|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Oh right, so those "protestors" were "innocent" ? I have read about that, but from less biased sources.
Trump made his decision, one I agree with.
Those people made their own decision. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
If Trump is liable for the deaths which result from this policy, are those who advocate liberal “asylum” policies indirectly responsble for drownings in the Timor Sea ?
it’s a tricky issue, really. On the one hand, when you take a decision that you know may result in conflict or disorder , you do bear some responsibility for the predictable consequences. Policy has to be judged in that light.
On the other hand, politicians cannot be held hostage to the likely reaction of violent people, consequences of one-off acts are not reliably predictable, and attenuated responsibility isn't materially similar to direct responsibility. We are, for example, all “indirectly responsible” for bad things as a result of our everyday personal choices.
I think Trump’s decision to transfer the embassy was pretty unnecessary, and in light of the possible consequences, bad policy. But regarding him as really responsible for the deaths that ensued seems to me an ethical highway to hell. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Yes, I would say that politicians are at least indirectly responsible for the consequences of the policies they enact.
Admittedly, if this were a necessary decision and the violence had come from those who opposed it, then I would be reluctant to hold him accountable. But in this case, the bulk of the (entirely predictable) violence came from his allies, with his seal of approval. I think, given that, the only relevant ethical question is whether the decision to move the embassy was worth it in the end, and, frankly, in the realm of prudent and cautious public policy – something that should ideally describe 100% of the "leader of the free world's" decisions, even if the results aren't always perfect – it's hard to find a place for it. It just seems like wilful negligence to me. Pretty sickening callousness, really. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Yes, I would say that politicians are at least indirectly responsible for the consequences of the policies they enact.
Admittedly, if this were a necessary decision and the violence had come from those who opposed it, then I would be reluctant to hold him accountable. But in this case, the bulk of the (entirely predictable) violence came from his allies, with his seal of approval. I think, given that, the only relevant ethical question is whether the decision to move the embassy was worth it in the end, and, frankly, in the realm of prudent and cautious public policy – something that should ideally describe 100% of the "leader of the free world's" decisions, even if the results aren't always perfect – it's hard to find a place for it. It just seems like wilful negligence to me. Pretty sickening callousness, really. |
Who is to judge whether it was “worth it” ? By what criteria ?
I don’t think the decision to move the embassy was more “sickeningly callous” than a hundred other political decisions that will be made this year, or more sickeningly callous than (say) Obama’s drone strikes and their civilian casualties. Actually, it was less so, since the consequences of the embassy move were not, in truth, “entirely predictable”, as drone strike deaths are.
I note that you didn’t answer the question of whether “indirect responsibility” for deaths may be laid at the door of the illegal migration industry and its adherents, using the same logic. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Let's just agree that the brutal shortening of a large number of people's lives in one go is, generally speaking, sickening. You'll note that I'm no supporter of Obama's drone strikes.
If I bought into the Liberal Party's arguments on asylum seekers, then yes, I would agree. But I think, once you weigh up all of the factors involved, the harm of "deaths at sea" is likely smaller than the harm caused by the current policy (and Howard's Pacific Solution), and third options could have – and should have – been considered. A key difference there, however, is that people smugglers transferring people to Australia was not actually Labor Party policy; their failing, if it was one, was inaction. So, already, there's a fundamental difference between this and the embassy decision. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006 Location: Thailand
|
Post subject: | |
|
Trump would be up to his neck in debt to the New York jewish property and banking world community for getting him out of the shit. Probably an unstated election promise to move the embassy and considering how long it took its been on the cards for years but Obama wouldn't pull the trigger.
Considering all the problems caused between the 3 religions by its very existence a nuclear bomb on the place would be the best for everyone unless you failed to heed the warning to evacuate. _________________ Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
I don't see the controversy. The general point - whether Obama, Jesus or Trump, 10 Palestinians or 250,000 Iraqis - is that there needs to be an clear, pressing reason for intervention in external disputes, particularly in a tinder box. _________________ In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'm pretty sure Al Jazeera would think that the few pawns they lost in the demonstrations well worth it. Trump provided the excuse, but they wound them up and sent them in knowing what would happen.
As usual, the blood stains are on multiple hands.
Personally I think moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a good thing, and others will follow suit. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
There isn’t a great controversy about the policy. It was lousy and unnecessary policy, as I said.
The “indirect responsibility” card is tricky, however, and often used in a very slippery way. Since every policy option and decision carries potentially dire human costs, we should be wary of using it to damn actions and actors we do not like, if we fail to apply it to things we do like. Equally, policy decisions cannot be held hostage by the evil and deranged. One should never give them that power. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Interesting rationalization. That is a generalization. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | I'm pretty sure Al Jazeera would think that the few pawns they lost in the demonstrations well worth it. Trump provided the excuse, but they wound them up and sent them in knowing what would happen.
As usual, the blood stains are on multiple hands.
Personally I think moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a good thing, and others will follow suit. |
Al Jazeera? Like, the TV network!?
Sorry, I don’t buy the narrative that the poor IDF are having their arms twisted into gunning down rock-throwers (and everyone else in the vicinity). There’s a lot of propaganda on both sides, but the Israeli government know that they have a blank cheque from the US (particularly when a Republican administration is in charge) to do as they please, and it’s evident that the only good Palestinian is a dead one in their books. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
ronrat wrote: | Probably an unstated election promise to move the embassy and considering how long it took its been on the cards for years but Obama wouldn't pull the trigger. |
https://youtu.be/pfVaEDZxfVc |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
The others may have been hypocrites, but that doesn’t mean that their ultimate decisions on this were wrong. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | I'm pretty sure Al Jazeera would think that the few pawns they lost in the demonstrations well worth it. Trump provided the excuse, but they wound them up and sent them in knowing what would happen.
As usual, the blood stains are on multiple hands.
Personally I think moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a good thing, and others will follow suit. |
Elected leaders are expected to justify their decisions at the best of times. Unlike the NK situation there is no new opportunity here; the interference was arbitrary. _________________ In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Mugwump wrote: | ^ A timely reminder. This dumpling is one of the great monsters of history. Whilst you have to deal with monsters and diplomacy is always better than war, his being seen in relatively normal company does not make him a legitimate head of state. |
We actually know next to nothing about him specifically. Only that he inherited the leadership from an actual monster at a very young age and has had to consolidate power. It would be pretty much impossible to tear down the apparatus of what is in effect an absolute monarchy overnight. He's probably the first Gen Y world leader, it'll be interesting to see how he deals with bringing NK into the modern world. I'm guessing he will have a lot of enemies back home.
We saw nothing like this kind of engagement from Sung or Jong. |
Totally agree. It's sad to see anti NK American propaganda is still being repeated by otherwise rational people ..
you can cut it out now, north Korea isn't the devil any more |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|