> Not with respect to the fundamentals. Btw, this is not
> particularly leftist boilerplate.
Yes. It's lefty _and_ neo-con boilerplate.
> It's consistent with what political scientists call Realism in
> International Relations theory,
Which is just an extension of rational choice theory from individual agents or small collectives of agents to nations. Rational choice theory (which I think is just an extension of psychological egoism) lends itself to a lot of "just so" explanations
> > You should've said that "I love your variant of
> > utilitarianism," because
> > there are consequentialists who believe in desserts.
>
> Who was talkinga bout desert? I thought you weredenying moral
responsibility.
Typos are funny stuff. (As you know, the question of whether or not there are deserts is just a reformulation of the question of whether or not moral responsibility exists.)
> Now I'm lost. I thought you were defending military
> action in the war on terror because police work
> wouldn't work.
Police work alone wouldn't have worked. Accompanied by the destruction of the Taliban and much of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, it may.
> Now you say what is obviosult false, that the military part is over,
As we both agree, the impending war on Iraq is in no way an extension of the war on terror, so why pretend that it is?
-- Luke