Amoral argument

[CBL4]

The thing that bothers me most about the book is the amorality of the author’s argument.

He basis his argument only on what is best for the US. He does not care about whether other democracies thrive or fail. He does not care whether hundreds of thousands of people die in Rwanda. According to him these matters are simply irrelevant because they do not involve America directly.

He decries the US supporting Muslim tyrants, not because tyranny is bad, but only because it helps Al Qaeda recruit. He advocates fighting brutal wars in order to kill as many enemy people as possible because this will help America.

I do agree with most of his observations and some of his prescriptions but I decry the goal – strengthen America regardless of the cost to others. This indifference and callousness to non-Americans is disgusting.

Let me make it clear, I do not think he hates foreigners. I just think he gives them little more concern than ants.

CBL

 

[Kerberos]

The thing that bothers me most about the book is the amorality of the author’s argument.

He basis his argument only on what is best for the US. He does not care about whether other democracies thrive or fail. He does not care whether hundreds of thousands of people die in Rwanda. According to him these matters are simply irrelevant because they do not involve America directly.

He decries the US supporting Muslim tyrants, not because tyranny is bad, but only because it helps Al Qaeda recruit. He advocates fighting brutal wars in order to kill as many enemy people as possible because this will help America.

I do agree with most of his observations and some of his prescriptions but I decry the goal – strengthen America regardless of the cost to others. This indifference and callousness to non-Americans is disgusting.

Let me make it clear, I do not think he hates foreigners. I just think he gives them little more concern than ants.

CBL

I noticed that as well, of course any country defends it's own interests first, but he takes it a little far. I also think in a way it shows his narrow focus. As he said himself he is an expert only on Al-Qaida, and it doesn't seem to occur to him that the kind of brutal warfare and callous disregard for the lives, opinions and welfare of anybody not American might provoke counter reactions. Also in areas that has nothing to do with Al-Qaida.

 

[varwoche]

He unabashedly worships Reagan. (For the record, I don't.) Would either of you be willing to extend your statements to Reagan foriegn policy in general?

 

[Kerberos]

He unabashedly worships Reagan. (For the record, I don't.) Would either of you be willing to extend your statements to Reagan foriegn policy in general?

Well I was all of six years (and a half) when Reagan's presidency ended, so my knowledge of it is a bit limited.

 

[Mycroft]

The thing that bothers me most about the book is the amorality of the author’s argument.

You got spoiled by reading Sharanksy.

 

[CBL4]

Would either of you be willing to extend your statements to Reagan foriegn policy in general?

No. I think Reagan was sincere (and accurate) in believing the Soviet Union was accurate and had a true desire to free Eastern Europe for the sake of the people.

What policies of Reagan do you think are amoral?

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Mycroft.
You got spoiled by reading Sharanksy.

Yes but itis interesting to see how Sharansky makes a moral argument for stopping support of Muslim tyrants and Sheuer makes a totally pragmatic argument. It backs up Sharanky's claim that it is both moral and practical.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Kerberos

t doesn't seem to occur to him that the kind of brutal warfare and callous disregard for the lives, opinions and welfare of anybody not American might provoke counter reactions. Also in areas that has nothing to do with Al-Qaida.[/quote]I agree but it would be an especially valuable recruiting method for Al Qaeda. And as someone said in another thread it hurts America's soul when we act immorally.

CBL

 

[Skeptic]

Yes but itis interesting to see how Sharansky makes a moral argument for stopping support of Muslim tyrants and Sheuer makes a totally pragmatic argument. It backs up Sharanky's claim that it is both moral and practical.

CBL

If Sharansky wasn't a jew and one of those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil zionists, he'd be nominated to the Nobel Peace Prize by now... and would have also refused to accept it, now that it became a total joke.

 

[Kerberos]

If Sharansky wasn't a jew and one of those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil zionists, he'd be nominated to the Nobel Peace Prize by now.

What's he done? You don't normally get the Nobel Peace Prize for writting a book.

 

[Skeptic]

What's he done? You don't normally get the Nobel Peace Prize for writting a book.

But you do, or should for being the voice for truth and freedom in a Soviet prison for twenty years. Read his book, "Fear No Evil".

Then again, now that the Nobel prize for peace had been given to Yasser Arafat and to a woman who thinks AIDS is due to biological warfare against black people, it doesn't mean much.

 

[Kerberos]

But you do, or should for being the voice for truth and freedom in a Soviet prison for twenty years. Read his book, "Fear No Evil".

You could get the Peace Prixe for being a prisoner of conscience and prodemocracy acticist, but there are a lot of those. Is there any special reason why it should exactly be him who got it?

Then again, now that the Nobel prize for peace had been given to Yasser Arafat and to a woman who thinks AIDS is due to biological warfare against black people, it doesn't mean much.

If you will recall there was another person who got the peace prixe together with Arafat (and I won't argue he deserved it). A Jewish guy IIRC, guess being Jewish doesn't disqualify you after all. As for the woo-woo the peace prize isn't given for critical thinking, that she supports loony conspiracy theories is entirelly irrelevant, as to whether she should get it.

 

[varwoche]

No. I think Reagan was sincere (and accurate) in believing the Soviet Union was accurate and had a true desire to free Eastern Europe for the sake of the people.

What policies of Reagan do you think are amoral?

I'm not sure how to explain without being gratuitously insulting to Reagan supporters (because I don't want to take it into a lengthy side-debate): Reagan and crew impressed me as jingoistic (as does Bush and crew), and the things that Scheuer says that seem jingoistic sound no different (to me) than what the nation's leaders say all of the time.

And in the case of Scheuer, it's not clear if the jingoism represents his personal views, or if he's simply reporting the realities of the world he knows.

I'm interested which statements caught your attention as being amoral.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by varwoche
I'm not sure how to explain without being gratuitously insulting to Reagan supporters (because I don't want to take it into a lengthy side-debate): Reagan and crew impressed me as jingoistic (as does Bush and crew), and the things that Scheuer says that seem jingoistic sound no different (to me) than what the nation's leaders say all of the time.

I do not think it is a side debate but a good contrast.

I agree that Reagan and Bush are jingoistic. I just think that "jinogism" is part of their morality. Reagan truly believed the Soviet Union was evil and America is great. Bush truly believes in democracy, christianity and America. (I think Bush is such a zealot for his views that he justifies horrible act because "the end justify the means.")

IMO, the difference between them and Scheuer is that B&R want freedom for all people and Scheur only cares about Americans. Scheuer dismisses the horrors of Rwanda and Bosnia as unimportant because it does not affect America. He says we should let unimportant democracies fall if it does not directly affect us. His arguments about stopping support for tyrants never mention the suffering of the people. All his arguments are pragmatic arguments where the only goal is to help America.

He does not wish bad things on other people nor does he wish good things for other people. He just lacks empathy.

I'm interested which statements caught your attention as being amoral

Because I do not have the book with me, the best I can do for now is generalities. I will look for exact statement later.

CBL

 

[IllegalArgument]

He does not wish bad things on other people nor does he wish good things for other people. He just lacks empathy.

Because I do not have the book with me, the best I can do for now is generalities. I will look for exact statement later.

CBL

Honestly, regardless of the morality, sounds short slighted to me. One of Sharanksy's points was that dictatorships or failed states, breed all sorts of bad things and require external enemies.

The wind might not be blowing the disease and the smell of the cesspool your way today, doesn't mean you should ignore it.

I could accept his argument, in terms of determining short term priority, but that's it.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Honestly, regardless of the morality, sounds short slighted to me. One of Sharanksy's points was that dictatorships or failed states, breed all sorts of bad things and require external enemies.

To give Sheuer credit, he does oppose aiding Arab tyrants for pragmatic reasons.

However, he does not extend it to dictatorships in general only ones that affect the US. I agree it is short sighted. If a tyrant is allowed to get strong enough, he will become a problem for the US. And as you say, tyranny breeds tyranny.

I cannot imagine a situation where not helping a true liberal democracy is a good idea in the long run.

CBL