Nation-State vs. Individual
It is blatantly obvious that our country and possibly all other countries appear to abolish all morals and ethics that their parents taught them when acting according for the nation’s benefits in foreign policy. For example the war in Iraq it is just fine for our military to travel overseas to shoot and kill others. However, this concept would never be allowed within the borders of our own country. We would never be allowed to take hold of an AK-47 and blow the brains out of a U.S citizen. It is against the law; it is against the Ten Commandments for those that recite God bless America and then send troops to slaughter.
What is interesting is the thought that our ethics and morals are instantly erased when we consider foreign policy. What happens to it? Where does it go? It appears that our country and perhaps all nation-states degenerated into a child without agents of socialization and begin to recite “that’s mine” phrase.
Maybe we are only advance as our foreign policy ethics are. The individual within the nation-state is just an idea rampaging and hollering around the edges of its borders and the id seems to be the heart and the brain of the nation-state.
Once again i have stumbled across an America hating blogger that does not appreciate what America does for the world. Our country is the greatest deliverer of aid in the world and our morals and ethics have held strong through countless aid operations after the tsunami in Indonesia, after Hurrican Katrina, and after the cyclone in Myanmar. Next, you cite the hypocrisy in sending troops to 'slaughter", but obviously you do not understand God's commandments. The Lord calls for unjust ending of life to be ceased in thou shall not kill but the Crusades and many wars of justice such as Afghanistan and Operation desert Storm are not held as violations of the ten commandments. Then, how can you say our brave men and women are slaughtering? They are risking their lives to serve their country whether they agree with the war or not. I hope your not an american citizen and you do not deserve the protection and safety the U.s. military provides for you if you do live in the U.S. by handling the enemy abroad.
You should control your words of rage. I am not an american hater. I said most if not all nation-states act in the same way. I have lived overseas for an ample amount of time and fully understand the benefits of being an american citizen. Second you misunderstood what i was trying to express. I was wondering over the concept of why we drop our morals and ethics when it comes to foreign policy dealings in particular war, not natural disasters.
Nothing ever justifies killing or harming another human being. And one should never use the guise of religion to justify the Crusades; it is obvious that the Crusades was nothing but a power hungry pope that wanted control and more markets.
As for the war in Iraq, please tell me exactly what they are serving our country for. second, it was not directly against the individual troops it was against ameica's foreign policy.
As for you being an ameican citizen you have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to judge what opinion is not american, the very essence of that judgement is anti-american.
Words of rage, now I'm going to use words of rage! You wrote, 'it is against the Ten Commandments for those that recite God bless America and then send troops to slaughter." We don't send troops to slaughter anyone. We send good human being with morals and a will to serve their country no matter what the call to fight against the enemies of America. You claim that the Crusades was nothing more that a power hungry pope that wanted control and markets, but do you not know of the thousands that answered the call of Peter to fight for the Holy Land? You are right in that nothing justifies killing another human and it is a terrible thing but the Lord realizes when an action is just or not regardless. I dont understand why you say we are dropping our ethics in our foreign policy as our serving men and women are serving everyday to protect us in our foreign policy and to fight for the freedoms our the U.S. Our men and women in Iraq are serving the better interests of men and women that were under the tyranny of an unjust ruler. How are we dropping our ethics by delivering justice to Saddam and attempting to bring freedom to the Iraqi people?
How do you know they have morals? And morals can and are easily broken, look at the brutal killings in Vietnam and the controversy over Abu Ghrab. Morals aren't always followed, even by religious folks.
The Crusades were actually corrupt. So the people weren't corrupt, but the reasons were corrupt, so hundreds of thousands of people were murdered for corrupt reasons. I don't think God would approve.
Our job isn't to police the world. That's the only reason we went into Iraq, it wasn't for the people of Iraq, that was a nice ploy. But it wasn't, none of the reasons we went in have been proven, they've all been torn apart by all sides.
"Nothing ever justifies killing or harming another human being."
That's a pretty black and white view of life and death. Since the dawn of time, species on this Earth have adhered to the "kill or be killed" mentality. Not even keeping your own life justifies killing/harming the person who is trying to kill you? Not defending the country that gives you rights and freedoms justifies killing/harming the person/people who is/are trying to destroy it? I feel like it's second nature to defend what you love; I love my life, I want to harm someone who tries to take that away from me. Children grap hold of their bear tightly if someone tries to take it. Animals act the same way; don't come near or it will hurt you in some way. So maybe the question is not "Why do we drop our morals and ethics when it comes to foreign policy dealings in a particular war?" but rather, "Are we even civilized enough to truly have morals and ethics"?
Unfortunately, we still can't afford to let our guard down; someone will always be trying to take something near and dear from us. It's all about how important and how strongly you feel about something that decides whether or not it justifies killing or harming another human being.
k
**********
view my blog! http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/49917
I understand your view and agree to some extend. If my child was possibly in danger i would do anything possible to save its life. However, the person inflicting harm should have never begun to inflict harm in the first place. that is where i am coming from when i said nothing justifies harming another human being. There should have be rational thought and compromise, not violence in a conflict
and its apparent that we are not yet civilized enough to have moral and ethics at a macro-level.
Some people think these United States can become better by a different means than you would use to make them better. Disagreeing with your point of view on certain subjects doesn't make someone an American-hating citizen.
Unless someone flat out says "I hate America," using a one-time encounter you've had with a nameless entity on an anonymous internet to completely judge their entire character is borderline insulting, which would be a violation of the TOS of this website.
Please try to engage in discussion and rational arguments, rather than jumping to judgmental conclusions.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
:) thanks for the comment.
All I'm saying is that when someone says, "It is blatantly obvious that our country and possibly all other countries appear to abolish all morals and ethics that their parents taught them when acting according for the nation’s benefits in foreign policy," without providing any adequate examples whatsoever, i feel that it is necessary to defend my nation and to imply that this person is misinformed against the U.S. if they think that this nation , "send troops to slaughter."
Ok, the Iraq War is a adequate example. So is the use of collateral damage by all countries. The United States is one of those countries who likes to use the idea of collateral damage. Collateral damage is considered morally wrong...or should be. They really aren't misinformed, the writer just didn't put them down, but the examples are out there.
Very nice. I agree with you on a lot of this. The context is bang on in my opinion. We really wouldn't do this to our citizens but we're allowed to in the name of "world police" to invade other countries and disrupt their way of life.
Of course I agree with the War on Terror in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Only because Afghanistan was an actual War on Terror whereas Iraq was not. We need to find where our ethics lie and not always on Christian Principles but on the principles of, do not encroach on other people or their property, and do all you have agreed to do.
I find it interesting that many of the same people (I am not implying that your are one of them since I don't know your views) that are virulently against the War in Iraq are very much in favor of the USA using our military power to stop genocide in Darfur.
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, it was governed by a brutal dictator who was arguably committing genocide against a portion of his people (Kurds) and was brutally oppressing another very large segment of his population (Shiites). He governed with violence, fear and liberal use of murder. Yes, our invasion has resulted in quite a lot of deaths and violence. But it has liberated a lot of those people from their previous condition which was arguably responsible for far more deaths. We are more than willing to leave when the violence stops. It can't happen soon enough for me.
But many of the same people who accuse us of acting immorally in Iraq would have us intervene in Darfur to depose the evil government there. Undoubtedly we could do this but it would require gun barrel diplomacy and undoubtedly we would end up killing people just like we are in Iraq.
The only difference I see between Iraq and Darfur is that in the former we also have economic and strategic interests and in the latter we do not.
You've forgotten me jackbenimble? I'm hurt, lol.
I don't agree with going into Darfur. The US should only intervene in Darfur if the UN asks us to. Since the UN hasn't, then we shouldn't. Take to mind, I think the UN is a load of shit, but we're part of them so we might as well do as we agreed as a part of the UN.