1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Does Man Need a Moral Code?

Discussion in 'Polls' started by GenSeneca, Nov 15, 2008.

?

Does Man Need a Moral Code?

  1. Yes

    13 vote(s)
    68.4%
  2. No

    6 vote(s)
    31.6%
  1. Hobo1

    Hobo1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Move around
    I think it is generally agreed that Saddam was more bluster than he was a global threat. For reasons were weak at the time, Bush decided to invade this country. And we are left with the mess today. Many countries have an army, but after a long war with Iran and then Gulf War I, Saddam's army was mainly a threat to the sectarian groups living within Iraq.

    For a time after the 9-11 attack, the US to the moral code that the end justifies any means. In retrospect, considering where Iraq is today - a barely functioning country - the civilians that we killed for the mistaken ideology of neoconservative-ism, must be labeled homicide, not unavoidable war casualties.
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,934
    Likes Received:
    1,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games

    the region feared his army if we did not.
     
  3. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
  4. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,934
    Likes Received:
    1,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    and if you take the most reasonable tallies it does not get to hunreds of thousands.
     
  5. Hobo1

    Hobo1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Move around
    Don't nit-pik. Numbers of civilian deaths attributable to US and Allied bombs and bullets is not the point I am making. Can't you see the larger perspective? Using the excuse that some tin-pot dictator with an army "that is feared in the region" is hardly casus belli for war. With some warped idea that the US must be policeman to the world, no moral code stands in our philosophy that we can make the world safe for all living things. The concept is known as American exceptionalism ,the notion that some how the American system and American thinking can solve all the world's problems - if they would just listen to us. And if a whole lot of kids, mothers, or grandparents happen to get in the way - well life isn't always far. We are fighting for truth, justice and the American way. Once again, the end justifies any bloody means.

    If you are talking the Golden Rule, we sure didn't like what Bin Ladin did to us ... shouldn't that mean we certainly should not do the same thing to the people living around him.
     
  6. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,934
    Likes Received:
    1,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games

    OK so ever mind that Hussein invaded a neighbor, got forced into a surrender and accompanying requirements for ceasefire which he failed. All it is for you and yours is crazy cowboy bush going all crazy drunk with power and cocaine. Please feel free to ignore fact and reason and carry forth with your standard kneejerk party line my hobo friend. Enjoy your little world.
     
  7. Hobo1

    Hobo1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Move around
    Hussein invaded two of his neighbors and lost both battles. Yes, he was a bad man and apparently American logic (moral code?) justified a military attack with disregard to the large number of innocent civilians who would die. History can judge whether the military action was appropriate. Clearly the action violates the Christian moral code we profess to hold ourselves to.
     
  8. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    Don't nit-pic...really? You blamed America and it's allies for hundreds of thousands of CIVILIAN deaths in those two wars. That is not correct. Lets try to be correct.

    However, I see your point, which apparently is we should not have gone to war in Iraq and Afghan, thus avoiding the civilian deaths altogether. Well I can agree partly, but not entirely. Many have argued that Bush got it right with the Afghan war, but not Iraq. We needed to act after 9/11 in taking out Al Qaeda and Bush effectively did that in Afghan. Obama's escalation in Afghan has been a terrible failure, but the press refuses to report it. Did you know Obama's surge in Afghan has resulted in more military deaths during his three years as POTUS than in all eight years of Bush? http://cnsnews.com/news/article/1188-us-military-deaths-afghan-war-obama-became-president

    Bush went to war in Iraq thinking he could install a democracy there, while eliminating a tyrannical dictator. He was greatly influenced by the belief that democracies do not war against each other as was a espoused by R. J. Rummel, the great author and professor. Who makes an excellent case that to stop war, genocide, and democide, we must eliminate centralized power (aka dictatorships) because it always kills.


     
  9. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    We? Our government makes no pretense about having the golden rule as a moral standard, not domestically and certainly not internationally. I doubt there are many Americans who would want the US operating under the restraints of such a moral code - once they realized that it would limit their power to control the actions and behavior of others: The Left would no longer be able to force one individual into performing uncompensated labor for the exclusive benefit of another individual. The Right would no longer be able to ban actions and behavior they find offensive, like porn or gay marriage. A loss of such power over the lives of others is considered unacceptable to both factions, therefore, it is highly unlikely that either group would actually support the golden rule as a moral code for our country.
     
  10. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,934
    Likes Received:
    1,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games

    the golden rule is not a Christian thing. moreover Christ was clear in defining the relationship of men to government and to faith.
     
  11. Hobo1

    Hobo1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Move around
    As a contract engineer, I have lived overseas in many undeveloped countries and have seen the benefits and failures of democracy - especially to poor countries. A dictator is efficient, and often more humane than democracy. The reason is democracy requires an knowledgeable electorate. The people voting must know the issues and the people who are running for office. That includes the ability to discern which candidate will best uphold the people's interest. In poor countries often a large percentage of the people do not read newspapers or watch the news. They are primitive and incapable of intelligently participating in a democracy. They will sell their votes for a tee-shirt.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan the general population hold very little loyalty to their country. God and tribal leaders hold their loyalty, not the government. I saw it in Indonesia where a dictator was able to maintain stability through the use of the military as police. In the late 1990's, riots in Jakarta sparked riots to demand democracy. After fumbling along for 7 or 8 years, they finally got a President that understands democracy. They elected members of Parliament seem to function - but everything is far less efficient than when the country was controlled by a dictator.

    This is a long subject, but suffice to conclude that democracy is NOT the perfect form of government for all countries.
     
  12. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    Well a dictator is efficient, but never more humane than democratically elected government. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am sure have read that before. It is an absolute FACT. Democracies do not commit genocide and democide...dictatorships DO...plus the dictator is much more likely to go to war than a democratically elected government.

    Democracy is not the perfect form of government...that is very true. A constitutional republic is.
     
  13. Hobo1

    Hobo1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Move around
    Seems like the US (and its allies) are involved in a whole lot more mores than any dictator than I can think of. Nato is a whole collection of democracies that is and has been involved in many different wars.

    Iran is a constitutional republic, with an extra branch of government (Guardian Council). However, it does have an elected parliament representing the people - and they President is elected. They surreptitiously fund Hezbollah who is instigates a whole lot of conflict in the region. Hardly peace loving government - although I found the citizens to be very friendly.

    Iraq is supposed to be a democracy - born and raised by the US government. Remember the The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)? This was the US controlled transitional government after Gulf War II. I guess you can still call Iraq a democracy, but it is a miserable failure at running the country. Iraq needs a benevolent dictator to keep the country functioning peacefully.

    So, you are wrong. Neither Dictatorships nor so-called Democratic governments are superior at staying out of war.
     
  14. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,077
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Winter Wonderland
    First, no one believes Iran is a democracy in the sense the word is understood. Your citing Iran as a democracy is laughable. They just got done killing their people a few years ago when there was an uprising against the government you think is a democracy. They consistently oppress their people with imprisonment and death, while threatening nuclear war against their neighbors.

    Second, Iraq is a democracy, but not functioning well. However, the Iraqi government unlike Iran has not resorted to murdering it's own citizens and threatening it's neighbors with war. And you think a new Iraqi dictator will fix things. Too funny!!!

    You might spend some time reading Rummel. It will enlighten you to the truth. For anyone to believe an effective form of government is a dictatorship, is really failing to learn from history and frighteningly ignorant. The dictator might get the trains to run on time (apparently your only concern), while committing tyranny and murdering millions.

    This from Rummel:

     
  15. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    I did not mention Christianity or Christ in my post, not sure why you felt the need to mention it to me... I like the golden rule, regardless of it's origin, but many people, Left and Right, seek to rule the lives of others and, therefore, would never accept the golden rule as an acceptable government standard of morality.
     
Loading...

Share This Page