Does End Justifies Means or Means Justifies the End

Closed Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    5,854
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowItAll:
    I know.. used to run one of India's largest forums back in the late 90s. One of the reasons I shut it down was the fact it made by eyes bleed and my hinglish is pretty limited.

    [added]

    It does add to the debate. If your message is conveyed in some form .. does the style matter?
    typing style is just like accents...you have so many english accents, then american accents, kiwi, aussie and what not!!
    besides abbreviation is not a subcontinent find, its basically the norm now a days with net savvy youngsters....

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    1,327

    GNR: First, I would greatly appreciate if you would stop personifying the acts or non-act of United States onto me. I have never (at least per your knowledge) taken part in any US foreign policy decisions or actions. Nor will I answer for them. So unless you want me to start asking you to speak on behalf of all the people of your native country I would appreciate a change of wording in your questions going forward. I'm simply playing a "Devil's Advocate", per your OWN request I may add.

    No one is arguing that throughout it existence, US has always been a political prostitute, siding with whatever side was beneficial to them in the end. Regardless, just because it selfishly looked out for it's own objectives, does not make it at fault of all other world problems.

    Now, India vs. Pakistan....why is U.S. even involved in this discussion??....Wasn't this f*ed up by the British back in 1947 when the British Indian Empire started their handy partitioning work? (imho: lets just say that dividing up land...is not our friend's greatest gift...need I mention Israel...Pale.....I'll just be quiet now).

    Tibet- US has always supported Tibetan independence (and has recently given the Dalai Llama (Big hitter the Llama... long )the Congressional medal of honor....). However, would the Tibetan independence be worth fighting a war with China? The answer is obvious....NO. Why not? Well, some would argue that China is currently quickly achieving a status of the second "Superpower". China is US' largest trading partner and still represents the cheapest available labor for US manufacturing. Thus, by going to war with China, US would quickly undermine their own economy. However, even if US could change the image and focus of its economy toward full investment in the military capital and goods (as has been in the past two World Wars) it still cannot fight China....in a conventional sense. China's military capacity is strong and a conventional war against China cannot be won (It's basic math....you simply can't manufacture that many bullets). Thus, any large scale conflict involving China and US would without a doubt lead to World War III (which eventually would have to go Nuclear). I'm not going to bother with the details.

    As far as Burma......it is despicable to see the entire world watch to the slaughter of defenseless and do nothing about it. US is not the only one to blame...... shameless.

    Having the rest of the world and their citizens sit on the sidelines and waiting for a Big Brother to come and rescue them from their problems, will only prolong their suffering. To quote a rough translation of the Soviet proletariat song during the Russian Revolution - "No one will give us salvation, not God, not Tsar and not a hero, we will only achieve our freedom by our own hand" - Ironic? yes....but the spirit of it is still very meaningful...... Unless people rise up and overthrow those who oppress them, they will always live under the thumb of the powerful. Once you figure out how to remove all the corruption for whatever new "ruling system" you institute, please feel free to write book.

    Like many empires before her, US will probably fall, driven by the corruption, moral degradation and stupidity from within.

    However, the rest of the world would not be in for happier times. Pick your poison my friend, the imperial arm of oil companies provides a much cushier place to sleep than the empire of the crescent moon and sword. And if you have daughters, you'd prefer the former as well.

    RANT OVER.

    Last edited by climber07; 23-11-2007 at 04:48 PM.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    5,854

    My dear Climber....

    I am sorry I aggravated you, but one can't help when one sees a good opportunity for a good spicey discussion...and thanks to you it was spiced up all rite....

    I was just putting you on, I am sorry if it hurt your sensibilities or emotions or whatever!

    I always try to see good in evil and evil in good...hence this thread...

    just as a sign of olive branch, would u like to meet up for a beer...

    laterzzz


  4. #44

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    1,327

    I know it may seem like a wind-up, but honestly, it's just a great stress relief I am more than happy to state my view of both sides when I have free time.....as obviously I did today

    I never say no to a beer though.


  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    5,854
    Quote Originally Posted by climber07:
    I know it may seem like a wind-up, but honestly, it's just a great stress relief I am more than happy to state my view of both sides when I have free time.....as obviously I did today

    I never say no to a beer though.

    then lets meet up...what say you?

  6. #46

    Sorry to interrupt the love, but just to weigh in on the argument… the question of whether the end justifies the means…much of the world’s misery throughout history can be linked to some individual or group of crackpots with some “vision” of a glorious utopia. But the problem is, the means used to justify the end is invariably murderous, brutal and oppressive…Communism, Crusades, Inquisitions, Hitler’s Germany, Mao, Pol Pot are all prime examples.

    When we justify the end, which is always a point in the future, we create misery in the now, and then history will end up remembering you for the means, and not the end. So what we can deduce from that is that the means through which we express our vision…that is the real end, the primary end that is achieved…because the vision part rarely succeeds.

    Ultimately, I think the end justifies the means argument can be summed up by the expression, “win the battle but lose the war”. The Iraq saga is an example. Saddam may be gone but history will not judge Bush too kindly. Also, though a very difficult question, the Jack Bauer question ultimately falls into this category too.

    Once again to confirm the stupidity of the end justifies means argument, it’s probably clear that it is the one idea that has created far more suffering and deaths than any other single idea in human history.


  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    5,854

    [QUOTE=HK_Newbie100]
    Very well said, in the examples quoted above, end cudn't really justify the means....as there was no end...
    I'd read a quote some where, for peace one need to make war...


Closed Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5