What Separates The U.S. From The Terrorist Nations Of The World?

This question will be construed by many to be unpatriotic, un-American, and simply uncalled for. Many will scoff at the idea that such a question should even be addressed, but I believe it is one that we should ponder. Why? Because we are currently attacking another nation for carrying out acts of mass destruction that pale in comparison to what we ourselves have done.

Before I'm tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, let me just say that I support the idea of a legitimate, just, and, yes, even moral war. I believe such a war can and should be declared when the security of the citizens of the United States is directly at risk. After all, the primary job of the federal government, contrary to the modern teachings of liberal and neo-conservative collectivists, is to provide for the common defense of the nation. If the security, liberty, and lives of its citizens are threatened, the government has a sworn duty to eliminate that threat.

Unfortunately, most of the conflicts we have seen in the last century were the result of the federal government ignoring its obligation to the immediate defense of our own nation in order to pursue more global concerns. Can anyone make the case that the conflicts we saw in places like Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia had anything to do with protecting the freedom of American citizens?

Now, the same people who were so quick to send soldiers off to kill and die for democracy overseas while ignoring the government's assaults on our liberty here at home are calling for unity in battling yet another foreign enemy. Perhaps our current predicament calls for some serious self-examination.

In our nationalistic frenzy we have been so intent on rooting out evil overseas that we have failed to notice the sins of our own nation. Again, I ask, what separates the U.S. from the terrorist nations of the world?

Many would say that we have a much greater respect for life and would never consider unleashing the kinds of atrocities we saw on September 11. Attacking innocent civilians with such cold-blooded calculation is beyond our comprehension. This kind of thinking lends credence to the old adage "ignorance is bliss."

During the last "just" war, World War II, the U.S. made it standard military procedure to specifically target civilians. German cities like Hamburg and Dresden were subjected to some of the most intense bombing raids in history. Even Japanese non-combatants in Tokyo could not escape the relentless firebombing. This policy of attacking civilian targets culminated in President Truman's order to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result of these kinds of attacks throughout the war was a civilian death toll that climbed into the hundreds of thousands. Our government deliberately utilized this kind of warfare in order to strike terror in the hearts of foreign civilians. Sound familiar?

Needless to say, we do not have to look outside our borders for examples of the very evil we claim to loathe. Case in point, abortion. Since the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973, we have witnessed the government-sanctioned murder of over 40 million innocent children. This is an accomplishment that even the worst terrorist nations cannot claim. Why have we failed to unite against this particular evil?

It is understandable that Americans continue to feel outraged by the attacks of September 11. The media guaranteed that all of us had a front row seat to the grim scenes of death and destruction. We could not escape the gruesome images of commercial airliners slamming into skyscrapers, people hurling themselves out of windows to avoid being burned alive, or a million tons of steel and concrete raining down upon victims and rescuers.

Think of the collective outrage that would ensue if we were granted the same kind access to the carnage inside an abortion clinic. Imagine if we were to catch a glimpse of the bloody, twisted heaps of mangled limbs, see babies survive an abortion long enough to be tossed out alive with the rest of the medical waste, or hear the screams of mothers realizing, too late, the devastating consequences of their actions.

Are all these innocent lives worth it? Should we applaud the deliberate killing of over 200,000 Japanese civilians by our atomic bombs because it ended World War II a few weeks ahead of schedule? Are we to just accept the murder of 1.5 million children every year because of our distorted view of individual liberty and personal choice? Do we continue to tolerate the actions of a government that believes it has more important things to do than protect the rights of the innocent?

Foreign civilians, unborn children, national integrity— evidently, these are the sacrifices with which we are willing to live. Such a thing is to be expected when a society adopts an "end justifies the means" philosophy. In doing so, we have only succeeded in demonstrating that we are just as capable as any terrorist nation of committing acts of senseless violence with little or no regard for the sanctity of human life.

So, just what exactly is it that separates the United States from the terrorist nations of the world? Maybe the answer is more elusive than we care to admit.

We agree:

The generally accepted proposition is that it is false to assert that if the end is desireable the means are moral ---- You cannot get from this statement to the statement that if the ends are desireable then the means are immoral. ----- But this is what the author has done, ----

the underlined is an unsupported, unethical, straw man type claim.

------------------------------------

You have made a mess of your own ethics in an attempt to smear his.

What ethics. You don't know my ethics.

--- See the 'straw man' smear above, as a clue.

I have advanced no ethical principle other than the "strawman" that I am against murder. I have also advanced the logical proposiiton that the means used to an end are sometimes moral and sometimes immoral and we cannot know until we examine the means. The author uses these words "means" and "ends," but I cannot figure out what he is talking about. Neither can anyone else, apparently, since they are unable to explain it.

Good grief, you have used so many straw men in this thread that I could pick one out from every one of your posts. - ANYone can, so I won't bother.

-----------------

"You have made a mess of your ethics in an effort to smear his." [the authors] "That is my position. You haven't refuted it, either."

This is ungrammatical as "that" is somewhat ambiguous and we are left in the dark as to what "that" position is: A. That the author is correct but you won't bother to defend him B. That I am a moral monster because I disparage murder on the grounds that it is bad for society. C. That I am a moral monster because I would use the bad consequences of murder on society as a "strawman" to illustrate the author's illogic. D. That you don't understand the simplest precepts of logic. E. All of the above. Once you pick one, or state some other position other than I am a joke or full of crap, I will accept it or refute it as I see fit.

---- You still are unable to refute my position. Live with it.

I'm not tex-oma, but .....

..."Really? Is that why we have an incredible number of countries siding with us in our war against terrorists...more everyday (the most recent being even Turkey, Kenya, Nigeria etc. etc.).....while the terrorists opposing us are completely isolated without so much a one nation siding with them?

Is this how our definition of terrorism is not working on "the rest of the world"?

If you are going to make false arguments, at least try to make them sound a little convincing next time."....

Hmmm, er.....your 'evidence', i.e., the quantity of countries behind us, isn't very credible when one considers the leader of the most militarily powerful nation on earth declares to one and all, "if you aren't for us, you're against us".

Sheesh, the Neutral country, Switerland, even responded! Think maybe none of these countries want their citizens bombed out of existence or their cities destroyed or their infrastructure ruined so their economies go in the tank....I mean, really, its not like there is no evidence that the US wouldn't doing somehting really drastic when it suits the US's purposes (here you can think: Dresden, or most any of the 61 cities of Germany in WW2 having population bases of 100,000 or more, or Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

"You have made a mess of your ethics in an effort to smear his. That is my position You still are unable to refute my position. Live with it.

Finally we have a succinct statement of your position, however unclear it is, and so I hope you will extend the courtesy to me of allowing me to attempt a refutation rather than "live with it." This may be a bit difficult, because you have managed to pack an incredible amount of imprecision into so few words. I don't know what it means to make a mess of someone's ethics, particularly my own, I really don't, so please excuse me if I start by attempting to clarify your position, which I hope I can do accurately, in the following:

1. I, AJ, have made the following "unsupported, unethical, straw man type claim"
The generally accepted proposition is that it is false to assert that if the end is desireable the means are moral
You cannot get from this statement to the statement that if the ends are desireable then the means are immoral.
But this is what the author has done

2. In writing these words, my motive was to smear the author's ethics.

Therefore (its your argument - is there a therefore here? I cannot tell)

3. In doing this (writing down this clarification of the author) I have made a mess of [undermines?]my ethics.

I have written down 49 words in an effort to clarify this author's thinking. How does this act undermine my ethics? Either it is the act of writing - and surely writing is not unethical [not in my book anyway], or it is the content of what is written. But the content of what I have written is, hopefully an accurate paraphrase of what the author has written. Since it is about his writing and he is not writing about my ethics, these words cannot undermine my ethics. Or perhaps an effort to understand what he has written is a violation of my ethics. But my ethics include attempting to accurately understand someone else, so perhaps it merely violates your ethics, but that is your problem. Finally, perhaps I have mischaracterized the logical scheme he has employed. I don't think so, but I have not done so deliberately. In fact I want to be accurate here. You apparently are unwilling or unable to help. Being in error does not make me a moral monster, particularly when I so diligently but bootlessly seek the correction of my betters, such as yourself.

A more extended refutation would take your statement apart bit by bit, and you have sown fertile ground. I will start with statement 2. You claim in no way supports your conclusion. It is a gratuitous slap irrelevant to the conclusion of whether I have made a mess of my ethics or not. Furthermore, since I have made no statement about the author's ethics, slanderous or factual, you can conclude nothing about my motive regarding his ethics. He may be a good father and husband and a pillar of his local community, as I sincerely hope. I have no evidence to refute that position and I have asserted none. He has written an intellectually slovenly piece. To point this out is not to smear his ethics at all, but to impel him to be a better writer and you to be a better reader. I presume he also opposes sacrificing innocent foreigners, unborn children, and national integrity, a courtesy he has not extended to me.

Examining Statement 1. Your claim: my italicized statement is an unsupported, unethical, straw man type claim. I have analyzed his statements about means and ends ad nauseum above. It is far from unsupported. I have attempted here, to copy the logical schema that he follows. I have also quoted it in full. This is, I admit, fraught with the risk of error when attempting to understand such sloppily constructed sentences as this author's, and if I have gone astray, please show me the correct schema so that I can understand. Surely, however, the author bears some responsibility to write more clearly.

"strawman" - fine. Call it what you will. I am not interested in a semantic argument over what you want to call the logical schema I laid out. I presume that you mean some slur, but this is mere name calling and not a valid way to make your point.

Unethical. Why is it unethical? Because you resorted to namecalling a strawman - to use your words? Or because I have gone to greater lengths than anyone on this thread to try to uncover the meaning of what this author is saying? Or because I can find none? If this makes me unethical, fine. No one else has explained his true meaning either, including you, so we are all unethical together.

But as I really understand your argument it is that I have made a "strawman-like claim". "Strawman like claims" are unethical. Therefore, I am unethical. The problem is the middle. You might correct it with the proposition that it is unethical to construct strawmen that misconstrue an author's meaning. I might admit this point if you were to make it, but you must demonstrate which of my strawman misconstrues what that the author has written. In any event, being in error does not make a mess of my ethics when a mere corrective word from my betters could set me back on the true path.

Now, the clincher, Part 3. Firstly, I really don't know what it means to "make a mess of my ethics." In fact, I don't know, as I said, how you can attack my ethics without presenting some evidence of what my ethics are. So far, the only written evidence you have is that I oppose murder because it is good for society, and I oppose sacrificing innocent foreigners, unborn children and national integrity. I don't think that holding these precepts makes me a moral monster among my peers. I may, perchance, have fallen into error in attempting to understand this author. I don't know how that makes a mess of, i.e. negates any of the above stated ethical principles. I also believe that this author has a duty to write clearly and logically and that you have a duty to think clearly and logically. If you wish to elevate these to ethical precepts, I will not stand in your way.

The problem, it seems, is your moral ambivalence and myopic 'patriotism.'

Up to this point I have taken no moral position at all. I have merely demonstrated that this author is full of hot air. He has nothing to say and has said nothing - taking up lots of words. He is a bad witness for the defense or the prosecution - whatever the case. You can take up whatever cause you want, and not worry your noggin one wit about this tired old windbag.

Your unstated but unmistakable position is: terrorists savagely attacked innocent U.S. citizens; therefore, Barbara Boxer and her ilk are not enemies of the rights of man. Or, Osama bin Laden is an evil person; therefore, Planned Parenthood and other abortionist associates are moral people, and we should laud them and give them our tax dollars. Or, Al Quaeda intends to destroy our economic freedom; therefore, the Socialist Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans don't intend to do the same.

You are hillucinating. I said none of these things. The problem, as I see it is that you and your ilk on this thread believe that this author's thesis about moral equivalence is essential to attacking Socialism or Barbara Boxer. But you have a perfectly good platform and my encouragement to go after both without this authors irrelevant gasbagging. When I say he has nothing to say I mean it. Nothing. Really and literally nothing.

But this is what the author has done, the underlined is an unsupported, unethical, straw man type claim. It is customary when reading difficult texts where the author's reasoning is not entirely clear to the student to rephrase the argument in more structured terms in order to better understand the logic that the author has used. When writing gets to be as bad as this author's it becomes imperative, in order to understand anything at all.

In my previous post I responded to your personal attacks on me, and analyzed your own bad writing, however, because you claim I have not properly supported the following argument, let us examine, yet again again the authors very own words:
Foreign civilians, unborn children, national integrity- evidently, these are the sacrifices with which we are willing to live. Such a thing is to be expected when a society adopts an "end justifies the means" philosophy.

Now, I don't understand what he is trying to argue so let me try to recast this in some sort of orderly flow. One way would be the following - if you see something wrong - please correct it for me:
Proposition 1: Our society has adopted an end justifies the means philosophy.
Therefore,
Proposition 2: we must expect that we will sacrifice: foreign civilians (and) unborn children (and) national integrity.

Nowhere has he demonstrated that we have adopted an "ends justifies the means philosophy." He just asserts it and assumes it to be true. I for one don't buy this, assuming that I know what he means by it and I don't. What end and what means? He never tells us. To continue, however, having assumed that we are justifying some (unstated) means by some (unstated end), he must then demonstrate that some immoral action is the result, and this he also does not do. As I argued above, it is a fallacy to go from the statement that x has used end A to justify means B to the conclusions: 1.) x is a scoundrel or 2.) B is immoral. B may or may not B immoral, but we cannot reach this conclusion from the statement that A is desireable. And AJ- me- may be a scoundrel, but that is an issue for Mrs AJ and not the result of him, me, trying to get you or the author to write clearly and think, logically.

But it gets worse. If one were to admit proposition 1, proposition 2 still does not follow. I believe in the goal of freedom from mortal fear. Therefore I support a law against murder. [this is my ends justifies means philosophy]. Therefore, [he would conclude by the schema above], I must expect to sacrifice innocent foreigners and unborn children and national integrity. I support a law against murder because it is good for society. I don't believe in sacrificing any of the things mentioned, much less all of them.

I think that the author also shorts circuits the reasoning in another way. Because he has put the cart before the horse syntactically, he has also done this logically, per the following reconstruction:
1.We are willing to sacrifice foreigners and children and national integrity
Therefore
2. We have adopted an end justifies the means philosophy
Therefore
3. We are getting what we asked for, namely a willingness to sacrifice foreigners and children and national integrity.

But this is circular. We are not willing to sacrifice innocent foreigners, nor unborn children, nor - and this is another kind of thing altogether- national integrity. Arguing in circular fashion does not make it so, nor would one of these being true make them all true, but all true they must be according to the author. Furthermore the middle part, 2, neither follows from proposion 1 nor is it relevant. He just sort of stuck it in as if it carries some sort of moral opprobrium on its own.

From this paragraph, however, we are to conclude - he concludes - in his own words:In doing so, [doing what I ask - tell me - what?] we have only succeeded in demonstrating that we are just as capable as any terrorist nation of committing acts of senseless violence with little or no regard for the sanctity of human life. This is a little gem of turgid prose.

The problem is that being just as capable as the terrorists of some [unstated] monstrous act does not mean we are morally the same as the terrorists. The problem for ethicists [unless you are a Calvinist who believes it is predetermined that he is going to heaven and I, AJ, am going to hell] is how to decide, out of what you can do, what you actually do do. If we make the same decisions as the terrorists, then I would agree that we are morally the same. If we don't, then we are not, regardless of what we are capable of doing. You are capable of murdering me. Until you attempt the act, the courts are powerless.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.