War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA

I am sure that those dangerous pre-lingual toddlers were literally seething with anti-American thoughts.Or does killing babies count as a pre-emptive strike............?

I'm not pretending anything. You are pretending that "there are no civilian casualties".......Obviously any major military conflict entails civilian casualties and to pretend otherwise is frankly dishonest.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am not in principle entirely against some sort of internationally agreed form of intervention where a particular regime is so horrific as to require action.But how would you see the endpoint of invading Afghanistan? What ultimately needs to be achieved in order to justify the intervention in the first place?

The logical conclusion of your combined statements is that the conflict will only be over when Islamic fundamentalism has been eradicated. Do you think this is a realistic goal? I don’t know of any nation that isn’t desperately trying to end it’s involvement. How moral is it for them to be there in the first place? What are they trying to achieve and how morally justified is that aim? That is the question you (and they) should be asking.

My history at school included a project on Ghandi. He came out as a definite hero whilst the British imperialists were the definite bad guys of the story. That was when I was 14.Generally - Educated Brits are probably a bit embarrassed by our colonial past. We feel the need to constantly apologise for it. We certainly are not taught it as something to be unquestioningly proud of. Quite the opposite.More generally - Acts of overt nationalism are rare. They are broadly associated with extreme right wing nutjobbery. With the exception of sporting events and (to a much lesser albeit internationally hyped extent - royal wedding nonsense) we rarely do the whole jingoistic thing.Certainly the American idea of school children pledging allegiance to the flag is pretty alien. And the idea of having symbols like a flags decorating one's desk at work or outside one's house would be considered totally weird and somewhat disturbing.

Successive prime ministers have felt the need to apologise for Britain's past for various reasons. Link. Whilst this may blatantly be PM's telling people what they want to hear whilst on foreign trips it could hardly be accomplished if back home there was a widespread feeling of betrayal at the idea.Can you imagine if Obama started making apologetic announcements to the various countries the US has interfered with? He would be hounded down as anti-American. Yet when our PM does that the vast majority of people here give a kind of resgned shrug. I think you have to go back to my grandfather's generation to find a majority of British people who actually defend Britain's colonial past as doing the world some kind of favour. Many were not "hoodwinked". That we were following a lunatic American cowboy playing oil games with all the gung ho verve of a teenager with a new Nintendo game was a very common feeling. There was widespread public resistance to the Iraq war in Britain at the time of it's conception and the whole debacle is ultimately what turned public opinion against Tony Blair.I was personally on this demo: 2003 LinkAs it turns out our goverment effectively (even if not technically in a legal sense) lied through it's teeth to get us into that war. Not really. This is from Feb 2003 when Blair was still trying to get a 2nd UN resolution. Link

Don't forget that post WW2 America engaged itself in superpower supremacy and the arms race with the USSR, Britain tried to cling onto fading military might of the past and Germany was forced to stop any activites that could be utilised to wage war (having just lost).This, as much as anything, accounts for current differences of view on military spending and interventionsim between the three countries.

Yep - Those tea-partiers are certainly something to be concerned about.....

Well if that is the actual aim we should hardly be surprised that Islamic fundamentalists see it as an us or them fight to the end. No wonder they are willing to blow themselves up. This attitude is an absolute recipe for terrorism. "Ourselves"....? Would you go there to fight? Would you send your kids there to fight? If the people:A) Vote in an Islamic fundamentalist regime
B) Tell us they don't want us in their countryWould you consider that good enough cause to stop interfering?

Listen to yourself!!! They equally believe that they are right and you are wrong. They equally feel that it is their right to take the fight to the West before we wipe out their culture in exactly the way you are advocating that we should. Your approach is a recipe for unending conflict with both sides equally convinced of their own moral righteousness.Something has to give. I have worked for a volunteer aid agency and would volunteer again in a country that wanted volunteers for such projects. But that is hardly comparable to occupying another country and plundering it's resources in the name of freedom is it? The aim (the official one - not your aim of wiping out Islamic fundamentalists) in Afghanistan and Iraq is for an elected government. It is quite possible that a rather extreme Islamic and anti-Western government could be voted in.What do you suggest we do at that point? More pre-emptive strikes and regime change until the people have the sense to vote in a government you approve of?

I still have no idea who you think it is that should be policing the world in the way that your position demands? Which body has the moral right, the necessary wisdom, the lack of self interest and the practical resources to go round overthrowing (even if democratically elected) ALL of the regimes that don’t adhere to the standard of human rights that you and I can agree would be ideal?For example if the US doesn’t meet these standards (and many would say that it doesn’t — Guantanamo, waterboarding, abu ghraib etc. etc. etc. etc.) are we (who?) going to inflict regime change on the US government for human rights abuses? There are brutal dictatorial regimes all over the world. Yet we seem disproportionately interested in changing the regimes in the ones that just so happen to be in the oil rich Middle East. The rest of them we seem more than happy to sell arms to.And let’s not forget that many of those who we now oppose were once the people we were selling weapons to as well.Your idealism is lovely. But not really backed up by the reality of the situation as it is.