We have reached a dead end, Luke, I'll leave you with your Kill Em All philosophy, see if you can persuade yourself that the police state we are actually setting up here at home (quite predictably, and indeed as the intended consequence of your favored military action) can be condemned without also condemning the futile war for which you apologize and which provided the excuse for the rollback of our liberties. Don't bother to reply, it's just going around in circles. jks
Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:Justin wrote:> You really like loony hypotheticals. We are not dealing with that situation, nor are > we likely to be. A declaration of war would be nice, if we were going to have a war. > Unfortunarely that clause of the Constitution has been sidelined. Ina ny eveny, > whether military action was in ordere doesn't depend solely or even mainly on the > scale of the attack. It depends on the scale of threat and the potential efficacy of military action. When the threat is large (i.e. there's good reason to think many thousands will die in the future as a consequence) and when it also appears that military force will diminish that threat to a large degree, then it's justified. The question of whether or not the threat is posed by a government or a terrorist collective is not relevant. > Germany hadn't done much to us when we declared war in > WWII. Whether war would be a good idea depends on a lot of things. In the case > of al Qaida, i
t doesn't do any good. It's like shooting bees. You also wrote this: "I told Ulas that I think that if al Qaida and others are involved in guerilla war in Kashmir that the Indian govt is justified in using military means to combat them."
Now, why wouldn't that be "like shooting bees"? (Actually, killing the leaders of a terrorist organization is more like offing the queen bee than it is like killing a few individual bees.)
> The horrors are excused if the benefits in welfare outweigh the costs, according to > you. The horrors are excused if and only if they are necessary and sufficient means to benefits that outweight the costs. The siege on Normandy was a member of such a set of means. The bombing of Dresden wasn't. > So you must think they do in this war. So you justify them. Me, I don't. WWII > was different. The Nazis were tilerably close to shitting out the > lights all over the world. Dredsen and Rotterdam were wrong, but it was worth even > that to stop them. Dresden was wrong because it didn't bring us any closer to winning the war. > Al Quaida is scum, but they're not thats ort of menace. No. But they don't have to be that large of a menace to warrant military action.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021208/baae57f2/attachment.htm>