11-29-2010, 09:23 PM
For what it's worth, I agree with Franck. The US was within its rights, if not well-advised strategically, to do what it did in Afghanistan. September 11th was an attack, and Al Qaeda sufficiently connected to the Taliban government to justify unilateral action. I don't like the what they did, but it wasn't illegal. (Unlike Iraq.)
Inane, perhaps, but not necessarily wrong. Dismissing their beliefs because of the group they belong to on the basis of those same beliefs is circular, at best.
Opinions do not have to be impartial or unbiased to be true, valid, or correct. Example: Ludwig von Mises is one of the most extreme economists ever to live - his positions are to the right of basically everyone. Nobody expects him to ever accept any argument in favour of socialism. He was not interested in compromise - "ever more boldly." This has precisely zero bearing on whether or not his economic propositions are true or false, useful or useless. Likewise here - the arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not the social status ("impartial, unbiased") of their maker.
One does not require "moderates" to have a reasonable discussion. One needs only stick to facts and logic. There is no valid reason to suspect the answer does not lie with one extreme or another.
-Jester
Quote:I'm just also railing at the inanity of something akin to expecting "Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence" to argue the merits of GTA4.
Inane, perhaps, but not necessarily wrong. Dismissing their beliefs because of the group they belong to on the basis of those same beliefs is circular, at best.
Quote:For me, being that she has been a leader of two of the most extreme left-wing legal organizations in the world, disqualifies her as being an impartial unbiased source for international legal opinions.
Opinions do not have to be impartial or unbiased to be true, valid, or correct. Example: Ludwig von Mises is one of the most extreme economists ever to live - his positions are to the right of basically everyone. Nobody expects him to ever accept any argument in favour of socialism. He was not interested in compromise - "ever more boldly." This has precisely zero bearing on whether or not his economic propositions are true or false, useful or useless. Likewise here - the arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not the social status ("impartial, unbiased") of their maker.
Quote:I think I did ask; "what purpose it would serve to fling hard left legal opinions against hard right legal opinions?" Should I go dig up Pat Buchanan's take on the US rights to defend itself? As I said, it serves no purpose to fling ultra left against ultra right and I don't believe that Zenda is interested in considering a middle ground either. And so, the possibility of a "reasonable" discussion on the legality of the Afghan war is merely another pile of dead horse meat.
One does not require "moderates" to have a reasonable discussion. One needs only stick to facts and logic. There is no valid reason to suspect the answer does not lie with one extreme or another.
-Jester