Attack on the DPRK: Iraq War PR?

[Nathan F]

False analogy. Dumb civvies are directly impacted by law enforcement. Mens' offspring can be terminated via abortion. This is rather different than someone gleefully urging actions that somebody else must pay the price for.

The whole State is affected by War. Every citizen of the democratic State is equally responsible for the decision of War. The blood of every death in the war currently be waged is as drenched upon my hands as upon as the President's, in a wholly equal measure--just as it is upon those who opposed the war. You can't escape that, if you are a citizen of the State which has made the decision to wage war. It is equally your responsibility and your right to judge the situation and make your decision on the matter. This is your duty as a voting citizen of the democratic State. In such a State--a State of the Sovereign People--there are no bloodless innocents. The ruling power is spread about; the guilt is also, thus, entirely spread about. If one wishes that their nation can make war without their involvement and without guilt upon their hands, they should live in a dictatorship where they have no rights, and thus, no responsibilities.

I have made my peace with this, and others should also. It is a grim fact that democracy carries with it the responsibilities and decisions which for thousands of years prior have been mostly reserved for Kings, or a small coterie of nobles. Now, though, the ruler is all of us, and we cannot shirke that responsibility.

Wow, that's....impressive.

[Gil Hamilton]

Are you insane, Marina, or just so steeped in your worldview that you are indistinguishable from the insane? Not everyone in a democratic state is responsible for a war. There is no vote, and the government doesn't post a referendum to ask people what they think. The President is a hell of a lot more responsible for any action taken by the state (which would be his job, after all, he's the chief executive) than a person on the street, which is completely verifiable by the fact that the person on the street isn't involved in the decision process at all. Any blood on the hands of the president or congress is not reflected on everyone in equal measure, and any claim that it is fails before objective evidence, and no fuzzy headed fantasy from the cuckoos nest on your part will change that.

[Darth Wong]

Wow, that's....impressive.

Style over substance. After you cut through the flowery language and window dressing, all Marina said is that it's a tough decision to go to war, and she promises that she'll think really hard about it before urging other people to go fight and die for her. Somehow, this long-winded pronouncement of personal gravitas is supposed to excuse all of the blowhards across the country who publicly urge the government to go to war with other peoples' sons and daughters as weapons.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Style over substance. After you cut through the flowery language and window dressing, all Marina said is that it's a tough decision to go to war, and she promises that she'll think really hard about it before urging other people to go fight and die for her. Somehow, this long-winded pronouncement of personal gravitas is supposed to excuse all of the blowhards across the country who publicly urge the government to go to war with other peoples' sons and daughters as weapons.

And you've just demonstrated a total lack of comprehension about the origins of consensual government. It is an explicit devolution of the powers of the Sovereign Ruler onto the People as the Sovereign, which means that, literally, the power of War and Peace as traditionally held by the sovereign is now devolved onto each and every individual citizen.

[Darth Wong]

And you've just demonstrated a total lack of comprehension about the origins of consensual government. It is an explicit devolution of the powers of the Sovereign Ruler onto the People as the Sovereign, which means that, literally, the power of War and Peace as traditionally held by the sovereign is now devolved onto each and every individual citizen.

Totally irrelevant, since I was talking about moral authority, not the design concept of democracy. Please try to stay on subject, Marina.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Totally irrelevant, since I was talking about moral authority, not the design concept of democracy. Please try to stay on subject, Marina.

We are indeed discussing morality--the moral responsibility that the citizen gains as a part of a democracy, which would otherwise only belong to the Sovereign (Either King, or Despot, if you would). You are exercising the authority that previously only one individual had; you are using the rights and perogatives of that individual in the context of the foundation of the state. With them come his moral duties and responsibilities.

[Darth Wong]

Totally irrelevant, since I was talking about moral authority, not the design concept of democracy. Please try to stay on subject, Marina.

We are indeed discussing morality--the moral responsibility that the citizen gains as a part of a democracy, which would otherwise only belong to the Sovereign (Either King, or Despot, if you would).

You are confusing moral responsibility with moral authority. There are many people who are morally responsible for many things; that doesn't mean they necessarily had the moral authority to cause them.

You are exercising the authority that previously only one individual had; you are using the rights and perogatives of that individual in the context of the foundation of the state. With them come his moral duties and responsibilities.

Except that the king never had the moral authority to order men and women to die for him. In fact, this is one of the things considered most heinous about the monarchs: their propensity for making others suffer for their choices (all too often made for perverse reasons) while they sit in luxury. All you have established is that this despicable situation has been distributed across the nation in a democracy. It doesn't solve the problem.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You are confusing moral responsibility with moral authority. There are many people who are morally responsible for many things; that doesn't mean they necessarily had the moral authority to cause them.

If you're a citizen in a democratic system I'd argue the responsibility devolves the same in the case of War and Peace. A Sovereign Nation--the concept is that the nation as a whole derives these particular powers from the people instead of the monarch, and that we control their exercise. The legal process simply defines how we control it.

Except that the king never had the moral authority to order men and women to die for him. In fact, this is one of the things considered most heinous about the monarchs: their propensity for making others suffer for their choices (all too often made for perverse reasons) while they sit in luxury. All you have established is that this despicable situation has been distributed across the nation in a democracy. It doesn't solve the problem.

The problem is unsolveable. Democracy simply distributes the guilt and the honour equally across the whole of the people, and demands at they know of the sacrifice of their countrymen or their selves when they go through the steps which will enact it. What is heinous about monarchs is not that they could make war--but they could make war without consulting those who would go out to die.

Now, those who would go out to die might not be the only ones who choose to go off and do their service in a democracy, one grants. But they have a voice along with the rest. And that is how it should be, because a military serves the State and everyone, being a citizen of the State, has a stake in the undertaking that must be considered, even if it is a lesser one than their life. For the military member, the risk might be greater--but is accepted for their nation's sake; this is why its members volunteered and this is why they are revered. The alternative would be a system of national service where the whole state, serving, does take the risk and does thus decide together.

[Darth Wong]

If you're a citizen in a democratic system I'd argue the responsibility devolves the same in the case of War and Peace. A Sovereign Nation--the concept is that the nation as a whole derives these particular powers from the people instead of the monarch, and that we control their exercise. The legal process simply defines how we control it.

All of which is true but still does not remove the ethical stain of a blowhard running around gleefully advocating war on every front with other peoples' sons and daughters as weapons.

The problem is unsolveable. Democracy simply distributes the guilt and the honour equally across the whole of the people, and demands at they know of the sacrifice of their countrymen or their selves when they go through the steps which will enact it.

Demands which are not met by the blowhards in question, hence the ethical stain I spoke of remains.

What is heinous about monarchs is not that they could make war--but they could make war without consulting those who would go out to die.

Or that they could make war for reasons of pride, hubris, or ignorance rather than actual necessity. A monarch who ordered other people to die but had no real choice in the matter does not carry the ethical stain of a monarch who ordered other people to die because he had something to prove, or flew off the handle irrationally.

Now, those who would go out to die might not be the only ones who choose to go off and do their service in a democracy, one grants. But they have a voice along with the rest. And that is how it should be, because a military serves the State and everyone, being a citizen of the State, has a stake in the undertaking that must be considered, even if it is a lesser one than their life. For the military member, the risk might be greater--but is accepted for their nation's sake; this is why its members volunteered and this is why they are revered. The alternative would be a system of national service where the whole state, serving, does take the risk and does thus decide together.

I must remind you, once again, that I'm not talking about reworking democracy, introducing a Heinlein-style government, or enacting selective franchise. I'm talking about people who behave very much like the monarchs of old, and how it is unethical for them to do so. One can pronounce ethical judgement on someone without desiring to radically alter the concept of democracy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

All of which is true but still does not remove the ethical stain of a blowhard running around gleefully advocating war on every front with other peoples' sons and daughters as weapons.

Who is someone we elected through the processes that we chose to have govern our particular system.

I must remind you, once again, that I'm not talking about reworking democracy, introducing a Heinlein-style government, or enacting selective franchise. I'm talking about people who behave very much like the monarchs of old, and how it is unethical for them to do so. One can pronounce ethical judgement on someone without desiring to radically alter the concept of democracy.

Oh, I quite understand. I'm just arguing that the blame really is with the American people. You can't say "Not my President!". He is, and it is your country (for those Americans out there), and you have to stick it out and if you dislike what's going on, then exercise that particular bit of sovereign power that your system gives you by voting as per the law. In the meantime, acknowledge the fact that your nation kills people and that that's partly your responsibility.

My argument is that regardless of what the law is, in a democratic system--where the citizens are the government--they also have the responsibility of the government. And they can't shirke that and say it's their President killing people in a foreign country. They're killing people in a foreign country.

Now, I know that doesn't absolve people who go off and want to nuke countries left and right--in fact, it makes them rather worse, or perhaps outright insane, or more likely they're simply stupid and they haven't thought it through. But it would, I contend, allow a person to rationally accept the burden should the need arise without having to go fight; the guilt is on their hands simply through the fact that they are a citizen in the democratic State which makes war. There is no greater and no lesser reason to be involved in the process of deciding over the policy of War.

[Darth Wong]

All of which is true but still does not remove the ethical stain of a blowhard running around gleefully advocating war on every front with other peoples' sons and daughters as weapons.

Who is someone we elected through the processes that we chose to have govern our particular system.

No, he isn't. I'm not talking about POTUS; I'm talking about all of the millions of uninformed blowhards around bars, water coolers, and backyards throughout the nation who advocate war based on what they saw on TV.

Oh, I quite understand. I'm just arguing that the blame really is with the American people. You can't say "Not my President!".

In that case, we agree. The "blowhard" I was describing in this thread was not POTUS (although I do think he's a blowhard, but that's not relevant to this thread), but rather, the millions of people throughout the country who make decisions like this without giving them the weight they deserve. The loudmouths in bars and restaurants who push public opinion polls and have a not-so-subtle effect on government policy but who haven't put a whit of thought or research into their positions.

Now, I know that doesn't absolve people who go off and want to nuke countries left and right--in fact, it makes them rather worse, or perhaps outright insane, or more likely they're simply stupid and they haven't thought it through.

Good. Then we're in complete agreement on this issue.

But it would, I contend, allow a person to rationally accept the burden should the need arise without having to go fight; the guilt is on their hands simply through the fact that they are a citizen in the democratic State which makes war. There is no greater and no lesser reason to be involved in the process of deciding over the policy of War.

I think that if someone supports a war, there are only a very small list of acceptable reasons to do so, and he should have very seriously considered them and researched the facts before coming to a conclusion. But the blowhards and sabre-rattling loudmouths, in my opinion, should put their money where their mouths are or just shut up.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think that if someone supports a war, there are only a very small list of acceptable reasons to do so, and he should have very seriously considered them and researched the facts before coming to a conclusion. But the blowhards and sabre-rattling loudmouths, in my opinion, should put their money where their mouths are or just shut up.

My apologies for the heat of it. This seems to have originated principally over a misunderstanding in how the terms of support for war could originate.

[Darth Wong]

My apologies for the heat of it. This seems to have originated principally over a misunderstanding in how the terms of support for war could originate.

No apologies required. You make a fine sparring partner

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No apologies required. You make a fine sparring partner

*Just insert the mental image of a woman with long red hair trying to click her heels and bow here, with inevitable results for the hair.*

I consider myself complimented, Lord Wong.

[Darth Wong]

*Just insert the mental image of a woman with long red hair trying to click her heels and bow here, with inevitable results for the hair.*

A nice image. I think I'll go to bed with that one

I consider myself complimented, Lord Wong.

You're welcome.

[MKSheppard]

Are you insane, Marina, or just so steeped in your worldview that you are indistinguishable from the insane?

What happened to your cuckoo avatar? WE WANT THE CUCKOO BIRDIE
BACK!

[Hamel]

I want to see the cuckoo... with a photoshopped butt of the big variety

[Joe]

Are you insane, Marina, or just so steeped in your worldview that you are indistinguishable from the insane?

What happened to your cuckoo avatar? WE WANT THE CUCKOO BIRDIE
BACK!

Although that sig banner is pretty fucking funny.

[Stuart Mackey]

False analogy. Dumb civvies are directly impacted by law enforcement. Mens' offspring can be terminated via abortion. This is rather different than someone gleefully urging actions that somebody else must pay the price for.

The whole State is affected by War. Every citizen of the democratic State is equally responsible for the decision of War. snip

Except that in a democracy not everyone votes for the people who make policy, as such your wee sermon is innacurate because of the very way in which democray works.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
No, he isn't. I'm not talking about POTUS; I'm talking about all of the millions of uninformed blowhards around bars, water coolers, and backyards throughout the nation who advocate war based on what they saw on TV.snip

Question for ya.
One nation is commiting genocide against what it see's as its own citizens, should other nations put a stop to that?
Do we as an international community bear responcibility for actions on this planet that remove the right to live from people based on thier religeion, race, colour or political opinion? Or do we just say its not our problem?

The reason I ask this is because each nation has its own perspective of right and wrong, and war is apolitical act and politics is about perception.

[Darth Wong]

Question for ya.
One nation is commiting genocide against what it see's as its own citizens, should other nations put a stop to that?

In an ideal world, yes. However, if the war and its aftermath are just as destructive (or more so) than the despot in question, and if the conquerors have ulterior motives, then the situation gets messy. And one still has to deal with the issue of your own casualties and whether you have the right to ask that of another person.

Do we as an international community bear responcibility for actions on this planet that remove the right to live from people based on thier religeion, race, colour or political opinion? Or do we just say its not our problem?

I wouldn't say it's not our problem, but ultimately, humans are more interested in self-preservation than altruism, which is why neither of us has boarded a plane to Africa to go fight the assholes ourselves. And when you try to make others go and sacrifice themselves for your principles, well, that's ethically dicey.

The reason I ask this is because each nation has its own perspective of right and wrong, and war is apolitical act and politics is about perception.

There are certain concepts of right and wrong which are nearly universal, and mass murder is one of those concepts which is pretty universally abhorred. I think it's more a problem of simple self-preservation and the fact that we generally don't feel anyone has the right to put anyone else's life on the line unless there's no choice (eg- self-defense, either on an individual or national level). If someone told you to go to some foreign nation to depose its militay leadership for ethical reasons, would you want to go?

[Gil Hamilton]

What happened to your cuckoo avatar? WE WANT THE CUCKOO BIRDIE
BACK!

Well, I had some troubles with the board not letting me change my avatar and somehow in the process my birdie turned into a red x, so I took it down until the problem is fixed. So I put an ad of the week in my sigbanner, which will hopefully change every monday unless I'm feeling lazy sunday afternoon and don't feel like drawing a new cartoon (which is possible, my scanner is dead and I have to draw stuff entirely in photoshop now).

And Hamel, I've had suggestions on changes in the birdie, but that's the first time anyones suggested "Musebird... now with BIG BOOTY ACTION!"

OK, thread is now officially back on track.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except that in a democracy not everyone votes for the people who make policy, as such your wee sermon is innacurate because of the very way in which democray works.

That doesn't matter, Stuart. You have accepted, by accepting the democratic (and it's inaccurate to say that you were born into it--you also have the choice, either by immigration or revolution, of entering into a new form of government at home or abroad, or attempting to do so) system, that when a decision is made that you oppose, or a leader is elected whom you oppose, that you will still obey those laws and those leaders. The 49% of the people who voted against a candidate do not simply ignore what he does. That is not democracy--that is anarchy.

And in choosing to be in such a system you accept the totality of how the system works; the responsibilities along with the rights. One of those responsibilities is that by being your own government, the powers of government, of the right/and/wrong of War, is your's. It doesn't matter if you personally supported it or not--the onus is on the whole state, in the same way that the whole state must obey any decision of the government for the government to operate as such. The rest is simply legal details and quibbling.

[Stuart Mackey]

Question for ya.
One nation is commiting genocide against what it see's as its own citizens, should other nations put a stop to that?

In an ideal world, yes. However, if the war and its aftermath are just as destructive (or more so) than the despot in question, and if the conquerors have ulterior motives, then the situation gets messy. And one still has to deal with the issue of your own casualties and whether you have the right to ask that of another person.

Iraq? the example I was thinking of was East Timor. NZ and Aussie nearly got into a war with Indonesia over that if the rumuors have any substance.
Genocide was taking place and we put a stop to it. Admittadlt there was wide public support for that incident.

Do we as an international community bear responcibility for actions on this planet that remove the right to live from people based on thier religeion, race, colour or political opinion? Or do we just say its not our problem?

I wouldn't say it's not our problem, but ultimately, humans are more interested in self-preservation than altruism, which is why neither of us has boarded a plane to Africa to go fight the assholes ourselves. And when you try to make others go and sacrifice themselves for your principles, well, that's ethically dicey.

This is true, but it is also one reason why there are assholes, a never ending story, I am afraid.

The reason I ask this is because each nation has its own perspective of right and wrong, and war is apolitical act and politics is about perception.

There are certain concepts of right and wrong which are nearly universal, and mass murder is one of those concepts which is pretty universally abhorred. I think it's more a problem of simple self-preservation and the fact that we generally don't feel anyone has the right to put anyone else's life on the line unless there's no choice (eg- self-defense, either on an individual or national level). If someone told you to go to some foreign nation to depose its militay leadership for ethical reasons, would you want to go?

Interesting, my own opinion is that yes, the world should deal with the likes of Kim whatshisface etc if anything less, it is a variation of the Nuremburg principle. If people die wrongfully, because we do nothing to stop it when we can stop it, we, as nations, become as guilty as the nation that did the deed.

As to whether I would depose a dictatorship? If I had the means, training, yes..allthough I admit thats easy to say/type, from the comfort of my own home. It is also true that one man cannot depose the government of a antion unless he to has the resources of a nation to back him.

[Stuart Mackey]

Except that in a democracy not everyone votes for the people who make policy, as such your wee sermon is innacurate because of the very way in which democray works.

That doesn't matter, Stuart. You have accepted, by accepting the democratic (and it's inaccurate to say that you were born into it--you also have the choice, either by immigration or revolution, of entering into a new form of government at home or abroad, or attempting to do so) system, that when a decision is made that you oppose, or a leader is elected whom you oppose, that you will still obey those laws and those leaders. The 49% of the people who voted against a candidate do not simply ignore what he does. That is not democracy--that is anarchy.

Guilt by association eh? If my government does something that is reprehensible, I can not stop it. I can vote against it in the next election and vote for a government that will rectify the situation. But you cannot punish a nation for the actions of a few people who gave the orders to do something because those people commited no crime, indeed they had no part in the makng of a criminal offence, it is illogical to punish the many for the actions of the few.
Should I hold the entire people of America responcible for the people that Bush had executed in Texas?

And in choosing to be in such a system you accept the totality of how the system works; the responsibilities along with the rights. One of those responsibilities is that by being your own government, the powers of government, of the right/and/wrong of War, is your's. It doesn't matter if you personally supported it or not--the onus is on the whole state, in the same way that the whole state must obey any decision of the government for the government to operate as such. The rest is simply legal details and quibbling.

The details, however is what make you criminal or not. The essence of democracy is its freedoms and the ability of a people to peaceably change its government should it displease them. But it is the government who is made of individuals who give the orders, and with that power comes the responsibility of success or failure, reward or punishment, and it is in these details that the people give government the responibility for its actions.
People may elect, but it is Government that must deside and it is that very power to deside that imparts responcibility for a nations actions to that government.