Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Apr 29, 2004, 01:53 am

Hmmm, you think the US will any attention, just like it didn't pay any attention to the International Court findings on the US sponsoring of terrorist acts against Niaragua?

An Iranian court has ruled the United States should pay $US600 million ($816.44 million) in compensation for supplying ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

The official IRNA news agency says the money in the case brought by Iranian war veterans and disabled should be paid to survivors of attacks on the town of Sardasht which borders Iraq.

Iraqi gas attacks killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.
http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/29/1083103576615.html

Seeme perfectly fair to me, the 911 families for example are attempting to sue all sorts of people over 911. The Iran/Iraq war took a million lives (BTW, Coulter claims that Reagan formented the war) and if it could be proved that the US aided or supplied Saddam with WMD that he used against Iranian forces, why shouldn't the US be culpable? The US thinks any who provide support to terrorists should be held accountable, why shouldn't the US be the same?

Paavo · Apr 29, 2004, 07:01 am

The US wouldn't be the only one though. But yes, it'd only be fair I guess.

Apr 29, 2004, 09:02 am

Paavo

Fair comment, and the same should apply to all who helped Saddam with WMD. In fact, any who helped Saddam commit the crimes he is going to be accused of.

Impenitent · Apr 29, 2004, 09:58 am

riiiight... try and take it

jcgadfly · Apr 29, 2004, 10:00 am

Just what Bush needs. Something he can turn into a justification for another invasion and occupation.

Amerika uber alles, right, Impenitent?

Paavo · Apr 29, 2004, 10:47 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Impenitent,
riiiight... try and take it

What is that supposed to mean?

Impenitent · Apr 29, 2004, 11:01 am

no one is going to pay anything... not france, not germany, not russia, not america...

no one has the strength to make them do anything

Paavo · Apr 29, 2004, 11:05 am

I think that's true, also. But does it - in your mind - make it right?

Impenitent · Apr 29, 2004, 11:09 am

yes, might makes right... look at history... who ever had the power made the rules... why isn't caesar still in power? some one kicked his ass...

Samildanach · Apr 29, 2004, 11:54 am

Might ,may in practical reality, make the rules. But it does not make things right. You are argueing from an amoral perspective, and while I happen to agree that that is the way the world is to a large degree, it is definitely NOT the way it should be or could be. Viewpoints like that are keeping it that way. You are not helping to solve the problems imp, currently people like you ie (with your amoral (I will take what I can when I can and fuck the rest of you, I'm the biggest and the strongest so I make the rules) viewpoint) are not the solution to make this world a nicer place they are part if not all of the problem.

Paavo · Apr 29, 2004, 01:10 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Impenitent,
yes, might makes right... look at history... who ever had the power made the rules... why isn't caesar still in power? some one kicked his ass...

So you'd be ok with your lower-rank-collegue beating you up and taking your position? What you're saying is that anyone that is stronger will have the right to smash the weaker one, and it'd actually be morally right to do so, end of story?
Seems logic... *goes to beat up a kid and steal her braces* ...I can sell these. :)

dotcoma · Apr 29, 2004, 01:14 pm

[Please read the Volconvo rules as summarized in the etiquette.]

PatrickHenry · Apr 29, 2004, 01:14 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Impenitent,
might makes right

Impenitent's philosphy in a nutshell.
Dude, I fart in your general direction.

Jet · Apr 29, 2004, 02:12 pm

One of the most important axioms of ethics is that "we can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'" (rough quote from David Hume); in other words, the tenet that might makes right is about as repugnant to ethics as the existence of numbers that satisfy a + b != b + a to algebra.

Impenitent · Apr 29, 2004, 02:58 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Samildanach,
Might ,may in practical reality, make the rules. But it does not make things right. You are argueing from an amoral perspective, and while I happen to agree that that is the way the world is to a large degree, it is definitely NOT the way it should be or could be. Viewpoints like that are keeping it that way. You are not helping to solve the problems imp, currently people like you ie (with your amoral (I will take what I can when I can and fuck the rest of you, I'm the biggest and the strongest so I make the rules) viewpoint) are not the solution to make this world a nicer place they are part if not all of the problem.

the law of the jungle is humanity at its finest, if you ignore it you will be exploited by those who understand it...

that is the truth...

you (impersonal) don't have to like it, just watch your back...

Impenitent · Apr 29, 2004, 02:59 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Paavo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paavo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Impenitent,
yes, might makes right... look at history... who ever had the power made the rules... why isn't caesar still in power? some one kicked his ass...

So you'd be ok with your lower-rank-collegue beating you up and taking your position? What you're saying is that anyone that is stronger will have the right to smash the weaker one, and it'd actually be morally right to do so, end of story?
Seems logic... *goes to beat up a kid and steal her braces* ...I can sell these. :)[/b][/quote]

morality is a category game... the morality of personal egoism is exactly as valid as christian morality...

dotcoma · Apr 29, 2004, 03:05 pm

[Please read the Volconvo rules as summarized in the etiquette.]

PatrickHenry · Apr 29, 2004, 03:08 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Impenitent,
the morality of personal egoism is exactly as valid as christian morality...

This is known as psychopathy. You will soon be in prison.

Paavo · Apr 29, 2004, 03:27 pm

Imp, you sure say alot without actually saying anything.
So you're now saying....I don't know what you're saying. That morality is nothing? I'm so confused. Do you even know what you think? Answer me, in a normal manner please -- would the above scenario be "ok" by you?

Jet · Apr 29, 2004, 03:29 pm

Actually, he's right; both are completely invalid and hence equally (in)valid. Christian morality is based on something that doesn't exist. Personal egoism is self-defeating in the sense that the pursuit of raw as opposed to enlightened self-interest very soon leads to loss to everybody; think of the Prisoner's Dilemma, except that a group of egotists can coordinate their actions and yet they choose the harmful option in the dilemma.

Apr 29, 2004, 09:58 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	riiiight... try and take it "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 29, 2004, 11:01 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	no one is going to pay anything... not france, not germany, not russia, not america... no one has the strength to make them do anything "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 29, 2004, 11:09 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	yes, might makes right... look at history... who ever had the power made the rules... why isn't caesar still in power? some one kicked his ass... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 29, 2004, 11:54 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Might ,may in practical reality, make the rules. But it does not make things right. You are argueing from an amoral perspective, and while I happen to agree that that is the way the world is to a large degree, it is definitely NOT the way it should be or could be. Viewpoints like that are keeping it that way. You are not helping to solve the problems imp, currently people like you ie (with your amoral (I will take what I can when I can and fuck the rest of you, I'm the biggest and the strongest so I make the rules) viewpoint) are not the solution to make this world a nicer place they are part if not all of the problem. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Apr 29, 2004, 02:12 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Jet Molten Ash Location: NoCal Posts: 106	One of the most important axioms of ethics is that "we can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'" (rough quote from David Hume); in other words, the tenet that might makes right is about as repugnant to ethics as the existence of numbers that satisfy a + b != b + a to algebra. The world exists. Everything else is just a corollary. Just an irregular Joe... Visit Open Source Politics or my site

Apr 29, 2004, 01:53 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	Hmmm, you think the US will any attention, just like it didn't pay any attention to the International Court findings on the US sponsoring of terrorist acts against Niaragua? An Iranian court has ruled the United States should pay $US600 million ($816.44 million) in compensation for supplying ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons. The official IRNA news agency says the money in the case brought by Iranian war veterans and disabled should be paid to survivors of attacks on the town of Sardasht which borders Iraq. Iraqi gas attacks killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/29/1083103576615.html Seeme perfectly fair to me, the 911 families for example are attempting to sue all sorts of people over 911. The Iran/Iraq war took a million lives (BTW, Coulter claims that Reagan formented the war) and if it could be proved that the US aided or supplied Saddam with WMD that he used against Iranian forces, why shouldn't the US be culpable? The US thinks any who provide support to terrorists should be held accountable, why shouldn't the US be the same?

Apr 29, 2004, 07:01 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	The US wouldn't be the only one though. But yes, it'd only be fair I guess.

Apr 29, 2004, 09:02 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
PeterWolf Guest Posts: n/a	Paavo Fair comment, and the same should apply to all who helped Saddam with WMD. In fact, any who helped Saddam commit the crimes he is going to be accused of.

Apr 29, 2004, 10:00 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
jcgadfly Molten Ash Location: Bloomington IN Posts: 103	Just what Bush needs. Something he can turn into a justification for another invasion and occupation. Amerika uber alles, right, Impenitent?

Apr 29, 2004, 11:05 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	I think that's true, also. But does it - in your mind - make it right?

Apr 29, 2004, 01:14 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	[Please read the Volconvo rules as summarized in the etiquette.]

Apr 29, 2004, 03:05 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	[Please read the Volconvo rules as summarized in the etiquette.]

Apr 29, 2004, 03:27 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	Imp, you sure say alot without actually saying anything. So you're now saying....I don't know what you're saying. That morality is nothing? I'm so confused. Do you even know what you think? Answer me, in a normal manner please -- would the above scenario be "ok" by you?

Apr 29, 2004, 03:29 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Jet Molten Ash Location: NoCal Posts: 106	Actually, he's right; both are completely invalid and hence equally (in)valid. Christian morality is based on something that doesn't exist. Personal egoism is self-defeating in the sense that the pursuit of raw as opposed to enlightened self-interest very soon leads to loss to everybody; think of the Prisoner's Dilemma, except that a group of egotists can coordinate their actions and yet they choose the harmful option in the dilemma. The world exists. Everything else is just a corollary. Just an irregular Joe... Visit Open Source Politics or my site