Well, did not take Joe long to start a war....
- Thread starter OKSTATE1
- Start date
I would amend your comment to say it is most likely that is the majority opinion of all Americans regardless of party or poilitical affiliation. But I think it is a disastrously flawed opinion. Turn the situation around 180 degrees. Let’s say a militarily superior armed force from China invaded America from the west coast, and acquires a stronghold in Nevada from which it can launch drone or other aerial strikes anywhere within the western third of our country. They are clearly a superior military force in this hypothetical. Do you not suppose Americans might not band together to drive them out by any means possible? And by your rationale is it not morally acceptable for this superior invading and occupying military force to respond in kind? If any American criticized the Chinese response would you not invoke the same rationale you are using in this real life situation: China has every right to destroy any American “terrorists” in order to protect their soldiers who have illegally invaded and occupied America? In your opinion is what’s good for the goose not likewise good for the gander?
First I'm not using that rationale. I didn't approve of moving our superior military force into Syria in the first place. First time or second time. Its a quagmire and I don't want anything to do with it. As you say they will band together and fight back. Its a losing proposition. The best thing we could hope to achieve was bring overwhelming force, declare victory and get out.
Second, your China scenario is completely implausible.
Two things in rejoinder:
1). Three cheers for you in your first paragraph! I think you are 100% spot on. At least if you agree the American invasion of Syria was illegal under international rules of conduct.
2). The purpose of the hypothetical “China invasion and occupation” was not intended to be realistically plausible. It was intended to hypothetically put Americans in Syria’s shoes and determine what would be the reaction from Americans who think it is okay for the US to retaliate when people try to force them out of their country that
It has illegally invaded. The intended purpose of the hypothetical China invasion was to see if there would be any consistency from those that defend retaliation against those trying to remove an invading military force from their country. Trying to evade answering the question suggests one of two possibilities: lack of moral consistency, or failure to think through the moral morass that is created when such a thing happens.
I didn't evade anything. Let me make this clear. I do not, nor have I supported invasion of another country. I am not a big fan of regime change for the sake of regime change. I believe I answered that in the first paragraph without evasion. You will have to trust me when I say I am probably the last person on this board that you want try to accuse of failure to think through a "moral morass" on this. As for consistancy I have been consistent on this as well.
I believe we invited attack when we moved back in. I would also take that further and say this administration counted on it. Syria is a mess and has been for years.
Lastly I will pose this back at you. In every war both sides believe thier position correct and infallible. The difference between the two is not who is right or wrong but who wins.
You make excellent points. Your final sentence is realpolitik-speak at its finest. You are absolutely correct: the only thing that matters in warfare is who wins.
But you still evaded answering the moral dilemma as posed. If it’s okay for the US to invade and occupy a foreign land, and if it’s morally acceptable for the US to bomb citizens of the invaded country who have tried to expel us, does the same moral
principle hold for a foreign invasion and occupation of America? As for me, I don’t think it’s moral for anyone to do it. But it was posited by another poster that he is good with America doing it. For those that agree with him (you have not opined on it that I have discerned), are they consistent in thinking it would be morally okay if China (as an example) was able to do it to us?
There is no morality to it. As soon as you open the box of military action you need to take morality and throw it out of the window. The geneva conventions have never been fully followed and are only used by political hacks to take swipes at other political hacks.
Is China more or less moral with its military than we are? The answer is no. All militaries have been placed on this earth to do are things politicians are unwilling to do when someone told them no.
Do I hold it against any power that we are exerting our might on to fight back? The answer to that is no. I have never hated my enemy as less moral than myself.
Our military beeing put in harms way by our politicians should never be put in a position in which they can not use force to defend themselves. I would not fault our military for doing so. I would however fault our politicians for putting our military in harms way for no gain.
I'm trying to answer your point by the only way I can. We differ in that you are trying to justify an act with morality that doest have morality applied to it. My difference from you is I don't place a moral stamp on it one way or the other. I think we agree but from different points of view.
