Post #20,415
12/5/01 8:45:46 PM
|
I don't see the problem
The Palestinan leadership (I'm pretty well convinced most Palestinians, like most other people, just want to be left alone) has pretty well ruled out any negotiation position that doesn't involve the complete destruction of Israel.
There is a moral difference between targeting combatants and targeting non-combatants, even if non-combatants end up dead both ways. Ir is it exactly the same to you if somebody keys your car or it is involved in a minor fender-bender that results in scratches but no dents? And I still want to know - have we killed as many non-combattants as we have disrupted executions for "crimes" that would not rate a fine in most countries?
As for all the other things, particularly Nicaragua where the U.S. was clearly and definitively the evil empire and a bunch of murdering thugs, well, that's not why those guys blew up the towers. We are very often in the wrong. The right to self-defense is not limited to saints. It is not earned by goodness, it is inherent in existence. And yes, this is self-defense. The people involved have a clearly stated intent, backed by actions, to kill as many Americans as they can. Until they change their tune, that makes anything we do to stop them self defense. Not revenge, not retaliation, self-defense.
---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #20,423
12/5/01 9:20:19 PM
|
Re: I don't see the problem
>Not revenge, not retaliation, self-defense.
Raining 500 pounders on a foreign country where the majority of its population are at the verge of starvation and disease is self-defense?
The tune is getting old. Yes, Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. No doubt abt it. OBL is the leader of Al Qaeda. No doubt abt that either. 9/11 is PROBABLY the work of Al Qaeda, that many of us understood, but note probably. Proof/evidence are nowhere to be seen.
Al Qaeda is NOT Afghanistan. No doubt abt that, do you? But the US is carpet bombing Afghanistan. No doubt abt that too, do you?
The US so-called self defense against Al Qaeda is destroying Afghanistan (now, whether it was already partially destroyed is another issue, at least it was THEY themselves who did the destroying) and so far has caused significant innocent casualties, and more to come as the bombing continues.
>There is a moral difference between targeting combatants and targeting non-combatants, even if non-combatants end up dead both ways.
Ok, I'm going out on a limb here, but bear with me. Wasn't the Pentagon a military establishment? So the terrorists were indeed targeting combatants, and the poor victims in the planes are non-combatants killed, like collateral damages? Make sense to you? And didn't the CIA has a office in WTC? So that's another combatant-stationed target, with non-combatants casualties, no?
Or does that sound too foul?
It does to me cause a life is a life, whether combatant, non-combatant, American or Afghani.
And believe me when I say I can comprehend your perspective. I just hope that you might also attempt to view it from a different one.
Thanks.
|
Post #20,427
12/5/01 9:56:22 PM
|
Let's talk about this ---
Quote: "Raining 500 pounders on a foreign country where the majority of its population are at the verge of starvation and disease is self-defense?"
" But the US is carpet bombing Afghanistan. No doubt abt that too, do you?"
That's a lie. If you're originating it, you're a liar. If you're repeating it, you've been lied to.
And please -- it's as much a surprise to us XGAs as it is to you. In the first place, over on another forum one of the planners in the logistics of all this is reporting that everyone's complaining that the bombs are too big! -- they don't even have 500 pounders any more; 1000 lbs and up is it! And in the second place, even the action they are taking is not by any stretch "carpet bombing". "Surgical Strike" is a stupid term -- we're talking about explosives here, and explosives are messy -- but within the constraints available, what they're doing is putting bombs exactly where they want them. Even Ashton ought to see the irony here -- they don't want to waste bombs (which cost money) blowing up people whose death doesn't help. Corporate war, with the bean-counters in control. Takes all kinds to make a world --
I've posted this before: Not everybody in the United States loved Fulgencio Bautista. During the mid and late Fifties, Castro's group had operatives all over the U.S. South, soliciting help -- and getting it. There weren't many people who starved to support the insurgency, but we didn't get a new car in '58 after Dad had promised Mom... I was in the room when the TeeVee showed Fidel's speech: "I am a Communist. I have always been a Communist." Dad's face, and that of his friend Jimmy (who was in much deeper) had to be seen to be believed. The Americans who supported Castro were betrayed, and they will remember that until they die.
You might recall that, in addition, it was Cubans who gave us "airplane hijacking" as a profitable pastime. Not a good way to make good PR.
When the last American who remembers that betrayal dies, we will resume diplomatic relations with Cuba, on a "let bygones be bygones" basis. If Castro dies before that happens, we will resume relations, etc. etc. But the people who were betrayed by Castro are now the elders, with at least advice-giving powers, and for thirty years were the power structure; it won't happen until they go.
As for the Palestinians -- another poster has noted the relevant point: The Arabs offer only one solution to the Middle East: Kill the Jews and destroy Israel. Unfortunately, they brought it up first at a time when somebody else with a similar policy was green in the memory. It doesn't help that they've consistently chosen stupid policies over the last half century, or that every time they've tried the Final Solution it blew up in their faces. The West Bank is held by Israel by precisely the same method whereby Canada holds Newfoundland or Italy holds Sicily or any other you can name. The method is called by the quaint French phrase force majeure, and every state (whether or not it is a nation-state) uses precisely the same method. [It's pretty easy when nobody wants to take it back, which is why Canadians have no problems :-) ]
Until very recently, you could find pockets of sympathy for the Palestinian people (though not Arafat and the force structure) throughout the United States, on the same basis as anti-Bautista sentiment in the Fifties. I know several Israelis, some expats, some not, and the continual refrain they sing is that the United States bullies them into letting their people be killed to advance some nebulous and doomed "peace process". The reason we have been doing that (and we have, since at least '67) is that we would strongly prefer not to have to kill people in job lots.
That consideration just went away. The photos of Palestinians rejoicing at our dead in the WTC just ended it. Congratulations, Yasser -- here's your gift from Osama bin Laden: nobody in the United States gives enough of a damn to protect you from the IDF any more. Wear it in good health.
Nicauragua? A mistake, for which many of the relevant people have been canned. But if you wanted it repeated, bombing the WTC would have been a real good place to start. Personally, I think the biggest mistake the U.S. made was failing to support Ho Chi Minh when he asked; backing the Froggies got us in ridiculously deep, for no result whatever. However, if you want to make a list of U.S. foreign policy mistakes, the list is long. Have a ball.
Yes, the Pentagon was a valid military target, and the dead on the airplane were collateral damage. Too bad you don't seem to pay much attention: that's precisely the official position of the U.S. Government. Next accusation, please.
"And didn't the CIA has a office in WTC? So that's another combatant-stationed target, with non-combatants casualties, no?"
Did it? Cite, please. Oh, I'm not saying it isn't so -- but keep in mind that the people who bragged about it didn't even have enough sense to emulate Timothy McVeigh and bring that up! (Note that McVeigh said he was after the Federal offices -- FBI, IRS, etc.) Even so, the WTC was a civilian building. The braggarts specified that it was a civilian building!
"It does to me cause a life is a life, whether combatant, non-combatant, American or Afghani."
Unless, of course, they happen to be American soldiers, American embassy guards, or Americans just standing around when somebody you approve of wants to make a point, right? Then they're "valid targets."
Regards, Ric
|
Post #20,442
12/6/01 12:21:12 AM
|
Carpet bombing with 29 civilian casualties?
My goodness we must aim bad.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #20,467
12/6/01 10:09:47 AM
|
You've hit on an important point...
And missed it entirely. You write: "Raining 500 pounders on a foreign country where the majority of its population are at the verge of starvation and disease is self-defense?" Which can be the only semblance of a point you have made in this entire thread. But where did you get the crazy idea that this is self defense? This is an offensive war to kill a group of people who have declared war on us. It is in our interest to kill them rather than let them fester and grow in Afghanistan and yes, the best defense is a good offense, but what do you mean, defense? Well, the problem further stated is such... The government of those poor people (the average Afghani citizen) chose a very poor friend to defend. The Taliban, by their refusal to hand over Bin Laden (which makes all of your points about international law, presenting evidence, etc... so much horseshit - The prosecution does not tip it's hand before the accused is detained), invited us and the bombs in.
As to Cuba, Nicaragua, Somalia, and on and on. The COLD WAR IS OVER. All the happy horseshit about propping up tyrants who would wave our flag (as opposed to the hammer and sickle) is also over (let's pray). And the rhetoric surrounding the evil US and it's naive populous is over (should be - understand?), because it no longer applies. If it makes you happy, maybe we are paying for our Cold War sins now, but what we are doing militarily is ABSOLUTELY the right thing at this point in our history. When we allow Israel to do what is necessary, it will also be the right thing. Something that seems to get lost in these discussions is the fact that we have trained and armed Israel to the teeth. Militarily, they could have expanded their borders long ago... We have been chanting restraint. We won't much longer. The Arab countries that now "hate" us, are really going to hate us when we "allow" Israel to take care of their business.
When you think it's okay to target civilians in New York or Jerusalem and think of them as "military" victories... You most probably aren't long for this world. I would argue that this is just one more negative consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. If nothing else, the Soviets in their hayday were able to keep Yugoslavia together by threat of abject violence. The same for Nicaragua and Cuba... Sort of the Yin with the Yan... The vacuum left by their disintegration is the root cause of much of the mess... And, like it or not, the remaining superpower is obligated to clean it up.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
|
Post #20,469
12/6/01 10:17:26 AM
|
Ah, you forget TTC still waves Red China's hammer and sicle.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #20,508
12/6/01 2:41:44 PM
|
Re: You've hit on an important point...
If you do read the post that I was responding to, perhaps my post would make MORE sense to you when taken in proper context.
|
Post #20,529
12/6/01 5:45:32 PM
|
Actually, you are probably right
in that the context of your reply and the general point of your thread is about jingoism... It's hard not to at times when the topic is inflamatory and the statements that follow conjure up strong emotion.
That said, all war euphemisms (like marketing... collateral damage, friendly fire, etc..) are pretty disgusting in that they are language meant to diffuse (or confuse). Please understand that my problem with your particular statements to which I responded to, seem to point out that you are still debating from a somewhat "Cold War" America (and all it's faults) point of view. I could be wrong. I dislike the rah, rah, rah, just as much as the next guy, but I also feel that this is a "just" action (if there ever really could be). I wish I could be more concrete but I still cannot divorce myself from the pathos of this situation. In debate, it is best to always try to argue from the logos, and that's why I am tending to shy away from this forum as of late. I think it very "human" to be emotional and not want to discuss this country's faults at this particular time.
Notice that I have not stated that I disagree with much of your posts in this thread, I think that the one I replied to may have gone a bit too far... YMMV.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
|
Post #20,600
12/6/01 11:52:55 PM
|
Re: Actually, you are probably right
Believe me, I do understand.
|
Post #20,527
12/6/01 5:38:53 PM
|
Al punte mon fr\ufffdre: No Balance of Power today exists..
That which sustained all throughout the 30 Years War, the 100 Years War, the ___ Wars ...ad nauseum ad infinitum and --> ongoing.. through the perpetual adolescence of homo non compos mentis.
There is No Place in the (This!) World for *Just One* Superpower! as your Yin/Yang simile wisely reminds. And at the present rate of accidental contretemps - there *Will* be an opposition coalition created.. eventually.. to counter our unsustainable hegemony \ufffdber alles. Microsloth is what you get, with *Just One* of ANYTHING. (And with an Ashcroftian/Billyan at the helm)
'Balance' or.. Worldwide Dystopia via (virtual) Dictat. We are dumb enough collectively - maybe?? - that either is a possible fork, in some next: depending IMhO on just how long we can keep it in the pants. Period. One Nuke next: can ruin Your Whole \ufffdon.
Ashton
|
Post #20,530
12/6/01 5:58:43 PM
|
Balance...
It is an impossible judgement to make. I still want to remain hopeful that one superpower can thrive in a world... History is against it (see Rome, Greece, Great Britain, etc...), but there is a chance that we could become enlightened... Unfortunately, our greed (commonly euphemized "business interests"), tends to make us want to build empires and makes it harder from us to steer clear of tyrants. Given the nature of this country, we basically are a decent lot - way too materialistic for some culture's tastes...
Oh, all right. You are probably right. Just wish it weren't so...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..."
P. Townshend
"Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
|
Post #20,535
12/6/01 6:24:03 PM
|
Next Stop Rollerball :(
tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|