Azarkon

How can you feel shame over what you didn't commit?

No, because that murder will be tried by the courts. It ends the horrible cycle of violence you are suggesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So who runs the court of nations? Again, might makes right.

Acknowledgement, regret, and thereby progress? Better than the alternative.

Not necessarily, but if they did not, then the victims' great grand children are justified in doing the same thing. That's why the system of morality under which we operate essentially reduces to "might makes right." If a moral system cannot explain the hypocrisy of nations, then I could hardly call it a realistic system under which to make correct rational decisions.

Fair enough, I misinterpreted you. Let's go back to the argument of whether their nation is guilty, then.

Does Joe's grandsons reap the benefits of Joe's murders? If so, then the same moral impasse is reached. Why should they benefit from his crimes and yet not be held accountable?

Hypocrisy is the condition of being guilty of an action, thought, or attitude and yet arguing for the opposite among others. If you believe that Americans can be guilty, then they certainly can also be hypocritical.

If the criminals' descendants are not accountable, then who is? God? Nature? History? You end up in a moral impasse - clearly a crime has been committed, but no justice can ever be done. A moral system that espouses such scenarios as necessary conditions is inherently problematic. It encourages its own violation, as people feel grievances that they cannot address but by comitting more crimes. As such, I tend to see the nation as a broader and more historical entity than a collective of individuals; this view is more on par with what is reflected in reality, as people, when rationalizing their choices, tend not to talk about nations as groups of individuals but as historical entities.

Hypocrisy, in this case, does not lie with the individuals, but with the nation. A nation is not absolved of guilt merely because a generation passes for its citizens. I'm not sure it ever is. I do not believe that a nation, from the perspective of morality, is simply a group of living individuals. Such a view ignores history, and in the process fails to explain why two groups vying for supremacy can, simultaneously, be justified. As such, it fails to explain the basic underlying psychology behind why many people feel justified in taking another's land, even while the possessors of said land feel justified in defending it. In essence, I don't think the world operates by a realistic moral system. A system of morality that assumes innocence by birth, and yet acknowledges the fact that the actions of one generation echo through all of history, is inherently unrealistic. You cannot expect people to operate by the rules of such a system, because its rational application specifies that to gain an advantage, all one has to do is commit crimes and maintain them for one generation's time. In fact, that's exactly what happens, but such a stance is clearly immoral and defeats the point of having moral safeguards in the first place. It's no wonder that the Western mind is, today, more unprepared than ever to face reality.

It's still hypocritical. If I invaded my neighbor's house and kicked his family out on the streets, and then decided that my children has the right to that house and that it's evil for my neighbor's children to take it back because kicking neighbors out of houses is no longer moral under my watch, I can see why his children would get seriously pissed for being forced to live on the streets for something I did a generation ago. Doesn't mean that my children are wrong to defend the house if attacked, but my moral justification just got alot weaker. Sure, I can argue that my children aren't responsible for my sins, but if they benefit as a result, while others suffer for the same reason - what can I say about my morality? That might, in one life time, makes right for all eternity? Clearly this isn't going to fly, so what we actually get is, indeed, a viscious cycle of people getting kicked out of houses, and a depreciation of moral values. Some argue that it's the basic instinct within every living organism. Nah. Nature isn't so righteous. Whether we coexist harmoniously with each other, wipe the other out, or are mutually wiped out - doesn't really matter. If every human being died tomorrow, the world would still go on. The choice, if it exists at all, lies with man.

Fact of the matter is that power talks and might makes right. What liberals have concoted in the Western moral consciousness - ie indigenous right to land, etc. - are justifications ex post facto - much as any people in the ancient days would assume their own rights to the land of their dwelling, except on a larger scale and applied "universally." The truth is that the West, and indeed any powerful civilization/empire, will do what is in its current best interest. For a nation that has already established its preeminence, that means keeping the status quo - and that means moral justifications against anything that might threaten it. For example, other countries that want to rise to superpower status in a similar fashion (that is - through imperialism and conquest). Just the same, for any nation that is not currently in a position of preeminence, the only real choice is to change the status quo - either economically (China, Russia) or militarily (Iran, NK, etc.) More often than not, this requires breaking with the rules set by the currently ascendant powers, as those rules are bound - necessarily so - to preserve their own interests. The history of the world is writ in blood and is in no way "fair." Most people recognize this. What people no longer recognize is that the same rules that governed men of old govern us now, and that nothing essential has changed except the name of the victor and the methods he employ to control the losers. Yesterday it was outright imperialism in the form of the European Empire. That method became obsolete when Europe collapsed under WW2. Today it's American neo-imperialism in the form of economic control, corporatism, and the "subtle" hand of political influence. Tomorrow it'll be something different, but changes in ideology and methodology do not change the underlying fact, which is that if you're weak, prepare to be exploited. It's sheer hypocrisy to deny other nations the right to do as the West did in its ascendance (conquest and imperialism), but that's the compromise life gives ya - either we control the world or we are controlled by it. The neocons, to which much of the current administration's policies can be attributed, identified correctly the American Problem: how do you make the 21st century a New American Century as opposed to, say, a Chinese Century, an Indian Century, or doggone it a Multi-polar Century? It's better to control history, they reasoned, than to be controlled by it - and that's what got us to where we are now.

Indeed. And that's actually a good argument for why so-called "rogue" states (or any state that is not part of the American nuclear umbrella) feel compelled to develop advanced weapons capabilities. Our ex-Secretary of Defense once asked the question - why should countries like China expand their military capabilities, when no one threatens them? His implication, of course, is that those countries are developing their arms because they intend to threaten others. But the real answer is that every country is a threat to every other, and so long as there exists an imbalance of military power wherein one people has the ability to wipe out another without them having the ability to do the same, there will always be a push for more and bigger weapons. It's the basic instinct of survival.

Very well: if you believe that we owe allegiance to a country, rather than to a government, is it so preposterous to say, then, that if a person believes that a war is against the principles upon which the country is founded, they should evade the draft associated with said war? What do you gain by serving in a war that you believe is the antithesis of what your country should stand for? By the same token, how do you know that when someone resists the draft they are doing so out of laziness or selfishness, as opposed to doing so on principle? Yes, it is more cowardly by far to escape the draft by fleeing to another country, than it is to resist the draft by allowing yourself to be arrested. Yet, given the alternative of serving in an evil war, either of these would be preferrable. In the former, at least you're not part of the problem, while in the latter, you're clearly part of the solution. You claim that I misconstrued your comments as being patronizing, yet this thought here is precisely what I'd consider the epitome of a patronizing attitude - ie you imply that those who disagree with you are children of priviledge ignorant of the depravity by which the rest of the world lives, and whose comments should therefore be brushed aside as mere naivete. If that isn't the impression you wanted to give, then I suggest you respect opposing viewpoints without assigning preconceptions to the people behind them. Moreover, though you might think that it's necessary for the government to do what it's doing in order to maintain the luxurious American way of life, that is far from being a given. With the gap between rich and poor ever enlarging, I'd argue that much of what the government does today serves to benefit only a small segment of American society, who exploits not only the rest of the world, but American citizens, towards the maintenance and increase of its own priviledge. Does "jobless economic recovery" mean anything to you? It should, because it's a symptom of what's happening. If the government really wanted to benefit society in general, there are much better ways to spend money than on either the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan, both of which will do more harm to us in the long run than investing in, say, education or employment. If I did not believe this, I would not be arguing with you. And of course, even beyond these arguments of what's the best thing to do for America, there's the more pressing moral question of what's better for the world. It maybe that, in some twisted way, the American way of life demands other people's suffering. If this is the case, then duty to one's country men might have to play second fiddle to duty to mankind - if this were a cut and dry matter, I'd be working towards the destruction of American priviledge right here and now. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, this is not a given and I'm not convinced that the whole world can't live like the average middle-class American if the right policies were adopted.

I'm curious - what exactly do you take away from your country? Your sense of an individual owing the greater society makes little sense given that in a capitalist society, the doctrine of enlightened self-interest governs the way things are run. People do not establish policies because they have a sense of duty towards you; they do so because it benefits themselves and allows for mutual existence. The wealth of the first world nations does not come from a group of altruistic ancestors who wanted to better your lot; the wealth of first world nations come from people who wanted to better themselves and their own children. It is to your lineage, if anyone, to which you owe your allegiance. From this perspective, the only people who do not contribute to society are those who live off of welfare with no reason for doing so. Anyone else, be it worker, business man, artist, or scientist - contributes to society by virtue of self-interest, since their works increase a society's wealth and its assets. As for the increase of social progress, why you'd have to go to the activists, intellectuals, and movement leaders, many of whom do - indeed - speak out against the war. Thus, if there indeed exists a debt to which you owe society, this debt is paid by virtue of your living as a productive individual. Therefore, the duty of military service not in defense of country is an extraneous requirement that must be justified on a case to case basis. I do not expect to change your mind, of course. Your patronizing attitude towards ulterior viewpoints makes it obvious that that you hold your values with the same constancy as I hold mine. Truly, our values are more the product of tradition and upbringing than rational discussion, but I am curious, nevertheless, as to the reason behind feeling such a sense of duty towards your community. It is a good attitude to have, normatively, and I'd otherwise support it - but it seems that in your case the vehemence is turned more towards the people than the government, which is highly odd since it's the community that you owe a duty to, not the government (which, after all, is supposed to be representative of the people; though, these days, it's more a coterie of elite, power-hungry politicians than anything else). No one can possibly leech off of the government, because the government's coffers come from *you*. And the community's will, in this case, has been expressed - the Iraq War sucks and we want a change of government. How you can possibly call these people lazy and spoiled is beyond me. What must they do in order to be "worthy" of their society? It is, after all, their society - not the government's - and seeing as it's a society built upon greed and (enlightened) selfishness, I can't see how you could possibly argue that what they're doing is wrong.

That argument only applies if you chose to join a country, as opposed to being born in it, and having no choice as to whether you can leave it (people in the US are often unaware of how priviledged they are in this respect, being able to generally freely move between the US, Canada, and various EU countries). And even if you do choose to join a country, that argument would only work if the war in question was a war in defense of those aspects of that country that you joined it for. It's one thing to fight a war in defense of the place you chose as home and of the qualities that made it your choice, another thing altogether to invade some other people's home in an effort to force your values upon them. Sorry, but nations exist for the benefit of the people; there is no nation without the people, and JFK is dead wrong if, by what he said, he meant that people should serve the country unconditionally. People should give back to the community around them - to the people with whom they share the world. People should not give back to corrupt, war-mongering governments utilizing lies and deceit to safeguard their own interests. Truly, I find it ironic, at times, the contradictions that exist within American society. On one hand, you have this whole individualist framework that condescends upon collectivism - that, indeed, believes that what a person is is wholly the result of his or her own efforts; yet, on the other, when it comes to military service it's all "serve your country - it's your duty." Why? If, in a capitalist society, it's every person for themselves and what a person accomplishes is solely the result of his or her struggles, then what does said person owe to his or her country? Nothing - that's my view. People should fight in defense of their freedom, their happiness, and their way of life; they should not fight out of some abstract sense of duty. Ideological democracy is one of the most dangerous inventions of modern nationhood, for it confuses loyalty to one's country with loyalty to the government of that country. When a country is under threat not by outside forces, but by its own power-hungry elite, then it is most certainly not your duty to serve in the demolishing of other people's homes - and your own rights. Indeed, it is your duty to do otherwise.

No, but it could be argued that everyone who participates in the war, forced or otherwise, elongates and reinforces it. Even if you're just a medic, your presence allows other soldiers to fight, which means that you're indirectly fighting, even if you don't engage in it. But then, one can also argue that anyone in a country that goes to war is, in part, responsible for its perpetuation as if the people in said country decided to no longer support the war, it'd be - ideally - over. This is what brings about the notion of total war, where in a major war, everyone fights and are, therefore, targets. My advice for a unpopular war is to evade the draft, preferrably without adding to the prison overcrowding problem if you can help it - unless you also want to make a statement, and think that it'll be heard. Fighting for your country without believing in it isn't worth the sacrifice, and if said war does become unpopular afterwards it's likely society won't even remember that you performed a duty. From an individualist's standpoint, duty to a government ends when said government ceases to represent your interest; your own mileage may vary, but there's a line for everyone that, when crossed by a government, should absolve you of duty.

After KOTOR 2, the following development postmortem was posted http://gamedeveloper.texterity.com/gamedev...r/sample/?pg=38 Are we going to get something similar for NWN 2? I would really like to hear dev responses to some of the major player complaints with respect to the game, as it's been the general impression that unlike KOTOR 2, NWN 2 had plenty of development time...

I think his point is that modders should skip NWN 2 and either go back to NWN 1 or mod Oblivion, instead. Problem is... NWN 1 is dated, the Oblivion engine is largely incapable of storytelling and party mechanics (the most important aspects of the NWN franchise), and NWN 2 is not nearly as bad a game as he makes it sound.

That is still true. Support and respect are two different things. Soldiers make their decisions as necessary and I'll respect those decisions if they're reasonable; doesn't mean I will support what they're doing - and hence them - in a war. The only way to get my support is to not fight in the war - ie to quit the service, regardless of the consequences. That does not mean that only soldiers who quit the service & face court marshal are worthy of my respect, or that I think that this is practical or reasonable for them to do - it's simply the fact of the matter in terms of how much I can support soldiers in a bad war. Though, to be fair, people don't usually join the military during peacetime because they support/disagree with a future war, and by the time they can make that decision it's too late. But that's the problem with keeping around a professional army. I assume that soldiers who partake in such service know what they're getting into - and have weighed the moral consequences. I assume, with even more certainty, that people who choose to enlist in the army after the war's started are confident that their moral choice is correct. That is why I cannot support them - because I do not think that they're fighting for the right reasons (at least in the case of Iraq). It's true that many soldiers block out the whole "killing people" aspect and focus on the "helping people" side of things when deciding whether to join the war, however. This is unfortunate, as it's the reason good people fight in bad wars. But then again, the Army is not the Red Cross - people should've been aware of that when joining. Who said anything about gender? Males are just as capable of allowing emotions to get the better of them, and if you think I meant anything other than what I said, think again. Gender does not factor into it, nor this discussion.

Oh. Now that I think of it, evil is not exactly the right adjective for this war. Foolish and unnecessary is more like it. One does not defeat an organization based upon hatred for the US by stirring up even more hatred, but that's a discussion for another thread.

To do what? If a draft comes and I don't believe in the war, I'll evade it - thus incurring whatever penalties thereof. I assume this is what Di means by prison time, as I can't see how a non-enlisted individual could go to prison for refusing the service in any other circumstance. If a draft does not come, and I don't believe in the war, I will refuse to condone it, protest it when appropriate, refuse to support the troops who are fighting in it, and refuse to enlist in the military.

If the draft comes over an evil war, that's exactly what I'll do. But why would I commit a crime now to enforce my beliefs? That is a ridiculous request, and in no way "respectful." Quitting the service - or not enlisting in the first place - is a perfectly reasonable option for people who were not tied to the service to begin with, and incurs no penalty of imprisonment (certainly I've known plenty of people who refused to join the military over their beliefs). For those who were tied when the war occured, going to war is perhaps their only option, and I doubt any of them feels strongly enough about the war to evade duty, so all I can say is - I respect their decision, but do not support them. Same rhetoric. You're letting your emotions get the better of you, I'm afraid.

Wars are not black and white. Rationality, however, can be binary. Still, I don't pretend people don't join the military for other reasons; I'm just saying that in the specific situation mentioned by the statement I quoted, I consider them to be tragic characters. Respect has nothing to do with it. Support the troops != respect the troops. I already said that I respected the troops as individuals, but I do not support them. The same is true if I say that I respect any man willing to die for what he believes in, but that I do not necessarily support him. Saying that the military disagreed with what was done but was forced into doing it because, well, the military obeys orders is a fair point that might, under certain circumstances, absolve them of responsibility. But that still doesn't mean I can support what they're doing. Like I said before, I don't think that you can divide the situation into "I hate the war" but "I support the troops cause they're just following orders!" If you support the troops in a volunteer army, then you support what they're doing. Otherwise, you're not really supporting them - that's my view. Quit the service, if they really feel so strongly about the war being wrong. I do not believe in an amoral, depersonalized army that simply does what it's told - assigning others all the responsibility of right and wrong. I do think that people should join the military based on whether they believe in its cause, and not simply because of some abstraction notion of "duty" to a potentially corrupt government. However, coops/insubordination are not the way to go as methods of rebellion as it sets a precedent for military rule. The best way to act, therefore, is simply for individuals to quit the service (and to do so as individuals, instead of "mass boycotting," which is just another way of putting power in the hands of the military).

Actually, I'm talking in general. Iraq was a good example because it makes a clear opposition point to the principle of supporting the troops without supporting the war. Afghanistan is a good example of indifference - ie how controlled the US is by the media, which can easily manipulate public sensibility to focus on Iraq while ignoring the situation in Afghanistan. But that's getting a tad off topic. My position is that I cannot support the troops without supporting the war. This is true both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. What I was saying in that second part is that I can see why someone would support the current occupation, and thereby the troops who participate in it, without having supported the original invasion. In either case, for me supporting the troops means supporting the war, and vice versa.

Lucius: While I don't disagree with your position per se, I hardly think that it's me who's simplifying this down to a black and white matter. For example, from what you're saying supporting the troops is like supporting Red Cross workers. Yeah - and who doesn't want to do that? Yet that's not what you're supporting. What you're supporting is an occupation that's become the source of sectarian violence, that props up a Shi'ite government that uses death squads and extortion to achieve what they want, and which has all the signs of becoming a puppet of the clergy seeking to purge all who disagree with them. What you're supporting is a war that's turned a relatively stable nation into a country of refugees, destroyed the possibility of Iraqi sovereignty, and by all measures made life worse than it was under Saddam. Though, I admit - it's probably one thing to say that you support the occupation now because there is no choice - because if we leave, all hell will break lose - and another altogether to say that you supported the war in the first place. However, it's not clear to me that you can divide one from the other, since the invasion was justified on the basis of what we'd achieve afterwards - and what we've achieved is a direct product of the invasion in the first place. Furthermore, it's not correct to say that the current war is fought solely to make up for the damages we've caused - some do indeed consider it as such, yet if we were to win the Iraqi war tomorrow the administration would undoubtedly take the credit and justify the original invasion on its basis. That, in my mind, can never be sanctioned.