It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AceWombat04
The argument being made:
"We" need resources and stability, the guarantor of which is "our" global preeminence militarily. Thus "we" must defeat "them," so that "they" cannot erode that preeminence. For that reason, among others, it is necessary for "us" to exert the full power of all the capabilities at "our" disposal to achieve "their" defeat or sufficient degradation. "We" have a greater right to the stability and survival this will provide "us" with than "they" do, and "we" will make better use of it than "them." In essence, the value of "our" lives is greater than that of "their" own. Survival of the fittest must rule the day, because that is the way of animal instinct, which is all we are governed by when it comes right down to it (for those who say that last bit isn’t part of your argument, I say this: if it isn’t, then you must believe we are governed by more than pure instinct alone, and accordingly, you should believe that we are capable of formulating solutions other than those available to animals i.e. isolate versus raid; flight versus fight; vanquished versus victor.)
The above logic flows easily and makes perfect sense if you see the world in terms of "us" and "them." If you simply see it as "us," however, it becomes a bit more complicated, ethically...