I am compelled to point out that Stoid has posted on this board, IIRC, that she believes Roosevelt purposely ignored infomration to the effect that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed and thus ensured the United States would be galvanized into joining a war Roosevelt wanted us to join. Of course, that’s utter bullshit. But that’s exactly what she means by “same thing Roosevelt did,” no doubt.
And you will notice from the typical "stoid"esque responses above why she’s in my permanent “coventry” list. I really don’t have the heart to discuss rationality with the foolish.
Okay, Bob, fair enough how you arrived at your conclusion.
Not that I “have the answer”, just that I think (and I’m not alone in this, even on this board) that the answer, the long term answer, is not about, or at the least is not * exclusively * about, being the biggest, baddest mofo on the block. As others here have said, while this act was completely inexcusable and unjustifiable, it did not happen in a vacuum. Beyond that I will not go, at least not today and not tomorrow, because it will just become a shouting contest, and I’m not in the mood for a shouting contest right now.
Thank you, you expressed that perfectly. I’ve never heard of war being perpetrated by individuals, only governments. Which government went to war with us on Tuesday?
I think it was necessary because the world needed to know exactly how horrifying nuclear weapons really are. And the world would never have understood by simply being told or looking at mushroom clouds. It had to be used once on real people so that there would be no misunderstanding: these weapons are capable of destroying the planet and ending the human species. That’s just words… because of Hiroshima (which of course was piddling compared to what we can do now) we have a visceral understanding of what going nuclear really means. And as a result we have not done so.
Who are you referring to with the phrase “those who must die”? Our soldiers? Their soldiers? Their peasant children in the streets? Exactly who “must die”? And exactly who decides who must die, and what gives these deciders the right to make this decision?
As for forcibly extracting criminals, I’m up for that. I’ve never said I don’t think that anyone should pay for this…only that the persons who do should be guilty.
I think it’s been pretty clear all along. As bordeland articulated perfectly, I see this as a crime, not an act of war. Acts of war are perpetrated by countries, not tiny groups of crazy suicidal terrorists. Terrorists are * criminals * , not soldiers. The FBI is the organization that is investigating this, and should be, not the Marines. It’s almost as though we are jumping to conclusion that this must be war simply because of the scope. Crimes don’t result in thousands dying, only wars do, right? Well, apparently not. This was a crime, and thousands died.
Fair enough, let me clarify…when I was referring to the “actions of their government”, I was referring to what people were saying about, in this instance, the Afghan government “harboring” Bin Laden. I don’t think innocents should die for that, unless “harboring” means using Bin Laden as their own tool to do their work of going to war against us. My understanding is that “harboring” means just that. Giving him a place to be. Not assisting him, working with him, joining him in his acts, just allowing him to be there. So far I haven’t heard any evidence that the attacks were the plan, the desire, or the act of the Afghan government. When someone does, I’ll change my mind. Until then, saying it’s ok to kill innocent people in Afghanistan because they are giving shelter to Osama and crew is not much different than saying it’s ok to go to war with France because they are (or were) harboring that asshole who killed his girlfriend 20 years ago. This is a matter of extradition disagreements, not war.
That’s true. I would not characterize my feelings as anything that resembles anger. However, these are the other things I have been feeling and continue to feel, off and on: horror, shock, despair, frustration, sorrow, fear, grief, compassion, sympathy, and frankly, relief that it wasn’t me or anyone I personally love and care for.
But no, no anger.
What I’m really concerned about is perpetuating a cycle of violence without such violence really making any long term positive difference. I’m concerned about the fact that no one seems willing to even * consider * the idea that * maybe * there are * actual reasons * why we are so despised in other countries, reasons a little more complex than jealousy, reasons that we should maybe think about a little. I’m really concerned about good people of good intention becoming consumed by blind rage because they are hurting, because I think such rage ultimately diminishes those who give in to it.
stoid
All of the above. In war, there are no rules, there is no morality, and all actions towards a given army’s aim are justified. "All’s fair … that’s hardly a cliche here. In war, the ends really DO justify the means, and it is “right” and “good” . That’s why Patton said “War is hell” – because right and wrong are indistinguishable for those with immediate military responsibility.
Such concerns are irrelevant in a time of war. Wo must die is justifiably decided ad hoc by those entrusted with carrying out miltary ends – whether they be in the field, in the sky, or in the war-room. No special privileges, nor special rights, nor moral high ground need be envoked.
Stoid - no sane person ever wants war. Ever. But it is a permanent human condition, like being born and like dying. Once it arrives upon us, we really have no choice but to accept whatever course it may take.
You cannot possibly be serious. This is simply not true. If it were, there would have been no Nuremburg trials, no Mi Lai convictions, etc.
<shudder>
And you didn’t answer my most pertinent question…what government went to war with us on Tuesday, and exactly what actions did * that government * take which constituted an act of war?
Unfortunately, I fear I won’t be returning to this debate as I must leave for the weekend.
Regarding your question as to who went to war with us: that is currently unknown. It may have been an act sacntioned by and in conjunction with a government, but we don’t yet know. Perhaps it was the act of individuals without government backing.
I ask you this in parting: Would you consider a country knowingly refusing extradition of the responsible party an act of war? If not, how can justice be done, and why is that country not as responsible as the individual?
Those were all after the fact of the war was complete. Once one army stands alone on the battlefield, victorious , with its objectives achieved – only then can anyone backtrack and accuse the losers (and only the losers) of war crimes.
However, in the actual course of war, with a rifle in your hand, when it is impossible to tell innocent from enemy soldier … that’s the “hell” of war.
To me, that’s not even relevant. We fundamentally disagree about whether the bombings were an act of war or a crime – so I didn’t even entertain pursuing this further with you.
To draw another apparent line in the sand between our viewpoints – I believe that other entities besides sovereign governments can make clear and obvious war. But since we don’t agree, why pursue it?
To increase understanding of different viewpoints. I don’t expect I’ll change many minds around here, but I like to do my best to make my viewpoints understood clearly. Even if nobody’s minds are changed, how can you effectively disagree with things you don’t completely understand?
And do you only discuss things with people that you agree with? How boring is that? “I think x.” “So do I.” End of discussion.
Stoid, you can furhter make your viewpoint understood without me. Go right ahead.
As for me, I fully understand your viewpoint to my own satisfaction. If you feel I do not understand your viewpoint sufficiently – well, I can live with that. You are a stranger to me, after all.
As for discussing topics only with those who agree, and that it’s boring to do so: Haven’t I gone a few sporting rounds with you here? Why am I committed to go any further with you? We’ve made ourselves clear. I simply recognize that I’m resolute in my beliefs, and you are resolute in yours – so there’s little room for common ground and no real point to any debate between us. Does every exchange of ideas have to have a winner and loser? What’s wrong with agreeing to disagree?
Sorry – I don’t much debate for pure sport. I get tired of going rounds fairly quickly. I’ll engage in debate often to simply introduce a previously-ignored viewpoint, or to test the waters of my own beliefs and opinions, but that’s about it. If that’s boring – well, so be it.
I completely agree with your statements, above. You show tremendous insight into the mind-set of both terrorists and victims. You also show due respenct for the lessons of history. A show of violence against another country by the U.S. is likely to dissipate international support for our battle against terrorism. We have an opportunity to build a strong intelligence network with allies and former adversaries with which to fight terrorism. We will gain far more by building such a network and targeting individuals within terrorist organizations than if we “show force”. The terrorist groups are comprised of a widespread network of individuals in many different locations. One cannot hope to eleminate these networks with a strike in any particular geographic location. Dilligently hunting down individual terrorists appears to me to be our best approach to dealing with the problem. On-going diligence will be required, because terrorism and terrorists will never be totally eliminated. A small portion of all of the world’s cultures contain individuals who are insane and dangerous. We will always have to seek out such individuals and stop them before they are able to commit horrible acts.
Regarding Jesus and forgiveness, I find it offensive for someone to ask me, an agnostic, what Jesus would do. To me, the Bible is a source of some wisdom and lots of drivel. I do believe, however, that forgiveness, or at least acceptance, is the only means of attaining closure and some measure of peace. Hatred and thirst for vengence bring only inner turmoil and poison the individual experiencing them. It is far better to strive toward a state of acceptance and understanding.
I can appreciate the fact that you presented the above information to make a point. I would encourage you to avoid providing such details in a public forum in the future. While it is likely that this information is readily available to anyone, I believe it shows bad judgement to broadcast such information in a public forum. Your ability to obtain details of sensitive research requires that you respect the confidential nature of that information. “Proving a point” is not adequate justification for broadcasting such information.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting to this thread. I have been struggling with these issues in the last few days. I’m glad I am not alone in wondering if my original desires to swiftly retaliate with a vast show of America’s force were misguided.
We need justice. We need to punish those who have helped bring this about. But we also need to think objectively and honestly about what has brought about this world state of affairs and what we as a powerful leader nation can do to alleviate the problem and influence other nation states to move in the same direction. I don’t mean with our big guns, either.
I don’t feel like trading casualities for the next decade. I believe extremists have already shown that fear of retribution isn’t a deterrent.
These are misguided, sick, horrible individuals, who are using an unethical and intolerable means to go about making their point. But their reasons–their original reasons–can be addressed, can’t they? Can’t we work to take away the motivation for terrorism at the same time we work to take away the means?
The problem is that there are as many motivations for terrorism as there are terrorists. If you were to list all the terrorist organizations on Earth, you’d find a gamut of reasons for what they do - there is eco-terrorism, economic terrorism, religious terrorism, luddite terrorism (the Unabomber, for instance), etc.
If you want to address all their grievances so they don’t attack you, you have replaced Democracy with a dictatorship of violence. I don’t think anyone would support that idea.
Sometimes terrorists adopt causes that are reasonable, or at least have reasonable elements to them. Sure, we can do better to rid the world of real injustice and inequality, but that will never eliminate terrorism.
Sometimes, you know, it’s just pure, blinding hatred. The KKK has no legitimate grievance that we can address. It is an organization of hatred based on skin color. The Nazi persecution of Jews represented no legitimate grievance.
And there will always be economic inequality, both between citizens and between governments. And as long as there is, there will be people who seek to take by force what they couldn’t gain with the vote or their own labor.
Stoid: The potential threat of nuclear, chemical, or biological terrorism has certainly been known for a long time. Why do you think we’ve been actively destroying Saddam’s chemical weapons factories?
What changed on Tuesday was that we discovered that the enemy is willing and able to use them. That changes the equation enormously. Until now, we’ve been falsely comforting ourselves by believing that A) these types of weapons are hard to come by, B) Terrorists don’t have organizations capable of landing such weapons here and deploying them efficiently, and C) Even terrorists wouldn’t do something like that on such an horrific scale.
That defined the threat before Tuesday. Item A) on the list was the one that has been worrying analysts for years, because the breakdown of the Soviet Union and Saddam’s antics have been making it far more likely that a determined terrorist could get his hands on something like that. But we were still telling ourselves that no one would actually do something that horrible, and that it would be difficult to do.
On Tuesday, we discovered an organization that not only has millions or billions of dollars and thousands of members, but who has the patience and ability to make multi-year plans come to fruition, AND the willingness to kill as many people as they possibly can. This operation has probably been in the works since 1993. There are dozens of ‘cells’ in operation in the United States already, perhaps hundreds. Being trained to fly a 757 doesn’t happen overnight - those men have been in position and studying their weapon of terror for a long time.
So now we know that B and C are a certainty. IF these people get their hands on nuclear or chemical or biological weapons, they WILL use them. Guaranteed. All that leaves is the faint hope that they can’t get their hands on them.
Do you really want to gamble the lives of millions of people on that? I don’t. Please realize that Bin Laden could, in one single attack, wipe out ten times the number of Americans than died during the entire course of WWII. This is a real threat, more serious than any the U.S. has faced before, perhaps including WWII. As a bit of a student of that war, I know that U.S. civilians were never at any point in any real danger. They sure are now.
Well, if Bush is going to buy into the right-wing blather about this “being a Christian nation,” then he ought to ask what Jesus would do. And the answer comes far closer to Stoid’s point than to the saber-rattling of most of the religious right.
In fact, if we were free to make our own moral choices and the Christians followed Jesus’s teachings, we might be forced to put the atheists in foxholes.
See my first post to this thread (close to the top). Jesus was no pacifist. Beware of out-of-context Biblical references and “pop”, “common-knowledge” theology.
Humans cannot fully emulate Jesus Christ because Jesus had the ability to perform miracles. So the popular “WWJD?” ralllying cry should in no way hamstring a Christian’s opinion on this matter – not least because not all Christians consider “WWJD?” a valid moral reference.
Lumping all of Christian belief into one basket is as big a mistake as lumping all Islamic beliefs together. Christianity != pacifism. BTW, very, very few of us are Bible literalists – so busting out a “smoking gun” verse to morally pin a mainstream Christian down will do no good.
Jesus, facing the greatest crisis of his life, made the hardest choice of all: he willingly accepted ridicule, debasement, and torture – and gave his life.
(Goodness, listen to me putting up a fight … and I consider myself a lousy Christian! The Christian that smokes in God’s bathroom and cuts Sunday school … lol.)
