Post #12,716
10/10/01 4:39:21 PM
|
I doubt he believed in Superman...
...with a capital "S" though...
I'm all for doing in monsters. The question is, should we become that which we seek to destroy, in order to destroy it?
If we do, then there is no difference between Bin Laden and ourselves.
I'm all for finding every single terrorist and giving them a .45 caliber enema. People seem to be forgetting that when I talk out. The difference is, they are not a sufficiently large enough threat to warrant destroying our own beliefs and faiths in order to stop them.
If you want something on that order, maybe the old Soviet Union, circa Cuba missile crisis era, or go read "The War Against the Chtorr."
Our collective survival as a culture is not on the line, no matter what Shrub et al might be trying to tell you. If it was, then I might be a little more willing to go along with the UberFascist "we can do no wrong" statements in this war. As it is, since our survival is not at stake, we are in serious danger of getting more of the same, if we don't learn from our mistakes.
That is WTF I am talking about, that is WTF the .sig is about, and that is what I am Fscking Tired of explaining every five minutes. You goddamn morons go running around as if Satan himself has materialized on the face of the earth in the form of OBL - calling out "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." A lot of people died in the WTC attacks (6-7k? I'm not sure) - and a lot more will die before this is all over. And you know what? After it all, the sun will still rise, and people will still take each day one at a time. If we go into this as if this is a Just and Righteous Fight Against the Only Monster on the Planet, we'll be fighting this war again, and again, and again, and again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
If, and ONLY IF we are in danger of being wiped out AS A COLLECTIVE CULTURE, then YES I would be all for indiscriminate defense of our culture.
Losing some really infintesmally small portion of our population, without wanting to sound callous towards those who died, from such an event is NOT a Culture-threatening event.
Pearl Harbor was culturally threatening - somebody with a lot of resources came and kicked our teeth in, and then threatened to give us a body blow.
Hitler was culturally threatening - he took over Europe!
OBL blew up a building. He has minimal resources for further action. Most nations are picking sides against him. I do want the fundamental roots of terrorism taken out, but not at the cost of my humanity.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #12,722
10/10/01 5:04:39 PM
|
Couple of factual points....
Pearl Harbor was culturally threatening - somebody with a lot of resources came and kicked our teeth in, and then threatened to give us a body blow.
Erm.
Pearl Harbor was incredibly damaging to the US ego, that's about it.
The Japanese never were planning an attack on the US. They wanted the Pacific. That's it. Pearl Harbor was an attempt to shock the US out of it, to give up without a fight, and if we didn't, to make it impossible to stop them.
In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces.
Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to
know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
"You are right", he told the Americans. "We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."
Japan never could have held anything across the ocean. They weren't going to attempt it.
Hitler was culturally threatening - he took over Europe!
Which was threatening to the European culture. Germany had no aircraft carriers, not even long-range bombers.. When he declared war (on the US) it was a shock even to the British... Churchill was surprised - and elated. He knew what the US coming in meant.
Germany wasn't a threat to us, either. At best, after winning the war in Europe, assuming they had, and developing the atomic weapon, there would have been a standoff - but those oceans are big, deep, and cold. They insulate very well.
OBL blew up a building. He has minimal resources for further action.
We don't know what his resources are.
And its a bit more than "blew up a building". He had an organized effort of _at least_ 20 people, who hijacked 4 planes, and apparently more were planned, and *trained* pilots to fly said planes, and then staged a timed attack.
We don't know what the intent was, but apparently it was to kill 50,000 people or more. The fact that they failed in their intent was as much luck as the preparation that the previous attempt had caused. What else was a target for the planes that didn't get hijacked?
Unless you presume that OBL's an idiot, surely he knew what the response would be - and surely he's got a plan for it, and a counter attack of *some* sort planned.
I think you're demonizing the people who want him and his ilk dead as much as you think they're misunderstanding you.
Have you seen Training Day? From what I've read, it sounds like a very similar situation. How low can you go, before you've crossed the line?
Addison
|
Post #12,730
10/10/01 5:41:18 PM
|
Hitler not threatening?
Consider Cold war where NATO's resources are on Soviet side. That's what you'd get if Hitler prevailed. With a leader on top that is clinically crazy. Are you sure US would have won?
|
Post #12,829
10/11/01 12:21:21 AM
|
It's Laughable, Isn't it?
Hitler not threatening. Whoa! talk to the Ukranians and the Muscovites, not to mention the Poles.
addison and screamer - birds of the same oily feather.
|
Post #12,880
10/11/01 10:48:06 AM
|
Not to the US culture, no.
Which was the context involved.
I don't know the US would have "won" the resulting cold war, but I'm fairly confident.. The Nazi state would have (likely) collapsed sooner than the Soviet did.
But that's aside from the fact that we got involved with WWII for moral grounds, not defense.
Addison
|
Post #12,948
10/11/01 2:50:22 PM
|
Re: Not to the US culture, no.
Nazi state may have lasted longer than Soviet. They did not kill their own citizen withe the same ferocity. In particular, they did not kill off pesantry like Stalin did.
|
Post #12,750
10/10/01 6:57:02 PM
|
Guess I'm demonizing myself as well...
...since I'm one who wants to install .45 caliber air conditioning in OBL's cranium for crimes against humanity. I'd smiley face this, but I can't bring myself to - it's too serious.
Good point about the Japanese - I actually had forgotten that. OTOH, they did try to invade a small part of the U.S. - a machinegun bunker on one of the Alaskan islands, but that doesn't really count for much. Still...
Y'see, if you've been listening to marlowe and screamer, they're cryin' out - "Hey, let's kill 'em all, we'll figure out the bill later!" At least, that seems to be the gist of what they're saying in my perception.
I'm saying, "Hell, yeah, let's go bust a cap in his ass, but let's also take steps to make sure that we're not back here in another 20 years." And no, that doesn't mean turning the area into glass, but it sure doesn't mean bending over and letting OBL ream us with a 747.
That's what I'm trying to flail against - and I'm probably not doing it too effectively, being split three ways already - house hunting, job, and school. Brain overload!
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #12,887
10/11/01 11:09:01 AM
|
Its all context.
Remember: Fairness, justice, evenness, these are all fictions we've created.
And so the context is important. OBL thinks he's a hero for what he's done. He wants to kill more Americans - the word "innocent" is meaningless to him.
Which in his context is fine.
In our context, it means we've got to kill him, and his buddies.
If you look for a completely "centered" viewpoint, you end up a fundamentalist - and you cannot tolerate anyone not centered at least close to you. Or at least, most people can't.
Good point about the Japanese - I actually had forgotten that. OTOH, they did try to invade a small part of the U.S. - a machinegun bunker on one of the Alaskan islands, but that doesn't really count for much. Still...
Couple Islands, actually. But that was a feint in the Battle of Midway. The plan was that the US commanders there would start screaming, the Fleet would set sail from Pearl, go north to head off the Japanese, Midway would get hit, they'd change directions, and sail into a pincher of battleships supported by aircraft.
So it wasn't a "serious" attack, and they abandoned it later.
I'm saying, "Hell, yeah, let's go bust a cap in his ass, but let's also take steps to make sure that we're not back here in another 20 years." And no, that doesn't mean turning the area into glass, but it sure doesn't mean bending over and letting OBL ream us with a 747.
And context gets us again.
I mean, we *could* abandon Israel. Get out of every foreign affair, and just retreat back to the US mainland. That's the most obvious step to "avoid" these problems. But as you note, there are times when we take a moral imperative. Bombing the Serbs - when none of the Europowers wanted to Be Involved. Why? Mainly because there was a lot of downside, and not a *lot* of gain. Why get the serb's pissed, and possibly having terrrorist attacks, etc, getting the boys killed.... In the short term, its easier, better, safer to "mind your own business".
And as you know, sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. If you saw a woman getting raped, would you act? If you said yes, then you're not thinking about it. It would depend, wouldn't it? On what you did, and how?
If you saw a woman being raped by one guy, you'd act differently than by a bunch of guys, and probably differently if they visibly had weapons. What if they had weapons, and badges/uniforms? (IE, were the cops, or local military) - that would change how you acted, in each case, right?
Context is everything. And context is subject to interpretation.
Short answer: Life's a Bitch.
:)
Addison
|
Post #12,748
10/10/01 6:49:39 PM
|
I'm only gonna say this once...
You write:
"You goddamn morons go running around as if Satan himself has materialized on the face of the earth in the form of OBL - calling out "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." A lot of people died in the WTC attacks (6-7k? I'm not sure) - and a lot more will die before this is all over. And you know what? After it all, the sun will still rise, and people will still take each day one at a time."
Are you including me in those "morons"? If so, you obviously haven't really read any of my posts. If I may reiterate - civilization now stands at a crossroads... For mankind to live in a society (which Nietsche had some monsterously fucked up ideas about if you'd actually bother to read him), there has to be an "or else".
"I like you shirt, I'll take it." "I like your woman - I think I'll rape her". "I don't like you, I think I'll blow up two of your biggest buildings and kill as many of you as I can." Laws exist to keep people from doing what they other wise would do naturally. If it was just "wrong" and there was no "or else", then there really would be no point in having laws - nor civilizations....
Now just exactly what is your point?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"Putting the fun back into funatic"
|
Post #12,757
10/10/01 7:25:36 PM
|
As a matter of fact, it *is* on the line.
These people have demonstrated by both word and deed that they are unwilling to tolerate the existence of anything but their own culture. And they have demonstrated by their organization and ingenuity that containment is not likely to succeed.
The sun may rise in the morning, but on what sort of world?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #12,770
10/10/01 8:12:59 PM
|
Not on theirs.
We have the resources, and the will, to make sure they don't win, without losing our society. I am sure of it. There is just too much of the world that doesn't agree with them, or has too much to lose by agreeing with them, to keep them from winning.
The real problem isn't stomping out this manifestation of the disease. The real problem is curing it before our toys (read:weapons) get so nasty that the next manifestation of the disease wipes us all out.
Stop treating the symptoms, without treating the cause.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
