Are we (The United States) a Rogue State?

[phyllo]

The words 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' is thrown around so loosely that they have lost all meaning. It's now a propaganda tool.

[Immanuel Can]

The words 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' is thrown around so loosely that they have lost all meaning. It's now a propaganda tool.

Not "all" meaning. It's just that the meaning has been smeared into other things that should never have been called "terrorism." That's a propagandist tactic, of course: reduce an important word to a state of public confusion. But "terrorism" is still a real thing, and we can specify it more exactly.

However, I'm still waiting to hear what Gary thinks a "rogue state" is.

[phyllo]

"Rogue" means going against international laws and the agreements of the community of nations.

[Gary Childress]

I'm still waiting to hear what Gary thinks a "rogue state" is.

Phyllo's definition sums my definition up pretty well.

[Walker]

Iran was rogue.

47 years of diplomacy is not a solution. It's a tradition.

[phyllo]

USA under Trump is rogue

Israel is rogue

[Walker]

USA under Trump is rogue

Israel is rogue

They're rogue in the sense that 47 years of diplomacy resulting in a terroristic state is acceptable to the Western nations.

[phyllo]

Sovereignty is acceptable to Western (non-USA) nations. Random attacks on nations are not acceptable. (That included Iranian attacks as well.)

[Walker]

The attack was not random.

47 years a festerin'.

[Walker]

That’s just the way of things these days.

Be cool.
https://twitter.com/i/status/2030475627422445574

[Gary Childress]

The attack was not random.

47 years a festerin'.

That's not an excuse to attack another nation unprovoked. We wouldn't want another nation to attack us unprovoked because they couldn't get our government to do what they wanted. If we do something like that, then that just legitimizes other nations to do the same thing. Diplomacy is all civilized nations have to solve issues. Otherwise, war is too dangerous and costly in terms of human lives given the ease of acquiring and the destructiveness of modern weaponry.

[phyllo]

Maybe some country will do a regime change in the US. Get rid of Trump and install a pro-democracy government.

[Immanuel Can]

"Rogue" means going against international laws and the agreements of the community of nations.

Well, I don't know if that's Gary's view, but I'll take it as one possibility.

There's no "community of nations" for anybody to be "against," and no genuinely "international laws," if you know history. Things like the UN and the world courts were basically American projects themselves, into which some, but not most, other nations were invited, on American terms.

In other words, there's no international authority from which any nation(least of all, America, who invented the international order) can be "rogue."

[Immanuel Can]

Random attacks on nations are not acceptable. (That included Iranian attacks as well.)

I don't think there's anything remotely "random" about the Iran situation. It was announced beforehand, literally for years...but mostly in the form of threats of force from various administrations, particularly American ones. It's the least surprising event in history that somebody finally stepped up to Tehran and their mullahs. It was pretty much inevitable, given their actions. It was only ever a question of when, I would say.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm still waiting to hear what Gary thinks a "rogue state" is.

Phyllo's definition sums my definition up pretty well.

See my comments. His definition isn't related to reality, I have to say. It's not only that there's no authority capable of the US being "rogue" from, but also that, from the secular perspective, there's nothing wrong, morally, with anything anybody does.

How can anything be "rogue" relative to a complete lack of objective moral rules? Why are secularists whining that this is "rogue," when they deny the existence of any moral authority?