Amazing episode! Listening to the Just War discussion, I'm just constantly nodding my head--yes, yes, yes. As someone who strongly supports the president, I was dismayed not only by the action taken (just because the feared disaster didn't happen doesn't mean it was some great success), I was also dismayed by the number of Trump people, at least on social media, who seemed bound and determined to live up to a stereotype and cross the line from supporting him to deifying him. It was also disappointing to see people interpret "America First" as being about chest-thumping abroad rather than taking care of our own people here at home.
As I responded on FB, I do not think bombing the Iran Nuclear sites is a war and so a discussion about whether it was just to bomb the sites (not the people) seems misguided. Second and more critical to my conclusion is that you can't use other nuclear powers as a comparison. No I don't like that Russia, Pakistan, NoKo and maybe even Israel have nukes. But none of them have been attacking Americans since 1979. Iran has designated America and Israel as their enemies. I posted on FB a list of all of the aggressive actions Iran took toward our country, killing American citizens. I was very involved supporting troops during the Iraq War. Those troops stationed on the border said there were constant incursions by Iranians, directed against Americans, not Iraqis their actual enemy and not against Al Qaeda but American troops. Further Iran provided the IEDs Al Qaeda used to kill and maim our soldiers in the most gruesome and despicable way. Finally, the other countries, even if aggressive, if not irrational are not captive to the Twelver Shia Islamic view of world annihilation to bring on the 12 Imam. I do notice the current Mullahs are loathe to die themselves while awaiting this return. Little Rocket Man is not going to risk his precious hide in any aggressive actions against America.
I also believe that the secret plans to be ready to destroy Iran's nuclear sites are also operative should any of the other bad actors emerge doing more than saber rattling. We have no idea what is being done secretly. So I'm fine with the bombs. They didn't kill anyone or if they did only a few. The impact did not spread nuclear waste all over the world. Iran agreed to a ceasefire and even if temporary, indicates to me they have been set back substantially.
I pray for Iran. There were many Persian students at my college. My best friend was engaged to a very wealthy Persian man who was in America getting a PhD in engineering with the plan to return home and take over his family's business. My friend visited Iran multiple times and reported it was a beautiful, hospitable, modern and prosperous nation. I do thank God the engagement was broken. I do not know if he did return to his home or if he is still in America. Iran could be Persia again. They just need to get rid of the Mullahs.
On the second topic, yes it's disappointing that Pope Benedict XVI equated Social Democracy with Catholic Social Teaching. The latter is brilliant and the best way to run any country. When did he write that? I think he realized the destructive nature of government "charity" as indicated in Deus Caritas Est. I had been a bleeding heart liberal and very involved in government run social services. Reading Pope Benedict's words made me realize how dehumanizing were these programs. People are referred to as "Beds." I have long called it the Social Industrial Complex and it destroys souls as well as communities. So maybe Pope Benedict XVI rethought his Social Democracy theory later?
I am sorry no podcast next week. As I have said, I save yours up as a reward for doing some unpleasant household task!
On just war: I am no scholar but I saw the bombing of the nuclear facility as disarming the an aggressor, which in the name of self-defense or defense of others is justified, right? The way I understood the enrichment calculus (after listening to a chemical engineer) was that enrichment from 0-60% is the hard part, takes a long time, a lot of money and expertise. But from 60-90 is the easy part and can be done in a matter of weeks by someone motivated and with the right connections. If true, 60% enriched is a very dangerous spot to be. Could then the analogy of disarming an aggressor before he makes a move work in this situation?
Also, on the purity spirals on both sides of the argument, I agree. We have to be able to disagree with our leaders, even the ones we like and will support in other things. I personally know several people who went down the black-pilled "see, you can't trust anyone, Trump lied to us" route, and others that were mad he wouldn't promise regime change and doesn't that make him weak or an idiot. My personal position was that I DO NOT WANT another endless war, but that "Iran might get a nuclear weapon" seems to be the locus of the "endless wars" and maybe disarming them in a way that only the American military is capable of takes that off the table--for at least a while.
The argument for disarming an aggressor requires a high degree of certainty that, if you don't act, the aggression will definitely take place. That's a very high bar. Especially so in this case, when Iran didn't yet have a nuclear capability.
The American raid was apparently very carefully targeted, causing few if any casualties; that's a good thing. Still, a bombing raid is certainly an act of war, isn't it? There's no question that Iran is-- and long has been-- a rogue state, causing all sorts of harm. But the US has not been in a state of war with Iran, and the bombing was explained purely as a bid to stop the development of nukes; it isn't likely to stop Iran's support of terrorist groups. (The Israeli strikes are a different story.)
I have never heard a mention of a number of people killed in the bombing incident. Was there anyone injured or killed? Does that change anything?
Amazing episode! Listening to the Just War discussion, I'm just constantly nodding my head--yes, yes, yes. As someone who strongly supports the president, I was dismayed not only by the action taken (just because the feared disaster didn't happen doesn't mean it was some great success), I was also dismayed by the number of Trump people, at least on social media, who seemed bound and determined to live up to a stereotype and cross the line from supporting him to deifying him. It was also disappointing to see people interpret "America First" as being about chest-thumping abroad rather than taking care of our own people here at home.
As I responded on FB, I do not think bombing the Iran Nuclear sites is a war and so a discussion about whether it was just to bomb the sites (not the people) seems misguided. Second and more critical to my conclusion is that you can't use other nuclear powers as a comparison. No I don't like that Russia, Pakistan, NoKo and maybe even Israel have nukes. But none of them have been attacking Americans since 1979. Iran has designated America and Israel as their enemies. I posted on FB a list of all of the aggressive actions Iran took toward our country, killing American citizens. I was very involved supporting troops during the Iraq War. Those troops stationed on the border said there were constant incursions by Iranians, directed against Americans, not Iraqis their actual enemy and not against Al Qaeda but American troops. Further Iran provided the IEDs Al Qaeda used to kill and maim our soldiers in the most gruesome and despicable way. Finally, the other countries, even if aggressive, if not irrational are not captive to the Twelver Shia Islamic view of world annihilation to bring on the 12 Imam. I do notice the current Mullahs are loathe to die themselves while awaiting this return. Little Rocket Man is not going to risk his precious hide in any aggressive actions against America.
I also believe that the secret plans to be ready to destroy Iran's nuclear sites are also operative should any of the other bad actors emerge doing more than saber rattling. We have no idea what is being done secretly. So I'm fine with the bombs. They didn't kill anyone or if they did only a few. The impact did not spread nuclear waste all over the world. Iran agreed to a ceasefire and even if temporary, indicates to me they have been set back substantially.
I pray for Iran. There were many Persian students at my college. My best friend was engaged to a very wealthy Persian man who was in America getting a PhD in engineering with the plan to return home and take over his family's business. My friend visited Iran multiple times and reported it was a beautiful, hospitable, modern and prosperous nation. I do thank God the engagement was broken. I do not know if he did return to his home or if he is still in America. Iran could be Persia again. They just need to get rid of the Mullahs.
On the second topic, yes it's disappointing that Pope Benedict XVI equated Social Democracy with Catholic Social Teaching. The latter is brilliant and the best way to run any country. When did he write that? I think he realized the destructive nature of government "charity" as indicated in Deus Caritas Est. I had been a bleeding heart liberal and very involved in government run social services. Reading Pope Benedict's words made me realize how dehumanizing were these programs. People are referred to as "Beds." I have long called it the Social Industrial Complex and it destroys souls as well as communities. So maybe Pope Benedict XVI rethought his Social Democracy theory later?
I am sorry no podcast next week. As I have said, I save yours up as a reward for doing some unpleasant household task!
On just war: I am no scholar but I saw the bombing of the nuclear facility as disarming the an aggressor, which in the name of self-defense or defense of others is justified, right? The way I understood the enrichment calculus (after listening to a chemical engineer) was that enrichment from 0-60% is the hard part, takes a long time, a lot of money and expertise. But from 60-90 is the easy part and can be done in a matter of weeks by someone motivated and with the right connections. If true, 60% enriched is a very dangerous spot to be. Could then the analogy of disarming an aggressor before he makes a move work in this situation?
Also, on the purity spirals on both sides of the argument, I agree. We have to be able to disagree with our leaders, even the ones we like and will support in other things. I personally know several people who went down the black-pilled "see, you can't trust anyone, Trump lied to us" route, and others that were mad he wouldn't promise regime change and doesn't that make him weak or an idiot. My personal position was that I DO NOT WANT another endless war, but that "Iran might get a nuclear weapon" seems to be the locus of the "endless wars" and maybe disarming them in a way that only the American military is capable of takes that off the table--for at least a while.
The argument for disarming an aggressor requires a high degree of certainty that, if you don't act, the aggression will definitely take place. That's a very high bar. Especially so in this case, when Iran didn't yet have a nuclear capability.
The American raid was apparently very carefully targeted, causing few if any casualties; that's a good thing. Still, a bombing raid is certainly an act of war, isn't it? There's no question that Iran is-- and long has been-- a rogue state, causing all sorts of harm. But the US has not been in a state of war with Iran, and the bombing was explained purely as a bid to stop the development of nukes; it isn't likely to stop Iran's support of terrorist groups. (The Israeli strikes are a different story.)