Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

  Did the nuclear assault save a million allied lives

For example, we are here in this thread discussing whether war and nuking is moral or not. We agree on the facts - war exists, nukes exist, we even agree that U.S. nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but we have diametrically opposed judgement of their moral dimensions. How come?

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-05-28, 20:08:20

  Did the nuclear assault save a million allied lives

Did it save one? That's enough justification.

For example, we are here in this thread discussing whether war and nuking is moral or not. We agree on the facts - war exists, nukes exist, we even agree that U.S. nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but we have diametrically opposed judgement of their moral dimensions. How come?

[…] what to do about the definitional differences of morality, differences that are bound to have an effect on any and all understanding of moral dimensions, whatever the facts [?]

Greek ancient philosophers said everything that is necessary to these days current populations to know about the subject.

You mean such fragmentary bits as we've recovered are sufficient?

You seem to have great trust in the validity of your prejudices, Bel.

ISIS has claimed it will not destroy the ancient ruins at Palmyra - only the 'statues miscreants used to pray for'.

The extremist militants, who have already smashed up countless precious historical relics across Syria and Iraq, has apparently decided the much-loved UNESCO World Heritage site is worth saving.

Its loss, should it come to that, has been described as a crime against humanity.
(source)

Hey, ersi, do you agree that the Islamic State needs to be decimated, at least?

"Such fragmentary bits" are the very foundations to all the western reasoning.

You seem to be very unaware of your own ignorance.

The curriculum was based on the Latin idea of the seven liberal arts: the trivium of grammar, rhetoric and dialectic, and the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. Barber argues that the quadrivium was an area for specialists only, and Lendinara argues that in the early Middle Ages grammar dominated the curriculum to the virtual exclusion of other disciplines. This may, she speculates, be because the Anglo-Saxons were not native speakers of Latin and needed to devote particular attention to grammar. The emphasis on grammar, however, became what characterized Anglo-Saxon preeminence in linguistics and their characteristic fascination with linguistic detail, reflected in the use of runic and cryptographic alphabets in manuscripts, the study of obscure vocabulary, the use of etymology as a pedagogical device and the fondness for riddles.
(source)

I agree the U.S. should not have started the war against Iraq. IS is a result of this war.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-05-28, 15:21:20

I agree the U.S. should not have started the war against Iraq. IS is a result of this war.

But do you agree that Iraq should not have started the war against the U.S.? Probably not… For you, facts are superfluous!

I think the war was justified — but bungled, after our victory.

It's probably the large number of facts that you choose not to consider…

But it also has much to do with your preference for absolutist systems. (Remember the advice: Keep things as simple as possible; but not simpler!)

BTW: Believing that the Urban Dictionary represents "normal English as the native speakers use it" is pretty silly! Whoever put such an idea in your head?

The presumption that there is any understanding possible, "whatever the facts" is bizarre… I reject it.

Likewise, that you presume the conservatives I cite often are of one mind about even basic principles is naive: People don't "work" that way…

How did you work that one out Oakdale?

A crime against humanity? Yeah. Vandalism… But some people think more of their things than their fellows!

He convinced the world's intelligence services that he had -at least- an immanent nuclear capability… That was the last straw.
(That's the "simple" version of the story, intended for Europeans.)

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
...
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that it’s false. The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.
The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games — the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.
...
This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as Jeb puts it, “were made” by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire. Did the intelligence agencies wrongly conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program? That’s because they were under intense pressure to justify the war. Did prewar assessments vastly understate the difficulty and cost of occupation? That’s because the war party didn’t want to hear anything that might raise doubts about the rush to invade. Indeed, the Army’s chief of staff was effectively fired for questioning claims that the occupation phase would be cheap and easy.

The No-fly Zones frequently shot at patrolling aircraft. The U.N. weapons inspectors were frequently denied access to sites of interest…
Saddam was playing a dangerous game. And he lost: He convinced the world's intelligence services that he had -at least- an immanent nuclear capability… That was the last straw.
(That's the "simple" version of the story, intended for Europeans.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html

I drink too much beer, sometimes.

his nation (and its people) would not have survived the end of this war… That was not an acceptable consummation:

The Japanese were ripe for retribution. And no one but the U.S. could save them.

I'd suggest renaming the US military to Salvation-Army of the New World Order

All war is hell.