IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Regional/World Conflict Forum / I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
Post #18,048
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
11/13/01 11:15:26 AM
Reply
New I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
And neither are the Taliban. And if, by chance, the Taliban were shown proof (the debate over its existence aside), they would have rejected it (naturally) and the intelligence sources used to gather that proof would have been forever compromised.

Sorry...in war...which this is...I don't think trading strategic info for moral high ground is a very good idea.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Post #18,518
by TTC
11/16/01 3:58:05 AM
Reply
New Re: I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground"
BP, I hope you understand what I'm trying to get here.

I've never defended the terrorists' action. Nor do I support any nation that "harbour" terrorists and "support" terrorism KNOWINGLY. I believe folks with sanity will probably have the same stance.

What we differ in is the way things are being handled, or rather mishandled.

9/11 was a tragedy.

However, a little introspective will reveal that such a tragedy was one that was waiting to happen in view of US foreign policy, past and present. Justifiable, no. To be expected, yes.

After the 9/11, the US could have had a legitimate WAR against terrorism. Instead, it has become a "hand over OBL or we'll bomb you, fuck the proofs" "terrorist action" in the eyes of many. Almost every nation denounced terrorism. Whether they are paying lips service or not, we won't know. Is the US really against terrorism itself if it wasn't the victim?

Nevertheless, many "allies" in this war are allies because they can't afford to be in the "against US" category, economically and militarily. So are they victims of terrorism? "You're with us, or you are with the terrorists" (and you know what we will do to the terrorists, don't you?)

And then, the biggest irony of all, the US "ally" itself with the NA, a bunch of looters and rapists no less, which is at war with the then-ruling regime in their civil war, thus again ignoring the sovereignty of another nation and propping up the US-preferred faction.

So does the end justify the means? How really different is the US from the terrorists of 9/11?
     Alternative views - (TTC) - (55) - Nov. 7, 2001, 08:25:56 PM EST
         Thanks! Mother lode... and Molly Ivins too - - (Ashton) - Nov. 7, 2001, 09:06:59 PM EST
         Re: Alternative views - (TTC) - (1) - Nov. 7, 2001, 08:44:23 PM EST
             Fine link this one - (boxley) - Nov. 7, 2001, 08:58:19 PM EST
         "Marginalized views" would be a more appropriate title. - (marlowe) - (51) - Nov. 8, 2001, 11:40:14 AM EST
             The point you don't get... - (inthane-chan) - (50) - Nov. 8, 2001, 11:58:00 AM EST
                 Close enough, Thane-san.. close enough. - (Ashton) - (49) - Nov. 8, 2001, 12:58:49 PM EST
                     I'm not betting on it. - (Brandioch) - (47) - Nov. 8, 2001, 01:24:20 PM EST
                         Just what would you suggest be done? - (screamer) - (46) - Nov. 8, 2001, 05:29:05 PM EST
                             Covered in another thread. - (Brandioch) - (30) - Nov. 8, 2001, 06:10:27 PM EST
                                 But when we try >that<... - (bepatient) - (28) - Nov. 8, 2001, 09:32:33 PM EST
                                     No quarrel with that list - (Ashton) - Nov. 8, 2001, 09:28:39 PM EST
                                     WTO? - (Brandioch) - (26) - Nov. 9, 2001, 02:00:20 PM EST
                                         Exploitation vs. Protectionism - (ChrisR) - (23) - Nov. 9, 2001, 02:16:08 PM EST
                                             Well said. -NT - (Another Scott) - Nov. 9, 2001, 02:28:21 PM EST
                                             Develop local businesses. - (Brandioch) - (21) - Nov. 9, 2001, 05:28:52 PM EST
                                                 Catch 22 - (bepatient) - (20) - Nov. 9, 2001, 05:48:55 PM EST
                                                     Easy answer. - (Brandioch) - (19) - Nov. 9, 2001, 06:06:39 PM EST
                                                         Re: Easy answer. - (bepatient) - (18) - Nov. 9, 2001, 11:30:26 PM EST
                                                             Exploitation vs development. - (Brandioch) - (17) - Nov. 11, 2001, 11:02:53 PM EST
                                                                 Re: Exploitation vs development. - (bepatient) - (16) - Nov. 12, 2001, 10:20:39 AM EST
                                                                     Pattern recognition time, again.. - (Ashton) - (15) - Nov. 12, 2001, 05:28:46 PM EST
                                                                         Keep up... - (bepatient) - (14) - Nov. 12, 2001, 08:12:42 PM EST
                                                                             OK I think we have a platform here - (Ashton) - (8) - Nov. 12, 2001, 07:30:59 PM EST
                                                                                 Wow... - (bepatient) - (1) - Nov. 12, 2001, 08:08:43 PM EST
                                                                                     Yes, bad association: *The Nothing Party* it is! - (Ashton) - Nov. 12, 2001, 08:54:35 PM EST
                                                                                 Re: OK I think we have a platform here - (TTC) - (5) - Nov. 12, 2001, 11:35:22 PM EST
                                                                                     reread the treaty of the high seas - (boxley) - Nov. 13, 2001, 12:17:49 AM EST
                                                                                     Correction... - (bepatient) - (3) - Nov. 13, 2001, 12:32:24 AM EST
                                                                                         Re: Correction... - (TTC) - (2) - Nov. 13, 2001, 08:34:03 AM EST
                                                                                             I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground" - (bepatient) - (1) - Nov. 13, 2001, 11:15:26 AM EST
                                                                                                 Re: I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground" - (TTC) - Nov. 16, 2001, 03:58:05 AM EST
                                                                             Re: Keep up... - (wharris2) - (3) - Nov. 12, 2001, 08:22:50 PM EST
                                                                                 Great.... - (bepatient) - (2) - Nov. 12, 2001, 08:11:16 PM EST
                                                                                     I was kind. - (wharris2) - (1) - Nov. 12, 2001, 08:23:52 PM EST
                                                                                         Thanks -NT - (bepatient) - Nov. 12, 2001, 08:36:34 PM EST
                                                                             point of order - (boxley) - Nov. 13, 2001, 12:09:29 AM EST
                                         I think it's dangerous... - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - Nov. 9, 2001, 04:05:38 PM EST
                                             Thanks UK for the term, 'sticky wicket' :( -NT - (Ashton) - Nov. 9, 2001, 04:39:40 PM EST
                                 You'll get no argument here... - (screamer) - Nov. 8, 2001, 09:48:48 PM EST
                             Re: Just what would you suggest be done? - (TTC) - (4) - Nov. 8, 2001, 08:49:00 PM EST
                                 Simple... - (screamer) - Nov. 9, 2001, 12:16:27 PM EST
                                 Your country shrugs at massive civvy deaths ]:-> - (boxley) - (1) - Nov. 8, 2001, 10:37:42 PM EST
                                     Right to Life, Bill.. Sacredness of Life. - (Ashton) - Nov. 8, 2001, 11:36:46 PM EST
                                 Fundamental flaw here. - (Ashton) - Nov. 9, 2001, 12:07:11 AM EST
                             You say that as if it were SO OBVIOUSLY a good thing. - (CRConrad) - (9) - Nov. 14, 2001, 12:44:47 PM EST
                                 What are *you* babbling about? - (wharris2) - (1) - Nov. 14, 2001, 01:39:06 PM EST
                                     Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot - (CRConrad) - Nov. 14, 2001, 01:49:18 PM EST
                                 CRC - My European nemesis... - (screamer) - (6) - Nov. 14, 2001, 02:42:15 PM EST
                                     "Quote just a tad further down in same post"? No effing fun! - (CRConrad) - (5) - Nov. 14, 2001, 07:34:41 PM EST
                                         Stop it! Stop it! - (Ashton) - Nov. 14, 2001, 08:36:00 PM EST
                                         Well Da was a shop steward UAW, Eddie Burns his left hand - (boxley) - (2) - Nov. 14, 2001, 10:34:44 PM EST
                                             Why don't you go back where you came from :-) - (screamer) - (1) - Nov. 15, 2001, 10:10:17 AM EST
                                                 workin on it :) -NT - (boxley) - Nov. 15, 2001, 11:33:31 AM EST
                                         I'll raise your meese and ... - (screamer) - Nov. 15, 2001, 10:05:14 AM EST
                     I'm not betting on it. - (Brandioch) - Nov. 8, 2001, 01:24:20 PM EST

I see shrieking neurons - certain they will Never be given any Work! Contemplating seppuku.
59 ms