View Single Post
Old March 19 2011, 02:47 AM   #443
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
Rush Limborg's Avatar
Location: The EIB Network
Re: Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts Of Empire review thread

Sci wrote: View Post
Rush Limborg wrote: View Post
Basically, I'm satirizing the mantras invoked when such questions are brought up.
Indeed, Rush Limborg has shown consistent disrespect for the principle of the rule of law in almost every Section 31-related debate in which he has been involved.

In the words of Ronald Reagan:

"There you go again."

To be honest--as far as the rule of law is concerned--I'd consider Section 31 to be the exception, not the rule.

Still, you may recall I once suggested that the ideal solution would be to, instead of having 31 entirely autonomous, have the Bureau report either directly to the President, or to the director of SI--the difference being that the normal restrictions would not apply.

It would be far superior to merely not having such an organization at all.

Actions are not considered just or unjust intrinically,
Odd hearing such a claim from a professed Christian. One most typically hears contrary claims from the faithful.
Well, consider the instance of Rahab lying to cover for the Hebrew spies in the Biblical book of Josua--or the Hebrew midwives covering for the babies near the beginning of the book of Exodus.

In a world corrupted by sin, one often has to choose the lesser of two evils.

Or so he claims. Interestingly, we never actually see Section 31 engaging in any operations have have the effect of actually saving lives throughout any of their canonical or non-canonical appearances set during the post-ENT era.
I would imagine either because 1) the majority of writers of those eps tend to be of the same opinon as yourself, or 2) as I have previously said, succesful actions of clandestine organizations tend to be unnoticed, which is as it should be.

In order to see a good amount of examples of "successful missions", and saving of lives thereof, we'd probably have to have an honest-to-goodness Section 31 series, a la "Mission: Impossible" meets "24".

Con men are very confident that in time, you'll come to agree with them. That doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

You say that here, and yet at the very end of your post, you start whittering on about Russia and Iran forming a "Typhon Pact"-like alliance and Iran attempting to destroy the State of Israel.
Did Iran's president say that his intentions were such, or not?

Did Putin form a diplomatic relationship with Iran, or didn't he?

He wasn't "murdering to remove corruption." The U.S. government in The West Wing regarded the Qumari government has being corrupt years before the events of "We Killed Yamamoto." Bartlet ordered Sharieff's assassination because he represented a threat to the United States which he did not believe the U.S. would be able to counter through other means.
Fair enough.

Of course you can. Both Section 31 and the Mafia exist in a society that has a functional judicial system and which is a liberal democracy. You can perfectly compare the existence of Section 31 to the existence of the Mafia. You can't compare the assassination of a Federation President to the assassination of a Nazi Dictator.
Corruption is corruption--those are simply different degrees of it.

Now you're just confusing my argument.

I did not cite "all of these" as "examples involving a society's dark side."

I said that both the existence of prisons and, separately, the existence of a society's dark side (impulses towards imperialism, as an example) are consequences of humanity's flawed moral character.

That is it. That is all. I did not compare prisons to anything. Nor did I say that prisons are not an attempt to cope with humanity's flawed moral character. All I said was that societies have dark sides for the same reason they have prisons: Because people aren't perfect. That's it. That's all. Full stop.
All right...I'll take your word for it. Thank you for clearing up my confusion.

Kindly stop trying to extend that statement further.
Gladly--provided you too take care to refrain from assumptions like so:

I'm sorry, but your behavior indicates a consistent tendency to exaggerate potential threats and to jump to war as a primary, rather than secondary or tertiary, tool of statecraft.
I did no such thing. I am simply bringing up scenarios in which war arguable would be the best option. Nothing more, nothing less.

Once again, you cannot reasonably compare the two situations or the assassination scenarios, because the political cultures are fundamentally different. One is a dictator in a totalitarian system that lacks a social contract;
A system that he created.

one is a president who has engaged in criminal behavior in a liberal democracy with a functional justice system and social contract. Comparing the assassinations of the two is like comparing an act of murder committed in the middle of a police station to an act of self-defense committed in the Wild West.
By attempting to assasinate Hitler, the Valkerie conspirators had indended to cure the corruption he had instigated--true or false?

Which is why I said that exposure of the initial crime is not enough.
What is worse: exposure without justice, or no exposure? Please answer in regards to foreign relations, not matters of morality. Which would be worse for that?

And that was a horrible perversion of the real Batman, who can only be found in the comics upon which Batman Begins is based. And in those comics, Batman would never let Ra's al Ghul die by refusing to save him.
Regardless, Sci, it did occur. Batman understood Ra's al Ghul had to perish--he was too dangerous to be left alive.

I would imagine that, for whatever reason, 31 made the same assumption about Zife and Azernoll.

She didn't, really. But sometimes in chess, you simply have no other options. You take the move that gives you the highest probability of survival, but sometimes even that probability is ridiculously low. Sometimes, in chess, you have no other choice but to move into checkmate.
Not necessarily. You mentioned the alternative of "putting off" a defeat--which you proposed would make it more inevitable.

I propose that the buying of time in that regard in fact opens the door for more opportunites. The longer the games wears on, the greater the likelyhood that the opponent will get worn out, and make a mistake.
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet

Last edited by Rush Limborg; March 19 2011 at 02:58 AM.
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote