Morality
 

From ABC News of 12 Nov 2005: Carter has good reason to be critical. He earned the Nobel Peace Prize by solving what could have been a serious international crisis involving N Korea. He and Kim Jung Il developed a strategy to bring N Korea peacefully into the world with cooperation of N Korea's right wing extremists. It was a spectacular plan until an American president decided to redress the world into 'black and white' terms. George Jr put the final death spike into a peace settlement that Jimmy Carter and Kim Jung Il had so carefully crafted with cooperation of so many adjacent nations.

Recently, six way talks centered on N Korea have achieved a breakthrough in diminishing tensions. Ironically, analysts note those negotiated terms are similar to what Jimmy Carter had negotiated more than 5 years previously. What to expect from an administration that also all but tried to get US into a war with China over a silly spy plane? Well at least they mostly undid that damage. Of course, George Jr will deny it - just like the levees. Morality means the president should have a shred of honesty. Neither did Richard Nixon - another religious and immoral man.

More questions of morality are in the thread entitled The Vote: 90 to 9. That question requires you to make a decision.

I'm not so sure W is dishonest. Well, for a politician.
I've a feeling what he spews is the truth, justice and the American way as he sees it.
Of course how he sees it is filtered through a number of self serving factions but maybe he's not dishonest....just wrong? :confused:

Honesty doesn't even enter the equasion. He just says whatever he thinks will work at the time.

I've never seen a dictator with an army he was unwilling or unmotivated to use. There is zero reason to trust a Communist to do anything but massacre and impoverish, as ninety years of uniform evidence shows.

That's not a lesson you'll ever learn, tw. That is why I don't believe any of your political ideas. Leftism keeps a man stupid. It also helps him die young.

Ironically, analysts note those negotiated terms are similar to what Jimmy Carter had negotiated more than 5 years previously.

Some of us can identify a different sort of irony in that statement.

Hmmm... W. is highly willing and motivated to use the US Army. How many civilian casualities in Iraq so far? And just who is going to be the poorer for having to pay for a highly expensive war, plus the catastrophe of Katrina that could have been prevented had the Feds done their job in maintaining this country's infra-structure?

Right wing extremism closes a person's mind. It helps our soldiers die unnecessary deaths.

Marichiko, breaking totalitarians is always a legitimate use of an army. It's also exactly what we've been doing in every single war we've fought for some one hundred years. I never tire of reminding the deliberately slow to learn of this point. You guys are old enough to know better, yet you don't. This is why I am sure you are as defective as a cell phone that's been dropped too many times.

Defending our borders is a legitimate use of our army. Bin Laden is not in Iraq. There were no WMD's in Iraq. I'm in favor of self-sufficiency. If a people want to over throw a totalitarian ruler, let them do so themselves, just like the founding fathers of this country did.

UG, call home. :eyebrow:

I used to think that - that the only role of the military is defensive and within our borders. The problem is that the enemy doesn't play the game by these rules. The game is always on, even when we aren't playing. In fact our failure to play becomes a part of the game and our apparent principles can be played against us.

That'd be great if we were actually getting back at the slime who bombed the US, but we're preoccupied with Iraq which had nothing to do with it. And Osama bin Laden is still alive and free.

That's all logical UT, but the flip side is that we piss people off who were just sitting on the fence when we go throwing our weight around in the world.

The failed female suicide bomber in Jordan who was caught a few days ago had what she probably thought were good reasons for becoming a terrorist. All her brothers had been killed by the US in Iraq. I imagine the brothers already hated the US to some degree and when we went into Iraq they were more than happy to take up arms against the hated foreign oppressor. But it's rare for women to be getting into this action. I bet that this sister would never have strapped the bombs to her chest if we hadn't pushed her there by killing her brothers.

It's difficult to tell if we are creating more terrorists in Iraq than we are killing. It looks to me like it's very close, and it's quite likely that we are creating more than we kill. It seems to be a bottomless barrel of terrorists/insurgents in Iraq.

The analogy still fits. Iraq may have been a bad move, but that doesn't mean withdrawl from the entire board is a better one. Very few people dispute the notion that Afghanistan was a good move, and the US was not attacked by Afghanistan.

Which is not a reason to abandon them.But the organization that attacked us was based in Afghanistan, with the approval and support of the government of Afghanistan.

Of course, our principles only exist while we exist. If we are repeatedly attacked, or even threatened, our principles will change and the culture will reflect it. If a major city is nuked, all bets are off what we wind up after a week or a year or a decade.

I don't know gang. If all you do is defend, all you do is lose.