Does Man Need a Moral Code?

[Hobo1]

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.

 

[dogtowner]

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.

the region feared his army if we did not.

 

[Gipper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

So you are claiming ALL the civilian deaths in these two wars are the fault of the USA and allies. Do you not see that that is inappropriate?

 

[dogtowner]

So you are claiming ALL the civilian deaths in these two wars are the fault of the USA and allies. Do you not see that that is inappropriate?

and if you take the most reasonable tallies it does not get to hunreds of thousands.

 

[Hobo1]

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.

 

[dogtowner]

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.

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.

 

[Hobo1]

OK so ever mind that Hussein invaded a neighbor, got forced into a surrender and accompanying requirements for ceasefire which he failed. Enjoy your little world.

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.

 

[Gipper]

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.

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.

Democratic freedom is a method of nonviolence and engine of wealth and prosperity. The most practical and effective way to improve human security, promote nonviolence, and eliminate war, therefore, is to promote freedom and associated human rights.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

 

[GenSeneca]

Clearly the action violates the Christian moral code we profess to hold ourselves to.

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.

 

[dogtowner]

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.

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

 

[Hobo1]

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.

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.

 

[Gipper]

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.

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.

 

[Hobo1]

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.

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.

 

[Gipper]

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.

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:

After writing over the years something like 500-600 blogs​

, it is time to ask which of all these is most important. ​

I believe those are the blogs that present and underline that democracy (the democratic peace) is a solution to war, genocide and mass murder (I call democide) by governments. I prove this in my book. ​

But very few are aware of this solution -- even when two presidents, Clinton and George W. Bush realized it with regard to war and based their foreign policies on it.​

For centuries mankind has sought a solution to war. Solutions have been proposed, such as international law, diplomacy, a balance of power, trade, and cultural exchange. Nothing has worked. But empirically and theoretically we know that historically no democracies have made war on each other. When living side by side, they promote cooperation, and peace with each other, and if perchance a crisis occurs, they manage to resolve it without violence. In a world where dictators murder their subjects by the hundreds, thousands, millions, and tens of millions, that democratic leaders murder near zero of their population is absolutely incredible. ​

The proofs for what I say are in my books​

Power Kills: Democracy As A Method Of Nonviolence​

, and ​

Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900​

. And see my ​

website​

for the many books and documents providing further data, theory, and proofs. ​

An end to war and to democide! It is like the elimination of cancer or heart disease. This solution of the ages should be celebrated around the world. Not only does it fail to make the front pages, but is ignored by the commentariat. Ponder this for a moment. Why is this absolutely incredible and proven solution hidden, ignored, or missed?​

http://rudyrummel.blogspot.com/

 

[GenSeneca]

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

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.