Re: Income from a tax on land.
From: Vendor Neutral (neutral_at_domain.invalid)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: Vendor Neutral: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- In reply to: esenter: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Next in thread: esenter: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Reply: esenter: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Reply: Paul A Thomas: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:45:19 GMT
esenter@comcast.net wrote...
>
>
> Vendor Neutral wrote:
> > esenter@comcast.net wrote...
> >
> >>
> >>Vendor Neutral wrote:
> >>
> >>>dontwant@spam.com wrote...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>That's not the only reason. Sometimes morality loses the framework
> >>>>>>in which it can feasibly operate. Total war, for example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Some might say that morality is never so important as then.
> >>>>
> >>>>The very fact that the total war exists makes a statement about
> >>>>the moral choices of those engaged in it. The difference is, one
> >>>>side can force the decision of the other side, bringing both in.
> >>>>Once there, the social moral mileu begins collapsing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My comment was more focused on the moral decisions made by the
> >>>individual warrior, but if you think on a larger scale then you've
> >>>made a strong point. Taken that way, since total war is a deliberate
> >>>strategy for winning, my only quibble with what you've said is that
> >>>I'd replace 'begins collapsing' with 'is suspended'.
> >>>
> >>>At the risk of stating the obvious to anyone who's thought about it
> >>>before, acts of terrorism fall under the definition of total war.
> >>>Total war also describes the strategy of the Iraqi insurgency.
> >>>
> >>>Since the US has engaged in total war in WWII, arguably in Vietnam,
> >>>and we can see it coming in Iraq under certain conditions, what then
> >>>is the basis for the US complaint that terrorism is 'illegal' war?
> >>
> >>The strong always determine the moral milieu. Terrorism is the last
> >>ditch effort of the weak.
> >
> > Just listen to the chickenhawk prattle!
> >
> > The Viet Cong used terrorism, and they were hardly weak.
> >
> > Terrorism is typical war strategy: Apply your strengths against the
> > enemy's weaknesses.
>
> Suicide bombings and sacrificing women and children is hardly a position
> of strength.
Tighten up your thinking. You want to distinguish between
'strengths' and 'position of strength'.
The former is simply your assets that can applied against the enemy.
In the example you cite (suicide bombings), these strengths are:
portable bombs, people willing to die in the act of delivering them,
and the bomber justifying his actions due to his being in a total war
against his enemy.
The notion of a suicide mission isn't unique to terrorism; we
commonly award medals to soldiers who perform an act in which they
die to either hurt the enemy or save their fellow soldiers. We even
ask for volunteers. The city-firebombing strikes against Japan in
WWII deliberately targeted civilians and were seen as suicide
missions for the aircraft crews. Please explain the moral or
strategic difference in your mind between this and an Islamic suicide
bomber, aside from the difference in scale. (And note that an
Islamic suicide bomber would be only too happy to have an impact like
that of our suicide bombers against Japan).
And if you're going to be consistent in your argument elsewhere that
there are no absolute morals, then you fall into the morass of moral
relativism and can't condemn terrorism without being a hypocrite.
- Next message: Vendor Neutral: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- In reply to: esenter: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Next in thread: esenter: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Reply: esenter: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Reply: Paul A Thomas: "Re: Income from a tax on land."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|