust.
Does he?
I'd say it's strong enough.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

How is what you are saying different from what I summarized? Not facetiously, what is the difference. I'm am saying action passes a filter of moral permissibility then has to clear a hurdle of consequentialist evaluation of harms. You are saying no it's all prior moral constraint. That means assholes win forever.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29878
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

Jason, which half you emphasize is important. If you emphasize the badness of the guy who got killed, you're encouraging a lot of people to keep those trigger fingers itchy, just in case. If you emphasize the foolishness of the attack, you're encouraging people to cool down and seek other solutions. One of these approaches leads to less war, not more.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

And I'm arguing this point because it's the one you guys have taken up. There is no prior moral rule preventing a violent overthrowing of Kim Jong Un. No principle of justice or rights or fairness or sovereignty comes into play. None. After that we can talk about consequences, but if we don't agree on that you guys not me are saying something pretty dramatic.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18566
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by lunchstealer »

thoreau wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 16:08
Search hard enough and you can find some cases that are "easy" in isolation, some people who are so odious that nobody weeps for them.

So what? First of all, generally these "easy" cases made themselves unsympathetic by acquiring the power to do truly massive harm, and there's nothing "easy" about deciding to kill a person whose death will leave a major power vacuum and/or provoke retaliation.

Second, when has any liberal or humanitarian interest ever been served by carving out "easy" cases for the state to exercise lethal force? Yeah, maybe some night watchman cases, but that's not what's on the table here.

Carving out "easy" cases for air strikes might provide a righteous adrenaline rush when the unsympathetic bastard dies, but it doesn't do much else that's worth a damn bit of good for the world.
The guys who killed James Byrd Jr. were fucking assholes and I don't regret or mourn their deaths one fucking iota but I'm not at all convinced that that justifies a death penalty. Punching Nazis for saying Nazi shit is an easy case, doesn't mean political violence over speech is morally groovy.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29878
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

JasonL wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 16:29
And I'm arguing this point because it's the one you guys have taken up. There is no prior moral rule preventing a violent overthrowing of Kim Jong Un. No principle of justice or rights or fairness or sovereignty comes into play. None. After that we can talk about consequences, but if we don't agree on that you guys not me are saying something pretty dramatic.
Jason, your points are as irrelevant as any morality argument ever made by a fundie or a socialist. So fucking what if you think certain things would be good if they worked out? What will actually happen?

Try learning from the past 19 years, and maybe then you can discuss these things at the grown-ups table.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20093
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

thoreau wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 16:39
JasonL wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 16:29
And I'm arguing this point because it's the one you guys have taken up. There is no prior moral rule preventing a violent overthrowing of Kim Jong Un. No principle of justice or rights or fairness or sovereignty comes into play. None. After that we can talk about consequences, but if we don't agree on that you guys not me are saying something pretty dramatic.
Jason, your points are as irrelevant as any morality argument ever made by a fundie or a socialist. So fucking what if you think certain things would be good if they worked out? What will actually happen?

Try learning from the past 19 years, and maybe then you can discuss these things at the grown-ups table.
I'm not sure which table I'm welcome to sit at, but there's a difference between the justification of a rule and the justification of the application of that rule. Not killing people is a good rule. Not killing state officials may be a good rule, too, albeit perhaps for different reasons. But it's always reasonable to ask, okay, should I apply this general rule in this particular case.

Now, there may be consequentialist concerns about the killing of a Kim Jong Un or a Soleimani, both in terms of direct consequences and longer term more general consequences, but what I hear Jason arguing (more or less) is that there is no serious room for debate whether such people can still claim the moral right to life, that they have intentionally removed themselves from the moral realm and, as a result, all we must concern ourselves with are consequences.

Of course, that's not an argument against considering consequences. It's merely an argument that those are the only issues requiring consideration.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4561
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Painboy »

thoreau wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 16:23
Jason, you need to work on your bloodlust.
You need to work on your manners.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25627
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Jennifer »

JasonL wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 16:02
lunchstealer wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 15:55
I was thinking more specifically about slaughtering Vietnamese to assuage our national ego with some killin of some commies in the Kissinger circumstance. As long as we theoretically could've brought him to justice or fixed the problem via elections, it doesn't matter that we didn't. We're legitimate so kill kill kill and it's immoral to kill right back.
I'm struggling to follow the Kissinger thing but I also think it is trying to make a stronger case than I'm making. Which state is killing Kissinger? Are they doing it now or in the late 60s?
When I asked the Kissinger question, I posited that it was during or just before his bombing of Cambodia, and the missiles were fired by another nation sympathetic to Cambodia. (IIRC, in the hypothetical I also had Kissinger be taken out while visiting a US ally --- obviously, because I intended to parallel Suleimani's killing as much as possible.) If Suleimani did anything remotely so monstrous, you'd definitely argue that the United States is justified in firing missiles at him. Would another country thus have been equally justified in taking out Kissinger?

You can answer with a mere "yes" or "no," or even a Y or N, so whatever your motivation in refusing to answer the question, I doubt it is "I currently lack the spoons to think through and type out such a long nuanced explanation."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25627
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Jennifer »

Trump reportedly told associates he killed Qassem Soleimani because he was under pressure from GOP senators before his impeachment trial

President Donald Trump told associates that he assassinated Iran's top military leader last week in part to appease Republican senators who will play a crucial role in his Senate impeachment trial, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

In a lengthy piece detailing how the president's top advisers coalesced behind the strike on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, The Journal reported that Trump had told associates he felt pressure from the senators.

One of Trump's most outspoken supporters, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, appears to be the only congressional lawmaker Trump briefed about his plan to assassinate Soleimani in the days leading up to the strike.

Graham has criticized the president's foreign-policy choices in the past — most notably Trump's withdrawal of troops from northern Syria and his handling of Saudi Arabia.

Publicly, Trump has said he approved the strike on Soleimani because the general was plotting to bomb the US Embassy in Iraq. The administration has not provided evidence to support this claim.

President Donald Trump told associates that he assassinated Iran's top military leader last week in part to appease Republican senators who'll play a crucial role in his Senate impeachment trial, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday....
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16952
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

Is everybody done yet?

Image
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 8661
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Pham Nuwen »

I skipped ahead from page 29. Y'all a bunch of crazies.

Trump is like anyone. He wants a strong community and a strong country. He wants checks and balances. He wants a fair level playing field.

For himself. Hes not big on providing that for others is all. And he cant imagine a situation that doesn't involve himself. And he wants a strong fair government so long as he himself isn't subject to it himself. No biggie.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14809
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Eric the .5b »

Team Pham.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 13195
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Ellie »

I want to go back to talking about Kim Jong Un enjoying a fresh hot lead salad. That was my favorite part. *sighs wistfully*
"Yours is the much better comeback." -JD

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

I’m done.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29878
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

Ellie wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 21:21
I want to go back to talking about Kim Jong Un enjoying a fresh hot lead salad. That was my favorite part. *sighs wistfully*
When Ellie gets excited about a man enjoying a hot lead salad, I wind up wondering if there's a gay sex metaphor that I'm missing.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6930
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Dangerman »

There is also a degree of 'live by the sword, die by the sword' which is relevant here. If you are a military officer conducting military actions, your are a Target and you signed up for that. At least in the US, we try to separate political and military leadership, and we have rules of engagement where we ostensibly avoid targeting the political leaders of adversaries. It gets fuzzy when our enemies blur that line, but I think it's still a helpful framework.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29878
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

I don't think anyone here has denied that a military officer is a valid target under all applicable rules.

What some of us have asked is whether he's any more evil than his US counterparts running covert operations, sponsoring guerrilla proxies, and supporting insurgencies.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6930
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Dangerman »

Define evil, I guess.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25627
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Jennifer »

thoreau wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 12:22
I don't think anyone here has denied that a military officer is a valid target under all applicable rules.

What some of us have asked is whether he's any more evil than his US counterparts running covert operations, sponsoring guerrilla proxies, and supporting insurgencies.
I personally am also deeply concerned by the implication that the rules of war ("rules" meaning, what is allowed versus what is a war crime) only flow in one direction: the Geneva Conventions protect the United States, but not those fighting us. We can send our military anywhere in the world to fight, but nobody has the right to fight back and anyone who does anyway is committing a crime against us. We can occupy other nations even when their governments and people say they don't want us there, but anyone who fights our occupation is a criminal. We can murder POWs captured on their home soil in their home government's military uniform, but anyone who dares murder an American POW is a war criminal. Etc.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16952
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

Jennifer wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 13:00
thoreau wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 12:22
I don't think anyone here has denied that a military officer is a valid target under all applicable rules.

What some of us have asked is whether he's any more evil than his US counterparts running covert operations, sponsoring guerrilla proxies, and supporting insurgencies.
I personally am also deeply concerned by the implication that the rules of war ("rules" meaning, what is allowed versus what is a war crime) only flow in one direction: the Geneva Conventions protect the United States, but not those fighting us. We can send our military anywhere in the world to fight, but nobody has the right to fight back and anyone who does anyway is committing a crime against us. We can occupy other nations even when their governments and people say they don't want us there, but anyone who fights our occupation is a criminal. We can murder POWs captured on their home soil in their home government's military uniform, but anyone who dares murder an American POW is a war criminal. Etc.
I don't think most Americans agree with this. Definitely most military officers don't.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19449
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Hugh Akston »

"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25627
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Jennifer »

Aresen wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 15:58
Jennifer wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 13:00
thoreau wrote:
11 Jan 2020, 12:22
I don't think anyone here has denied that a military officer is a valid target under all applicable rules.

What some of us have asked is whether he's any more evil than his US counterparts running covert operations, sponsoring guerrilla proxies, and supporting insurgencies.
I personally am also deeply concerned by the implication that the rules of war ("rules" meaning, what is allowed versus what is a war crime) only flow in one direction: the Geneva Conventions protect the United States, but not those fighting us. We can send our military anywhere in the world to fight, but nobody has the right to fight back and anyone who does anyway is committing a crime against us. We can occupy other nations even when their governments and people say they don't want us there, but anyone who fights our occupation is a criminal. We can murder POWs captured on their home soil in their home government's military uniform, but anyone who dares murder an American POW is a war criminal. Etc.
I don't think most Americans agree with this. Definitely most military officers don't.
Certainly not the Navy guys who risked their own careers to testify against the likes of Ed Gallagher, no. But I'm talking more about actual practices than stated ideals. I keep mentioning Kissinger and Cambodia -- personally, in the Cold War context of capitalism v. communism I definitely agree with capitalism, and furthermore I agree that 1960s-era America was a better and more moral nation than the Soviet Union and Mao's China -- but not to the point where I'd say the Cambodians and their friends had and have no legitimate reason to think badly of America, or that it is some unfair hyperbole to compare Kissinger unfavorably to the likes of Suleimani.

As for my statement "We can send our military anywhere in the world to fight, but nobody has the right to fight back and anyone who does anyway is committing a crime against us" -- one of the alleged justifications I'm seeing for us taking out Suleimani is that he was helping or arming Iraqi militias fighting US forces.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

Most of us realize that Iran isn’t Iraq right?

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29878
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

Most of us realize that the US and Iran are facing off in Iraq, via a combination of covert actions and proxy actions, right?
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

Post Reply