View Single Post
Old 11-06-2010   #16
Chris Case
Council Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14

Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
by Chris Case that this, simply as stated:

constitutes a prescription for either preventive or preemptive war.

Bill's prescription does not necessarily call for a resort to armed force ab initio - nor, does Bob's World in his numerous posts on "nipping things in the bud".



Your claim is true--but my pointing out the possibility is hardly "ludicrous" as the title of your reply claims. I also did not claim there was any "necessity" in what Bill said either. In fact I even stated that I doubted "anyone in the military necessarily wants to intentionally violate these laws and norms." So I don't know where your claim that I somehow bestowed "necessity" of any sort on Bill's claim gets it support? But, I am the one who draws "a ludicrous conclusion" according to you. Thanks for your careful attention to what I wrote.

In addition, you claim that I somehow think that Bill's remark "constitutes a prescription for either preventive or preemptive war." I am not sure how my pointing out that descriptively his claim was (particularly without further qualifications), by definition, a description of a form of preventive war. I am not sure what you understand "prescribe" to mean, but my reply to Bill's claim was in an effort to clarify what he was describing. His response continues this effort towards a clear description. He has asserted that this is not what he meant to describe. Great. I never assumed he had bad intent or motives, but I do think we should make an effort to be clear when thinking about these things.

Now, if we want to get into a discussion of what sort of means that the military can use "to nip things in the bud" ab intitio that doesn't constitute force, war, etc., that could be interesting.

Best regards,

Last edited by Chris Case; 11-06-2010 at 01:19 PM. Reason: addendum
Chris Case is offline