Blatheration from the coward “Misha”

So what you are saying is that you can not and are not able to have an original thought on your own?

Help me out here….I see nothing on your blog but you riding on the coat tails of conservative websites.

No original thought

Your a joke meathead, do the world a favor and hang yourself

So what you are saying is that you can not and are not able to have an original thought on your own?

No, I haven’t said that anywhere. But thanks for showing us just how poor your own reading comprehension is.

I see nothing on your blog but you riding on the coat tails of conservative websites.

You’re seeing only what you want to see, PW. And you are demonstrating your casual dishonesty. Thanks!

Oh, well by all means please emphasize one more time what PW managed to miss. Because it went sailing over my head too.

Or, by all means keep up the “Emperor Has No Clothes” routine going a little while longer.

Oh, well by all means please emphasize one more time what PW managed to miss. Because it went sailing over my head too.

That is because you, too, see only that which you want to see. Yes, I hammer the wingnut bloggers pretty hard — but that is not all I discuss here.

Or, by all means keep up the “Emperor Has No Clothes” routine going a little while longer.

Do you believe that Misha’s repeated advocacy of violent murder is morally defensible?

Extermination is what passes for a ‘solution’ in wingnut circles.

The granny-intimidating Protest Warrior might disagree (though wingnut blogs are full of bitching about non-Republicans to which I imagine he grunts his approval between Cheetos), but it’s important that we heap scorn on their ill-conceived ideas even if it hurts the delicate feelings of Protest Warrior, big Dog, Kender (the dumbest man on the Internet), et al.

I say keep up the good work. wingnuts are cut and running cowards who cannot defend their ideas.

They also enjoy being duped. Moreover, when you point out that they’re being duped, it just hardens their resolve to remain ignorant. If that’s not deserving of scorn, I don’t know what is. It’s the very definition of stupidity.

Are you not horrified by burning people alive? Did you watch that video? Do you think people willing to do that can be reasoned with?

Of course burning people alive is a horrific act. And of course, in many cases, reasoning with the fanatics who do such things is impossible.

Nuking the Middle East or specific locations within it, as Misha proposes, wouldn’t put an end to such atrocities. We would have no assurance that it would even kill the perpetrators of the specific atrocities in question. It wouldn’t be an effective response — it would be purely an act of vengeance, hatred, and mass murder.

How, pray tell, would that differentiate us in the moral sense from those who burn hostages alive?

If our intelligence knew that a well placed bomb (not necessarily a nuke) somewhere in the Middle East would prevent a major terrorist attack in the US, I think it would be immoral not to drop the bomb (or fire the missle, or whatever). By not openly identifying themseves as the US military does, terrorists put the innocent people around them at risk. Society is willing to accept some degree of collateral damage in the attempt to eliminate terrorists. Would society accept the degree of colateral damage like in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I don’t think American society is at that point. Could it come to the point where enough people would support a large scale bombing somewhere in the Middle East that the US president had the political capital to do so? I think so, but I hope it never comes to that. But should it ever come to that, it will be becasue the US is threatened, not immoral.

Would any well placed bomb put an end to atrocities in the world? Of course not. Evil will keep trying. But if a bomb prevents But just becasue evil won’t be completely emilinated is no reason not to confront it. Terrorists put those around them at risk, a

I didn’t finish editing that last paragraph before I hit submit. I meant to delete it. Do’h!

If our intelligence knew that a well placed bomb (not necessarily a nuke) somewhere in the Middle East would prevent a major terrorist attack in the US, I think it would be immoral not to drop the bomb (or fire the missle, or whatever).

Misha is specifically advocating the use of nuclear devices. That’s what the discussion is about. Try to stick to the topic, and avoid backpedaling.

Given the recent misuses and outright distortion of US intelligence information in order to drive the US into a war with Iraq, why should anyone trust an intelligence report to be used properly to specify a nuclear target?

By not openly identifying themseves as the US military does, terrorists put the innocent people around them at risk.

And since they do so, are we justified in incinerating those innocent people? Whose morals do you want to govern the actions of a nuclear-armed United States — our own, or those of the terrorists?

Society is willing to accept some degree of collateral damage in the attempt to eliminate terrorists. Would society accept the degree of colateral damage like in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I don’t think American society is at that point. Could it come to the point where enough people would support a large scale bombing somewhere in the Middle East that the US president had the political capital to do so? I think so, but I hope it never comes to that. But should it ever come to that, it will be becasue the US is threatened, not immoral.

Really? You can state with certainty that all future uses of force by the United States will be morally pure and justified?

What an amazing crystal ball you have. What else does it tell you of the future?

Would any well placed bomb put an end to atrocities in the world? Of course not. Evil will keep trying. But if a bomb prevents But just becasue evil won’t be completely emilinated is no reason not to confront it. Terrorists put those around them at risk, a

And just because the terrorists have succeeded in terrorizing certain Western citizens — yourself and Misha, for example — is not a reason to conflate the concept of “confronting evil” with “incinerating thousands or millions”.

It’s the latter that Misha advocates, and it’s the latter that you are defending when you defend his views.

I don’t have a crystal ball any more than you do. Neither of us can state with 100% accuracy the justification for future uses of force, whether moral or immoral. My frame of reference is that, while imperfect, the US military their political leaders act morally far more often than they act immorally. If we have different frames of reference then my crystal ball says our conversation will likely go nowhere.

I don’t have a crystal ball any more than you do. Neither of us can state with 100% accuracy the justification for future uses of force, whether moral or immoral.

I quote:

But should it ever come to that, it will be becasue the US is threatened, not immoral.

(Emphasis mine.)

You made a blanket statement, bubba. Now you are backpedaling.

My frame of reference is that, while imperfect, the US military their political leaders act morally far more often than they act immorally.

And you can support this with specific evidence? Do tell.

Are you claiming that carrying out Misha’s suggestion — that we drop enough nukes to turn a large area into “one huge, glowing sheet of glass” — would be a moral act?

If we have different frames of reference then my crystal ball says our conversation will likely go nowhere.

If you are so intellectually crippled that you cannot carry on a discussion with someone who has a “different frame of reference”, then you have my pity, friend.

Ok, fine. “But should it ever come to that, it will ALMOST CERTAINLY be because the US is threatened, not immoral.” Is that something you can agree to? Or what would you replace “almost certainly” with? “Most likey,” “maybe,” anything else? Or do you think the military acts immorally more often than not?

My evidence for believing the military acts morally far more often than immorally is that the dozens of people I have met who were serving or who had served in the military are overwhelmingly moral people. By extrapolating my experience with those I have met and in many cases known over a period of several years, I trust that the same degree of morality goes up the chain of command in the military.

I think there are circumstances where using nuclear weapons would be moral. Do you? I think the US was justified in using the atomic bomb in WWII – if that is what you consider “dropping enough nukes to turn a large area into one huge, glowing sheet of glass” then my answer would be yes.

Ok, fine. “But should it ever come to that, it will ALMOST CERTAINLY be because the US is threatened, not immoral.” Is that something you can agree to? Or what would you replace “almost certainly” with? “Most likey,” “maybe,” anything else? Or do you think the military acts immorally more often than not?

No, I can’t agree that future uses of nuclear weapons will “almost certainly” be because the US is threatened. We already know that a US government is perfectly capable of attacking when no true threat exists. The Bush administration ordered the invasion of Iraq even though that country posed no significant threat to this country. There’s no reason to believe that no future administration would order the use of nuclear weapons against a target that posed no threat.

How the military acts is irrelevant. The military carries out the orders of the civilian leadership. You’re asking about the military in order to obfuscate that fact.

I think there are circumstances where using nuclear weapons would be moral.

Outline the circumstances in which you believe that a massive nuclear attack of the kind that Misha advocates would be a moral act.

Moralitaet ist viel mehr, Fleischkopf. Der grosse Hund weisst das besser als du. Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditiones habes. Und gut fuer dich!

Nein, oje. Nicht der grosse Hund, aber der Koenig.