simple:
These are more than tricky question. They are questions which philosophers
have grappled with for ages.
> What is the weight of principal; if you ask people and they disagree, and
> you think their reasons are not enough, what do you do. Do you continue
with
> your actions because you feel they are right, or do you stop because
others
> disagree?
At what point does principle become tyranny?
> Two wrongs don't make a right, but would agree that at some point it
becomes
> necessary to sin if by some chance it can put an end to other sins?
If principle is important (question 1), when do we give up our principles of
peace? If we give up that principle in the sake of expedience, do our
actions have any possiblity of leading to peace? Is it worth dying for one's
convictions? Is survival more important than our principles of what we live
for?
> Is it possible for the ends to justify the means?
Can the end be reached if we use means that continue to create the problem?
> From the start it wasn't unilateral; it was always the US and the British,
> two countries. I'm grasping at straws here, but it is the truth. People
call
> it unilateral action by the US, but when there are 30 countries involved,
at
> some point you gotta give it up.
True, and the British share the blame in lying to the UN. Oh, and those
other nations? Micronesia? Iceland? Macedonia? Lithuania? No offense to
them, but they aren't exactly all world powers. What is that $87Billion for
again? To pay for the support of those nations perhaps? (Yeah, that's a
completely unfounded but you gotta wonder what those countries got out of
it.)
-Kevin
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
