"North Korea has demolished the cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, in a symbol of its commitment to talks on ending its nuclear programme."
Article
Friday, June 27, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Nukes Part 3
Today I wrote a paper that touches on this subject of nukes, using the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima as an example. In this paper, I was asked to assume that had the bomb not been dropped, then a full invasion would have been necessary, and would have cost millions of lives, including innocent lives. Maybe sometime I will return to this one day, and touch on the fact that not one, but TWO atomic bombs were dropped.
Drop the Bomb?
In my own opinion, dropping the bomb was wrong and immoral. I personally choose to believe that there is no end that can justify killing 200,000 people. War itself is wrong to me. I honestly do not understand how people can measure human lives on a scale next to political issues over resources, land, cultural differences, etc. But the case of this bomb is slightly different than that. The United States dropped the bomb because those in power thought it would cause fewer deaths in the end. Many believe that going to war to stop things like the holocaust, or the terrorist attacks of September 11th is a valid reason to do so. In effect they believe they are causing less suffering, in order to stop greater suffering. I will admit that this seems like a much better reason to go to war than, say, oil. Still, is it truly any more justified? How can we justify sacrificing human lives to save human lives? Aren’t we simply committing the same atrocity as our target? Personally, I believe that is the case. I suppose this is a topic we will discuss when we get to the death penalty, as there already appear to be very big similarities.
I believe Kant would share my personal view. Above all else, Kant valued rationality. Kant believed that one cannot treat another person as a mere means. While there are everyday exceptions, consent is something that Kant was really aiming for. We may order a sandwich from the man at the counter, and use him as a mere means to get the sandwich. The man fully knows his role in this transaction. He is fully aware of what he is doing, consents to it, and participates in it. On the day that the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 200,000 people’s lives were ended without their consent. That, in Kant’s view, is a clear case of using them as pure means.
Now I suppose one could argue that the people of Hiroshima may have been casualties in this invasion that supposedly would have occurred if the bomb had not been dropped. While you never asked us to make this specific assumption, one might argue that all 200,000 of those people would have died anyway in the invasion. If indeed every last one of the people killed by the bomb would have died anyway, that seems to put some kind of twist on this case. It is hard for me to figure out what Kant would say to that. I am certain that even if millions of other innocents would have died (like we are asked to assume) then Kant would still not think dropping the bomb was morally justified. But, if all 200,000 of those at Hiroshima were among the dead of the invasion, perhaps this might change our minds. Is dropping the bomb still using those people as mere means?
Imagine you are walking down the street, and you see a runner in the road. As you move closer to examine what he is doing, you realize that he is tying his shoelace. A police officer, who is slightly closer to you, has also noticed this runner. The officer looks down the street, and begins to yell to the runner to move. You look down the street yourself and see a car moving towards the runner at a high rate of speed, and it does not look like the driver is paying any attention or has any intention of stopping. As you glance back at the runner in the road, you see that he is wearing headphones and must not be aware that the police officer is yelling to him. Suddenly, you and the police officer both come to the realization that you must act to save this runner. So, you and the officer both run into the road, but the car is nearly here. Within this split second, you come to a realization. The car is moving too fast, and the officer is moving too slow. As it stand right not, it looks like the officer will reach the runner just in time for both of them to be hit by this car. You yourself are a good 2 feet from behind the officer, and can avoid the car yourself. However, if you were to stretch out your arms and push the officer, you could give him the extra speed and momentum he would need to reach the runner, and push him out of the way. However, if you do this, the officer will still be hit by the car, but the runner in the road will have been pushed out of the way and saved.
In this case, is it right to push the officer? Mill, a strong advocate of utilitarianism, would think that the best choice would be to push the officer, because all that matters is the producing of more or less pain and pleasure. By choosing to push the officer, one less person dies, so for Mill that must be the logical and moral choice. In fact, Mill claims that if you are in this situation, you are obligated to push the officer, because if you did not, by Mill’s view, you would be morally responsible for your inaction, and thus morally responsible for the death of the runner in the road.
In this example, would Kant believe that you would be using the officer as a mere means if you pushed him, and therefore that course of action would be immoral? Perhaps the fact that the officer would have died regardless changes things. Or perhaps this officer is the most dedicated police officer that had ever served in this town, he has no family, and he would have consented to being pushed, if he had known the circumstances and had the time to do so. However, I believe this is still using the officer as a mere means. We cannot simply go around assuming we have the consent of everybody.
While I think aspects of this case can be applied to the Hiroshima one, there is one difference, and this difference is an important one in my opinion. In the car accident example, the agent in question (you) are not the cause of the problem. The person driving the car is the main cause of the problem (though you could argue that tying your shoe in the middle of the road may place a tiny bit of blame on the runner). Whether the bomb was to be dropped or not, the United States (and allied forces in the case of the invasion) is responsible for the deaths in either case. Mill may justify you saving people even if you have to sacrifice some. The rescue 2 example is one such case. You run over one person to save many. However, Mill surely would not declare you a moral person if you were choosing between killing 200,000 people, or millions, and you decided to only kill 200,000, especially if you were not being forced between these two choices. You asked us to assume that if the U.S. did not drop the bomb, then invading would be “necessary” but I simply do not think either choice is acceptable, and it puts a chill down my spine to even consider that Mill would find killing 200,000 people moral, no matter what the alternative was.
It is obvious that Mill would agree with war. It is all about utility for him. If you can keep millions of people from being slaughtered in the holocaust by sacrificing a lesser number of you own soldiers, Mill thinks you should do it. It is a little harder to imagine Kant’s view of war in general. To him it is all about consent. Perhaps Kant would be ok with two all volunteer armies facing off against each other. After all, it appears they gave their consent. However, getting innocent people involved or initiating a draft seems to be using those people as a mere means, and I do not think Kant would agree with that.
One last thing that is hard to even imagine is the long term consequences of these choices. It does not seem to matter as much for Kant, as only the means really matter, and the consequences do not matter too much. However, Mill’s utilitarianism focuses entirely on consequences.
The short term consequence of pushing the officer was saving the runner. But what if there was an eyewitness to the event that saw it from a different angle, and testified that the officer would not have been killed if you had not pushed him? What if, because he was a police officer, you received the maximum sentence of death? Then it would be the officer and you dying, as opposed to the officer and the runner. That is two people either way.
The short term consequence of dropping the bomb may very well be saving millions of lives, but what if in 2045, on the 100th year anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan finally decided the U.S. should have a taste of its own medicine, and dropped an atomic bomb on a major city, or maybe even several major cities, killing millions, perhaps even more people than would have been killed in the invasion, and all of them innocents?
How far into the future do we have to look when we make these decisions? This is a hard question and there is no simple answer. Not only that, but how can we ever be pretentious enough to think we know what the future will hold for each of our decisions?
Drop the Bomb?
In my own opinion, dropping the bomb was wrong and immoral. I personally choose to believe that there is no end that can justify killing 200,000 people. War itself is wrong to me. I honestly do not understand how people can measure human lives on a scale next to political issues over resources, land, cultural differences, etc. But the case of this bomb is slightly different than that. The United States dropped the bomb because those in power thought it would cause fewer deaths in the end. Many believe that going to war to stop things like the holocaust, or the terrorist attacks of September 11th is a valid reason to do so. In effect they believe they are causing less suffering, in order to stop greater suffering. I will admit that this seems like a much better reason to go to war than, say, oil. Still, is it truly any more justified? How can we justify sacrificing human lives to save human lives? Aren’t we simply committing the same atrocity as our target? Personally, I believe that is the case. I suppose this is a topic we will discuss when we get to the death penalty, as there already appear to be very big similarities.
I believe Kant would share my personal view. Above all else, Kant valued rationality. Kant believed that one cannot treat another person as a mere means. While there are everyday exceptions, consent is something that Kant was really aiming for. We may order a sandwich from the man at the counter, and use him as a mere means to get the sandwich. The man fully knows his role in this transaction. He is fully aware of what he is doing, consents to it, and participates in it. On the day that the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 200,000 people’s lives were ended without their consent. That, in Kant’s view, is a clear case of using them as pure means.
Now I suppose one could argue that the people of Hiroshima may have been casualties in this invasion that supposedly would have occurred if the bomb had not been dropped. While you never asked us to make this specific assumption, one might argue that all 200,000 of those people would have died anyway in the invasion. If indeed every last one of the people killed by the bomb would have died anyway, that seems to put some kind of twist on this case. It is hard for me to figure out what Kant would say to that. I am certain that even if millions of other innocents would have died (like we are asked to assume) then Kant would still not think dropping the bomb was morally justified. But, if all 200,000 of those at Hiroshima were among the dead of the invasion, perhaps this might change our minds. Is dropping the bomb still using those people as mere means?
Imagine you are walking down the street, and you see a runner in the road. As you move closer to examine what he is doing, you realize that he is tying his shoelace. A police officer, who is slightly closer to you, has also noticed this runner. The officer looks down the street, and begins to yell to the runner to move. You look down the street yourself and see a car moving towards the runner at a high rate of speed, and it does not look like the driver is paying any attention or has any intention of stopping. As you glance back at the runner in the road, you see that he is wearing headphones and must not be aware that the police officer is yelling to him. Suddenly, you and the police officer both come to the realization that you must act to save this runner. So, you and the officer both run into the road, but the car is nearly here. Within this split second, you come to a realization. The car is moving too fast, and the officer is moving too slow. As it stand right not, it looks like the officer will reach the runner just in time for both of them to be hit by this car. You yourself are a good 2 feet from behind the officer, and can avoid the car yourself. However, if you were to stretch out your arms and push the officer, you could give him the extra speed and momentum he would need to reach the runner, and push him out of the way. However, if you do this, the officer will still be hit by the car, but the runner in the road will have been pushed out of the way and saved.
In this case, is it right to push the officer? Mill, a strong advocate of utilitarianism, would think that the best choice would be to push the officer, because all that matters is the producing of more or less pain and pleasure. By choosing to push the officer, one less person dies, so for Mill that must be the logical and moral choice. In fact, Mill claims that if you are in this situation, you are obligated to push the officer, because if you did not, by Mill’s view, you would be morally responsible for your inaction, and thus morally responsible for the death of the runner in the road.
In this example, would Kant believe that you would be using the officer as a mere means if you pushed him, and therefore that course of action would be immoral? Perhaps the fact that the officer would have died regardless changes things. Or perhaps this officer is the most dedicated police officer that had ever served in this town, he has no family, and he would have consented to being pushed, if he had known the circumstances and had the time to do so. However, I believe this is still using the officer as a mere means. We cannot simply go around assuming we have the consent of everybody.
While I think aspects of this case can be applied to the Hiroshima one, there is one difference, and this difference is an important one in my opinion. In the car accident example, the agent in question (you) are not the cause of the problem. The person driving the car is the main cause of the problem (though you could argue that tying your shoe in the middle of the road may place a tiny bit of blame on the runner). Whether the bomb was to be dropped or not, the United States (and allied forces in the case of the invasion) is responsible for the deaths in either case. Mill may justify you saving people even if you have to sacrifice some. The rescue 2 example is one such case. You run over one person to save many. However, Mill surely would not declare you a moral person if you were choosing between killing 200,000 people, or millions, and you decided to only kill 200,000, especially if you were not being forced between these two choices. You asked us to assume that if the U.S. did not drop the bomb, then invading would be “necessary” but I simply do not think either choice is acceptable, and it puts a chill down my spine to even consider that Mill would find killing 200,000 people moral, no matter what the alternative was.
It is obvious that Mill would agree with war. It is all about utility for him. If you can keep millions of people from being slaughtered in the holocaust by sacrificing a lesser number of you own soldiers, Mill thinks you should do it. It is a little harder to imagine Kant’s view of war in general. To him it is all about consent. Perhaps Kant would be ok with two all volunteer armies facing off against each other. After all, it appears they gave their consent. However, getting innocent people involved or initiating a draft seems to be using those people as a mere means, and I do not think Kant would agree with that.
One last thing that is hard to even imagine is the long term consequences of these choices. It does not seem to matter as much for Kant, as only the means really matter, and the consequences do not matter too much. However, Mill’s utilitarianism focuses entirely on consequences.
The short term consequence of pushing the officer was saving the runner. But what if there was an eyewitness to the event that saw it from a different angle, and testified that the officer would not have been killed if you had not pushed him? What if, because he was a police officer, you received the maximum sentence of death? Then it would be the officer and you dying, as opposed to the officer and the runner. That is two people either way.
The short term consequence of dropping the bomb may very well be saving millions of lives, but what if in 2045, on the 100th year anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan finally decided the U.S. should have a taste of its own medicine, and dropped an atomic bomb on a major city, or maybe even several major cities, killing millions, perhaps even more people than would have been killed in the invasion, and all of them innocents?
How far into the future do we have to look when we make these decisions? This is a hard question and there is no simple answer. Not only that, but how can we ever be pretentious enough to think we know what the future will hold for each of our decisions?
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Nukes Part 2
Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'
The name says it all doesn't it? Read the article, it was well done.
Article
More to come.
The name says it all doesn't it? Read the article, it was well done.
Article
More to come.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Double Standards Are Funny
news.bbc.co.uk
A 92-year-old man in Egypt was recently stopped in his attempt to marry a 17-year-old girl. Egypt has a law that says the age gap between couples who seek marriage cannot exceed 25 years. However, apparently if the husband deposits a certain sum of money in the Egyptian National Bank, then he is allowed to marry as young as he wants.
"According to the al-Akhbar newspaper, 173 such marriages were allowed in the past year after the foreign husband deposited a sum equivalent to about US $8,000 and was screened."
Double standards are funny.
Article
Nukes
The UK recently announced that it would be creating many more nuclear power plants in their country.
"The government is keen to see at least 10 nuclear reactors starting operations around 2020, as existing installations reach the end of their lives, with more to follow."
Article
We really made a big deal about Iran trying to get nuclear technology, and all the while Iran claimed, and still claims, that it is for power only. I wouldn't be surprised if most of America thinks that Iran is sitting there with tons of nukes and their finger on the button. The truth is that Iran halted their nuclear program (weapons supposedly) in 2003, and the intelligence tells us that they are confident it had not continued as of mid-2007.
I wonder how they know it was a 'weapons' program, and I think an even better question is ' what does it take, and how long does it take, to turn a nuclear power system into a nuclear missile?'
Here are some interesting sources I have come across.
List of countries with nuclear weapons.
List of countries with nuclear power.
I count 9 countries with weapons, and 36 with power. One of my most appalling discoveries was Israel's situation.
" Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Poliferation Agreement and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession. In the late 1960s, Israeli Ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin informed the United States State Department, that its understanding of "introducing" such weapons meant that they would be tested and publicly declared, while merely possessing the weapons did not constitute "introducing" them. Although Israel claims that the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona is a "research reactor", or, as was originally claimed, a "textile factory," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986."
Currently we know that Israel has around 75-200 weapons, according to satellite images, etc.
The U.S. has long supported Israel, and many people can agree that this is one of the major reasons why we have such trouble in the middle east.
So which sounds like more of a threat? A country with no current nuclear program that claims it was only trying to us it for power, or a country who won't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, constantly denies having any nuclear program, and yet we are 100% certain that they not only have one, but have already developed the weapons. Not to mention their promise not to do so in the first place. So what do we do? We attack a man we put in power who we thought had weapons but didn't (Saddam) and then people like John McCain ("Bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran") and George W. Bush turn to Iran, which has no current program as far as we know. All the while staying allied to a country that secretly holds tons of nukes and refuses to admit it or sign itself under any control. Something just seems wrong with that, in my opinion.
There are two counter arguments.
1. Israel is our ally, so they can do whatever they want.
2. Dictators like Saddam and Ahmadinejad are more dangerous with nukes than countries not run by dictators.
My Answers.
1. The U.S. has very seriously seemed to take exactly this position, and has held it for a very long time. This is one reason why most of the middle east does not think highly of the U.S.. When we do things like support Saudi Arabia because they have the oil, but then criticize their neighbors for stuff like women's rights, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has the same position as their neighbors, we look like our interest really isn't women's rights, but oil. (I don't pretend to know what the women's rights situation in these countries is, its just an example, but I believe some aspects are universal in the middle eastern countries) Is this the right thing for the U.S. to do? Not in my opinion. We should not be allies with people that simply agree not to attack us, but instead should be allies with nations that have the same ideals as us. (And lets not forget that, "If you aren't with us your against us," should never be true in this respect.) Sadly, I think its possible that the U.S. is already taking my suggestion to heart, but instead of deciding to pick our allies based on moral and ethical ideals, we choose them based on economic ideals (oil, etc.) However the U.S. tries to make it appear that they are doing the former. We invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the country, ummm, right? Only......weren't we also the ones who put Saddam the dictator there in the first place, and then turned our backs while he killed his own people? That brings me to argument 2's reply.
2. Lets first set the records straight, because I think a lot of people agree with this argument, but I am aim to prove that they are terribly misguided. For one thing, as I said before Saddam was placed by the U.S. as a DICTATOR, yes a dictator. Isn't the U.S. supposed to spread democracy or something? At least the country somehow believes that is it's manifest destiny. So what is the U.S. doing putting a dictator in power? It's pretty simple; the people of Iraq weren't too crazy about the U.S., but the U.S. was in a position to do whatever they wanted with the Iraq government. So instead of creating a democracy that would lead to the will of the people being manifested in the government of Iraq, leading to Iraq not being an ally to us, we decided to put a man we thought we could trust to be our ally in supreme power of the country, allowing him to maintain this alliance to the U.S. despite any objections of the people of Iraq. So, if Saddam, a handpicked (by us) leader of Iraq is dangerous with a nuke, it is our fault. Luckily it turns out that he had no weapons! Imagine if he did and he shot them at the U.S.. How crazy ironic would that be? I guess it was already ironic enough that we lied and said he did, they invaded and killed the man we put in power. Anyway, I still haven't proven that dictators aren't more dangerous than a more democratic nation with nukes.
One hilarious and common mistake people make is thinking that Ahmadinejad is the dictator of Iran. He in fact is the president. Yes, it turns out that Iran is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Guess who else is? THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Ahmadinejad was chosen by a direct vote of the people. Thats even more democratic than the U.S.. Ahmadinejad is also not even the supreme power in Iran. Iran has both a president and a "Supreme Leader of Iran." (currently Ali Khamenei) This supreme leader is elected in a more American fashion. Not by the people, but by the politicians. Regardless, in the long run Iran seems more democratic than the U.S.. So where do these stories painting Ahmadinejad as a crazy dictator with a finger on the nuke button come from? Hell if I know, but I don't think the MSM is doing much to help the situation.
So these two people that we think are dangerous with nukes, are a dictator we ourselves put into power, and a president of a democracy. Oh, and THEY HAVE NO NUKES! Still, I think this serves an important lesson for us. It doesn't truly matter whether a dictatorship or a democracy has nukes, because no matter what, nukes are dangerous, and even in a democracy, did every eligible American get to vote on whether we should have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Our president is the one with his finger on the nukes. Our president is the one who goes to war without permission from the American people, or any other bodies in our government. Who sounds more dangerous with nukes now? As long as nuclear weapons remain under the control of single individuals with warped policies and a very opinionated outlook, there will always be a danger.
Notes:
(I know that democracy is not the same as a constitutional republic. This is an important distinction, but I was using democracy in the broader sense of the term. Also, North Korea is another example that could have been used. It IS a dictatorship and it HAS nuclear weapons. However I still think I have at least proven that simply being a dictatorship does not make it more dangerous, it is having the nukes that does. I may touch the topic of North Korea later. I would also like to add that I believe nuclear power is a great source of alternative energy, and every nation should be allowed to use this source, as long as their doors are open to international inspection, not because we should assume they are making weapons, but to ensure the safety of the plant itself.)
"The government is keen to see at least 10 nuclear reactors starting operations around 2020, as existing installations reach the end of their lives, with more to follow."
Article
We really made a big deal about Iran trying to get nuclear technology, and all the while Iran claimed, and still claims, that it is for power only. I wouldn't be surprised if most of America thinks that Iran is sitting there with tons of nukes and their finger on the button. The truth is that Iran halted their nuclear program (weapons supposedly) in 2003, and the intelligence tells us that they are confident it had not continued as of mid-2007.
I wonder how they know it was a 'weapons' program, and I think an even better question is ' what does it take, and how long does it take, to turn a nuclear power system into a nuclear missile?'
Here are some interesting sources I have come across.
List of countries with nuclear weapons.
List of countries with nuclear power.
I count 9 countries with weapons, and 36 with power. One of my most appalling discoveries was Israel's situation.
" Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Poliferation Agreement and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession. In the late 1960s, Israeli Ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin informed the United States State Department, that its understanding of "introducing" such weapons meant that they would be tested and publicly declared, while merely possessing the weapons did not constitute "introducing" them. Although Israel claims that the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona is a "research reactor", or, as was originally claimed, a "textile factory," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986."
Currently we know that Israel has around 75-200 weapons, according to satellite images, etc.
The U.S. has long supported Israel, and many people can agree that this is one of the major reasons why we have such trouble in the middle east.
So which sounds like more of a threat? A country with no current nuclear program that claims it was only trying to us it for power, or a country who won't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, constantly denies having any nuclear program, and yet we are 100% certain that they not only have one, but have already developed the weapons. Not to mention their promise not to do so in the first place. So what do we do? We attack a man we put in power who we thought had weapons but didn't (Saddam) and then people like John McCain ("Bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran") and George W. Bush turn to Iran, which has no current program as far as we know. All the while staying allied to a country that secretly holds tons of nukes and refuses to admit it or sign itself under any control. Something just seems wrong with that, in my opinion.
There are two counter arguments.
1. Israel is our ally, so they can do whatever they want.
2. Dictators like Saddam and Ahmadinejad are more dangerous with nukes than countries not run by dictators.
My Answers.
1. The U.S. has very seriously seemed to take exactly this position, and has held it for a very long time. This is one reason why most of the middle east does not think highly of the U.S.. When we do things like support Saudi Arabia because they have the oil, but then criticize their neighbors for stuff like women's rights, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has the same position as their neighbors, we look like our interest really isn't women's rights, but oil. (I don't pretend to know what the women's rights situation in these countries is, its just an example, but I believe some aspects are universal in the middle eastern countries) Is this the right thing for the U.S. to do? Not in my opinion. We should not be allies with people that simply agree not to attack us, but instead should be allies with nations that have the same ideals as us. (And lets not forget that, "If you aren't with us your against us," should never be true in this respect.) Sadly, I think its possible that the U.S. is already taking my suggestion to heart, but instead of deciding to pick our allies based on moral and ethical ideals, we choose them based on economic ideals (oil, etc.) However the U.S. tries to make it appear that they are doing the former. We invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the country, ummm, right? Only......weren't we also the ones who put Saddam the dictator there in the first place, and then turned our backs while he killed his own people? That brings me to argument 2's reply.
2. Lets first set the records straight, because I think a lot of people agree with this argument, but I am aim to prove that they are terribly misguided. For one thing, as I said before Saddam was placed by the U.S. as a DICTATOR, yes a dictator. Isn't the U.S. supposed to spread democracy or something? At least the country somehow believes that is it's manifest destiny. So what is the U.S. doing putting a dictator in power? It's pretty simple; the people of Iraq weren't too crazy about the U.S., but the U.S. was in a position to do whatever they wanted with the Iraq government. So instead of creating a democracy that would lead to the will of the people being manifested in the government of Iraq, leading to Iraq not being an ally to us, we decided to put a man we thought we could trust to be our ally in supreme power of the country, allowing him to maintain this alliance to the U.S. despite any objections of the people of Iraq. So, if Saddam, a handpicked (by us) leader of Iraq is dangerous with a nuke, it is our fault. Luckily it turns out that he had no weapons! Imagine if he did and he shot them at the U.S.. How crazy ironic would that be? I guess it was already ironic enough that we lied and said he did, they invaded and killed the man we put in power. Anyway, I still haven't proven that dictators aren't more dangerous than a more democratic nation with nukes.
One hilarious and common mistake people make is thinking that Ahmadinejad is the dictator of Iran. He in fact is the president. Yes, it turns out that Iran is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Guess who else is? THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Ahmadinejad was chosen by a direct vote of the people. Thats even more democratic than the U.S.. Ahmadinejad is also not even the supreme power in Iran. Iran has both a president and a "Supreme Leader of Iran." (currently Ali Khamenei) This supreme leader is elected in a more American fashion. Not by the people, but by the politicians. Regardless, in the long run Iran seems more democratic than the U.S.. So where do these stories painting Ahmadinejad as a crazy dictator with a finger on the nuke button come from? Hell if I know, but I don't think the MSM is doing much to help the situation.
So these two people that we think are dangerous with nukes, are a dictator we ourselves put into power, and a president of a democracy. Oh, and THEY HAVE NO NUKES! Still, I think this serves an important lesson for us. It doesn't truly matter whether a dictatorship or a democracy has nukes, because no matter what, nukes are dangerous, and even in a democracy, did every eligible American get to vote on whether we should have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Our president is the one with his finger on the nukes. Our president is the one who goes to war without permission from the American people, or any other bodies in our government. Who sounds more dangerous with nukes now? As long as nuclear weapons remain under the control of single individuals with warped policies and a very opinionated outlook, there will always be a danger.
Notes:
(I know that democracy is not the same as a constitutional republic. This is an important distinction, but I was using democracy in the broader sense of the term. Also, North Korea is another example that could have been used. It IS a dictatorship and it HAS nuclear weapons. However I still think I have at least proven that simply being a dictatorship does not make it more dangerous, it is having the nukes that does. I may touch the topic of North Korea later. I would also like to add that I believe nuclear power is a great source of alternative energy, and every nation should be allowed to use this source, as long as their doors are open to international inspection, not because we should assume they are making weapons, but to ensure the safety of the plant itself.)
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Corey Glass
Corey Glass is a deserter who left Iraq and fled to Canada.
Full story here
The U.S. wants Canada to return him, and this would likely set a president for the many other deserters who have fled to Canada since the Iraq war began. Corey was not in the Army, or the Marines, he was a member of the National Guard who got called to Iraq. Corey claims he did not like the killing he saw in Iraq, and insinuates that he did not have such things in mind when he signed up for the guard. If you look at the issue from a legal standpoint, it seems like Canada must honor the wishes of the U.S. and return Corey and any other deserters so that they can be prosecuted. This happens all the time. But when it comes to war, and especially a war like this, the ethics of the subject may make us hesitant to simply go by the rule of thumb. And in fact there are many instances of people being granted political asylum, however that is usually only used when a person is in mortal danger or holds special information. Corey claims he was told he would be killed for deserting, but I hope that wouldn't be the case.
It is hard for me to find ground to stand on when it comes to this case. However, I think I and many others can at least agree to these two premises:
1. Corey Glass deserves praise for maintaining his moral beliefs in such a difficult atmosphere. There are so many instances that you often don't hear in the MSM about soldiers who go crazy, killing many Iraqi civilians. I applaud Corey for what he did, and I think most of us can agree that standing for your morals is something to be proud of, whether we agree with his morals or not.
2. Corey has an obligation. There are an almost infinite number of reasons to dodge a draft, and I believe most rational people would not hound someone because they did so. However, Corey signed up. He claims that he should have been in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, but something tells me there was a clause in the contract he signed stating that he could be pulled away to war. Corey broke this contract, and probably clearly understood the consequences of his action. If anything this makes his moral decision even more bold.
So what should Canada do? They must realize that this will set a president, and that this will lead to many more deserters in Canada to be sent back. Do we want criminals to be able to simply flee to Canada and be safe? I would hope not. However, do we want such harsh punishments for fleeing what many believe to be an unjust war, even if the person in question signed up to serve our country?
Personally, I think I have an easy answer. It may sound slightly utilitarian, but in my own opinion, if the majority of the citizens of your country do not believe the war you are deserting is just, they you should have every right to desert, and that majority should in turn not seek legal action against you.
If no exceptions can ever be made, then signing up for the military is nothing short of becoming an indentured slave.
Full story here
The U.S. wants Canada to return him, and this would likely set a president for the many other deserters who have fled to Canada since the Iraq war began. Corey was not in the Army, or the Marines, he was a member of the National Guard who got called to Iraq. Corey claims he did not like the killing he saw in Iraq, and insinuates that he did not have such things in mind when he signed up for the guard. If you look at the issue from a legal standpoint, it seems like Canada must honor the wishes of the U.S. and return Corey and any other deserters so that they can be prosecuted. This happens all the time. But when it comes to war, and especially a war like this, the ethics of the subject may make us hesitant to simply go by the rule of thumb. And in fact there are many instances of people being granted political asylum, however that is usually only used when a person is in mortal danger or holds special information. Corey claims he was told he would be killed for deserting, but I hope that wouldn't be the case.
It is hard for me to find ground to stand on when it comes to this case. However, I think I and many others can at least agree to these two premises:
1. Corey Glass deserves praise for maintaining his moral beliefs in such a difficult atmosphere. There are so many instances that you often don't hear in the MSM about soldiers who go crazy, killing many Iraqi civilians. I applaud Corey for what he did, and I think most of us can agree that standing for your morals is something to be proud of, whether we agree with his morals or not.
2. Corey has an obligation. There are an almost infinite number of reasons to dodge a draft, and I believe most rational people would not hound someone because they did so. However, Corey signed up. He claims that he should have been in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, but something tells me there was a clause in the contract he signed stating that he could be pulled away to war. Corey broke this contract, and probably clearly understood the consequences of his action. If anything this makes his moral decision even more bold.
So what should Canada do? They must realize that this will set a president, and that this will lead to many more deserters in Canada to be sent back. Do we want criminals to be able to simply flee to Canada and be safe? I would hope not. However, do we want such harsh punishments for fleeing what many believe to be an unjust war, even if the person in question signed up to serve our country?
Personally, I think I have an easy answer. It may sound slightly utilitarian, but in my own opinion, if the majority of the citizens of your country do not believe the war you are deserting is just, they you should have every right to desert, and that majority should in turn not seek legal action against you.
If no exceptions can ever be made, then signing up for the military is nothing short of becoming an indentured slave.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Bigots
Yesterday a friend of mine asked me for help with writing a speech about misconceptions of the religion of Islam. Admittedly I know only a bare minimum of it myself, but I told him to mention September 11th at the beginning as an attention getter, because I knew that there were a lot of misconceptions floating around after that fateful day. He needed some hard facts backing this up, so I jumped on the web and found this site.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980550/posts
I was horrified when I saw the above image. There are similar images at the page I linked, as well as many comments supporting these ideals. I wonder if there are any images of the Wako massacre like this, criticizing Christianity. If you want to criticize religion in general, then thats fine. I am a religious person myself and I accept, sometimes applaud, criticism. But when people begin believing that this image represents the true tenants of a religion and become bigots about it, that is unacceptable. There are an awful lot of religious bigots in this country, which is strange seeing as how this country was supposedly built on the idea of religious tolerance.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980550/posts
I was horrified when I saw the above image. There are similar images at the page I linked, as well as many comments supporting these ideals. I wonder if there are any images of the Wako massacre like this, criticizing Christianity. If you want to criticize religion in general, then thats fine. I am a religious person myself and I accept, sometimes applaud, criticism. But when people begin believing that this image represents the true tenants of a religion and become bigots about it, that is unacceptable. There are an awful lot of religious bigots in this country, which is strange seeing as how this country was supposedly built on the idea of religious tolerance.
The House
Was watching CNN yesterday, and on Larry King I heard this.
"Theres a hole in the roof, the basement is flooding, and we are arguing about what color to paint the kitchen." - Jamal Simmons (CNN Correspondent, Democrat Strategist, Obama Supporter)
I think its a great thing to think about with the general election coming. I think we need to vote for who will fix the house, not what paint color is best. The problem is that we are lacking in specific information as to how the candidates will fix our house. I know its a line that some people don't like, but I honestly prefer to hear a candidate say "I don't know enough about this subject, so I will listen to the experts.," rather than imagine they know exactly how to fix things as complicated as the economy and gas prices.
"Theres a hole in the roof, the basement is flooding, and we are arguing about what color to paint the kitchen." - Jamal Simmons (CNN Correspondent, Democrat Strategist, Obama Supporter)
I think its a great thing to think about with the general election coming. I think we need to vote for who will fix the house, not what paint color is best. The problem is that we are lacking in specific information as to how the candidates will fix our house. I know its a line that some people don't like, but I honestly prefer to hear a candidate say "I don't know enough about this subject, so I will listen to the experts.," rather than imagine they know exactly how to fix things as complicated as the economy and gas prices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)