Well I must say that this has caused some discussion amongst members. I would just like to clarify a few things. Firstly @topdog. Nato is not the US mate. Nato is several powerful countries that have aligned to create an army that could help in war torn countries. I believe there are several countries in Nato, including France, UK, Germany, Canada.
http://www.nato.int/
The UN is the united nations, and consists of virtually every country within the world. Some have more power than others, and this includes the VETO vote, which is so important.
http://www.un.org/english/
All true
janobi said:
With regards to suicide bombers of any kind, its wrong. Killing an innocent, for publicity for a cause is wrong. Yet it is not only Islamics who have used these tactics. Kamikazee pilots for one, is another example of the extremes people will go to for a cause they believe in.
Also true. Any rudimentary knowledge of the psychology of martyrdom will know it is not only a Muslim (radical islamist) concept.
janobi said:
As someone had posted earlier, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Yasser Arafat I believe is the person who coined that phrase. A freedom fighter for the palestinians, yet a terrorist to the israeli's.
Now. Yes there is a moral equivalence argument, rooted in relativism, that can argue the two sides of the coin. However, we do not live our lives, and our leaders do not conduct their politics, in a moral vacuum where we can afford to dismiss good and evil in favour of random sequences of events.
We are human,a nd human beings co exist by a contract, hegemony. Hegemony suggests that Al-Qaeda are scum, and need wiping out. Now, there is a time when for the sake of the greater good, and when a terrorist (such as Arafat) lays his weapons down (and more importantly pulls his henchman back), then dialogue can occur. Does that mean he should have got the Nobel peace prize. Hell no! we shou;d just not have killed him in exchange for peace (albeit not a very successful one).
janobi said:
I wonder how many people remember the war that Russia fought with Afghanistan. And how the British Army (SAS/SBS) trained the afghans in counter terrorism, and other methods, that would allow them to fight the Russians. I also seem to remember them being supplied arms, by the French in the war against Russia. And many politicians, felt they were taking the moral high ground in helping the Afghans. Yet a few years later, were invading them, for our own reasons, and Russia is helping the Afghans. What a turn around.
It is the very nature of human interaction. you are not describing an earth shattering hypocrisy, just a description of human nature. Self interest is what we do. Sometimes sadly so.
janobi said:
The problem with War, is only the winner can write the history of what happened. That is why the world view of the world wars is so abstract. Most people in the US believe they won both wars single handedly. But it was Hitlers in ability to conquer the Red army in Winter that actually turned the war in our favour.
I am paraphrasing Aristolte here but, The only people to see the end of war are the dead. It is aomethign we will have to live with. People are not inherently good. Indeed, some are bad, and the self interest that is part of our genetic make up insists that we will never have absolute truth. I doubt many serious US historians ignore the doomed Barbarossa campaign. It is only the ignorant people that do not know. It will always be so.
janobi said:
Religion has and always will be a reason for war, and for that reason it should be banished. People have mentioned the crusades, where the Christian knights, went to the holy land, and butchered all who would not pledge to the Church. They killed millions in the name of there god. Yet now they are considered heroes, again he who wins the war, gets to write history.
I am an atheist msyelf. But if you ban religion you are more intolerant than the fundamentalists. You have to encourage reason, whilst allowing belief. I aslo agree about Christianity, but Christians are not the problem now. We need to kill the Jihadists. Simple.
janobi said:
I will leave you with one more question. "Why if you kill someone during a war, are you a hero. Yet if you kill someone whilst not at war, your a criminal. Is there any difference??"
Another relativistic argument. for example, let me offer a proof:
Do you agree with the following comment: 'If you have sex with a minor in ancient Greece you are a normal citizen, but if you have sex with a minor today you are a paedophile? Is there any difference?'
You need to understand that morality is yes fluid, but is based upon a contractual understanding by the majority (hegemony). You need to ask yourself an important question here. 'Am I moral?' 'Do I believe in right and wrong?' What I am trying to get at, is that it is ok to judge!
You can still be a philosophical existentialist - like me
-, and still take a side, without having to feed of your own tail.