1 3 4 5  7 8 9 16
Oh, yes, right, the US has invaded every country in ... resentments so frothing and foamy that they override the self-evident?

Same logic. If you argue that the US had every right to nuke Japan because the US felt that the Japanese deserved it then Bin Laden has every right to nuke the United States because Bin Laden feels the Americans deserve it.

By your logic, there can be no right and wrong in war: Hitler had the same right to invade the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union had to defend itself.
War is always in some sense wrong, but there are times when it's a necessary wrong and there are times when it isn't.

Josh
Same logic. If you argue that the US had every ... United States because Bin Laden feels the Americans deserve it.

By your logic, there can be no right and wrong in war: Hitler had the same right to invade the ... in some sense wrong, but there are times when it's a necessary wrong and there are times when it isn't.

-My- logic?
Jan
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')
By your rules perhaps, not by mine,

It would be like "Georg van Ellensburg", say.

I use the Dutch rule for what I suspect to be a middle part. Correct capitalization is
Mr. Van Gogh, Van Gogh, but Vincent van Gogh, or V. van Gogh. So I write Osama bin Laden, and Bin Laden.
And I guess you are also using a rule of your own. After all, the original is Arabic,
and we have little idea what the rules are over there.

Jan
Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')
My, a new usage of 'mankind'. Could you count me out please?

I counted you out a long time ago.

Good, then I won't nuke you,
not even when I happen to feel
that you deserve it.
Best,
Jan
By your logic, there can be no right and wrong ... a necessary wrong and there are times when it isn't.

-My- logic?

Sure. Because you equate the US actions in World War II and Bin Laden's actions now. There is no comparison.

Josh
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
It would be like "Georg van Ellensburg", say.

I use the Dutch rule for what I suspect to be a middle part. Correct capitalization is Mr. Van Gogh, ... of your own. After all, the original is Arabic, and we have little idea what the rules are over there.

We know that Arabic doesn't even have capital letters.
-My- logic?

Sure. Because you equate the US actions in World War II and Bin Laden's actions now. There is no comparison.

It escaped you that I commented on somebody elses logic?

Jan
Sure. Because you equate the US actions in World War II and Bin Laden's actions now. There is no comparison.

It escaped you that I commented on somebody elses logic?

Nope. The thing is, the logical flaw was in your presumption rather than in my logic:

What you appear to have said here is that if one party arrogates to itself the right to judge, fairness demands that it arrogate the same right to the other party. Fair enough. However, it seems to me that there are several flaws in that reasoning as applied here, to whit:
1. Nations are not the same as individuals and groups. By law, custom,and morality, they have rights that individuals and groups do not. Thus the situation is not symmetric: the leaders of the United States and Japan have the legal and moral right to take actions that Osama Bin Laden, whether as an individual or as the leader of Al Quaeda, does not. See, for example, the Doctrine of Just War.2. In war, there is frequently no controlling legal authority (thankyou, Al Gore). It is therefore incumbent upon the parties to make their own decisions regarding the actions they take, with regard to mutual agreements, treaties, and the like. Thus, neither the allies nor Germany used poison gas in World War II. Thus, after the Axis powers began the terror bombing of civilians, which was contrary to the traditional rules of warfare, the Allied powers retaliated by following suit, in accordance with a principle I will posit that even when an act is prohibited by treaty, international law, or morality, a warring party engaged in a just war has the right to engage in such an act if its opponent does so first and the consequences of not doing so would cause greater suffering than the consequences of doing so.

(For that matter, I think It could even be argued that the latter is itself sufficient, the principle being that one must always aim for the greatest possible good).
3. Those who fight an unjust war are /never/ morally justified intaking military action of any sort, whereas those who fight a just war may be justified. This is partly a matter of opinion, of course, but I think it's fair to say that where a moral consensus exists as to what constitutes a just war, that consensus has a status similar to that of international law, and that the consensus opinion can be modified as necessary by one or both parties if the modification is logical and right.
4. We're bigger than he is.

Josh
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I use the Dutch rule for what I suspect to be a middle part. Correct capitalization is Mr. Van Gogh, ... of your own. After all, the original is Arabic, and we have little idea what the rules are over there.

there is no single romanization scheme for arabic.
Show more