Comments on: So the ends DO justify the means http://thomnottom.com/blog/2003/12/15/so-the-ends-do-justify-the-means/ Muttonchops and loud shirts... Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:56:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Captain Ed http://thomnottom.com/blog/2003/12/15/so-the-ends-do-justify-the-means/#comment-61 Captain Ed Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-61 Well, you understand that Republicans have the same opinion about Democratic voting habits. The difference you're seeing now is that Republicans have an incumbent President eligible for re-election, so there are no primary battles to fight (yet). In 2000, we had our bickering going on for months, and (assuming Bush is re-elected in 2004) both parties will have it going on in 2008. You're right in that the question was a bit snarky, but to debate a bit about your title, I wasn't arguing that the ends justified the means. I think that the war was justified anyway, based on many reasons which I won't fill your comments section with, so Saddam's capture -- to me -- was a good result from an acceptable process. Philosophically, and in strict legal terms, if you felt that the war was illegal, Saddam's capture is also illegal and he should be released. That was the question, although it wasn't terribly well written. Mea culpa. Anyway, thanks for the hat-tip at the end; Kynn is an excellent blogger and I was happy to link and promote her response, even though I don't agree with it. Well, you understand that Republicans have the same opinion about Democratic voting habits. The difference you’re seeing now is that Republicans have an incumbent President eligible for re-election, so there are no primary battles to fight (yet). In 2000, we had our bickering going on for months, and (assuming Bush is re-elected in 2004) both parties will have it going on in 2008.

You’re right in that the question was a bit snarky, but to debate a bit about your title, I wasn’t arguing that the ends justified the means. I think that the war was justified anyway, based on many reasons which I won’t fill your comments section with, so Saddam’s capture — to me — was a good result from an acceptable process. Philosophically, and in strict legal terms, if you felt that the war was illegal, Saddam’s capture is also illegal and he should be released. That was the question, although it wasn’t terribly well written. Mea culpa.

Anyway, thanks for the hat-tip at the end; Kynn is an excellent blogger and I was happy to link and promote her response, even though I don’t agree with it.

]]> By: Markus http://thomnottom.com/blog/2003/12/15/so-the-ends-do-justify-the-means/#comment-62 Markus Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-62 What I'm most afraid of is the possibility that this will be just the distraction that Bush needs. There are too many issues remaining with the insurgency in Iraq, bin Laden still on the loose, a large portion of the international community miffed at us, not to mention the bevy of domestic issues like veterans' benefits, healthcare, the economy, etc. There's too much work yet to be done for this administration to get this country back to where we were a few years back. I know 9/11 changed a lot of things, and conspiracy theories aside, you can't blame Bush for that (although his response to the incident is another matter.) But we can't keep pointing to 9/11 as an excuse for everything. It's been 2 years and there are new problems now that have nothing to do with the war on terrorism. I'm hoping that when election time comes, people don't just look past a national loss of over a half a trillion dollars, a few million jobs, the laws passed to grant the government "emergency powers," the cuts to veterans and active military service men and women's pay, the diminished/diminishing international support (which we had in spades after 9/11) and simply say, "but he (Bush) fought the war on terror, and caught Saddam!" p.s. sorry this is so long... I'll copy it to my LJ as a seperate post if you want to remove it here :) What I’m most afraid of is the possibility that this will be just the distraction that Bush needs. There are too many issues remaining with the insurgency in Iraq, bin Laden still on the loose, a large portion of the international community miffed at us, not to mention the bevy of domestic issues like veterans’ benefits, healthcare, the economy, etc.

There’s too much work yet to be done for this administration to get this country back to where we were a few years back. I know 9/11 changed a lot of things, and conspiracy theories aside, you can’t blame Bush for that (although his response to the incident is another matter.) But we can’t keep pointing to 9/11 as an excuse for everything. It’s been 2 years and there are new problems now that have nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

I’m hoping that when election time comes, people don’t just look past a national loss of over a half a trillion dollars, a few million jobs, the laws passed to grant the government “emergency powers,” the cuts to veterans and active military service men and women’s pay, the diminished/diminishing international support (which we had in spades after 9/11) and simply say, “but he (Bush) fought the war on terror, and caught Saddam!”

p.s. sorry this is so long… I’ll copy it to my LJ as a seperate post if you want to remove it here :)

]]> By: indieb0i http://thomnottom.com/blog/2003/12/15/so-the-ends-do-justify-the-means/#comment-63 indieb0i Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-63 Ed, thanks for the comments, and I have to admit that my post was far more vitriolic than intended as a lot of the comments on NZ Bear's site really ticked me off. My opening line (along with the title) didn't come out quite right as I know that Republicans, etc. did support the war so justification was not needed. What I meant to say was that they are trying to pin that mentality on the liberals by more or less saying you must agree with the war or disagree with the capture of Saddam. I say there are more options than that. The question itself (while I understand it's merits) really is nothing more than an attempt to trap liberals. Even in a strict legal sense, Saddam's future should not be the focus in this debate. The real question is that of Bush's position. If the war were determined to be illegal, we should be questioning our President's role and whether or not he should be facing criminal charges. As far as Hussein goes, if the people truly wanted him back, then fine, put him back in power. But that's not the case, and even with an illegal war I see no precedent to force a dictator back on his citizens after he was deposed. Anywho, thanks again for your comments and thanks for pointing me (and others) towards Kynn. Even if I don't agree with people, I'd rather read a well-written and valid commentary from the likes of you guys than some of the schmucks on the Internet :) . Ed, thanks for the comments, and I have to admit that my post was far more vitriolic than intended as a lot of the comments on NZ Bear’s site really ticked me off. My opening line (along with the title) didn’t come out quite right as I know that Republicans, etc. did support the war so justification was not needed. What I meant to say was that they are trying to pin that mentality on the liberals by more or less saying you must agree with the war or disagree with the capture of Saddam. I say there are more options than that.

The question itself (while I understand it’s merits) really is nothing more than an attempt to trap liberals. Even in a strict legal sense, Saddam’s future should not be the focus in this debate. The real question is that of Bush’s position. If the war were determined to be illegal, we should be questioning our President’s role and whether or not he should be facing criminal charges. As far as Hussein goes, if the people truly wanted him back, then fine, put him back in power. But that’s not the case, and even with an illegal war I see no precedent to force a dictator back on his citizens after he was deposed.

Anywho, thanks again for your comments and thanks for pointing me (and others) towards Kynn. Even if I don’t agree with people, I’d rather read a well-written and valid commentary from the likes of you guys than some of the schmucks on the Internet :) .

]]> By: indieb0i http://thomnottom.com/blog/2003/12/15/so-the-ends-do-justify-the-means/#comment-64 indieb0i Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-64 Mark, no way is that comment being deleted from here :) . You should definitely follow the link to Kynn's post at the end, he brings up a lot of those same issues. They're all valid concerns, and should be central to these political debates - not the capture of an already powerless former dictator. Mark, no way is that comment being deleted from here :) . You should definitely follow the link to Kynn’s post at the end, he brings up a lot of those same issues. They’re all valid concerns, and should be central to these political debates - not the capture of an already powerless former dictator.

]]> By: Markus http://thomnottom.com/blog/2003/12/15/so-the-ends-do-justify-the-means/#comment-65 Markus Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-65 Hey, cool. I was more worried about taking up too much space than anything, since my comment turned out longer than I thought it world. I'll definitely check out some of the links on Ed's site, especially Kynn's. That'll have to wait for later in the week though, when I have more time for a good thorough reading. Hey, cool. I was more worried about taking up too much space than anything, since my comment turned out longer than I thought it world. I’ll definitely check out some of the links on Ed’s site, especially Kynn’s. That’ll have to wait for later in the week though, when I have more time for a good thorough reading.

]]>