heh what an odd question, If I had no overriding moral code to stop me , I would consider my own desires to be paramount and my definitions to be absolute.

since the button in question was one of my own invention the fact that I invented it would have been authority enough...

as a metaphor for other means , it is simply a what if I had the means , having the means and the lack of a moral code , that is the probably outcome , the authority would be in the doing of the thing.


right now the situtation in Iran is coming closer and closer to the point of being a threat to Israel and thus the world

as such it should be dealt with and harshly , in as fast and decisive a fashion as possible .

hence my opinion of the proper course of action.

Every human deserves to live, in fact every human has a right to live. Suggesting they dont would degrade them to subhumans. But of course only if you believe in the ideas of enlightment and maybe also human rights.

But even if you dont, you stress the concept of worthless human life. That concept is at least as bad as the one of subhumans. And actually subhumans were considered to be a part of the load of worthless life. Worthless life included even more.

It was the ideological basis for genocide and that genocide did not limit itself to certain ethnicities, it included the entire "worthless life".

About 65 years ago, a state made your concepts of handling "worthless life" real, with all the attached consequences. Do you think this state was right to do so?

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

I reject your notion that the state you referred to and my opinion are even comparable much less identical.

That state was interested in genocide on a ethnic basis primarily.[Jews]


I have no such thought .
the fact is that today the population is made up of a majority of human beings which are in their morals , their lack capacity for reason, their lack of being able to live and let live , their push to indoctrinate , subjugate and intimidate people into becoming one world of mindless drones.


utterly worthless

I was not having my focus on the jews. Don't you know the systematical destruction of "worthless life" that took place aside of the genocide of the jews?

There was a genocide on all "unhealthy elements" of the "Arian race", and I am not talking about political opponents here (even though they also were sent into the KZ's and killed as well), I am talking about "worthless life". That means criminal, degenerate, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane and weak humans were given free to elimination. (beneath those who opposed the Nazis due to political or religious reasons.)

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

I agree with your idea to an extent, in a vacuum. I thought you presented an interesting perspective, Which moral code would be in effect, in a natural anarchy?

If there is more than one person, how would natural rights be enforced via the legal fiction of the law?

If you have a polis, would the rights of the polis outweigh your own selfish or altruistic rights (we already have the example and precedent of eminent domain)?

There are a few reductio ad absurdums that might be interesting from a certain perspective, based on that line of reasoning and the Nature versus Nurture views on forms of social justice.

Be careful about lumping all victims of the Nazi genocide into one group. Criminals often were not victims the same de-humanizing process as other groups. They retained their humanity, but suffered cruel and unusual punishment. The insane and handicapped were construed as mercy killings.

It is important to draw the distinction. The jews, homosexuals, and gypsies were systematically stripped of all aspects of humanity (even within themselves) which made it possible for the perpetrators to carry out the killings. The Nazis were led to believe that by bearing the burden of killing them, that they were making a sacrifice for the good of the thousand year Reich. The criminals on the other hand, were only treated horribly because the Lagers had normalized violence and cruelty, so they just fell into the horrific system (they were still treated better than the jews and the others). The killing of the insane and handicapped were the only killings that the German people objected to. Despite their inferiorities, they were still seen as having human dignity, which made killing them reprehensible.

Not drawing that line takes away from what the Nazis did to European Jewry.

Thats not me lumping all those groups into one pot, its the Nazis who did that in their eugenic program. While it is possible that especially the physically disabled and mentally handicapped people were persecuted more systematically, also criminals were included in this category of unworthy life.
I think the means ranged from forced sterilization to murder, and while not all criminals were murdered there was still a certain number for sure.

Maybe the Nazis were not totally consequent in the realisation of their ideology, but the ideology pretty much threw criminals into one pot with the rest of the unworthy life.

Well, the disabled were not treated much better.

Well common criminals were definitely far better treated than political prisoners who went straigt to Mauthausen often enough. But in the early days Mauthausen was for common prisoners as well, even though it wasn't an extermination camp back then.

Regarding the insanes and physically disabled:
100.000 were killed just because they were disabled inside of institutions and I think I read once up to 400.000 were killed outside of them.

I dont know about the objections against those killings, but I am not an expert on it either. Those killings of the disabled was never an issue where I live during the Nazi era as far as I know.

Anyway, I really cant see how I am drawing attention away from the jews. I am the last one who will relativize the systematical extermination of the jews in the Third Reich, and if you read my post above, that was not my point either. My point was that the Nazis did not stop at racist massmurder but also went further to realize their concept of eugenics. I just mentioned that all to show how inhumane the concept of "worthless life" is. I think we dont have to discuss that the genocide on the jews was an ubearable crime, but it seems I still have to point out to some in this thread that not only that genocide but also the very concept of "worthless life" was an unbearable crime.


PS:
I dont think this posters aim was to construe the killing of disabled people to mercy killings. Mercy was no issue here, it was about how much money degenerates cost the healthy ones. (and ergo that in any way ever the society has to get rid of them)



But anyway, if your point you want to make that they were still treated better then the jews, in many or most cases you will be right (I am not sure in those cases were doctors experimented with the inmates all sorts of cruel stuff though) but I never intended to play the jewish genocide down.

__________________
""Even though our unity is our strength, our diversity remains our wealth,""
Herman Van Rompuy

I think you are missing a particularly relevant part of why Hitler was able to come to power and do the things he did. Poor foreign policy after the war, particularly harsh punishments aimed at Germany, lead to an atmosphere where there was a great deal of suffering and discontentment. These conditions help radicals acquire power and influence. They were major factor in Hitler’s rise to power.

Since perhaps the biggest threat that America currently faces is from radicals it would seem that America should not lightly undertake action which would lead to what would be seen unnecessary suffering; suffering being created as a direct result of American actions. While the situation in Iran is problematic and Iran should be looked at with a great degree of distrust, action should not be taken lightly. The consequences of misplaced action could very well be more then just the lives of soldiers and innocent Iranian civilians.

There are a number of suitable alternatives missing.

I think you need to take a look at a few history books. In particular note the date that the conflicts started in the case of both world wars. Despite Hitler being such a threat, America waited two years before actively engaging in conflict and did so only after being attacked.

He's long gone. You're talking to air.

__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.

First I don’t understand how, given the obvious results of these actions, you can support them morally. By destroying critical infrastructure are condemning the citizens to a terrible life and many to an unwarranted death. In responding to a premature threat I consider this to be highly immoral.

Further such policies would likely give rise to someone at least as bad as the current leader and would lead to a significant rise in anti-Americanism.

The results would be quite obvious. Think of what prevailing attitudes in America were on September 11. How many people even though about whether American foreign policy played a role in the action? How many times have the events of that day been used for political objectives? Anger is usually very easy to predict particularly when there is only one suitable group to blame.

Support of anti-government factions has been shown to be a policy that has adverse long-term effects. I'm sure you recall that at one point America aided both the Taliban and Saddam. Given that there is a greater global awareness these actions would be more likely to fail and the consequences would, if anything, be felt sooner.

I think Iran should be attacked with care.

Ahmadinejad has too many allies to have a clean attack without involving other countries.

But if the Allies have too then by air then ground.

But really better off let them kill themselves off. Blockade the country, stop supply's and let them survive the best way they can.

__________________

Jewish Task Force