Details.
Obama is right. (That is the first and probably the last time you will see that sentence on this blog.) Donald Trump is both intellectually and temperamentally disqualified from the Presidency of the United States. I am starting to consider a a course of action that six months ago I would have dismissed as evidence of mental illness or moral bankruptcy.
The Feast of St John Chrysostom
15 hours ago
12 comments:
At this point, how can you believe them? They will say absolutely anything. There's no context to this alleged statement. An unnamed source, and no alleged target. It isn't plausible as insinuated.
Why do these clowns feel compelled to tell the world they won't vote for Trump? No one expects them to.
It may be prudent to tap the brakes here. Even prominent #NeverTrump-ers are hesitant to run with this one. It's based on an anonymous source passed on by Joe Scarborough.
If North Korea launches an armed nuke to Japan or even US territory, what possible courses of action would you consider taking if you were president? Or if China invades Taiwan?
As president, what is off limits? Why?
Do you have a moral obligation to never use the US nuclear arsenal (even though we are the only nation ever to have used a nuke?)? If you answer no, then when is it justified? If you answer yes, then what is their purpose, and how do you rationalize the opportunity cost of funding our nuclear arsenal/deterrent and not funding other programs, military or otherwise?
If you haven't thought through these answers, why do you even bother to post a response?
First use is absolutely off the table. From a just war perspective you could argue that retaliatory strikes are out also, although I'm not as sure about that.
CJ - please elaborate. Very interested in the just war perspective.
I often wonder how valuable second millenium concepts such as just war, the death penalty, the rights of the State, etc, are valid in a post-Christian society. They all seem to take for granted a Christian ruler(s) and populace, but do they also apply to states hostile to Christianity, such as secular, Islamic or atheistic? If not, then they weren't really first principles to begin with, were they?
I obviously have my objections to Señor Trump, but-- notwithstanding these unsourced, unconfirmed allegations from a heavily biased media-- even the most superficial look at the 2 major candidates in this election shows that one is a candidate with a proven record of bluster, violence, aggression and destruction, while the other has a proven record of saying stupid things.
Ms Clinton directly led in the illegal destruction of Libya and Syria, leaving them both completely overrun by terrorism and violence. She instigated a neo-nazi coup in Ukraine. She actively worked to overthrow the democratic governments of Honduras and Paraguay, all while cultivating alliances with the worst totalitarian regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. And most importantly-- if the sustained existence of the species is of a concern to you-- as SoS she did everything possible to provoke a war with Russia, including placing nukes a breath's distance away from the Russian border. By contrast, how many countries has Sr Trump destroyed?
There are many reasons not to vote for Sr Trump, but his isolationist statements on foreign policy are in direct contrast to the gung-ho militarism of Ms Clinton. This is precisely why the neo-con beltway media is going apesh*t and touting stories like this which the National Enquirer would blush to publish.
Stephen -
Leaving aside tactical nuclear weapons, one could argue that nukes violate the principle that the weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. The nuclear strike itself, and its aftermath would almost certainly kill/maim/immiserate large numbers of civilians. Even if you you have just cause to go to war, the means used must be just. That's a tough bar to clear with nukes because of how destructive they are.
I'm not Catholic, but I do think Just War Theory is a pretty accurate way to morally evaluate when and how war is waged. I think it grows organically from first principles, and so the truth of it isn't dependent on whether this or that society actually practices it.
CJ - Ok, so given that nukes are in the hands of several countries, wouldn't it be moral for leaders of a country to a) develop whatever means necessary to protect its citizens from a nuclear strike by one of the other countries, and b) do whatever it takes to disable another country from firing a nuke at that country?
If you answer yes to both of the above (and maybe all you need is to answer yes to one), then is it not a moral obligation for leaders to maintain a countries own first strike capability, as it is a proven deterrent? If you answer yes, then haven't you morally justified that capability? And what is a capability if not threat to use?
Stephen - I don't believe that the threat of a first strike actually keeps the peace. If anything it inflames tensions because everyone is afraid of what happens if you can't respond. That's a non-issue for the US and Russia due to submarines and the number of launch sites.
The threat of a retaliatory strike (MAD) is what has prevented nuclear war (despite some close calls), which is why I believe that at least the threat of retaliatory strikes may be morally permissible.
August is right. This is a tired old tactic and they said the same thing about Reagan. Queen Hill is demonstrably the more unstable, bellicose candidate.
The sane countries in Europe want Trump to be president, (Hungary, Russia). The insane ones want Hillary to win (France, the UK). This tells me all I need to know. Trump is not an expert on foreign policy, but he has made clear he wants to turn the United States inwards and stop trying to build democracy around the world. This is of huge geopolitical benefit, and more importantly, has knock on effects for the Orthodox Church which is under threat from the United States government.
Post a Comment