Britain and France have nuclear weapons, Mongrel. Europe is not helpless. The only potential major threat is Russia, which is extremely unlikely to risk a nuclear war by invading Western Europe. So, we don't need the US as badly as you seem to suggest. Also, it's in America's strategic interest to keep NATO going as a bulwark against Russia, which keeps Eastern Europe safe. So, they won't be going anywhere in the forseeable future. — Baden
Meanwhile you folks sit there apparently not even comprehending what the word "defense" means (that appears to be true of Benkie anyway.) — Mongrel
For the most part, yes. — Sapientia
Intention alone is woefully insufficient — Sapientia
are ill-considered and offensive — Sapientia
Military intervention isn't the only possible course of action — Sapientia
Self-defense is another matter, and was obviously not the target of my criticism. But yes, I believe that there are situations where self-defense is necessary, and in which actions taken in self-defense are justified (although there are exceptions). — Sapientia
Suppose the roles were reversed in 1941. The US is struggling. It could use help. Would the British government act to help the US? Yes. It would see what it could do to help the US cease to exist. We can guess that by its actions just a few decades earlier when it supplied the Confederacy during the American Civil War. It did that for one reason: to undermine the US and fragment North America.
But the US government says, "No, let's risk life and limb to bring food to Britain." So obviously this quest we've been on to see just how big a bunch of chumps we can be has been going on for a while now.
This is isolationist talk. One of the reasons I think it's going to grow is that to some extent... it's based on the truth. — Mongrel
Not for the law it's not. — Thorongil
"Offensive" my left foot. To hell with your thin skin. You have written post after post implying that inaction is the only defensible course of action available to us, and don't pretend that you haven't. — Thorongil
Congratulations. You've just understood the basic principle of just war theory as developed in the West during the last couple millennia. This is precisely the basis on which we (the West and her allies) would seek to aid our Syrian and Iraqi brothers and sisters by means of military force. — Thorongil
And... I'm... officially done trying to explain anything to a European. — Mongrel
... can we actually identify the "underlying problem" without causing even more problems in the process? — Mayor of Simpleton
that it follows from my criticism of a certain type of action that I'm in favour of no action whatsoever. — Sapientia
So what is your proposal? The continued absence of one in your posts does nothing, I'm afraid, but imply that you agree with inaction. If I am misunderstanding, then it behooves you to correct that understanding.
Again, what do you suggest to solve the problem in question? Pray it away? Hold hands and sing kumbaya? I've already given you the only three option available to you, me, and everyone else: 1) continued medical/food aid, 2) diplomacy, and 3) greater military assistance and intervention. I've stated that the first option is now much in danger and the second is impossible. That leaves us with the third. Is there a fourth I don't know about? If so, please enlighten me and cease dancing around the subject. — Thorongil
I don't have all the answers. Sorry, it isn't that simple. Obviously we should do what we can within reason and morality, but, as you know, I have moral objections to military intervention before even getting around to addressing the practicalities such as its likelihood of success, whether it will improve things or make things worse. This is open to discussion. It isn't set in stone, and there are opposing views which I will also take into consideration. — Sapientia
Would you commit to something against your conscience? If not, don't expect me too. — Sapientia
Well then it's as I thought. I did not misunderstand you, for this (non) answer is de facto to do nothing, at least nothing more than we've been doing. Hence, you are a status quo fetishist. — Thorongil
Obviously not, so I've WON! — Mayor of Simpleton
It's apparently not against your conscience to irritate me and engage in fruitless conversation in full awareness of what you are doing, so I don't think too highly of your conscience. — Thorongil
Obviously not, so I've WON! — Mayor of Simpleton
I guess the point I was trying to make to you was this: Life is a bloody mess sometimes. Sometimes you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. The only way to really avoid that is to become a pacifist. But in that state, we might indict you for a different kind of crime... that you stood by and did nothing. Sometimes it's not a choice between perfection and a messy solution. It's a choice between two bloody messes. — Mongrel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.