I am not disputing the risk assessment angle but we cannot dispense with morality. Sure, if China bought the canal from Panama that would be a huge risk for the USA, but even that wouldn't justify us invading Panama, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians just to keep it from China. (worst case scenario)

Show me where I said dispense with morality.

Show where I said invade Panama.

You read into these posts your own imaginary meanings -- it's likely why you pretend to read minds.

You really think military action is the only possible response for the US?  Do you think WE believe that?

The idea is to recognize the risk and eliminate or mitigate it BEFORE it becomes a real problem.  If we can PREVENT China from acquiring control, it solves the problem better than waiting for China to gain control and THEN trying to take control away from them.

Show me where I said dispense with morality.

Show where I said invade Panama.

You read into these posts your own imaginary meanings -- it's likely why you pretend to read minds.

You really think military action is the only possible response for the US?  Do you think WE believe that?

The idea is to recognize the risk and eliminate or mitigate it BEFORE it becomes a real problem.  If we can PREVENT China from acquiring control, it solves the problem better than waiting for China to gain control and THEN trying to take control away from them.

You said it wasn't about morality so I came up with the worst case scenario where risk assessment alone would justify an immoral act as an argument that we cannot dispense with the moral question.

Have you ever thought that he is doesn't say things on purpose?  "Art of the Deal".  Why don't you do your own research to see why he said what he did.  Others already posted good info here for starters.

So Trump poses an unsupported idea, backed up with a lie (# of dead Americans), and I am supposed to go research Trump's meaning and arguments for him?
Stop trying to excuse Trump's idiocy so quickly, it doesn't make you sound very smart.

yet all you do on this forum is add nuance and perform thought experiments?

Why do you dislike nuance and thought experiments so much?  Plus, I am not the leader of the country trying to justify conflict with Panama.

Governments don't have morals. They have interests.

Governments have leaders though and they have morals... or at least they should have morals. The whole point is interests alone could justify great injustice.

please show me where i said i dislike nuance and thought experiments...

Why do you dislike nuance and thought experiments so much?  Plus, I am not the leader of the country trying to justify conflict with Panama.

So Trump poses an unsupported idea, backed up with a lie (# of dead Americans), and I am supposed to go research Trump's meaning and arguments for him?
Stop trying to excuse Trump's idiocy so quickly, it doesn't make you sound very smart.

Unsupported to who?  You?  A speech giver often doesn't site sources or all the details that you think you need.  if they did, every speech would be 5 hours long.  So yes, you are supposed to go research Trumps statements before coming here and looking like a fool cause Flapp very, very, very often shows youre wrong by posting research/sources.

Why do you dislike nuance and thought experiments so much?  Plus, I am not the leader of the country trying to justify conflict with Panama.

SWOOOOSSSHHHHHHH

Governments have leaders though and they have morals... or at least they should have morals. The whole point is interests alone could justify great injustice.

I hope you know that not everyones morals are good.

I am not disputing the risk assessment angle but we cannot dispense with morality. Sure, if China bought the canal from Panama that would be a huge risk for the USA, but even that wouldn't justify us invading Panama, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians just to keep it from China. (worst case scenario)

Who said anything about invading Panama, or even a war (military, not cyber or trade/economic) with China?  YOU are the one who are making the statements and linking this to a "future conflict" in military context.  Yeah, we have those on the board who will jump at anything "China war", but you are the one making these statements and assertions. 

I am more of a logic, numbers, and reason type of person so if someone wants to undertake some big thing, like taking back the Panama Canal, I want to see data and logical arguments of why it would be good to take back control at all, much less take back control when Panama doesn't want to give it up. T

SNIP

Making the "logic leap" from China buying the Panama canal to "killing thousands of innocent Panamanians" is just the type of MSM madness that leads to "Orange Man" bad. . .

You said it wasn't about morality so I came up with the worst case scenario where risk assessment alone would justify an immoral act as an argument that we cannot dispense with the moral question.

That's a stupid argument.  The government is not supposed to make decisions based on what the leaders believe to be right or wrong within a specific code of morals.  They act according to national and international law and what's in the best interests of the nation at large --  or at least should be.

The first time the US government decided to create a social safety net out of a sense of moral goodness, they strayed outside their bounds of doing what is good for the nation and instead started replacing churches, charities and philanthropists who were doing that work.  Now we can't afford all the "morally justified" programs, and the costs keep on increasing year over year.  The government had to raid the Social Security trust fund to avoid taking on massive debt which they never returned as promised.  Now we are taking on massive debt every single year, and Social Security continues to be on the verge of being bankrupt.

So, don't try to argue morals where government is concerned.  The most moral thing they could do is stop spending all the taxes I ever paid into the treasury on wasteful and fraud-riddled programs.

There's an argument to be made that, in a free and just society, the taxes we pay are immoral.  Taxes are theft by force.  If I don't agree that my taxes should go toward a 10 year long war in the Middle East, I have no way to stop my money from supporting it regardless of any moral objections i have.  If the government is funding abortions and transitioning minors, I can't stop my money from being spent for those things even if my moral code tells me it's 100% immoral.

The government is not in the morality business.  The best evidence is how immoral the government behaves on a daily basis with it's lying propoganda, greed and weaponization of the Department of Injustice.

please show me where i said i dislike nuance and thought experiments...

Your reply sounded as if it were a pejorative. If that is not the case and you enjoy nuance and thought experiments then I apologize.

Unsupported to who?  You?  A speech giver often doesn't site sources or all the details that you think you need.  if they did, every speech would be 5 hours long.  So yes, you are supposed to go research Trumps statements before coming here and looking like a fool cause Flapp very, very, very often shows youre wrong by posting research/sources.

If the president wants to undertake such a large action then yes, he should absolutely justify it. When the USA entered WW2 did FDR say "we are going to war, go figure out why yourself"?

You couldn't even address the fact Trump used a made up number that was way off reality, you just knee jerk reaction defend Trump and do it very badly.

Who said anything about invading Panama, or even a war (military, not cyber or trade/economic) with China?  YOU are the one who are making the statements and linking this to a "future conflict" in military context.  Yeah, we have those on the board who will jump at anything "China war", but you are the one making these statements and assertions. 

Note where I indicated that was a worst case scenario. I am trying to judge Trump's idea by a range of potential outcomes. I am not even the one who brought up the argument about national security interest involving China either, I just responded about China based on China being brought into the discussion.

That's a stupid argument.  The government is not supposed to make decisions based on what the leaders believe to be right or wrong within a specific code of morals.  They act according to national and international law and what's in the best interests of the nation at large --  or at least should be.

The first time the US government decided to create a social safety net out of a sense of moral goodness, they strayed outside their bounds of doing what is good for the nation and instead started replacing churches, charities and philanthropists who were doing that work.  Now we can't afford all the "morally justified" programs, and the costs keep on increasing year over year.  The government had to raid the Social Security trust fund to avoid taking on massive debt which they never returned as promised.  Now we are taking on massive debt every single year, and Social Security continues to be on the verge of being bankrupt.

So, don't try to argue morals where government is concerned.  The most moral thing they could do is stop spending all the taxes I ever paid into the treasury on wasteful and fraud-riddled programs.

There's an argument to be made that, in a free and just society, the taxes we pay are immoral.  Taxes are theft by force.  If I don't agree that my taxes should go toward a 10 year long war in the Middle East, I have no way to stop my money from supporting it regardless of any moral objections i have.  If the government is funding abortions and transitioning minors, I can't stop my money from being spent for those things even if my moral code tells me it's 100% immoral.

The government is not in the morality business.  The best evidence is how immoral the government behaves on a daily basis with it's lying propoganda, greed and weaponization of the Department of Injustice.

"Best interests of the nation at large" can be seen as a form of morality but lets set that aside for a moment. If it were in the best interest of the country to legalize slavery would that then justify it being done? The whole point I am trying to make here is that "risk assessment" or "best interests..." could be used to justify terrible actions.

Whether Trump wants to take over the Panama Canal in a cooperative manner or a hostile one (financially or militarily) he needs to be able to justify doing so. So far he just lied about the number of Americans who died building it and hasn't given any substantive reason for this course of action. I am open to the idea but not if he can't even show a good reason to do so.

"Best interests of the nation at large" can be seen as a form of morality but lets set that aside for a moment. If it were in the best interest of the country to legalize slavery would that then justify it being done? The whole point I am trying to make here is that "risk assessment" or "best interests..." could be used to justify terrible actions.

Whether Trump wants to take over the Panama Canal in a cooperative manner or a hostile one (financially or militarily) he needs to be able to justify doing so. So far he just lied about the number of Americans who died building it and hasn't given any substantive reason for this course of action. I am open to the idea but not if he can't even show a good reason to do so.

It's in the best interest of the nation to outlaw slavery, not from a right/wrong sense of morality, but legally -- because "all men are created equal" and the law/Constitution deems slavery to be illegal.  Your hypothetical is ridiculous.  Have you ever bothered to read The Emancipation Proclamation?

"And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution"

It was not a question of moral right and wrong, but a need to suppress the rebellion against the United States government.

Stop with the hyperbolic BS.  Try addressing the questions asked instead of trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

If the president wants to undertake such a large action then yes, he should absolutely justify it. When the USA entered WW2 did FDR say "we are going to war, go figure out why yourself"?

You couldn't even address the fact Trump used a made up number that was way off reality, you just knee jerk reaction defend Trump and do it very badly.

What large action? He isnt potus yet and has no potus authority. Hes just talking as of now.

Another poor example by eef, which is common.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It's in the best interest of the nation to outlaw slavery, not from a right/wrong sense of morality, but legally -- because "all men are created equal" and the law/Constitution deems slavery to be illegal.  Your hypothetical is ridiculous.  Have you ever bothered to read The Emancipation Proclamation?

"And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution"

It was not a question of moral right and wrong, but a need to suppress the rebellion against the United States government.

Stop with the hyperbolic BS.  Try addressing the questions asked instead of trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

You are beating around the bush here. The issue is whether the USA is justified in taking the Panama Canal away from a sovereign country. You can try to be all technical saying it is about what is best for the country if you want to play that game but the end question is still the same even if you change how you frame it.

Trump was recently asked if he could ensure that the USA wasn't going to use the military to retake the Panama Canal and he said he would not commit to that. That means Trump considers military force as an option to retake control of the Panama Canal. So now that he has made that clear, does the USA's strategic and economic interest justify us starting a war against another country, possibly killing their citizens, in order for us to take part of their territory?

Is Trump's justification of "national security purposes" going to justify any and all military taking of land from sovereign non-enemy nations?

What large action? He isnt potus yet and has no potus authority. Hes just talking as of now.

Another poor example by eef, which is common.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

"He's just talking" is an utterly stupid defense of what he said. I know you are smarter than that. When Biden "just talks" and says something stupid you would never defend him with that same argument. If you said we should take back Panama Canal, that is just talking. When the leader of the USA says it, that is not "just talking".

You are beating around the bush here. The issue is whether the USA is justified in taking the Panama Canal away from a sovereign country. You can try to be all technical saying it is about what is best for the country if you want to play that game but the end question is still the same even if you change how you frame it.

Trump was recently asked if he could ensure that the USA wasn't going to use the military to retake the Panama Canal and he said he would not commit to that. That means Trump considers military force as an option to retake control of the Panama Canal. So now that he has made that clear, does the USA's strategic and economic interest justify us starting a war against another country, possibly killing their citizens, in order for us to take part of their territory?

Is Trump's justification of "national security purposes" going to justify any and all military taking of land from sovereign non-enemy nations?

I guess we should let everyone know what we're going to do at all times right? With regard to your statement about trump being asked about military retake.

The left already showed their hand with the 2nd war in Iraq and all the WMD"s that were there. SWOOOOOSSSHHHHH