Anyone sick of seeing peace protesters in NYC?

Great Debates
81

What bothers me in particular is when people call it a “racist war.” FIrst, it is a “war” in the sense that it’s a battle against terrorism, not a country or an individual, but any act of terror. So let’s look at the word “racist.” I’m appalled that this is even brought up. Osama bin Laden is pursuing division, he is creating the kind of separation that racism exemplifies. Bin Laden is not a “middle easterner,” he is a madman. The US could free a lot of people in Afghanistan from the rule of the Taliban. A lot of people not “Afghans,” fellow human beings. The efforts of the US do not give two farts about the race of these people, nor does it acknowledge or dwell on “race.” To call the US actions “racist” is to acknowledge your own “us vs. them” perspective and exposes your own racism. If this were happening in Russia, China, Africa, South America, or wherever, the US actions would be the same as they are, but people would still be crying racism. The irony is that it is racist to think that way.

Another thing that makes no sense is the idea that the US sets out to “kill our fellow man.” What we are doing is protecting our fellow men. Consider a fish bowl where one fish keeps eating the others. Do you try to promote harmony among the fish, or do you put the killer one into a separate bowl. Now, if you can’t catch that fish and have to kill it to save the rest, I’d say that it’s worth it. It’s unfortunate that you have to, but to leave the murderous fish in the tank makes you responsible for leaving the rest as bait and you’ve just killed many more fish. So, these “peace” protestors are nothing of the kind. They seem to be responding as though the US had just gone and nuked all of Afghanistan. We didn’t, and wouldn’t, do that. If the Taliban had handed over Osama and the heads of his organization, then there would be little to no need for military action, but it is necessary to find him to protect the rest of the world. “Bring him to justice” does not necessarily mean to kill him, it means to put him in a different tank.

82

Yes, many of them were originally trained in Afghanistan. And, no, the Taliban did not “stop the fighting.” There has been an ongoing civil war in Afghanistan for approximately 20 years, give or take. The “mujahadeen” (“Islamic warrior” in Arabic) did get rid of the Soviets, if that is what you are talking about. The Taliban are mostly southern Afghani Pushtun “students.” They have close connections to ISA, the Pakistani intelligence agency. Read this, even though it is a biased source (you might like it, anti-U.S. “corporate imperialism” stuff). The athiests have some quirky takes on a few peripheral issues, but provide the best quick summary I have found for you to catch up on the basic facts, especially the Taliban.

I wish someone critical of the War on Terrorism would:

  1. Deal with the ramifications of pacifism in the face of religious zealots using every form of aggression they can. If you really think Al Qaeda has “greivances” against the U.S., please listen to them. They want us gone, fini, kaput, blammo! How do we know this? They say so, and act accordingly.
  2. Offer a plan that does not involve brainwashing the rest of the world into your way of thinking. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot (note: all “socialists”) tried this one already. Been there, done that.
83

MSmith, I take gobear’s point, and wish to issue my apologies. Anyone in the Financial District was, and is, clearly “on the front lines.”

Often in debate we can go too far. I stand guilty of this. I do ask you to review my other points without anger, and comment on to what extent disagreement with the government’s policies may be appropriate at this time (as well as in general).

And I do regret having targeted you unfairly with that snide remark. Be assured it will not happen again.

84

gobear:“The peaceniks wish to appease OBL.”

No they do not!

You have heard these arguments again, and again, and again. The are various pacificist positions ranging from absolutists who, for religious or ethical reasons, simply reject war under any circumstances, to people who hold the kind of sophisticated analysis that Polycarp has detailed above.

FTR, my position is not a totally pacificist position but is (at least for now) much like the one detailed in Falk passage excerpted in my last post (i.e., a just and cautious use of military force with an emphasis on multilateralism, use of the UN followed by and accompanied with a rethought approach to foreign policy). But I can respect the position of those who feel that the latter alone, accompanied, perhaps, by a criminal pursuit of terrorists is the most just and ethical response. I don’t have to ridicule or demonize them, and I don’t have to mistake their reasoning for a desire to “appease.”

Your inability to see what is reasonable in other perspectives–howevermuch you may ultimately disagree with them–demonstrates a real lack of objectivity on your part.

Don’t misunderstand me: I don’t ask you to agree with reasonable pacifist arguments, I ask you to accept their reasonableness and disagree with them on grounds of reasonable debate. My sense is that you are just too emotional to see things from another perspective. But that’s nothing to boast of or perpetuate for days on end while continuing to participate in the same debates.

The same thing goes for your response to the Twain-related post I made earlier. It isn’t absurd or ridiculous to apply Twain’s thinking to a situation like this. You may have decided that the end justifies the means: that killing innocent civilians is necessary to ensuring US safety. But others feel that this is short-sighted; that terrorism can’t we wiped out by bombs alone; that killing innocent civilians will in fact fan the flames of terrorist support. By all means disagree with this analysis if you wish. But do bear in mind the many of the people making these analyses know an awful lot; and it’s possible to disagree with them without vilifying them, their courage, or their intelligence.

85

I am reminded of the scene from ‘Army of Darkness’ where Evil Ash is fighting Good Ash (both played by Bruce Cambell).

Evil Ash - “Perhaps it is you who are really the Evil Ash one and I am the good Ash”.
Good Ash - “Good…evil…whatever. I’m the one with the shotgun.” [shoots Evil Ash]

I agree. Their ideas of cultural relativism basically assumes that these people are rational and have a legitimate beef with the US. The impression I get is they wouldn’t be happy until we are destroyed.

It bothers me to because the only people I hear making racial statements are the pro-Taliban/Osama calling for their Jihad against all Western foreigners.

Msmith forgives you.

86

Unfortunately, Falk’s article includes little or no proof of why his recommended approach would be effective.

E.g., I think a focus on multi-laterism and UN involvement would reduce the effectiveness of our effort, because it did so in Iraq. One reason we didn’t finish the job was that the UN resolution didn’t authorize us to do so. Furthermore, the countries harboring terrorists have significant political power within the UN, so any UN-approved action would probably be restricted.

What’s Falk’s answer to my argument? He has none. He simply describes his “moral” approach as if he were Moses delivering the 10 C’s.

87

No, I am not being too emotional; that’s just dismissing my argument out of hand, the same thing you accuse me of doing. You ask me to accept absolute pacifism (no fighting under any circumstances) as “reasonable.” I say it is not. The use of appeasement is a deliberate historical parallel with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of you-know-who, as well as the isolationism of the America Firsters.

The peaceniks wish the US not to use military force. When asked how we apprehend OBL non-violently, they have, to a man, said, “Hey, I don’t have the answers.” I am unmoved by that position.

88

It sounds to me like those peace protestors in New York are being incredibly insensitive to the memory of the 7000 or so Americans, British, Germans, Canadians, Japanese and another dozen or so nationalities who where murdered by fundamentalist, Arab, Islamic, racist terrorists.

Americans who are offended by peace protestors exercising their 1st Amendment rights would be well-advised to peacefully exercise their 1st Amendment rights-and I really mean peaceful.

Just as when a handful of Ku Klux Klan protestors are dwarfed by thousands of counter-marchers who believe in tolerance, understanding and freedom, so should those who believe in Justice for the dead make their voices overwhelm those who would do nothing.

89

december:“Unfortunately, Falk’s article includes little or no proof of why his recommended approach would be effective.”

Well that, at least is a reasonable objection, though it has to be said that you have no proof that the Falk’s approach would be ineffective. And it seems as though Bush administration is trying very hard to at least to approximate this kind of just and diplomatic approach.

“I think a focus on multi-laterism and UN involvement would reduce the effectiveness of our effort, because it did so in Iraq.”

Perhaps, but this is a very different situation. The enemy here is not a state, but a diffuse and various “network” of terrorists who draw off of anti-American sentiments. The more we take the high ground, both militarily and diplomatically, the less justification for anti-Americanism. While that is unlikely to persuade terrorist fanatics, it will reduce support for them and therefore reduce the long-term problem. On the other hand, there’s no evidence that a finite number of terrorists can be eradicated through a finite type of military action. Your own government has made that clear. So perhaps Falk’s view makes more sense than you realize.

“Furthermore, the countries harboring terrorists have significant political power within the UN, so any UN-approved action would probably be restricted.”

But so far that has not been the case. It’s arguable that the higher the ground the US takes, the more tenable a sustained UN involvement. So there’s no ground on which to assume that the UN won’t be helpful, and many grounds on which to argue that the greater the degree of UN support, the better the long-term prospect for worldwide opinion on the US practicing what it preaches.

What’s Falk’s answer to my argument? He has none. He simply describes his “moral” approach as if he were Moses delivering the 10 C’s. **
[/QUOTE]

90

Ooops! that last line of december’s should have deleted from my last post.

**gobear **:
No, I am not being too emotional; that’s just dismissing my argument out of hand…"

Actually, I’m not dismissing your argument out of hand. I’m accepting what is reasonable in your argument and wondering why, after hashing this out over and again, you’re still unable to either to let the issue drop, or, if you prefer, to continue debating but without demonizing your opponents.

*“You ask me to accept absolute pacifism (no fighting under any circumstances) as “reasonable.” I say it is not.”[i/]

Actually, there I kind of agree. Absolute pacificism isn’t so much reasonable as it is a principled stand against something on ethical or religious grounds. It’s like refusing to eat meat if you’re a vegetarian. You might do that on reasonable grounds (say for health reasons), or you might take the position that killing animals is unacceptable under any circumstances as a matter of principle. I myself could never be an absolute pacificist, but I can respect and tolerate people who are. They are, at any rate, a minority and I have no rational aim for or emotional need to drown them out with hostility.

“The use of appeasement is a deliberate historical parallel with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of you-know-who, as well as the isolationism of the America Firsters.”

On the contrary, the use of “appeasement” is a rather bizarre historical example that is hardly parallel at all since Osama bin Laden is nothing like Hitler: not an elected leader of state, not the leader of a country that many felt to have been unfairly penalized under the very different circumstances of World War I, not the head of a huge military machine, not someone who has just invaded Poland. I could go on.

Instead I’ll simply say this: please find me a citation from anyone who is arguing for “appeasement.” That is, find me someone who believes that 1) we should not pursue ObL and charge him with crimes and pursue him either criminally and militarily and, if possible, try and punish him; and 2) we should instead “appease” ObL by ignoring his crimes and do x, y, and z which will convince ObL that we’re really nice after all. Please find me one citation to that effect.

*"The peaceniks wish the US not to use military force. When asked how we apprehend OBL non-violently, they have, to a man, said, “Hey, I don’t have the answers.” *

To a man? How many “peaceniks” do you know. Is that elucidator’s position? Is that Polycarp’s? Do I qualify as a peacenik? Does Falk? Michael Klare is, I guess, a peacenik: I posted his suggestions on another thread you were reading. He offered a lot of answers. He suggested something on the order of a police-secret ops style approach to apprehending him with international cooperation. Do you have an intelligent critique of him?
Have you considered that so far military actions haven’t gotten Saddam, and may not get bin Laden?

Again, I don’t ask you to switch sides. I ask you only to see the reasonableness of another view: as I can see what is most reasonable in yours.

The truth is gobear that you are not yourself reasonable. In these hyperemotional times that my earn you a cadre of sympathetic readers on these boards and in RL. But so far as debate goes you haven’t even really begun to come to the table. And I could say the same for others on this thread but I choose you b/c I happened to have taken part in the Pit thread where you trod similar ground.

91

Guilty as charged. The beads, the patchouli oil, the eye-buggering psychedelic art posters, the whole nine yards. When was the last time you believed in something enough to take a thumping from an Oakland cop?

But enough of my foolishness. Let’s talk about yours.

Your thesis that the Peace Movement is directly responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia is a paranoid phantasm. We couldn’t even get marijuana legalized, how the hell do you figure we created Pol Pot? Grateful Dead records? Man, what are you on? Told you to stay away from the brown barrels. Maybe you should stomp a couple of Hare Krishnas, kill a couple of whales…you know, find your center.

Far out, man. Peace on you.

92

Jeez, I was so busy being a smart-ass, I forgot to, like, relate.

For the sake of fair argument, let us concede that at some point, after all reasonable efforts have been made, violence is absolutely unavoidable. A recognition that war is inherently evil is widely accepted, but if I accept the premise that at some point it becomes the lesser of two horrors. I must nonetheless insist that all other avenues, however unlikely, be exhausted. Clearly, this is not the case. Our Fearless Leader started jumping up and down and shouting “War!” from Day One.

Is Afghanistan going somewhere? Are they going to mold an effective air defense network out of wet sand? Would it not, geo-politically speaking, be greatly to our advantage to be seen to be exhausting every concievable recourse? How better to counter OBL’s thesis of the Great Satan than to behave like a great nation: wise, patient, powerful.

If it takes six months, so what? Where’s he gonna go? Who will have him? Iran, Iraq, any of them, would rather soak in a hot tub with a leper than have him in their country.

As for deterring terrorism: what would make me think so? Would turning Afghanistan into the worlds greatest repository of dead folks stop an Egyptian? Indeed, is it not more likely than a military response will provoke precisely the consequence we all wish to avoid?

Peacenik, signing off.

93

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Blackclaw *
I think destroying repressive governments should be our hobby.

[QUOTE]

<LMFAO>!!!
** Blackclaw**, I was wondering, may I use this as my signature?

94

Hey, just give PIECE a chance.

95

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nietzsche *
**

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Blackclaw *
I think destroying repressive governments should be our hobby.

Sure thing :slight_smile:

96

I suspect Iraq would take him actually… The problem is that Bin Lauden and his group aren’t just going to sit there. With no reprisals, they will continue to train for and initiate attacks against us.

97

elucidator -

As far as I can tell, you are saying we should be doing what we are doing, just not yet.

As far as your contention that Bush was screaming for war “from day one”, that is a teensy bit more than goofy. I have heard lots more argument that the terrorists have been given too much time to dig in and hide than calls for a slow down.

That having been said, I am still not clear on what you are suggesting. You seem to be saying that we should exhaust all possible options before choosing the military one. Fine.

Presumably we go thru the UN. Either they agree that we should act militarily, in which case we are doing exactly right (especially in light of the near-unanimous approval of our anti-terrorist stance by the civilized and semi-civilized nations of the world).

If they disapprove, what do we do? Impose sanctions, and wait ten or fifteen or twenty five years for them to work? I thought you said they aren’t working in Iraq. Why would they with the Taliban?

Everyone agrees that there will be further terrorist actions in both the short- and medium-term. What do we do about that? Nothing? Who do you think will act faster and with greater effect - bin Laden or a resolution from the General Assembly of the UN?

I can see no difference between your position, and saying “we should do nothing but talk - forever.” The argument that we have not yet exhausted all other possibilities is one that can be made indefinitely. Who knows but that we could have driven Hitler out of Poland by appealing to the League of Nations to act first - before all that nasty bombing and shooting?

If we wait for someone else to fix our problems for us, more innocent people will die than if we attack the Taliban. That is the moral equation that applies. Should innocent people die? They are going to, one way or another. The only way we can minimize that number is to act. Yes, the people of Afghanistan are going to suffer, despite all our efforts to reduce “collateral damage”. But they are going to suffer anyway, and so will Americans, and Brits, and Israelis, and everyone else, unless we smash the terrorist networks and kill those who are responsible.

The suffering will go on forever - unless we put an end to it. It won’t be pretty, but it will be over.

And all along, a certain class of person will use the situation to condemn the US and pump up their own sense of prissy self-righteousness. This is the real world, and sometimes there are no good choices. Get over it.

Regards,
Shodan

98

Clearly, you have heeded lots more such arguments. Goofy? I would it were so. You are aware, I am sure, that such as Paul Wolfowitz were suggesting widening the war immediately. Whats your take on that? Big ass patriotic bumper stickers “Support our Boys in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebabanon, Indonesia,…” If that isn’t your idea of a nightmare, what is?

Really? We will track down and “nuetralize” every terrorist in the world? How? And at what cost? I am reading a rather good book on the Mossad, Isreal’s much admired “CIA”. They are experts at this, been doing it for years, tracking down the enemy and zapping them with bold, brilliant covert actions. See any reduction in terrorism? Seems to this naive peacenik they are no better off than they were.

Gee, Shodan, you were doing so well, so rational. Just couldn’t resist that little ad hominem slur, huh? Peace on you, pal.

And this is one of them. What if the unthinkable is true, that our huge military might will not help? Got a plan B? Or just more Plan A?

99

What are you talking about? You have no idea how much terrorism there would be if Israel took no action. That’s like asking “Why do we have Police? See any reduction in car thefts?”. Once again, just because you think that wiping out terrorism will fail is not a valid reason for not trying.

Seems to me that we’ve already tried doing nothing and it didn’t work.

100

I would say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, but this stuff ain’t even history yet.
Elucidator, we aren’t at Day One. We aren’t even at Day 30. We are (roughly) at Day 2120. Remember the first WTC bombing in 1993, when 6 people died? Bin Laden.
Remember the African embassy bombings in 1998, when hundreds died? Bin Laden. Remember the U.S.S. Cole, when 17 died? Bin Laden.
This has been going on for over eight years. And in those eight years, we tried international sanctions through the UN on Sudan and Afghanistan. Didn’t work. We tried negotiations with the Taliban. Didn’t work. We tried limited military strikes. Didn’t work. We tried covert operations. Didn’t work.
So now, having already tried alternative, and ultimately ineffectual, methods, we are trying something else.
I see no rush to the use of military force. About as much time has passed since bin Laden started attacking our countrymen and women as we fought in Vietnam.

Sua