Would you shoot first?

[Marc K.]

OK, so you don't accept the "precepts of 'total war'"; are you saying that anyone who does is blood thirsty? Kind of insulting.

I'll take that as a yes then.

You must have missed where I said:

If a hand grenade will end their aggressive behavior, I'm all for it.

I said this sincerely though I think we all know it won't work.

I am glad it only took a small force of Marines to protect the rights of Americans on Grenada. But knowing what it took to get the Empire of Japan to cease their aggression, I have no illusions about the level of force that will be required to end the Iranian theocracy.

Let me ask: which precepts do you accept? The one's regarding supposed "'moral' war theory"?

Care to point out examples of these acts of war?

Instead I'll just thank D'kian for his post which enumerates exactly the examples I would have.

[Mammon]

Easy.

1) Iran invaded sovereign American territory and held hundreds of American citizens hostage for over a year.

2) Iranian-backed groups, like Hizbullah and Hammas, have commited countless acts of terrorism against Israel over the past 25 years.

3) Other Iranian-backed groups bombed a US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing many Marines.

4) The bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, as well as two bombings against Jewish targets in Buenos Aires, were carried out with Iranian backing.

5) Iran slipped operatives, weapons and ammunition to Iraqi "insurgents" making war on American and Iraqi troops and civilians.

Satisfied?

Not quite, would you guys mind arranging these into what you think is the most important and least important?

[Marc K.]

And certainly you would agree that this general principle is applicable to Iran since they have gone past "threatening violence"; right?

So wait: you still don't agree with the principle, or, that it is applicable to Iran? I'm really not sure where you are coming from, maybe you are getting hung-up on the word "threatened" so let's try a different principle, can you agree that: Once force has been initiated a nation may do whatever is necessary to end the aggression.

I had also hoped that you might respond to the North Korean nuclear situation, and at least engage with my questions on that issue. It looks like you write off the diplomatic success of the US and its allies and interested parties.

But why? I would rather talk about what should be done rather than try to justify an unjustifiably self-sacrificial foreign policy.

However,

I see no diplomatic success, after all what success is possible? Some sort of short range bribery where they promise not to threaten us and we send them the hard earned money of the American people which allows them only to continue oppressing their own people? I prefer to eliminate the mafia rather than enable it. The nature of the North Korean dictatorship has not changed. And are you certain that "the aim of a North Korea without nuclear weapons was achieved"?

Negotiations are only possible between two parties who agree on the end but can't agree on the means. In any compromise between good and evil it is only evil that wins, to paraphrase.

It seems to me that you don't have much interest in understanding or discussing a point of view that differs from your own.

I'm not sure where you got that from, I'm here, discussing it. But don't expect me to agree with a statement like this:

I would agree that a given country will act in line with what it sees as its national interest.

It isn't a statement of moral principle and I explained why.

If you want to move the discussion forward why don't you explain what you think should happen with Iran.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Marc K.

[Marc K.]

Not quite, would you guys mind arranging these into what you think is the most important and least important?

Hold on, hold on, you can't escape that easily.

Are these acts of war or not?

[agrippa1]

Not quite, would you guys mind arranging these into what you think is the most important and least important?

Are you looking for a list of the individuals murdered, from most important to least important?

[William Scott Scherk]

But why?

Why do I get that impression from your remarks, that you don't believe North Korea will continue to dismantle its nuclear weapons capacity? Do you believe that the threat is less today, and that it is not yet necessary to bomb the fuck out of that country in the near immediate future?

If you meant why should you respond or engage with my questions, hmmm -- I had thought I made it clear: to explore the parallels of the situation with Iran.

I would rather talk about what should be done rather than try to justify an unjustifiably self-sacrificial foreign policy.

Okay. In which case, does the "whatever necessary" moral principle apply to massive military attack on North Korea -- in line with the scenario? What should be done and what are the consequences in your mind?

However, I see no diplomatic success, after all what success is possible? Some sort of short range bribery where they promise not to threaten us and we send them the hard earned money of the American people which allows them only to continue oppressing their own people?

I understand now that you think your country has failed to do its job with North Korea. But should my take-home message be that you therefore urge military action by the US and its allies?

Your president puts the situation in different terms (from Reuters):

The United States has told communist North Korea it could be removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism as early as August 11 if a rigorous verification process is established, but the discussions have been lengthy.

"They've got a lot to do, they've got to ... show us a verification regime that we can trust," Bush said.

Again, the principle you put forward, the "whatever is necessary" blurb, how does it apply? Why didn't the US bomb the fuck out of North Korea's nuclear facilities in the aftermath of its 2006 nuclear blast test? Why does the US choose not to bomb, but to engage in diplomacy against North Korean ambitions?

By these questions I hope to bring your attention to the implications of the question-begging principle you suggest I had best adopt.

You put the principle in this way: Once force has been initiated a nation may do whatever is necessary to end the aggression.

"Whatever is necessary" is the question. What is necessary? What is necessary to counter the ambitions of the 'murderer in the room'?

[Marc K.]

If you meant why should you respond or engage with my questions, hmmm -- I had thought I made it clear: to explore the parallels of the situation with Iran.

I think this is the wrong approach. We can't even agree on principle yet. What makes you think that we are going to agree on what should be done in some particular instance? So let's stay with principle. Once we agree on principle, then we should probably move on to talking about Iran since they have not only threatened us but have committed acts of war on the US -- (you do acknowledge this fact right?) Then maybe we can talk about North Korea.

By these questions I hope to bring your attention to the implications of the question-begging principle you suggest I had best adopt.

You put the principle in this way: Once force has been initiated a nation may do whatever is necessary to end the aggression.

"Whatever is necessary" is the question. What is necessary? What is necessary to counter the ambitions of the 'murderer in the room'?

Either your reading comprehension is very low or you stop reading when you get to the phrase "whatever is necessary". The four words that follow should answer your question: "to end the aggression".

This is how you can tell if what you have done is "whatever is necessary": if it ends the aggression. If it hasn't, then you need to try something different.

Japan, WWII is a good example: They attacked us; We could have negotiated with them, pleading not to be attacked again, but to not answer force with force invites more force; So first we attacked their navy, still they persisted; We pushed them back island by island inflicting and taking heavy losses, still they persisted; We pushed them all the way back to their home islands and proceeded to firebomb their cities (killing more than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki), still they persisted; We dropped one nuke, and after seeing the death and destruction we were willing to wrought, still they persisted; So we dropped another nuke, finally they understood that we would do whatever was necessary to stop their aggression and they stopped. Notice how we stopped killing them as soon as they relented.

This is how you find out what is necessary to stop their aggression -- as soon as the aggression stops, that is what was necessary.

We could apply this method, imperfect though it may be, to the Iran situation. As I said I don't think a hand grenade will do it. I don't even think dropping bombs on every government installation (which would include every mosque) will do it. What do you think will end their aggression?

Finally:

Do you believe that the threat is less today, and that it is not yet necessary to bomb the fuck out of that country in the near immediate future? [emphasis added]

I am not sure what you are trying to communicate with the emphasis added. I mean, I'm no prude, I just don't know what I am supposed to take away from this usage. Is it emotionalism or is it just the way Canadians speak? If you used it sparingly or to make a point but you've used it three times the same way. I think it just detracts from your argument and makes you sound less intelligent.

[Mammon]

Hold on, hold on, you can't escape that easily.

Are these acts of war or not?

That's what I'm trying to ask you. Are these acts of war or not, and do they justify an all-out military attack on Iran, in the present. If that's all we have to go on, should we do the same thing we did for Iraq, to Iran? Because you know that's how this war will be fought.

And I wasn't trying to escape anything either, so I don't get why you trying to say that.

Finally:

I am not sure what you are trying to communicate with the emphasis added. I mean, I'm no prude, I just don't know what I am supposed to take away from this usage. Is it emotionalism or is it just the way Canadians speak? If you used it sparingly or to make a point but you've used it three times the same way. I think it just detracts from your argument and makes you sound less intelligent.

You should go to the Teens4Christ forums if you have a problem with it.

[softwareNerd]

You should go to the Teens4Christ forums if you have a problem with it.

Personally, I have a problem with people using multiple fucks gratuitously, unless they're young and still relishing the pseudo-independent idea of cussing.

[William Scott Scherk]

Once we agree on principle, then we should probably move on to talking about Iran since they have not only threatened us but have committed acts of war on the US -- (you do acknowledge this fact right?) Then maybe we can talk about North Korea.

Either your reading comprehension is very low or you stop reading when you get to the phrase "whatever is necessary".

Actually, Marc, it's becoming apparent neither of us will benefit from more exchanges of this kind, so I will bow out of further replies to you. The 'reading comprehension' gibe underscores a disdain and lack of engagement that I find unappealing. I don't see much to your present argument beyond a slogan and a sneer, to be honest.

Since it is your principle of 'whatever it takes' that you insist must be accepted, and since your own principle doesn't specify any particular country but generalizes to all, it is puzzling why you don't (can't or won't) discuss its application to North Korea.

[Marc K.]

Are these acts of war or not,

Yes.

do they justify an all-out military attack on Iran, in the present.

Yes.

should we do the same thing we did for Iraq, to Iran?

No.

And I wasn't trying to escape anything either, so I don't get why you trying to say that.

I answered your question (with D'kian's help) and I was waiting for you to either acknowledge my answer or refute it. It seemed as though you were trying to skirt the issue: Do you consider these acts of war? If not, why not? If so -- if you believe that Iran has killed Americans in multiple acts of war, what do you think should be done about it? Do we have the right to defend ourselves or not? How far may we go -- if they don't relent must we continue to put up with their attacks? -- or may we do whatever is necessary to stop their aggression?

You should go to the Teens4Christ forums if you have a problem with it.

As I said, if there is a point to it and I understand that point, then I don't have too much of a problem with it and if you have a problem with that then you should read the forum rules.