I completely diagree with this line of reasoning. NOBODY is out there fighting because he doesn’t have the matching washer/dryer combo, or because he doesn’t have the opportunity to go to a REALLY good school. You completely underestimate the power of idealogy.
Americans are more prone than most of the world’s people to graft our outlook onto everybody else. That’s what is going on here. Americans that believe terrorists act out of envy of our material comforts are simply not correct. UbL himself is extremely wealthy, but chooses to live like a miserly hermit because that’s what he believes his faith calls him to do: use whatever resources he has to kill Americans.
If we increase out aid ten-fold, if we try to use Coke and Levi’s to “win 'em over”, if we ignore what the terrorists themselves are saying, we get out of it what we got from the Somalis: not peace and co-operation, but the backs of their hands. Listen to what they’re telling us, because people like them are very up-front about what they want, and the methods they use to get it. Hitler wrote “Mein Kampf”, and when it turns out he meant what he said, the West was shocked. Mao wrote down his musings, and the West was appalled by the shock of the Ciultural Revolution.
No, sir. They mean what they say. Idealogues are very obliging in laying it out plainly, and the West is equally predictable in its collective flinching from this reality: they canNOT conceive that some people hate us enough to kill our children. Islamic fundamentalists utterly reject the ideals of the West. This is war to the death, either liberal democracy or Islamic fundamentalism.
Of course. That’s kind of the point. Show the zealots that terrorism will lead to the exact opposite of what they want. They expect bombs, they get culture. It will make them think twice before doing it again. The ordinary Muslims will dislike it at first, and it may even create some more zealots (but fewer than would be created by bombing), but eventually, after being inflicted with wealth, their hatred would turn to a more normal contempt. Just like everyone hates the French, but no one goes out to bomb the Eiffel Tower.
And you make some excellent points. There obviously is no magic bullet that a few people on a message board are going to come up with. The problem is too complex. Which is actually one of my (many) points. We have to ALL work together and coordinate ALL of the ideas that will help to solve PART of the problem. We cannot dismiss any ideas–yours, mine, the protestors, even Milo’s --as overly simplistic and naive. A complex problem will have a complex solution.
How amusing that I get patronized by you, who has offered among the most useless, ineffective, pollyannaish shit in this entire thread.
You state that Bluesman “makes some excellent points,” and criticize me in the same breath. If you’d care to pull your head out of Joni Mitchell’s support hose for a moment, I’d like to point out that he and I advocate almost precisely the same approach.
(Though I will admit he his far more eloquent with his views than me.)
Milo, my lad, you’re missing something here. According to The Rules, when a poster ends with a smilie ;), you are invited to consider the post as having a humorous light, and are thereby enjoined from a bitter, churlish riposte.
For instance, if I were to say something like “Is an invitation to eat shit an invitation to crack open your skull?”
The correct response is something like “Fuck you, goddam hippy faggot pansy;)”
even sven If your meaning is in general terms, that a nation that stifles dissent will fall head first into totalitarianism, then I agree. But I am using your statement to show why someone like me (and perhaps some others) do not like the current crop of peace protesters. It is this seemingly sanctimonous belief that you are the guardians of some kind of higher morality that no one else but yourselves can achieve.
When you said “Otto…wishes to give aid and comfort to the murderers of 6,000 Americans.” That’s a lie. Your starting this thread is hypocritical, given your responses to a certain thread of mine elsewhere in the Pit.
Oh yeah, it takes a real big man to go along uncritically with the warmongering mob. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to speak out for peace than against it. Fucking neolib fag, thinking he’s “progressive” because every couple of years he votes for a Democrat. So concerned about the deaths of 6,000 Americans that he cheers the deployment of another 28,000 into the line of fire. Or don’t you mind American deaths as long as they’re in a uniform?
Michael Ellis
Naw, my lasting claim to fame is that I got a board response from Cecil himself to my very first post. Whereas gobear’s opinion of me is a walnut in the batter of eternity.
Actually, Bluesman has consistantly shown the ability to think things through and even, dare I say, admit that someone else has a point or two of his own. You, sir, have consistantly shown an inability to do the same. You get your head stuck in a rut and keep bellowing the same bullshit like a boozed-up barroom blowhard. This is not a recent development. You have been that way as long as I have known you. I can like and respect people with whom I do not agree. You have taught me to neither like nor respect you. You are an annoying mosquito to me, buzzing around, making the same sound all the time. I no longer care to notice you. You are irrelevant.
The problem that these protestors have is that they feel that we are retaliating out of revenge. We are not “retaliating” at all. Terrorists necessitate their own destruction. They need not be avenged, but they do need to be stopped. If Bin Laden could have been killed before planning the WTC attack, that would have saved thousands of lives. There is only one way to prevent him from killing again. If we can take him alive, that’s fantastic, but we also have to stop the madmen who are following his cause. We cannot pretend that it never happened. We were living as though it never would happen before it happened. It’s great to tolerate lifestyles and choices, but we shouldn’t tolerate hate. If we do not respond, we are inviting more attacks and leaving the door open for hate. We don’t hate Bin Laden (okay, some do, but that’s not what our motivation should be), we just cannot tolerate his actions and need to protect ourselves from him. America was founded on fighting for freedom. Freedom has never just fallen out of the sky, so don’t expect it to this time.
dropzone - And you are a useless, pseudo-sophist, who thinks he has the moral high-ground for equivocating over an incident that calls for the most unequivocal response in U.S. history.
You can’t possibly find me as irrelevant as I find you.
As a member of the “warmongering mob” let me try to very carefully explain at least what my problems with the peace protestors are.
1)Bad memories. My father served in Vietnam. Many of the peace protestors of that era were vicious evil bastards when it came to how they treated military personnel. I’ve noted that from the period of the gulf war to the present, the vast majority of peace protestors are very careful to show concern and respect for military personnel, but my ill feelings still linger. Whenever I see Jane Fonda, I remember her posed atop a North Vietnamese AAA gun. My father’s aircraft was once hit by a AAA gun. Call me grumpy, but she praised the folks who tried to kill my dad and I hold a grudge.
2)Discompulation. Looking across a small pond of posters we can clearly see that the protestors “Don’t want your racist capitalist down with US Imperialism! Anarchy rules! Impeach Bush! Hi Mom! Oil companies are evil! Save the Environoment! Apricots go great with mustard! US out of the Middle-East! WAR!” Call us mob members confused, but what the fuck are they trying to say? The problem is when the protestors have a rally they send out a large call for everyone to come join in so that they can get their numbers up. Every dim bulb with a leftest or rightest bent shows up and the protest gets numbers but loses coherency. They need one peace group to get organized and put forth a coherent plan of action. Go for quality not quantity. I could understand the message “Justice not revenge!” Heck, that’s my goal too. But I can’t tell if the current group of protestors wants careful use of force to minimize civilian casualties or wants us to surrender to the terrorists, drape our women in bedsheets, and shoot people in soccer stadiums.
3)Some of the protestors either want us to give into the terrorist demands or do nothing at all. In part this complaint is linked to point #2. I want to seperate the protestors into easily identified groups so I know which ones to direct my utter contempt. Those who would have us do nothing are basically asking us to stand against a brick wall while being fired at. It’s illogical. It’s stupid. It’s suicidal. And it’s immoral to do nothing while our fellow citizens die.
I’m just real, real, real curious to know if those of you who roll your eyes and smirk at the rest of us have any idea whatsoever what many pacifists stand for. I’ll give you a neat hint: Justice is a big part of it. Not running up and handing flowers to killers.
As long as you don’t get the pacifist cause mixed up completely with the people who are choosing to march for other reasons, rant on baby.
I’m just a bit confused about what these people are protesting. They were going to protest the IMF and World Bank, now they are protesting for “peace”, whatever that means. It seems remarkably convenient that they could just change the whole purpose of the protest so easily.
What actions by the US gov’t are they against? As we all know, not a single person has been killed by the US armed forces in retaliation for this attack, not one. We have not even fired a single bullet in anger. We are approaching this from a diplomatic perspective, gaining support from nations across the globe to stamp out international terrorism. We are committed to using methods other than warfare and killing to stop them, though conventional armed conflict will be used when needed.
What is wrong with this policy? What about it implies that the US gov’t is not looking for the most peaceful possible solution, preventing loss of life? I would be more understanding of their position if we had done something.
As it stands, these protesters seem to be just anti-government, anti-Bush loudmouths looking to get on TV.
Just a “other person’s point of view” comment here, Blackclaw: The folks on the anti-aircraft gun very well may have considered your dad as trying to kill them.
My displeasure isn’t with them. They were soldiers in a war. I understand their actions. I don’t hold a grudge against them. My problem is with Jane.
It’s one thing to be against a war. And with the Vietnam conflict there certainly was a lot to be against. But it is another thing entirely to be rooting for the active demise of your fellow countrymen. This is especially callous when there is a draft and your fellow countrymen don’t have a heck of a lot of choice about being there in the first place.
I have noted the vast majority of the current group of peace protestors have been very careful not to wish harm upon members of the military. So this really is not a point of contention that I have with them. I just noted it to explain why I tend to be prejudice against peace protestors in general. It isn’t fair to them and I acknowledge that and do try to take steps to be rational about whatever issues they are espousing. But my prejudice is still there. So I thought it best to be upfront about it so folks can call me on it if I start to be unfair just cause I have bad memories of peace protestors in the past.
I originally posted this in a previous hippie-bashing thread, but I think it works even better here:
Cheesesteak:
You do realize that it’s not all the same people, right? Since I think that it’s sort of a good thing, I wouldn’t be caught dead protesting the IMF. On the other hand, I would strongly consider protesting military action (given certain circumstances, of course).
Milo:
Don’t you think that that’s the point? An unequivocal response implies knowledge of the best response; dropzone clearly doesn’t think you have it.
On second thought, could you spell out what you mean by “unequivocal”? For that matter, are you implying that dz is attempting to mislead when you say he is “equivocating,” or merely that he allows some ambiguity into his thought?
--as overly simplistic and naive. A complex problem will have a complex solution.