It’s not because I disagree with your point of view. I disagree with all kinds of people, including Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Pat Roberts, Jerry Falwell, etc.
Here’s the deal, America has a set of well-established beliefs that we hold self-evident, that we hold dear, and that we will defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Osama does not hold any of those beliefs, which is fine in and of itself, but he and his ilk are attacking us for them. The fact that you are even making excuses for these people makes you seem either unpatriotic, a collaborator, or a traitor. Take your pick.
An introductory remark: I apologize for the “bite me” remark made earlier in this thread. I still think Milossarian was being patronizing, but the response to it was inappropriate for GD.
That having been said…
Je tremble. If you’ll take a look at my registration date and post count, you’ll see I’ve been here just as long as you have and have around 8 times as many posts logged. What do you possibly think you could expose about me that probably already hasn’t been exposed elsewhere on the boards?
If you think providing an argument for why I think declaring war in this instance is a terrible mistake backed up by what I believe are the relevant reasons is providing excuses for the perpetrators of this tragedy, there isn’t much I believe I’d be able to do to convince you otherwise. Y’all can wave the Constitution around like it’s God’s own gift to humanity, but when I look at how long it took to put the damn thing into actual practice (slavery for another 90 years after it was written, votes for women 150 years later, real civil rights 190 years later) I tend to take what its “defenders” say with a grain of salt.
It means that even though the Gulf War ended in the early 90s, the United States has kept up a program with a high level of scale, coordination, and ability to inflict damage and threaten the national security of Iraq. If the war is over, why has this continued for almost 10 years?
That first happened in August 1990. If he’s such a threat, why has the US not gotten rid of him before now? Why continue the sanctions and the bombing which obviously have no effect on Saddam personally but spell ruin for the rest of the country?
Ten years of sanctions against Iraq which has resulted in an average of 5,000 children dying per month and which, at the turn of the century, had resulted in at least 1.5 million deaths total. All to unseat a dictator whose party the CIA helped put into power four decades ago.
The US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. How were they responsible for the war in Kosovo? Moreover, that little war was conducted pretty much by remote control, dropping bombs from 30,000 feet or so on what were civilian targets like that one train full of civilian passengers (or was it refugess?) - using depleted uranium (DU) shells, which even Britain figured would cause serious health problems for generations to come, and blowing up factories which then leaked whatever chemicals they happened to be using into the nearby rivers, screwing up the water supplies.
The US bombed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan that had no connection whatsoever with bin Laden, which led to a regional upsurge in malaria because that was the only local factory that made the drugs to combat it.
In addition to the sanctions, the US has bombed Iraq back to a living standard of a hundred years ago or more. Hospitals modern by any standards are now heaps of rubble, basically eliminating health care for the majority of the population. Two starvation-related diseases unknown in the country for decades - marasmus and kwashiorkor - are now rampant.
These are all results of going to war against either a specific ‘enemy’ or against terrorism. Going to war against bin Laden will be no cleaner.
Re-examine a decades-old policy that’s the root cause of dissatisfaction with the United States? Show weakness? Never!
Come on, Milo. Trying to piss on every tree they can is what has made the US so many enemies in the first place. Remember, London_Calling showed how bin Laden’s been anti-US for decades, and obviously he’s not alone in that sentiment. By continuing the policy that gave rise to that sentiment in the first place, the US is now in the uncomfortable position of having whatever it does be a direct response to terrorism. It still has a choice, however. One response, I believe, will only escalate the situation. The other, while perhaps distasteful to those who want the US to be the evil-doer-punishing superhero, is one I believe will improve the situation.
Responding in and of itself is not immoral or improper. Like I said, it depends on what that response is. One response results in more deaths, greater hardship, and more bitter resentment. The other would actually give credence to the assertion that the US is concerned with the fate of other countries outside of the potential for great returns on investments.
Remember, though, that those governments also administrate many time more people than just these ‘cells’. You attack the governments believed to be responsible for terrorist support, you end up trashing the administrative infrastructure that ensures the population has even the meager standard of living that it does. True, the government may be despotic and hoard wealth at the expense of its civilian population, but taking that government out is not like blowing open the vault of a bank and letting the people run away with the money that comes pouring out.
No, I’m saying “Make the choice that actually has the potential to increase peace and security.”
So we ruin the infrastructure of several countries at once. Brilliant move. The war isn’t going to be all surgical and clean. There will be civilian casualties and repercussions which drastically affect life for millions of people. That’s going to breed further resentment.
Then there’s going to be more of the same.
And the US aiming for capitulation from the terrorists by slaughtering them is different how?
Just looking for a cite on this. A quick look-up on population of Iraq gives the population in 1995 at about 20 million. I can’t actually get into this page, so an older figure from the US government gives the population at about 16 million in 1987 (click on the “Society” link on that page). These pages also give the percentage of the Iraq population under 14 at around 50%.
So, you’re saying that somewhere around 1 out of every 10 Iraquis have died in the past ten years as a direct result of US sanctions? I’d like to see the numbers on that.
Olentzero, I am going to say this as forcefully and yet as politely as I can: The US is not to blame for those people’s deaths. You look for direct causes for bin Laden, and you see direct US involvement; fine, I disagree, but I can understand your motivations for thinking so. You look to starving people, and you miss the first direct cause: Hussein himself preventing any aid from getting to his citizens, while he and his live fine as can be. He, as well as you, blames the US for his citizens’ state. But no, that is not the direct cause by the logic of the “bin Laden direct cause.”
First of all I am Argentinian and a Catholic. I say this to avoid giving the impression that I am on the side of the terrorists.
The attack you suffered on the 11 of september is really terrible, nothing can excuse or forgive that kind of destruction. I’ve been following americans news to be informed of the succesive events and not once I heard someone asking about why you were attacked. Except of course your idiotic president who claims you are the good and the terrorits the evil, funny they say the same but in their version you are the great satan and they the servants of allah.
Perhaps I am wrong but the real cause of this attack is your foreign policy, frontiers inward you are a democratic republic. Outside them you behave as you please not caring a dot about human rights.
It seems you don’t have a good memory or you are simply ignorant of the things you have done all over the world. Have you forgotten of your support to military dictaorships all over latin americ? How many hundred of thousands die there? Your support to the contras in Nicaragua? 150000 death? Who trained osama bin laden? who supported Saddam? not to mention recent events after all Bush, the leader of the democratic world, was unconcerned about the intifada.
We argentinians are your extra-otan allies, and that didn’t save us for being treated as dirt by your secretary of treasure.
Once again, people working at the wtc were innocents and nothing justify their death but you have to realiaze that your victory in the cold war left many victims behind, and insignificant percentage of them are willing to kill themselves to get you. Only an small percentage… but they can cause a lot of misery.
That’s a pretty strong accusation. On what do you base it?
Well, yes. Our government tries to have good relations with existing nations even if they are not democracies. We also tend to help those governments that can help us.
What would you have our country do instead?
We’ve been through this several times already, in this thread alone. The CIA trained him to fight Russian soldiers. What’s your point?
Nobody much, maybe Syria a little bit. Yeah he was once our ally. So?
I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to. Could you explain further?
I’ve noticed a something. In the majority of posts that seem to be arguing that America is reaping what she sowed, the writer usually begins with something very like an apology.
As in:
"Nothing excuses the death of those innocents at the WTC but … "
That’s a big “but”, though, abnd it doesn’t matter whether its implied or not.
Cut the surrounding cruft away, what are you left with? What’s really at the bottom of those arguments?
That the United States, as a nation, had it coming. Because its government–and hence, its citizens–are so bad.
If you accept that, then you have to accept that the people in the WTC had it coming. And you have to accept that the policemen and the firemen who went up the stairs to try to get people out had it coming.
Am I being fair? Probably not. Probably I’m making some emotional leaps in logic. “A” doesn’t necessarily follow “B,” and like that. And sure, I’d like to believe no one here really feels that way.
But at least I don’t have to begin by (at best) putting aside or (at worst) writing off the deaths of 6,000+ people.
I am sorry, I tried to be vey carefull when I wrote my message. The fact i I believe nothing can justify the death of so many innocents. I also think terrorists should be treated with an iron fist… but. I already said I am argentinian, so grant me at least that I have some expirience with terrorism. I was in Buenos Aires when Israel’s embassy blew up (ten blocks away actually) Buenos Aires was hit again in 1994, also by muslims terrorits. I wasn’t born yet but in the 1970 we suffered marxist terrorism and what was worst State terrorism wich intended to wipe out the terrorists and became itself one. That is why I am afraid. After all this debate is if you should use nukes to wipe out terrorists. And as I say before outside your frontiers you are not rule by your constitution.
milroyj, I have determined that stating (without clear evidence that a poster is a murderous terrorist or collaborates with same) that a poster is “just as bad as” a terrorist fanatical mass-murderer, or suggesting that he is collaborating with said terrorist, is in fact an insult and is not acceptable in this forum. Please refrain from further such references.
Duly noted. Will not happen again, especially in the wrong forum. Sorry. Just so there’s no confusion, I still support what I said. But I will move my comments to the Pit.
First, it’s fairly certain (Well, as far as we can tell) that the reasons behind the attack was likely to retaliate against the US’s less-than-wonderfull past actions in the middle east. The US has done some good things, and some bad things, and because of the nation’s power tends to draw a lot of attention. When it does not-so-nice things (I don’t remember any particular examples, but there was plenty of talk about replacing elected leaders… I’m sure there are plenty of other activities you may be aware of), it draws a lot of attention to itself.
In all likeliness, the terrorists saw their attacks as being no different, fundamentally, than what the US did to (them/their country/whatever). But instead of trying to find some peacefull way, and take the “high road” (I don’t know how, but there are certainly ways), they resort to murder, stooping even lower. In fact, they’re shooting themselves in the foot in the result (For the short-term, at least…).
The only similarity (Beyond medling with other nations) is that both actions are completely wrong. And neither justify the other. I believe whoever is responsible for such actions should be held responsible, but NOT the civilians of the countries involved.
Unfortunatly, it seems that the emotion of the events has overwhelmed logic, lately. Some people get pissed about saying you don’t want to just level a whole country (Or to a lesser extent, that you don’t like the idea of all-out war). And some get pissed about someone trying to figure out why the terrorists did what they did, like it somehow justifies it. No, it doesn’t justify it, and I think we DO need to know and understand why they did it. Remember SD’s good old mantra about fighting ignorance?
But just to create a kind of example scenario… Imagine one guy murders another guy. Then that second guy’s friends all form a posse, go over to the first guy’s house, and burn it down, killing that first guy’s wife and children. The reason they did it was, obviously, because of what the first guy did to them. Some might argue that the first guy brought it upon himself. However, neither action justifies the other. None of the victims deserve what they got.
Boy, I just know this is probably going to be unpopular, but I think I need to post it anyway. It seems that many people want to (Or just automatically do without thinking about it) catagorize anything less than die-hard US patriotic as supporting the terrorists’ actions, just because they can understand why the terrorists might do what they do, and especially if they point to US actions in that effort. But just because someone understands why they feel like they did, even pointing out ways that they may have been “wronged” in the past, it doesn’t mean they think it is in any way right. Understandable, yes, but not right, or deserved, or anything else.
Fantastic. Why don’t you explain how we fight with protectionist governments AND terrorist camps without killing anyone?-- And attempt to do it in some quick and timely manner? We really do have a few camps here: one camp hold the US responsible, one camp holds the criminals responsible, and one camp holds the criminals and the governments who breed and support them responsible. I am happy to be in that last camp.
The US is going to take a lot of heat for its actions in the months (years?) to come, and that is to be expected, but if we succeed in eliminating the breeding grounds for terrorism then the world will be a better place.
Don’t worry, we don’t expect anyone’s thanks. We just don’t want our people to die.
This is going to be a difficult task. All the support we could get would help greatly. But we’re going to do it anyway. I am somewhat uncomfortable about the talk of the assasination ban being lifted (or was it lifted in fact already?), but my reservations in this matter are not strong enough for me to say much more than that.
I think nukes are the best solution.
We don’t have to worry about a counterstrike, Russia supports us, and that is the only oter country in the world with ICBMs besides the US.
With the worst act of terrorism ever being committed against the US, we need to inflict severe damage upon afghanistan, and IMHO, all those communities that were celebrating, the ones in palestine and egypt. maybe just a fuel bomb over the 2 later ones, with a cluster bomb or two.
If we nuke afghanistan, it will provide a real deterant against future acts of terrorism. If a terrorist knows his firends and family will die for his actions, we won’t destroy his village for his ideals.
I think we should launch 4 H bombs against afghanistan, one for each plane.
It would make sure that all terrorists would fear us.
Most of the “innocent” are trying to flee afghanistan right now.
They are doing so because they know they committed an atrocious act and are trying to escape punishment.
In criminal courts fleeing is used as a sign of guilt by prosecuters all the time.
My first thought is, how are they going to recruit legions if afghanistan and palenstine are big lakes?
They are already pursuing biological and chemical weapons.
Why do you think that the military immunized itself for anthrax?
BTW, did you know that a pinch, a pinch of anthrax dropped finto the are off of a high building would cause as much death as a h bomb.
I say we kill them all before they have the ability to inflict that much damage on the US or any other civilized country. Wipe them off the face of the earth.
JustDrew: Want to post somc cites that Russia supports using nukes? Just because countries say they support us doesn’t mean they favor using the ultimate weapons. I guarantee you the Japanese will not look favorably at use of nuclear weapons.
Hate to inform you, but China can nuke the western U.S. and I am pretty sure Britain has ICBMs. I would not rule out India and France having the capability of nuking the U.S. Remember, India surprised our government several years ago by conducting a nuclear test. Also, remember you can launch nuclear weapons from an airplane or a submarine.
While I consider the celebrators in Egypt and Palestine to be stupid, I hardly favor bombing them for exercising their right to free speech. Their idiocy has already done much to hurt their cause.
Your statement that refugees are guilty just because they are trying to get our of Afghanistan is ludicrousily stupid. By your reasoning, Jews who got out of Germany in the '30’s were supporters of the Third Reich. I suspect most Afgahn refugees want to get the hell out of a war zone.
To paraphrase Stoid on another thread, if you supporters of nuking Afghanistan are so gung-ho and patriotic, why not get your asses down to the recruiting station and join the Armed Forces?
I would just take the moment to point out appeasement does not stop war.
Britain and the other european countries tried appeasement against hitler, letting him take parts of czech and other countries, thinking his ambitions would stop.
After they tried appeasement, and found that it did not work did they declare war on germany, after which germany had become a strong military machine, as the czech lands taken contained many factorys for war production.
WWII was alot harder had countries not tried appeasement first.
Afghanistan, through their acts, declared war on the US.
The time for peace and talk is gone. This is the time for war. This is the time to appease the blood of the victims of WTC, the blood spilt that cries for vengeance against those that caused it.
We must not worry about future attacks for the war. The failure to declare war on those responsible for their past terrorism acts did not stop future attacks did it. They did not stop after they bombed the WTC in 93 did they. Such reasoning will only allow them to commit future acts of terrorism.