- Nowhere have I stated that you shouldn't try to anticipate the future. The distinction lies with understanding that anticipation of the future doesn't make it a guaranteed future.
- As far as objectively more beneficial results this is subjective, reliant on whether you factor in negative actions, how you weigh the concrete negative actions against the conceptual potential benefits. In other words, shall we bake all the Jews to benefit the German economy? Shall we conquer China, so the Japanese people can thrive?
- Again, the path taken for Guatanamo Bay was done so from a purported greater good stance. What are the lives and emotional and physical health of very few, as compared to the potential of another 9/11? Let's flip the scenario as viewed by "Islamic freedom fighters". Considering the past policies of the U.S., what's the lives of 3000 people or more, weighed against the entire wellbeing of the Middle East?
Interesting points.
1. No, you did not say that you shouldn't try to anticipate the future in as many words; however, since the future is rarely if ever guaranteed, waiting to act only on a guaranteed future amounts to that.
2. Continuing the World War II theme,
what I had said was that,
if there is a better way to go about doing something, it should be done. The Nazis were unwilling to look for such an option which would have resulted in less suffering. An option like this was arguably possible, since the German economic gains came seperately from the Nazi Party's anti-Jewish stance. The Japanese invasions had less to do with preventing a catastrophe or causing a gain than they did with satisfying the militaristic fascism that had come over its military and political leaders; 99.9% of the Japanese excesses during the war were not being done for some greater good or as a matter of necessity, but were done because of nihilistic, amoral hedonism.
3. The
intent was for the greater good; it wasn't justified because that greater good was not fully realized, since it ended up harming its own cause more than it helped it. As for the American policy in the Middle East, every country will look out for its own interests before it does a foreign country's; it's a reality of geopolitics, and not one that will, or should, end. The American military is concerned with defending
American interests, not Middle Eastern interests; its policy should not be concerned with what would benefit the Middle East, unless that also carries a benefit to the US. As for the terrorists' point of view, if they were not harming their own cause, one could say that, from their own perspective, they might be justified; the reason we wouldn't want to justify it, of course, is because we are on the receiving end of their hatred. Looking at it personally, I would want them to lose; looking at it objectively, both sides would be justified in their actions. However, the terrorists are harming their own cause, which means that their actions have undermined their goal, which means that they are
not justified.
(By the way, before you say anything, no, I'm not an American.)