Oh no no no, you don't put words in my mouth John D (lol). What I'm saying is this~ if we would be un-accepting of another country violating our sovereignty (by flying in at night unannounced) and killing someone they deemed a terrorist (on american soil), then why is it acceptable for us to do it? If we abhor the gross violations of human rights found in so many third world countries, then why do we still give support to Israel in their marginalization of the native Palestinians? This is not moral absolutism, it is facing the reality that what we say we believe and what we do are two very different things, and that as the lone super-power in the world we should be setting an example for others, not pushing our own agenda at all costs.
Mind you, I find it somewhat offensive that you would imply I would intentionally deceive you to make a point ("by taking Hitch quotes out of context, and posting them here") If my view of things doesn't withstand scrutiny, then so be it, my view will change~ but I do expect the same open-mindedness in return.
so then by that standard morality is determined by the overall benefit, not the individual actions to be taken. By that token, if invading iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians ends in a net benefit, it is moral~ and yet, who gets to decide what these benefits really are? how do we measure the possible outcome versus what will happen? Have the wars resulted in a net gain for us, thus making them moral?
You are missing the point John~ you didn't have to say enter "any" country because you gave a context to work within. "However, if we hold to your standards of acceptability, we then have the right to enter any country to apprehend any criminal we deem fitting these standards~"
This is the point, YOU are the one creating a slippery slope, not me. You said the standards of acceptability were met~ therefore, a situation that meets said standards should thus be just as acceptable. Your addition of "cost analysis" to the moral equation greases the slip-n-slide, so to speak, because then actions that are immoral (such as civilian casualties and collateral damage) can be justified if there is a net gain~ THAT is the downfall of this rational.
Well, I can't~ because they haven't actually done anything against the US. Afghanistan was invaded after they refused to release Bin Laden until Bush presented them with evidence of his culpability. We invaded a country over a small group of people who aren't actually affiliated with the gov't of that country.
Saddam Hussein, like Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Queda wasn't even present in the country until after we overthrew it because they presented a radical threat to Hussein's control. All Hussein did was talk a lot of shit. That certainly is a good reason to invade his country. By those standards we should be in Iran and North Korea too.
First, I didnt say the US, I said as a unified world.
Second the suicide bombers and so on are not motivated by the US or any one else disrespecting their "national sovereighnty". They are fueled by hate that has been instilled in them (many) since birth, and cemented with religious extremism. So many of those who lead them ARE concerned with hiding behind "national Sovreighnty" because it protects their ability plunder,rape and kill at will. It allows them to maintain their POWER. The Libyans riding up at this moment seem to be very eager for US support or any support they can find.