Jodi: Well, we’re not so far appart then. I agree inaction or simple sanctions are not viable options, at least not from my standpoint. Terrorists, not being governments, thrive on sanctions - From their standpoint it just helps ratchet up the misery index and makes recruitment that much easier.
And I am resigned to the sad fact that collateral damage may be impossible to prevent. It is a fact of war, though I think care should be taken to avoid the death of civilians, when possible ( My main beef with a few people in recent days have been with those that feel that civilians in Afghanistan and elsewhere were complicit in some way in these terrorist acts and therefore deserve punishment as an act of retribution or to “set an example” ).
I guess then, where I might have an academic disagreement with you or Fenris ( who I greatly admire for his wit and superb taste in literature ), is that I think discussions of causation are appropriate at this time. I think such conversations can be held without falling into a “blame the victims” mentality and can be helpful in coming to grips with what it may require to reduce terrorism ( either in a general sense or in this particular circumstance ) in the future.
I do respect the “It’s Too Soon” argument, but I respectfully disagree with it. But then I have been accused of being too phlegmatic about a lot of things in the past, so this might just be a personality difference ( and not necessarily a positive or negative one ).
At any rate I’ve said my piece and I have to go shower and forage, so a good day to you all .
GUIN, your post brought tears to my eyes, and not in a good way. To hear you say that the United States was not an innocent victim – now I’m nauseous.
This was not an attack on a military installation. It was not an attack that was in any way provoked by any specific, recent action. It was not an attack that was proportional as a response to any perceived wrong.
Jesus Christ. It’s been less than a week. 5000 dead, and hundreds wandering Manhattan looking for their lost loved ones, hoping against hope that someone is alive in a pit of hell six stories deep and sixteen acres across.
I never said we should exist in a vacuum. I never said we should exalt nationalist or practice isolationsim. In times as emotional as this, I’ll be DAMNED if I’ll allow my position to be twisted.
Gosh, GUIN, it almost makes me wish I majored in history as well! Oh, wait. I did. And I make you the same invitation I have extended to others: If you have some “solution” to this current problem, then by all means let’s hear it.
I have never said we should not change. I have said we should not change as a response to terrorism, if the change constitutes what the terrorists want. Why not? Because we should not give in to terrorism.
Perhaps a point better made in a thread where at least one poster has advocated being blind to its faults?
What if their motivation is to lead the USA to fight on their terrain where they think they can win and unite the arab nations against America? Afghanistan is barely a country and the Taliban are mostly disliked. If they can hide from or stop the attacks by America then they stand to gain in reputation by being a nation under attack. After all they can always deny the terrorist attack.
Wait a minute. Believing that we need not know every iota of detail about the motivations of the hijackers means I advocate “blindly striking out” against an entire region? There is then, in your lexicon, no space between comprensive knowledge of one subject and “blindness” of another? I am at a loss to know how to respond to this. You grossly mischaracterize my position, and then you excuse it because “you have no other way to characterize it” except as something it patently is not. This total failure of comprehension strikes me as unfortunate, but it also strikes me as your problem.
WHY? I’d really appreciate an answer to this. WHY do we need to “perceive how the US and its past actions are perceived?” What difference does that make to what we must do now? Hello? Does anyone want to take a flier at this, or will you all simply parrot your assertion that it is “important,” as if you can convince me by repetition of that which you have failed entirely to explain. What good is knowing the hijackers’ motivations as we prepare to seek justice for the dead. Kindly do not again simply tell me that it is; that cuts no ice with me.
WHY??? Unless we intend to change our behavior to avoid further attacks – precisely the result sought by the hijackers – then what is the pressing urgency in understanding their grievances now?
And yet you have failed entirely to articulate how, or why.
What if it is? Then we do not attack them? We do what, instead? – ah, the point at which the alternativists get stuck. We must decisively act, and even if that is what they wanted, it is still what we must do. So, again, their motivation is irrelevant because it cannot change what must be done at this point. We must have justice, and that means bringing to justice the parties responsible, wherever they may be.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But one thing I know for sure is that we can’t continue to thumb our nose at the UN. We can’t continue to say, “Well, we’re a sovereign nation, and you can’t tell us what to do, blah blah blah…”
Jodi, I’ve always considered you a friend on this board, and I’m not attacking you personally. But right now, I feel like crying. I do not mean to say that those who were killed deserved it. No no no no no no! I’m simply stating that the US has done it’s fair share of shitty stuff as well. That we have sponsored and aided terrorism in the past is a fact. We have even trained them.
I guess I just don’t like the idea that it’s us vs. them when it comes to the rest of the world. What’s wrong with working together and everyone trying to find a solution? What’s wrong with caring about people?
(NOT that anyone here doesn’t care about people, just that I think that war isn’t always the answer-this could be another 1914)
Who said it was? I anticipate war – a real, honest to goodness, probably drawn out, young men dying far from home war. I look upon this with no satisfaction. But I see no other solution. And I don’t see anyone else proposing one, either. As I have said, inaction is not an option. So what else are we to do? There comes a time when a nation is simply provoked beyond all toleration – when injury is inflicted so deeply and so remorselessly that turning the other cheek is not possible. I believe that time for us was September 11, 2001.
This is precisely what I abhor in the strongest possible terms. To hear someone, in the wake of this monstrosity, say “well, the U.S. has done its fair share of shitty things as well” – as if we deserved this. As if they can justify this. As if we are to blame. It makes me sick to my stomach. It makes me ashamed.
I am not responding to this. See my last post, above.
If we do what they want then they can manipulate us again by doing the same thing. If we do our best to get the other arab nations on our side before we attack possibly using some of their soldiers then that will stop pretty much any chance of the other countries uniting against us. That would require some big concessions to them on our part, but IMHO if we did that we could do that we would take most of the fight out of Bin Laden before any shots are fired.
And I’m going home. I’ll pick this up tomorrow if I have time, and if somebody posts a reasonable explanation to this questions:
Why is the motivations of the hijackers – not their identity, nor who sent them, nor their culpability, but their motivations – relevant to our response in the coming few weeks? What “motivations” could they conceivably have that would change our response at this time? And what would we change that response to?
But I warn you that I will no longer be responding to people who stoop to misrepresenting my position as “nationalism” or as “not wanting the country’s image to be tarnished” or as any other insupportable nonsense. I don’t have the time to deal with it, and I don’t currently have the emotional energy to keep my temper while my position is twisted.
This is obviously true. It does not change the fact that we still must do it, even if it is what they want. Again, what other option have we that will bring justice to the dead?
So what difference does their motivation make? Even assuming they wanted us to attack Afganistan, are you saying we would then attempt to secure the cooperation of their Arab neighbors, when otherwise we would not? Clearly not. We are attempting to secure that cooperation as we speak, and regardless of the motivation – which, again, is irrelevant.
Well of course we ARE a sovereign nation that was attacked in three different locations. Is there another country on earth, that if attacked, would request advice on what to do about that attack from other countries? Because we are part of NATO, the nations of NATO may be involved in some sort of reponse, and the government is attempting to build up a coalition prior to any military response…so I don’t think the U.S. is acting in a vacuum, or without contact with other countries. I’m not sure what role the U.N. has in our reponse…can you explicitly define the role of the U.N. in our response to terrorists?
I’m not sure that this is important news to the families of the civilians killed by the terrorists…or should change our minds in terms of any response.
Well…as I suggested above…in terms of a political and military response…it appears that the U.S. government IS attempting to build a coalition, including extending ties to middle-east countries (including Pakistan). Ultimately, it was the U.S. that was attacked in 3 locations, on our soil. It is ultimately the U.S. responsibility to defend itself.
Who exactly are you referring to in terms of “caring about people”? Who, is NOT, caring about people?
I didn’t say YOU were nationalistic. I said sometimes our GOVERNMENT is.
You can love your country and yet abhor its wrongdoings. In my mind, to acknowledge what one’s country does wrong is important to making it better.
I am not saying that we have to right this second start blaming the US. I am saying, we need to start thinking more about how things are done here. Blind faith is ignorance.
So are we to conclude that doing what is right becomes wrong simply because it may please the terrorists? Are we to dig in our heels and refuse to do what is right * just because* what is right may also be something that terrorists desire of us?
Isn’t that the definition of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face?
It’s just that when you’re dealing with something of this unprecedented scale, any amount of willful ignorance strikes me as irresponsible.
Get over yourself. Not everything I attribute to “some people” or to “other people on this board” or what have you is in reference to you. I am making arguments; the fact that they are in response to your statements doesn’t mean that they’re against your statements.
I have never attributed any opinion to you personally at all. In fact, except for directly responding to your alarm at all of this, I’ve not even used your name or the second-person pronoun.
Except for - Oh, wait. Is this all because I quoted your sig? Could that be the case? Well, I must apologise if that’s what you thought. I only called it a “personal note to you” because it was your sig that made me come up with what I said. Had “Fiat Justitia” been Guin’s sig, even, I’d have made it a personal note to her.
To sum up, I don’t think I’m mischaracterizing your personal position for the reason that I haven’t characterized it at all. I’m responding to various viewpoints that have been bandied about in this thread and elsewhere by a variety of people. To the extent that you share the viewpoints I respond to, feel free to debate; to the extent that I’m responding to a viewpoint you don’t hold, feel free to ignore.
Try this on: Because the United States is a real country, with real armies, and real diplomats in real foreign states with real concerns of their own. Because behaving with a modicum of consideration for the situations and perceptions of states that could either be our* allies, our enemies, or indifferent to us will greatly improve our strategic position, reduce loss of life, and speed bin Laden to either justice or his maker. Because history has taught us that almost without regard for the actual actions that one takes, making no effort to understand one’s enemy, especially in a terrorist situation, will lead to a constant cycle of violence that will be to nobody’s advantage. Because the world is big and wide and imposing blunt, abstract, simplistic understandings on it will lead to no good end, backed up by no matter how many rivers of steel and blood.
Because knowledge, not ignorance, is strength.
I would rather improve the chances for long-term global stability and the success of NATO’s anti-terrorism goal than worry about how things appear.
By the way, if we mean to stamp out terrorism anyway, what does it matter what we appear to be doing in its regard at this stage?
*Incidentally: I say “our” because, however I may feel about it, Canada is the US’s ally and our sons and brothers will no doubt be dying along with yours when the time comes.
Not that anyone cares what I post, but, some of you are making me sick as well. Especially the so-called “students of history” and other psuedo-philosophers on this board. Ya know, there is a word for what you are proposing, not retaliating, understanding their feelings, changing our foreign policy based on recent events.
The word is “APPEASEMENT”. Please look it up. For more info, contact Mr. Chamberlain, and see how well that worked out for England and the world.
Who said anything about appeasement? Osama Bin Laden is NOT a Hitler-they are two different people.
I’m not suggesting we try and reason with the guy-I’m suggesting we lock him up and throw away the key-kill him, and you end up with ten more like him.
), is that I think discussions of causation are appropriate at this time. I think such conversations can be held without falling into a “blame the victims” mentality and can be helpful in coming to grips with what it may require to reduce terrorism ( either in a general sense or in this particular circumstance ) in the future.