USA strikes start! go switch on your tv [Archive]

Webdude

October 7th, 2001, 17:15

I find it interesting how tough they talked before this all started, now that their electric plants, airport, and anti-aircraft weapons are destroyed within a matter of few hours...they now run for the hills and call us terrorists.

Did you see the interview with that taliban official? It was hilarious..LOL. When spoken to, he looked right at the camera. When responding, his eyes were all over the place except the camera. Sure sign of a lier to me..hehe. Do these people ever see themselves on tv? Do they know how rediculous they look?

The taliban remind me of a little boy with a gun. They get a weapon and think they are invincible. What will they do now that they cant get planes off the ground, and their weapons are buried in rubble?

For those crying about the innocent, nothing can be done about that. We attacked their military, not civilian places. The taliban are the ones who will put innocence in harm's way in attempt to shield themselves. Given that, they are at fault. A government is supposed to protect it's citezens, not use them as shields...so it is the taliban's fault if innocent get killed. Our government is now doing everything it can to protect everyone from future terrorism. A few innocent will die in the process. Considering this was worse than pearl harbor, we are being quite easy on them compared to what we did to the japs. We have waged war against those that harbor terrorists. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent innocent deaths, but it will not be put into a position of NOT defending us because it will cost innocent lives in a terrorist country. If the taliban uses innocent to sheild themselves, then both will die because the U.S. is protecting a great many more lives by doing so. That's war. That's how it works regardless if any of us like it or not.

Giancarlo

October 7th, 2001, 18:41

The Taliban won't use innocent people to shield themselves, because the Northern Alliance will come to the rescue. I am hoping for that King to be reinstated but not as king just as an interim leader until elections, because most of the people in the Northern Alliance aren't anything to cheer about.

I think of the Taliban like this (at one air strip): we got two AA-Guns, we can shoot down those twenty bombers (B-52s, B-1s, etc) because we are praised with allah. Oh hell, we only have five (rudimentary, rusted) missiles. But our missiles are praised by allah.

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 19:04

I found it amusing that there were rallies in DC for people who wanted peace and wanted to take the attack without retaliating. The amusing part was a local radio station poked fun at them.

They put a hypothetical scenario that went like this: You walk up to one of the people saying that we shouldn't retaliate and that peace is the only answer and you punch them without warning. When they get ready to fight back and you tell them that they shouldn't retaliate because of their own beliefs and they get control of themselves then punch them again. Eventually they will crack and fight back or they will find themselves helpless and on the ground.

Now I don't suggest actually doing that but it does get the point across that we can't put up with terrorists like this or they will continue to attack at their maximum capacity.

AlabamaMan

October 7th, 2001, 19:35

People are ignorant, I asked one of the "peace maker" what other way to retaliate, she said "Econoic sanction". I didnt say a word, its useless to argue with these "intelligent people". Weve been setting sanctions against Taliban for years, the problem is They dont feed the terrorists, they terrorists feed them.

Webdude

October 7th, 2001, 19:42

I entirely agree. I saw those idiots doing thei rallies on c-span. We should send them all to the frontlines to do what they think is the best way. When they fail, they will know the truth..

Originally posted by Todd
I found it amusing that there were rallies in DC for people who wanted peace and wanted to take the attack without retaliating. The amusing part was a local radio station poked fun at them.

They put a hypothetical scenario that went like this: You walk up to one of the people saying that we shouldn't retaliate and that peace is the only answer and you punch them without warning. When they get ready to fight back and you tell them that they shouldn't retaliate because of their own beliefs and they get control of themselves then punch them again. Eventually they will crack and fight back or they will find themselves helpless and on the ground.

Now I don't suggest actually doing that but it does get the point across that we can't put up with terrorists like this or they will continue to attack at their maximum capacity.

Giancarlo

October 7th, 2001, 19:57

Hey, peacemaker was used in a quote by Richard Nixon, those people who were protesting do not deserve to be labeled peacemakers because they want peace in a illogical way.

We need peace with honor, and the honor is capturing Bin Laden and forcing the Taliban down to its knees.

AlabamaMan

October 7th, 2001, 20:00

Yea but the whole point is if we dont attack the terrorists now they will kill more of us in the future. Thats the whole freaking point

Giancarlo

October 7th, 2001, 20:01

That is what I said, and that is why I said the people protesting have illogical ideas.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 21:20

We should send them all to the frontlines to do what they think is the best way.What they think is best would entail not going to the frontline for there would be none.

Violence begets violence, it is never a solution. The attacks were a statement by those who feel oppressed by the US. The answer is to find what is the cause of their feelings and work to remedy it. Their sentiments did not give them the right to attack and kill and I do not condone them, but neither does it give us such right and I shall never be for any act of aggression on our part in the name of revenge.

This is not a very good analogy, but under time constraints it was the best I could come up with. When your body attacks you with a headache, you don't strike back at your head, you find the cause of your sickness and try to alleviate it. Striking back will cause more and greater headaches. A strike on Afghanistan will not end terror. Peace is not won by war.
They put a hypothetical scenario that went like this: You walk up to one of the people saying that we shouldn't retaliate and that peace is the only answer and you punch them without warning...I'm not a religious man, I'm actually an atheist, but I find the bible handy at times to make my point clearer. In this situation, I find "...I tell you not to resist an evil person ... whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also..." a more than fitting quote.

I am a pacifist. I'm in the minority in this war-mongering America. Most of you, I know, have been waiting for war, eager for it. I have not. I hope one day people will see their error, but I know they never will and no amount of marches or protests will force them to. Nothing can be forced. No one has the right to force anything onto anyone else, us included.

But all is in the past now. War has begun, there is no undoing what has already been done. I post this because this discussion as of yet has been entirely one-sided. I am the other side. I doubt if any others will surface to support me, pacifism is entirely unpopular at the moment-- one might say, un-American.

I end with a few (well, twenty-four) quotes on pacifism.
"War will exist until that day when the Conscientious Objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
- John F. Kennedy

"Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith."
- Saint Francis

"Either man will abolish war, or war will abolish man."
- Bertrand Russell

"Hatred does not cease by hatred at any time, but hatred ceases by love; this is an eternal truth."
- The Buddha

"If men were to regard the states of others as they regard their own, then who would raise up his state to attack the state of another?"
- Mo-zi

"Don't stir the fire with a knife: don't stir the passions or the swelling pride of the great with violence."
- Pythagoras

"I myself would wish neither; but if it were necessary either to do wrong or to suffer it, I should choose to suffer rather than to do wrong."
- Socrates

"You can leave your darts behind you: / Yea, for sword and spear shall cease. / All things all around are teeming / With the mellow gifts of Peace."
- Aristophanes

"We no longer take up 'sword against nation' nor do we 'learn war any more,' having become children of peace"
- Origen

"But I tell you: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those cursing you, pray for those abusing you, so that you may become sons of your Father in heaven."
- Jesus Christ

"Where there is patience and humility, there is neither anger nor vexation."
- Francis of Assisi

"It is in the quietude or tranquillity of peace that mankind finds the best conditions for fulfilling its proper task."
- Dante

"When resentment goads you to revenge, remember that anger is a false imitation of fortitude, and fortitude is the antithesis of anger. Nothing manifests a weaker will, nothing requires a feebler and weaker mind than enjoyment of revenge."
- Erasmus

"We must look for peace by purging the very sources of war, false ambitions and evil desires."
- Erasmus

"For self-defense, I would restore the spiritual culture. The best and most lasting self-defense is self-purification."
- Mahatma Gandhi

"Science of war leads one to dictatorship pure and simple. Science of nonviolence can alone lead one to pure democracy."
- Mahatma Gandhi

"Every thoughtful, well-meaning and conscientious human being should assume in time of peace, the solemn and unconditional obligation not to participate in any war, for any reason or to lend support of any kind, whether direct or indirect."
- Albert Einstein

"It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."
- Bahá'u'lláh

"When a thought of war comes, oppose it by a stronger thought of peace. A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of love."
- 'Abdu'l-Bahá

"Fair Peace triumphant blooms on golden wings, / And War no more of all his victories sings."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"We must establish the reign of reason and justice, and not violence, which is fit only for beasts."
- Eméric Crucé

"Only the defeated and deserters go to the wars, cowards that run away and enlist."
- Henry David Thoreau

"War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves."
- Leo Tolstoy

"There is no way to peace; peace is the way."
- Abraham Johannes Muste

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 21:36

Ideally there would be no war but this is not an ideal situation. You may be as peaceful as you wish but if your enemy sees your peaceful outlook as a vulnerability then it does not benefit you.

Another words if the party we're dealing with doesn't recognize peace as a better solution and instead sees it as a vulnerability it will not benefit us.

I think we can all agree the other party is not interested in peace and instead only sees it as a vulnerability. If we didn't attack I highly believe that it would have been viewed as a victory in their eyes.

Quote what you will and argue the other viewpoint all you want but I don't think you can honestly say they wanted a peaceful resolution.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 21:49

If we didn't attack I highly believe that it would have been viewed as a victory in their eyes.Are we really concerned with what they see in their eyes? Fearing for your self-image should not push you to vengeance. There is nothing that vindicates war.
I don't think you can honestly say they wanted a peaceful resolution.What they want and what should be done are two entirely different animals. One should not stoop to their level, one should maintain what they know to be right.

We do not live in an ideal world, no, but we should strive to become nearer one, not thrust ourselves in the other direction.

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 22:04

Originally posted by Dusty
Are we really concerned with what they see in their eyes? Fearing for your self-image should not push you to vengeance. There is nothing that vindicates war.
I'm in no position to speak for every one but in my opinion it does matter. If they see it as a victory the attacks will continue and probably grow in size. That is why it matters to me and not because we are concerned how they see it but rather the reaction that it spawns. I don't care what they think of the USA, specific religions, races, or any other issues but the second they kill innocent people then I do care.

Originally posted by Dusty
What they want and what should be done are two entirely different animals. One should not stoop to their level, one should maintain what they know to be right.
I refer back to the previous posted scenario. If attacked you can stand still and wait to be attacked again. You can do it all you wish but when you are no longer able to stand they have won.

I support peace and diplomatic resolutions as much as anyone but that only works when the other party is willing. There is video footage of Osama Bin Laden saying: "And for the United States I want to tell United States and its people that I swear by god by Allah that he who has freed the sky that the United States will not have peace."

How can you negotiate with someone that believes so firmly that by attacking us he is doing the right thing? The Taliban appear pretty dependent upon Bin Laden for his money so of course they don't want to give him up or else they will most likely fall.

If you want the exact location of the streaming media file where he is on tape saying that let me know and I'll dig it up. It's also on the CNN website if you would prefer to find it yourself.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 22:10

Originally posted by Dusty
Are we really concerned with what they see in their eyes? Fearing for your self-image should not push you to vengeance. There is nothing that vindicates war.What they want and what should be done are two entirely different animals. One should not stoop to their level, one should maintain what they know to be right.

We do not live in an ideal world, no, but we should strive to become nearer one, not thrust ourselves in the other direction.

It is impossible to become ideal when others will attack you. This terrorist attack was no a one time incident. Sure, it is the first time on American soil, but we have been attacked many times, for instance the Cole(sp?) and the embassies in Africa. The US is being attacked.

By your principles, America would not have gotten involved in world war 2. Imagine what would have happened if the US did not join in on the war. England was the last major power standing in Europe, and half of Asia was being conquered by the Japanese.

I am a pacifist to an extent, but I am one that realizes war is necessary to defend oneself. While this attack may be deemed as an offensive measure, if we never fight against terrorism, we will be bombarded by even further attacks, that will approach this or further.

This is also a result of pacifism, when we meddle in other countries in the Middle East. While I agree that it is necessary to a point, if we did not get involved in conflicts, there would be a lot less anti american propoganda in the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, and other countries where radical Muslims(not Muslim countries necessarily) have prominence.

So lets say someone points a gun at you. Would you not fight him if no other options present themself to protect yourself, or would you just sit there and let him shoot you. This is like a bully at school, they will continue to pick on you until you fight back. Granted, the US is bigger than terrorism, but nevertheless, terrorism is trying to bully the US.

In the end, let me ask you. Is it going to take a nuked American city to justify war in your mind, or would that still not justify it?

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 22:11

'm in no position to speak for every one but in my opinion it does matter. If they see it as a victory the attacks will continue and probably grow in size. That is why it matters to me and not because we are concerned how they see it but rather the reaction that it spawns. I don't care what they think of the USA, specific religions, races, or any other issues but the second they kill innocent people then I do care.Do you not think attacking a group that many people believe in will not inspire them to rise and fight for their fallen comrades? Violence begets violence, as I said. The cause of their anger should be targeted, not them.
If attacked you can stand still and wait to be attacked again. You can do it all you wish but when you are no longer able to stand they have won.Have they really?
How can you negotiate with someone that believes so firmly that by attacking us he is doing the right thing?How can you do the right thing by doing something that is wrong?

niv

October 7th, 2001, 22:15

Might I add that the humanitarian aid that is going to the Afghani refugees are coming from our pockets...yet some of us, American citizens, who need it the most, are denied that kind of aid...

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 22:15

Is it going to take a nuked American city to justify war in your mind, or would that still not justify it?Nothing justifies war. It would be better to stand by your convictions than to become what you're against.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 22:17

Originally posted by Dusty
Do you not think attacking a group that many people believe in will not inspire them to rise and fight for their fallen comrades? Violence begets violence, as I said. The cause of their anger should be targeted, not them.Have they really?How can you do the right thing by doing something that is wrong?

IT will inspire some to fight, but think, if many people who are in a cause lose, do you think many would join in on a losing cause. That is how morale works. However, if the cause is successful in their eyes, their ranks will risegrow substantially.

Violence begets violence, but doing nothing will beget violence from the other side. Do you think they will simply stop if we don't attack them. This attack was not a result of an attack, but to our policy in the middle east.

So, how can you say war is wrong in this situation. I say nothing is wrong, because it will only make the terrorists more willing to attack. If there are no consqeuences, then what will stop them from doing as they wish?

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 22:24

Originally posted by Dusty
Nothing justifies war. It would be better to stand by your convictions than to become what you're against.

I don't beleive we should just blindly say "War evil. Peace good."

WAr, of course is never a good option, but what other option is there in this situation? Osama and Al-Qaeda(sp?) are basically at war with the US and will not negotiate, and Afghanistan will not give us Osama. Do you really beleive if Osama was tried in a Muslim court he would be found guilty, which there is a 99.9% chance that he is guilty. There is no other option other than let us be killed mercilessly. So tell me, what do you propose the alternative to war is. If there are no consequences to an action, what will stop someone from doing it?

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 22:24

Originally posted by Dusty
Do you not think attacking a group that many people believe in will not inspire them to rise and fight for their fallen comrades?
It will of course and that is why the USA has said there is a 100% "chance" that they will respond to our attack. The goal is to decrease their capacity to make attacks.

Originally posted by Dusty
Violence begets violence, as I said. The cause of their anger should be targeted, not them.
What do you propose? How do you deal with someone whose religious beliefs have become so twisted that they believe they are doing the right thing by killing the innocent? I don't disagree that violence begets violence but in the end you have to ask yourself if it's for the greater good. I can honestly say yes, I believe that the attacks are necessary to show we will not sit idly by and watch them attack and yes I feel in the end this will benefit the innocent Afghanistan people who just want the bare essentials in life and to live freely.[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Dusty
Have they really?How can you do the right thing by doing something that is wrong?
Yes, if you are no longer able to stand as in you are dead then they have won because they have achieved your goal and you have not brought peace to the world by letting them kill you. In the end we probably will have killed innocent Afghanistan citizens on accident due to human shields or simply bad luck and I wish we could avoid this but they will have died for the greater good. In this case I believe the greater good is the rest of the world that is against terrorism and for the citizens of Afghanistan who simply wish to have the essentials and live a free live.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 22:26

do you think many would join in on a losing cause.History has proven quite a few are willing, dying means little if you die a martyr.
Do you think they will simply stop if we don't attack them.Will they if we do? A war will accomplish nothing. If we were to destroy all of Afghanistan we may take out our present danger, but at what cost and what will we have become in doing so?
what will stop them from doing as they wish?One hopes they will see their own error. It is unlikely that they will, but it is impossible if we play their game. You cannot force what is right onto someone else, you can only stand for what is right yourself and make an example of yourself.

niv

October 7th, 2001, 22:27

Bin Laden seems to want a Palestianian state from his cruddy speech, and Ariel Sharon caused, and started the entafada conflict, why are we supporting that dumbass? :confused:

IMO, the US created Osama bin Laden, but that was through being ourselves and being the attempting-to-keep-peace-nation. Now, we have to shut him up, but of course it's not the last of the terrorists. It's impossible to stop terrorism.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 22:34

Originally posted by Dusty
History has proven quite a few are willing, dying means little if you die a martyr.Will they if we do? A war will accomplish nothing. If we were to destroy all of Afghanistan we may take out our present danger, but at what cost and what will we have become in doing so?One hopes they will see their own error. It is unlikely that they will, but it is impossible if we play their game. You cannot force what is right onto someone else, you can only stand for what is right yourself and make an example of yourself.

And history has also shown, when a group goes without something to hold them back, they grow even faster. There is no consqeuences from joining.

You will always have ones who will join, because not everyone has the same mentality. But I doubt more people want to die a martyr than live and fight when they beleive they will win.

When you are being beaten, you can go on and hope the other person will see the error of their ways. Meanwhile, I will go on and defend myself. I probably won't have any serious injuries while you probably will be in the hopsital or even dead.

But by your views, we would essentially be forcing your views on others of the same side. We will be continued to be attacked as there would be no consequences, and as a result, others of ours will die(more so than in a war) because you think it is wrong to defend yourself.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 22:36

I feel in the end this will benefit the innocentMachiavellian, no? I don't believe the end to justify the means if the means involve going against what the ends stands for.

Yes, if you are no longer able to stand as in you are dead then they have wonThe one that is right has truly won, a battle proves nothing. To those with open-minds, you will be seen as standing opposed to what is wrong and you will inspire them. To those with closed-minds, they cannot be reached anyway and their ignorance will one day lead to their destruction.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 22:41

Originally posted by Dusty
Machiavellian, no? I don't believe the end to justify the means if the means involve going against what the ends stands for.

The one that is right has truly won, a battle proves nothing. To those with open-minds, you will be seen as standing opposed to what is wrong and you will inspire them. To those with closed-minds, they cannot be reached anyway and their ignorance will one day lead to their destruction.

That is where you and most of Americans differ in opinion. Most of us will sacrifice our ideals if it protects us, as would I. That doesn't mean I will murder someone to improve my status, but I will kill someone if it keeps me from dying, if the wrong was committed by the other side. My beleifs are the same for the country.

niv

October 7th, 2001, 22:45

Originally posted by Dusty
Machiavellian, no? I don't believe the end to justify the means if the means involve going against what the ends stands for.
Exactly what I was thinking...goddamn AP Euro can't get out of my head...

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 22:49

Originally posted by Dusty
Machiavellian, no? I don't believe the end to justify the means if the means involve going against what the ends stands for.
I prefer to call benefiting the greater good common sense. Those who were on flight 93 realized this as well and gave their lives to prevent greater destruction.

Originally posted by Dusty
The one that is right has truly won, a battle proves nothing. To those with open-minds, you will be seen as standing opposed to what is wrong and you will inspire them. To those with closed-minds, they cannot be reached anyway and their ignorance will one day lead to their destruction.
I believe the people with closed minds in this case are the Taliban and Bin Laden and this may be their destruction. You can say the one who is right has won but in their minds they are right so they have won and you are dead so you can't argue it. In my eyes if you are dead then they have won because their goal was to kill evil American's and in their eyes we're all evil hence their goal to kill the evil Western power and to do that they have to attack the citizens because as President Bush said: "Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America." Another words if they take out the government we will rebuild it and the only way to stop that is by taking out those who would rebuild it.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 22:51

And history has also shown, when a group goes without something to hold them back, they grow even faster. There is no consqeuences from joining.By working to resolve what is causing the hostility the groups will dissolve on their own accord. Nothing can be forced, resolution comes from within.
When you are being beaten, you can go on and hope the other person will see the error of their ways. Meanwhile, I will go on and defend myself. I probably won't have any serious injuries while you probably will be in the hopsital or even dead.The point of pacifism is prevent war and hostility. Accepting the blows of your aggressor and trying to help them better themselves shows to the world community your commitment to your ideals far more than retaliation does. In time, the ideal is for the entire world populous to embrace peace, the once aggressive will see their wrong and then there are no aggressors. The ideal is far off, and, in truth, we may never achieve it, but that should not have any influence on your conviction to peace.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 23:00

Originally posted by Dusty
By working to resolve what is causing the hostility the groups will dissolve on their own accord.

No. The Roman Empire met its final doom as a result of barbarians. The Third Reich of Hitler was destroyed because the US fought. If there is no competition or consquences, what will make them dissolve. A sudden change of heart. You have to take in the factor of human nature. We don't simply change our heart on a whim.

Nothing can be forced, resolution comes from within.The point of pacifism is prevent war and hostility. Accepting the blows of your aggressor and trying to help them better themselves(shows to the world community your commitment to your ideals far more than retaliation does. In time, the ideal is for the entire world populous to embrace peace, the once aggressive will see their wrong and then there are no aggressors. The ideal is far off, and, in truth, we may never achieve it, but that should not have any influence on your conviction to peace. [/B]

Do you realize, that by not fighting back, you are promoting war even further from the other side. Nothing holds them off.

Besides, the country's ideals as a whole values more of our lives more than sacrificing ourself in a hope of an unlikely world of peace. I am sorry, but I will not sacrifice myself in order to possibly get something done when I know in my mind, that it is unlikely.

I know nothing can be forced onto someone, but the issue is protecting ourself, not attaining world peace.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 23:03

That is where you and most of Americans differ in opinion.I realize this, that's why it is so difficult to discuss. Our philosophies are so fundamentally different, there's just no common ground to work from.

I believe it best to stand for what is right while trying, if successfully or not, to reconcile with your aggressor. You and others believe it better to commit and condone an act of violence if in the end your opposition is crushed.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 23:07

Originally posted by Dusty
I realize this, that's why it is so difficult to discuss. Our philosophies are so fundamentally different, there's just no common ground to work from.

I believe it best to stand for what is right while trying, if successfully or not, to reconcile with your aggressor. You and others believe it better to commit and condone an act of violence if in the end your opposition is crushed.

I didn't have a problems with your posts till you make it seem as if I was cruel hearted. I don't care how it is accomplished, but I value safety first. If war is the only reasonable option(not by belief, but one that can be accomplish without MAJOR
sacrifce), as it seems in this situation, then I will condone it. That doesn't mean I want to go to war everytime something happens to the country, but this is the only reasonable option.

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 23:10

Very true Dusty, but we view the issue differently from you. Personally I think your viewpoint is an idealistic viewpoint that is unlikely to ever happen. We can't even get a 100% unity when it comes to basic things like human rights and before your viewpoint would work you would need every one else to share your viewpoint. That won't happen any time soon if ever and therefore I feel your viewpoint is wrong because those who don't share your viewpoint would destroy you if you didn't have others to defend your home (country).

I'm trying not to be to negative here as I can see where your going but it only works with 100% unity and without that 100% its a failed philosophy because those who oppose the viewpoint will essentially destroy you.

niv

October 7th, 2001, 23:10

I shall have to post again that terrorism cannot be eradicated, and by killing bin crapper and the Taliban, we're making them madder than they would if we leave them alone. The minority is a huge number, and as long as they have mobility, they cannot be stopped. Just sap their resources to nothing, move in to help them and show that we're not the bullies that that minority view us as.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 23:14

The Roman Empire met its final doom as a result of barbarians. The Third Reich of Hitler was destroyed because the US fought.Was a policy of peace kept in either case? How can war be compared to a non-war?
If there is no competition or consequences, what will make them dissolve.If the cause of the aggression is removed, the aggressors will disband. If the aggression continues despite attempts at reconciliation, then when attempts of the aggressors to illicit a response fails they will tire and see that violence will not accomplish their goal. When someone wants to fight with you, you are in the control, not them. If you do not follow them, they will have failed in provoking your anger.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 23:16

niv

October 7th, 2001, 23:18

Originally posted by Dusty
If the cause of the aggression is removed, the aggressors will disband. If the aggression continues despite attempts at reconciliation, then when attempts of the aggressors to illicit a response fails they will tire and see that violence will not accomplish their goal. When someone wants to fight with you, you are in the control, not them. If you do not follow them, they will have failed in provoking your anger.
And the causes of the aggression:

numero uno: We're supporting a tyrant named Ariel Sharon and he won't allow a Palenstian state even if it kills him
numero dos: We're not isolationists, and globalization has spread western values, which some people do not agree with.
numero tres: US troops in the Muslim holy land.

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 23:18

Originally posted by Hayama-kun
I shall have to post again that terrorism cannot be eradicated, and by killing bin crapper and the Taliban, we're making them madder than they would if we leave them alone. The minority is a huge number, and as long as they have mobility, they cannot be stopped. Just sap their resources to nothing, move in to help them and show that we're not the bullies that that minority view us as.
This is why the USA isn't going after just killing Bin Laden but also taking the Taliban out of power. Meaning people who follow his views will not have a safe place to live and as long as we can have cooperation from other countries we can prevent these people from having a safe place to go without being watched and monitored closely by their government.

It will not stop all terrorism no but by eliminating their money and mobility you are reducing their power. That is the key in the end because you cannot stop someone from committing violent acts if they wish but you can try and limit what they can do and you can bring them to justice after they commit such acts. That's how the justice system works in the USA and if the Taliban wouldn't protect Bin Laden like they do we could have followed through with this procedure. Now if the Taliban are replaced with a government that realizes this hopefully in the future our two governments can work together on bring these people to justice and by monitoring them closer if they are flagged as high risk.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 23:19

Originally posted by Dusty
Was a policy of peace kept in either case? How can war be compared to a non-war?

Has the policy of peace been kept her? No. We have been attacked.

If the cause of the aggression is removed, the aggressors will disband. If the aggression continues despite attempts at reconciliation, then when attempts of the aggressors to illicit a response fails they will tire and see that violence will not accomplish their goal. When someone wants to fight with you, you are in the control, not them. If you do not follow them, they will have failed in provoking your anger.

This isn't as simple as snapping your fingers and erasing hate.

War is not done to provoke someone, but war is done to damage someone else.

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 23:23

Owen appears to share my viewpoint on this and beat me to the point. :)

By not attacking in retaliation it would be like someone committing murder 6,000 times and then rather then bringing him to justice you simply say we're all human and make mistakes please go on with your life in any way you see fit. Essentially doing nothing doesn't discourage the murderer from continuing on their rampage.

I on the other hand would rather bring the murderer to justice and let them live out the rest of their life in a jail. I'd rather have Bin Laden in a maximum security jail for the rest of his life because killing him gives him the easy way out but unfortunately the Taliban weren't willing to turn him over so we had to take other actions. These other actions may very well replace the Taliban with a government that would have turned him over and as a result the USA would have better relations with them and in the end it would bring us a step closer to peace.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 23:26

Actually, I share the same view that Bin Laden should be jailed, rather than murdered, despite what I said in my previous post. It is a reasonable option and reduces the effect of a martyr.

niv

October 7th, 2001, 23:27

Originally posted by Todd
I on the other hand would rather bring the murderer to justice and let them live out the rest of their life in a jail. I'd rather have Bin Laden in a maximum security jail for the rest of his life because killing him gives him the easy way out but unfortunately the Taliban weren't willing to turn him over so we had to take other actions. These other actions may very well replace the Taliban with a government that would have turned him over and as a result the USA would have better relations with them and in the end it would bring us a step closer to peace.

They know they were going to lose in the first place, but their cause as insane as it is is not lost. We did not meet their minimal requirement of showing them evidence that bin laden was guilty. We had it yet we did not show it to them. Well, whatever. I still stand by my ideas, and you can't change my viewpoint that fighting terrorism is futile.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 23:27

Very true Dusty, but we view the issue differently from you.Did I not already say this?

Personally I think your viewpoint is an idealistic viewpoint that is unlikely to ever happen.I already said this too.

I feel your viewpoint is wrong because those who don't share your viewpoint would destroy you if you didn't have others to defend your home (country).That has very little to do with pacifism. Defense is accomplish by working with your oposition so that your both reconsile. If your oposition does not cooporate, then there is little you can do but stand by your ideals and not abandon them. I've already said this.

its a failed philosophy because those who oppose the viewpoint will essentially destroy you.We're not so much looking out for self-preservation, we're looking out foremost for the of preservation of what's right. War is wrong. Entering a war is wrong, regardless of its outcome. Peace is the ideal. Peace is not won by war. I've said something quite similar to this already as well.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 23:31

Originally posted by Dusty
Did I not already say this?
I already said this too.
That has very little to do with pacifism. Defense is accomplish by working with your oposition so that your both reconsile. If your oposition does not cooporate, then there is little you can do but stand by your ideals and not abandon them. I've already said this.

We're not so much looking out for self-preservation, we're looking out foremost for the of preservation of what's right. War is wrong. Entering a war is wrong, regardless of its outcome. Peace is the ideal. Peace is not won by war. I've said something quite similar to this already as well.

Well, after all of this debate, I finally see where you are coming from, although I still disagree with you. And I do agree completely with your first paragraph, but our disagreement is really on the issue what is a more important ideal, self-preservation or pacifism.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 23:35

We have been attacked.And it's our place to show peace, not return their violence.
War is not done to provoke someone, but war is done to damage someone else.You don't think the target was to illicit an American response? Bin Laden wants a holy war between Islam and the west. We should not help him in his goal. I'm not going to cover again my philosophy as to how to resolve conflict, I've said it already too many times, but killing someone that disagrees with you to end the conflict is not right, even if they killed one of your own first.

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 23:35

Originally posted by Dusty
Did I not already say this?
I already said this too.
Then take it as my recapping. I have repeated myself a few times as well and that's bound to happen with any debate because the viewpoint remains the same but you try to express it in other ways to get the point across. My point being that repetition is to be expected to a certain extent and I'd rather not have the thread get in to a bunch of posts saying I've already said that.

Originally posted by Dusty
We're not so much looking out for self-preservation, we're looking out foremost for the of preservation of what's right. War is wrong. Entering a war is wrong, regardless of its outcome. Peace is the ideal. Peace is not won by war. I've said something quite similar to this already as well.
Assuming we're not looking out for self preservation then right after you ignore doing what's believed to be morally right and you sit idly by it would change in to self preservation. Meaning by not defending yourself from the start you will only find the issue has grown larger then before and now you may be unable to stop it and then it becomes self-preservation. Refer to the World War II post, what was once staying out of it to remain peaceful quickly became an issue of self preservation although Pearl Harbor was without doubt a jumpstart to us realizing that.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 23:38

Well, after all of this debate, I finally see where you are coming from, although I still disagree with you.Thank you. I'm not asking for you to agree with me, just to see the other side of the argument.

Owen

October 7th, 2001, 23:38

Originally posted by Dusty
And it's our place to show peace, not return their violence.You don't think the target was to illicit an American response? Bin Laden wants a holy war between Islam and the west. We should not help him in his goal. I'm not going to cover again my philosophy as to how to resolve conflict, I've said it already too many times, but killing someone that disagrees with you to end the conflict is not right, even if they killed one of your own first.

He wants revenge against the US for not sharing in his policies. He also attacked the US embassies in Africa, and attacked the USS Cole. He is already at war with us. He is trying to destroy us, not provoke us into a war.

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 23:40

To repeat what Owen said the issue isn't whether pacifism is ideally the best choice or not it's more about playing the cards that were dealt to us the best we can.

Pacifism is not the real issue as it really only works when you have 100% agreement or a willingness of both parties to try the pacifism approach.

I just want to make my argument clear because your philosophy may be sound when dealing with another country that prefers a peaceful resolution but it's not the real issue in this case.

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 23:48

...you sit idly by it...You are defending yourself, just not through violence. You try to find out where you enemy is coming from and what's causing their anger and you work with them so that both you and they are satisfied. What you're not doing is violently reacting to what's done to you, this means if Pearl Harbor is attacked, you should not drop two nuclear bombs on heavily populated civilian cities so late in the war that the only people around left to kill are the women, children, and crippled. If both sides succumb to violence, how can one proclaim victory and have their proclamation be true?

Dusty

October 7th, 2001, 23:54

Pacifism is not the real issue as it really only works when you have 100% agreement or a willingness of both parties to try the pacifism approach.Not at all true. You react passively to another's acting aggressively using nonviolent resistance, you win either by them seeing their error and ceasing their aggression, by your's and their's compromise and reconciliation, or by your showing the rest of the world your commitment to peace and isolating your enemy until they are alone, fighting against the rest of the world in a battle no one but they are willing to take up.

Todd

October 7th, 2001, 23:56

That works out great when the other party is willing. Osama Bin Laden has clearly said that his goal is to kill USA citizens and destroy the evil Western power. When you can get him on the psychologists couch to try and get him to over come his problems good for you but I don't see that happening.

Is our response violent? Yes, but it's the best we could do considering the Taliban isn't willing to turn him over because they rely on his money to maintain power.

I am in favor of working with foreign countries to avoid such issues but sometimes your simply not able to do this. Different reasons will factor in to this every time but if your not able to negotiate a peaceful resolution the best you can do is defend yourself by trying to prevent further attacks.

I don't deny that it's violent and not peaceful but considering our options I feel the right choice was made. It has its positives and negatives but I feel the positives out weight the negatives because it is for the greater good of innocent people all over the world.

Todd

October 8th, 2001, 00:02

Originally posted by Dusty
...or by your showing the rest of the world your commitment to peace and isolating your enemy until they are alone, fighting against the rest of the world in a battle no one but they are willing to take up.
This is what it would have come down to considering his religious belief is that he is doing the right thing so I highly doubt he would see the error in his ways. Once he takes out the Sears Towers, the Statue of Liberty, the White House, the Golden Gate Bridge, and all places of business and forces us in to a deep recession with high unemployment rates I fail to see how we have won. The only thing you can possibly say in that scenario is that you have strong beliefs and stuck to them but Bin Laden can say the same thing so what have you gained? At that point he has truly brought terror to the USA and he has completed his objective. Unless your objective was for the USA to be thrown in to a horrible economic situation you haven't won. In fact I believe if the USA were hit that hard the rest of the world would suffer just as badly as us.

Our response was justified considering they weren't willing to try a peaceful compromise by turning him over. I highly doubt we'll reach an agreement on this issue but at the same time I can't believe you would believe that you have won if the above happens.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 00:06

And we're back to "is it better to abandon your ideals and strike back in revenge" or "is it better to maintain your resolve in the name of peace". It's obvious I'm not going to sway you and you're not going to sway me, but it did make for a good discussion.

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 00:10

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 00:12

You make it sound as if we are abandoning our idealsYour aim is not peace? If peace is your ideal, then war by any definition is going against the ideal.

Todd

October 8th, 2001, 00:13

Originally posted by Dusty
And we're back to "is it better to abandon your ideals and strike back in revenge" or "is it better to maintain your resolve in the name of peace". It's obvious I'm not going to sway you and you're not going to sway me, but it did make for a good discussion. Agreed. I just find it hard to believe that you could sit idly by when we were attacked again and again and our economy hit all times low. The USA gives a lot of money to foreign governments for aid and if we sat by while being attacked these governments would suffer as well.

It doesn't really become self-defense or preservation from that regard because it's not about just us. It's a global issue that would impact everyone and I don't think other nations are ready for that to happen either.

I agree that violence should be avoided when possible but I feel this was one of the times where it could not be avoided. I also don't call the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden innocent so I don't feel their demise is wrong.

I know where we disagree and I know we won't convince one another but I still find it amazing that you could sit by and watch them attack us again and again without wanting to defend yourself.

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 00:13

Actually, if I have only one ideal, it is safety. Peace comes second to safety... This is the third time I have said it.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 00:22

I have only one ideal, it is safetyTo me, safety comes with peace. In peace, you are safe.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 00:25

I still find it amazing that you could sit by and watch them attack us again and again without wanting to defend yourself.We would be defending ourselves, just not violently. I believe one of the quotes I first gave from Socrates went something like "I myself would wish neither, but if it were necessary either to do wrong or to suffer it, I should choose to suffer rather than to do wrong."

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 00:29

How can you say safety is peace? If you are killed because you are being peaceful, that is not safe. Being a martyr is not safe, but it is peacful. Defending yourself is not peacful, but safe. They are not the same thing by a long shot.

Todd

October 8th, 2001, 00:31

If the threads run its course I'll leave it at that. I disagree with you on that and because we disagree on the foundation and we'll probably never agree on what comes after that. To be defending yourselves and others is by taking a stand against it by trying to stop their attacks. Your viewpoint is to simply take a stand against it and then let them due as they will and hope for the best.

I either knowingly or ignorantly believe that the people we're dealing with wouldn't hesitate in a second to kill you and then I believe you accomplished nothing. You on the other hand would remain peaceful and wish they would realize the error in their ways.

Ideally you would be right but realistically I feel your wrong and I fear for our country if your opinion ever becomes the majority.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 00:35

How can you say safety is peace? If you are killed because you are being peaceful, that is not safe. Being a martyr is not safe, but it is peaceful. Defending yourself is not peaceful, but safe. They are not the same thing by a long shot.Safety by war? Interesting idea, much like wealth by poverty. Safety comes with peace, not with being peaceful. You can remain passive and be in danger, but the objective of pacifism is to eliminate aggressiveness and bring peace by being peaceful. In that peace, there is safety. It is in the temporary eye between wars that there is no safety.

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 00:41

Originally posted by Dusty
Safety by war? Interesting idea, much like wealth by poverty. Safety comes with peace, not with being peaceful. You can remain passive and be in danger, but the objective of pacifism is to eliminate aggressiveness and bring peace by being peaceful. In that peace, there is safety. It is in the temporary eye between wars that there is no safety.

Your point being? Sometimes you will have to go to war to protect yourself. IF someone is bombing you, you have to fight back to protect yourself.

Todd

October 8th, 2001, 00:44

Originally posted by Dusty
Safety by war?
As the end result it is very possible. If the end result is a new government, which supports your peaceful objectives, then it is possible. It sounds conflicting but in reality it is our end goal by engaging these attacks. As with pacifism you'll never have 100% unity so even though ideally it would bring about a government focused on peace it may leave Bin Laden's followers even more bitter towards us if they survive.

At that point the most we can hope for is that the new government cooperates with us in stopping terrorism. I believe our odds are much better at getting a new peaceful government in place then to make everyone in the world a pacifist.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 00:46

Your point being?You didn't understand what I meant by "safety comes with peace".
Sometimes you will have to go to war to protect yourself. IF someone is bombing you, you have to fight back to protect yourself.Not at all, you must try to reason with those bombing you, you must see it from their point of you and you must try to compromise so no one is left angry. Retaliating will only brood more anger.

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 00:50

Originally posted by Dusty
You didn't understand what I meant by "safety comes with peace".Not at all, you must try to reason with those bombing you, you must see it from their point of you and you must try to compromise so no one is left angry. Retaliating will only brood more anger.

Only if there are other options, but if there are none, then it is a must. I do beleive in peace when possible, but if no other feasible options exist, then retaliation is a must.

But tell me, if forces are bombing a city, what are the chances they are going to negotiate instead of bombing the city unless given orders to do so.

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 00:53

Originally posted by Dusty
Not at all, you must try to reason with those bombing you, you must see it from their point of you and you must try to compromise so no one is left angry. Retaliating will only brood more anger.

The people/ group who destroyed the lives if thousands of Americans do not believe they were wrong... In fact they believe so strongly in their stance that they would die to kill me and probably you. People with this idea do not talk or negotiatie. They are above/ beyond that.... to them we are evil so talking is not needed... we must change and the only way to make us change is to hurt us until we fall.

Talking works when you have a person snap, when someone goes off the deepend or when someone wit a common ground just stops living in our world...

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 00:55

But tell me, if forces are bombing a city, what are the chances they are going to negotiate instead of bombing the city unless given orders to do so.The odds of reaching an agreement with us are of no importance, an attempt at reconciliation should still be made. No one attacks for the hell of it, they will always have a reason even if they proclaim they don't.

Todd

October 8th, 2001, 00:55

Nonviolent resistance can work and did work for Martin Luther King but that case was different. In his case African Americans weren't being killed but simply didn't have their rights. White slave owners at the time didn't want to kill them because they were the ones doing all the work and making them richer. Eventually when they realized the power and influence he was gaining they wanted to kill him but not their own slaves that may have followed him. So if they simply resisted there was little to no risk of the white slaver owners killing them because they wanted the slave labor.

In this case however if you resist in a nonviolent form like you suggest you will be killed because that is their objective. That is the key difference when it comes to forms of non-violent resistance.

I'm sure you will disagree on this in some way or say it's not relevant but this is what our difference viewpoint basically stems down to. I believe your choice of everyone just sitting back refusing to defend themselves or their allies is ludicrous but I won't change your viewpoint. I can only pray that a majority of the USA never shares your viewpoint or else we may very well be destroyed by terrorism or even internal crime because you wouldn't be willing to prosecute.

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 00:58

Originally posted by Dusty
The odds of reaching an agreement with us are of no importance, an attempt at reconciliation should still be made. No one attacks for the hell of it, they will always have a reason even if they proclaim they don't.

Um mayeb you don't have a tv but the last 20 eyars have been spent trying to talk with this terrorist group and they dont talk. Even after this event we waited 2 weeks trying to let things work out.... thats time to talk, time to work but when people dont want to work YOU TAKE THE NEXT STEP.

We've tried to reach an agreement but when the only thing your enemy wants is to kill you, chances are your not going to rach much.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 00:59

The people/ group who destroyed the lives if thousands of Americans do not believe they were wrong... In fact they believe so strongly in their stance that they would die to kill me and probably you. People with this idea do not talk or negotiatie. They are above/ beyond that.... to them we are evil so talking is not needed... we must change and the only way to make us change is to hurt us until we fall."You react passively to another's acting aggressively using nonviolent resistance, you win either by them seeing their error and ceasing their aggression, by your's and their's compromise and reconciliation, or by your showing the rest of the world your commitment to peace and isolating your enemy until they are alone, fighting against the rest of the world in a battle no one but they are willing to take up."

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 00:59

Originally posted by Dusty
The odds of reaching an agreement with us are of no importance, an attempt at reconciliation should still be made. No one attacks for the hell of it, they will always have a reason even if they proclaim they don't.

I don't care about that. I said I put safety first, and said how peace does not equal saftey.

I know no one attacks for the heck of it, but that is not the issue. The issue is now whether saftey and peace are the same, and they are not. If you are peaceful when they aren't negotiating, then they will destroy you.

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:02

It just hit me that this debate is PERFECT example of why peaceful talks don't suceed in this battle....

On one hand you have us saying we have tried peace but no one is listening and no one is itnrested so we move to war. On the other side we have you and other arguing that peac eis the only way, that peace solves everything one way or another and that we cna never give up on peace.

In the actual war we have the USA saying its tried peace but it fails or doesn't get started sinc eno one listens. Then we have the terrorist gorups (not that your like those groups at all... its a mental/ methodoligical analogy) who believe that people SHOULD and IWLL DIE in the name of whatever it is they believe in specifically. These people feel their is no other way for things to be justa s you feel peace is the only way (or atleast express that). While you're no terrorist, the point is you're not saying the least bit of violence could be justified and that peaceful talks/ acts will win, they say killing us will win... different idea but same method....

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:05

Originally posted by Dusty
"You react passively to another's acting aggressively using nonviolent resistance, you win either by them seeing their error and ceasing their aggression, by your's and their's compromise and reconciliation, or by your showing the rest of the world your commitment to peace and isolating your enemy until they are alone, fighting against the rest of the world in a battle no one but they are willing to take up."

We alreayd have about 99% of the world on our side... even our enemies don't like the idea of killing 5 - 90 k people at once.

As for your idea, you quoted a statement directly regarding this idea but seemed to have failed to READ it.... When people believe that they are JUSTIFIED IN VIOLENCE (the terrorists) then they wont see their error because to them THERE IS NO ERRROR.

Just like I think blowing them up is right, they think killing me is right.. show me anything you want and I don't see an error... neither do they so while they keep killing me, you can preach all you want until BAMMM, your dead too.

Additionally, this isn't debate club... this is life, death & war... you don't win or loose, EVERYONE looses, pays and suffers... theres nothing good about following a peaceful approach and "winning" some moral stance of everyone on your side is killed in the process because while you may be "better" or "more humane", your still dead and their not.... and only those alive write the history books

LastActionHero

October 8th, 2001, 01:05

For those of you who support the war, think about this. If the Russian's hadn't gone to war with afghanistan in the first place the CIA wouldn't have trained Osama Bin Laden in the first place and he wouldn't have become such a monster that he is now.

War doesn't bring good there is always a negative fallout. I'm pretty much this war will also have a fallout. The USA/Russia are pumping money and arms heavily into the Northen Alliance , I'm sure some people in that Alliance will start to feel a sense of power and that they are invincible , it even might be that we are creating another Osama right now.

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:09

LastActionHero - in ways you are very right...w ar creates problems in solving problems.

Of course the CIA was foolish and gave money to someone who ALREADY hated america and acted against america... that was a dumb mistake in which we helped a known terrorist (well we didnt know 110% that he was getting the money or training but we had an idea).

Of course the goal is to rid the world of a horrible monster and create a much smaller one....

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 01:09

the last 20 eyars have been spent trying to talk with this terrorist group and they dont talk.We have been talking but not to reach a common ground, as a superpower country to a terrorist organization patronizingly trying to pacify them. We need to find the real reason for their problem with us, they will most likely not cooperate in discussion, but resolving their conflict will not just pacify them, it will leave them no cause for anger. A group will not talk until they feel you're actually willing to listen.

1:05am...

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 01:10

The issue is now whether saftey and peace are the same, and they are not.They are not, I didn't say they were. I said safety comes with peace.

1:08am...

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 01:12

Of course the goal is to rid the world of a horrible monster and create a much smaller one.... "Create a much smaller one?"

1:11am...

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:14

Originally posted by Dusty
We have been talking but not to reach a common ground, as a superpower country to a terrorist organization patronizingly trying to pacify them. We need to find the real reason for their problem with us, they will most likely not cooperate in discussion, but resolving their conflict will not just pacify them, it will leave them no cause for anger. A group will not talk until they feel you're actually willing to listen.

1:05am...

Ok Dusty... lets say Im one of these radicals and I believe that EVERYTHING in your world is worng... your sense of money, of woman, of clothing, of materials, sex, tv, education, even food is obsessive and horrible. Because of this you dislike me, then I come in and try and fix problems in your country, bringing my culture in contatc with yours. This makes you mad and prehaps rightfully so, so you start killing my people. Well... now I can't undo my past involvement and I can't change my culture just because you feel differently.... we can agree that you dislike it but unless i change it, your not going to stop killing me... please explain where a common ground lies int hat

Point is... we know why they dislike us, we know we were not perfect in dealign with many countries and we know we pissed people off but that doesnt mean that if we relaly listen hard they'll start to be happy again and ignore everything they hate because well... its peaceful and nice... its time to move from Berekeley into the real world (if you dont know then you've got a bigger problem then war)

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 01:14

Originally posted by Dusty
1:05am...

WE agree that we need to get some sleep. Enough of the talk for the night. I am off to sleep so I can wake up tommorow for school. Joy Joy :D

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:16

Originally posted by Dusty
"Create a much smaller one?"

1:11am...

Yea.. smaller, as in not as eivl

Like LastActionHero said... we may create anotehr monster by helping the Northern Alliance, but the point is to be as friendly with that new group as possible, to start out righ so if they turn against us peace does work to sovle things instead of needing violence

LastActionHero

October 8th, 2001, 01:17

Originally posted by Ted Sindzinski

Of course the goal is to rid the world of a horrible monster and create a much smaller one....

Yes but have we succeded? Is Osama a far lesser evil than Hitler.?IMO the human nature is such that it craves for conflicts. We can't do anything unless we change the human nature.

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 01:17

Originally posted by Dusty
They are not, I didn't say they were. I said safety comes with peace.

1:08am...

One thing before I leave.

Yes, if there is peace, there is safety, but if the other is not going to be peaceful, then what other option is there but to attack, to maintain your saftey?

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:17

Dusty-

Btw, even if peace were possible, even if Bin Laden carred enough to listen, eve if we put everything behind us do you think an appology would make up for the 5,000 plus dead people?!?! would it even matter?

Maybe you should fly over to New Yrok, go to the center of all this stuff and tell them why peace will work and how peace will make up for the deaths of all those people.

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:19

Originally posted by LastActionHero

Yes but have we succeded? Is Osama a far lesser evil than Hitler.?IMO the human nature is such that it craves for conflicts. We can't do anything unless we change the human nature.

Yes, if we can create a new govt. that doesnt like us but doesnt kill people then we have solved something. Hostility can be talked out, indifferance is somehting we live with. Having people blown apart is not a good thing and I'd rather take my chances that helping a enw group, working to be friends with that group creates at worst a peaceful enemy then one would likes my head for dinner...

LastActionHero

October 8th, 2001, 01:25

Originally posted by Ted Sindzinski

Yes, if we can create a new govt. that doesnt like us but doesnt kill people then we have solved something. Hostility can be talked out, indifferance is somehting we live with. Having people blown apart is not a good thing and I'd rather take my chances that helping a enw group, working to be friends with that group creates at worst a peaceful enemy then one would likes my head for dinner...

Yes , but the United States didn't succed the last time around , what are the chance they will this time around? Taking chances eh? We are talking about innocent peoples life's here. Will you be happy if your life is in someone elses hand who live thousand's of km's from where you live? I'm talking about the people of afghanistan.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 01:26

Maybe yo should fly voer to New Yrk, go to the center of all thise stuff and tell them why peace will work and how peace will make up for the deaths of all those people.Peace will not bring back the dead, nor will killing more.

Your other post, which I'm not quoting because it was long: First of all, I've already said it's too late to turn back now without us getting hurt. Second, we should never have gotten ourselves so involved to begin with. Third, if our cultures are simply incompatible then we must find a way to "keep out of each others' hair", as you might say. Easier said than done, but better than saying "you don't like us, so I'm going to kill you and hope those that follow you will be nicer".

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 01:28

Yes, if there is peace, there is safety, but if the other is not going to be peaceful, then what other option is there but to attack, to maintain your saftey?Safety, as I said, comes with peace. To achieve peace is the first goal, violent attacks are not a prime example of peace in action.

1:26am... okay, I'm not going to get anything accomplished tomorrow if I keep responding here all night. I'm leaving, see you later.

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:30

Originally posted by Dusty
Peace will not bring back the dead, nor will killing more.

Your other post, which I'm not quoting because it was long: First of all, I've already said it's too late to turn back now without us getting hurt. Second, we should never have gotten ourselves so involved to begin with. Third, if our cultures are simply incompatible then we must find a way to "keep out of each others' hair", as you might say. Easier said than done, but better than saying "you don't like us, so I'm going to kill you and hope those that follow you will be nicer".

I just love this idea...

Several years ago when a few countries were ready to kill themslves over oil, food, land, etc... the US stepped in. Prehas it was too much or too far but it helped make peace, saved lives, etc... Now the US is loosing lives from getting involved in the name of peace nad people say that we shouldn't have been involved. Many of these same people (maybe not you) also thought it was our job to help out, our job to provide aid, help oppressive govts. be overthrown and what not.... kinda makes you wonder how were suppose to avoid things that we can't forsee while sitll helping out all those starving, oppressed people.

Ted S

October 8th, 2001, 01:33

Dusty ... one last thing

You seem to be confusing safety and peace.

While this is an extreme example, here's my point. If I kill everyone in the world but manage to keep all the food/ water safe and usable, I have used violence to create peace.

In a less extreme case, if I kill those who hurt me, I am much mroe safe then if they are alive.

However, if I try to use peace to save them and i am killed while 'talking' or while standing by and waiting, I am not safe.

Peace can help safety but it is simly a statistical correlation, NOT causation (stats 101)

And our goal is safety before peace.... its nearly imposible to have eace without safety... after all if you are always attacking me (not peace), I can not feel safe. Were as if I am not being attacked (even if I am attacking -- violence), I safe.

Todd

October 8th, 2001, 02:37

Originally posted by LastActionHero
We are talking about innocent peoples life's here.
The people of Afghanistan have been receiving medical and food aid from the USA. If for some reason they die whether accidental on our part or intentional as in human shields by the Taliban then the most we can do is express our sympathy. You've heard numerous times that the USA and their allies should expect casualties in this war so we have to be willing sacrifice in order to make larger amounts of progress. I again go back to the passengers on flight number 93 who realized they would have to sacrifice their lives for the greater good of humanity.

The only other casualties will be from people in the terrorist camps and the Taliban if all goes as planned and I don't feel bad for them in the slightest. The second you plot the murder of innocent people you loose any rights for sympathy even if you’re horribly injured.

I've said my piece about Dusty's view points and although I disagree with his never defend yourself viewpoint I can respect that he wishes to achieve the same end result and that is peace.

LeX

October 8th, 2001, 08:50

It's about time. We all knew the US wasn't about to send troops half way around the world and then call them back without firing some bullets and dropping some bombs.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 10:26

...help oppressive govts. be overthrown and what notHumanitarian efforts are all fine and dandy, but inciting a war isn't necessary.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 10:27

However, if I try to use peace to save them and i am killed while 'talking' or while standing by and waiting, I am not safe.I wish one day people would actually read what I write. Go back a look more carefully over the reply I made to Owen.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 10:31

Appended to last post:

In another thread, Toefur put what I'd said already in this thread nice and concisely:

"Perhaps attacking Afghanistan will buy us some 'safety' for now. It is always a short term thing. To look to the long term, we need to address any and all underlying issues."

Safety between the eye of two wars is not safety.

niv

October 8th, 2001, 11:42

Originally posted by Owen

WE agree that we need to get some sleep. Enough of the talk for the night. I am off to sleep so I can wake up.. [tomorrow]... for school. Joy Joy :D

You mean this morning, don't you? Today is Columbus Day, don't you have off? :confused:

Webdude

October 8th, 2001, 11:49

Some of you need to keep your mouths shut before you hurt yourself. Anybody who believe we should sit back and do nothing, to work with Ladin instead of killing him, is an idiot. Yes he would talk, that buys time for him to do more as well as gives him an insight to our thinking.

For those who dont believe in violence, meet up with me. I will pretend I am Ladin, and you be the U.S. with a gun in your hands.
*************************
I dont want to talk to you, I want to kill you, but you have the gun, not I. So I will simply punch you. Bring your sucky little brats, your ----- ---- wife or dogbutt ugly girlfriend, that fat wartcovered hog of a ----- thing you call mother, that wimpy coward of a father you have...I will beat them too, and kill them if I can. Then before your very eyes, I do this.

Where is you gun pointing now? What do you plan to do with it? Or are you so chickensheit that you will stand there and let me do this without retaliation? If so, I have nothing to fear. If you are typical American, then I know I can do this to all other families. Your family is dead now, I have no use for you. I will kill you and now go to the next family. I hate you and all Americans and you cannot change that. Talk all you want, I will kill in the meantime while you "think" you are succeeding in your cowardly talk.
*************************

As a pacifist or however you spell that, this is the view I get of you. I am not like you, and neither are most other Americans. I believe in "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". We will kill those who kill us. If you dont like it, tough, most will simply ignore your opinions, so why voice them?

niv

October 8th, 2001, 11:54

Originally posted by Webdude
Some of you need to keep your mouths shut before you hurt yourself. Anybody who believe we should sit back and do nothing, to work with Ladin instead of killing him, is an idiot. Yes he would talk, that buys time for him to do more as well as gives him an insight to our thinking.
Our thinking being that we would rather neogotiate and work something out and achieve peace rather than going over there and wiping them off the face of the Earth.

Originally posted by Webdude
For those who dont believe in violence, meet up with me. I will pretend I am Ladin, and you be the U.S. with a gun in your hands.

Actually, I'd just chain him up. Detain him. Some people as determined as they are can be swayed one way or another.

Originally posted by Webdude

As a pacifist or however you spell that, this is the view I get of you. I am not like you, and neither are most other Americans. I believe in "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". We will kill those who kill us. If you dont like it, tough, most will simply ignore your opinions, so why voice them?
Because we can voice them, and we have the natural right to do so. If you don't like it, tough.

As for calling us idiots, that's a personal attack, and as a moderator, shouldn't you get rid of it? :confused:

Toefur

October 8th, 2001, 11:56

Originally posted by Webdude
If you dont like it, tough, most will simply ignore your opinions, so why voice them?

Oh, bravo.

Everyone should just shut up, do as they're told? Let the majority have free reign?

If people did that, America wouldn't be the great free country is supposedly is. The day people do that will be the day America becomes some sort of authoritarian regime.

LastActionHero

October 8th, 2001, 12:59

Originally posted by Webdude

For those who dont believe in violence, meet up with me. I will pretend I am Ladin, and you be the U.S. with a gun in your hands.
*************************
I dont want to talk to you, I want to kill you, but you have the gun, not I. So I will simply punch you. Bring your sucky little brats, your ----- ---- wife or dogbutt ugly girlfriend, that fat wartcovered hog of a ----- thing you call mother, that wimpy coward of a father you have...I will beat them too, and kill them if I can. Then before your very eyes, I do this.

The British did all that to Mahatama Gandhi. But he didn't point a gun to the head of the British did he?

LastActionHero

October 8th, 2001, 13:22

The second wave has started...now the US say "self-defense might necessitate action against other nations" . Oh well, while you have your chance go about testing your fire power on other nations as well:rolleyes:

garibaldi

October 8th, 2001, 13:24

:chicken:isn't it funny how all the terroist leaders around the world go straight into hiding,but make their followers stay out in the open.the taliban refuse basic human rights,but they have cars tv and radio,but everyone else are not allowed or they will be killed :confused:

garibaldi

October 8th, 2001, 13:31

remember u.s the british people are with you all the way:smiley2:

Todd

October 8th, 2001, 14:49

Originally posted by Hayama-kun
As for calling us idiots, that's a personal attack, and as a moderator, shouldn't you get rid of it? :confused:
Although I disagree with the strong way it is worded I don't believe it's necessarily a personal attack. Now if he said Todd you are an idiot it's a personal attack but if he says I think people who believe that are idiot's he's not making a personal attack, as it's not directed at a specific person. If we banned all attacks on other people’s viewpoints we wouldn't have had a debate in the first place.

I'll monitor the thread and keep it civil but so far it really hasn't gotten out of hand, in my opinion.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 14:58

As a pacifist or however you spell that, this is the view I get of you. I am not like you, and neither are most other Americans. I believe in "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". We will kill those who kill us. If you dont like it, tough, most will simply ignore your opinions, so why voice them?I present to you the typical war-mongering American. He's not pretty, is he? It's a wonder more people haven't tried to destroy us. War is not something thrust upon you, where one shoots and you have to "defend" yourself in kind. War is brought unto yourself, I need give no example as a perfect one has already been set forth.
Some of you need to keep your mouths shut before you hurt yourself. Anybody who believe we should sit back and do nothing, to work with Ladin instead of killing him, is an idiot.Defence of our freedom, yes? Wouldn't guess so the way you put it.

Giancarlo

October 8th, 2001, 15:17

I must say all of you on the other side (those who don't want strikes) do not realize what the terrorists have done, they have struck our freedom and you want to do nothing. Fornately, you are a minority, and this is the fact because the terrorists released the legions of the concerned and committed from the American population hereby destroying their own organization. If you don't want to strike them, what the ---- will you do inexchange? Talk with the Taliban, while Bin Laden releases chemcial weapons on the US? I mean what kind of fools are these pacifists?

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 15:29

...they have struck our freedom...I love the way Bush (or I should say he speech writers, he isn't ad-libbing on the TV) speaks in vague, emotional abstractions, it makes war propaganda so much easier to swallow.

Four jet airliners were hijacked, all crashed with everyone aboard. In the end a few large office buildings and a portion of the Pentagon were destroyed with a large but, let's face it, not that catastrophic of a death count (we've had worse, not due to terrorism, but a death is a death no matter the means). That's what has happened.

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 15:37

I am not going to bother quoting every post, so I will just make one big reply in general to all of the posts.

Ok Dusty. Lets get back to the initial point of saftey and peace. You say with peace can have saftey. Yes, you will have safety with peace. However, if the other side is at war with you and you are not taking action, you are not at peace, but basically being neutral while sacrificing your safety. It takes 2 to be peaceful. If one side is going to go to war and will not negotiate, then the only way to preserve saftey for the time being is to fight back. What other way is to preserve you saftey if that scenario. That is the scenario where I believe war is justified. Sure, we may go to war in the future as a result, but 2 things. A) We are not fortune tellers and B) WE have a much better chance of surviving if we fight two, three, four, five, or more wars, then submit to destruction in one war. Plus add to the fact, future conflicts may be prevented if the other side is willing to negotiate. We may not be peaceful, but we are safe. If you are going to continue to argue that safety comes with peace, then change my first virtue to being alive, then maybe you won't argue that fighting back MAY be necessary to stay alive.

Webdude. The philosophy "eye for an eye" is part of the problem in this world except the philospophy being using often is "arm for a hair." If we wish for revenge, we will be larger than they attacked us, then they will make a larger attack upon us if they are not destroyed, etc. etc. Only time war IMO is justified is when it is the last reasonable option, which it is in this case it is IMO.

Giancarlo

October 8th, 2001, 15:46

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 15:49

Originally posted by Dusty
I love the way Bush (or I should say he speech writers, he isn't ad-libbing on the TV) speaks in vague, emotional abstractions, it makes war propaganda so much easier to swallow.

Four jet airliners were hijacked, all crashed with everyone aboard. In the end a few large office buildings and a portion of the Pentagon were destroyed with a large but, let's face it, not that catastrophic of a death count (we've had worse, not due to terrorism, but a death is a death no matter the means). That's what has happened.

Not that catastrophic of a death count? Are you serious? Around 6,000 people died that day. That is one of the largest one day non-battle totals, and the thing that makes it really worse is the fact that these were innocent people, who had nothing to do with the policies of the US that Bin Laden came to hate, except voting the leaders in initially. That demands some action, and since all other resasonable options are exhausted, war is what is needed, IMO.

And you should not be accusing Bush of propaganda. You just made propaganda there saying the death count was not that catastrophic. Propaganda really is simply presenting facts and opinions to get someone to join your side. No where did Bush lie, so why should he be bashed for supporting war, when his ideal is more than likely saftey, or should I said living, so as to avoid further debate that peace is a must to be safe.

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 16:05

Not that catastrophic of a death count? Are you serious? Around 6,000 people died that day.20,000 recently died in an Indian earthquake. Of the two, 20,000 to 6,000, which is worse? Because American lives were lost doesn't make it special.

Propaganda is made up of half-truths. While true, the facts are presented in a way that supports your side, even if they wouldn't if presented in a non-biased manner.

Reaching out to the listener's emotions rather than their minds is a very effective way of gaining their support. This is what the government has done. This recent outburst of "patriotism" and support for war is entirely due do the emotional leadings they're hearing and seeing on TV. "Today, freedom itself has been attacked" means nothing in a physical sense, but to someone in an emotional tizzy, still dazed by what's happened, it's all they needed to hear.

While I admit myself to be biased, I do try my hardest to present my arguments without trying to sway your feelings towards them, example, my description of the events above. I spoke in no abstractions, I used no persuading metaphors, I was not vague in description, I said flat out what happened.

Giancarlo

October 8th, 2001, 16:09

Do any of you care about the 800,000 people killed in 1994 in Uganda?

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 16:12

Originally posted by Dusty
20,000 recently died in an Indian earthquake. Of the two, 20,000 to 6,000, which is worse? Because American lives were lost doesn't make it special.

Propaganda is made up of half-truths. While true, the facts are presented in a way that supports your side, even if they wouldn't if presented in a non-biased manner.

Reaching out to the listener's emotions rather than their minds is a very effective way of gaining their support. This is what the government has done. This recent outburst of "patriotism" and support for war is entirely due do the emotional leadings they're hearing and seeing on TV. "Today, freedom itself has been attacked" means nothing in a physical sense, but to someone in an emotional tizzy, still dazed by what's happened, it's all they needed to hear.

While I admit myself to be biased, I do try my hardest to present my arguments without trying to sway your feelings towards them, example, my description of the events above. I spoke in no abstractions, I used no persuading metaphors, I was not vague in description, I said flat out what happened.

A) I realized I forgot to put US death count... Not world wide. B) That was not an attack on someone.

But you were being vague to the extent that you presented your opinons. You said it wasn't a catastrophic death count for 6,000 people to die. If your present your opinion in an argument, your argument is biased. Only when all of the facts are the only thing presented is it unbiased.

As for half-truths. Tell me where Bush has given half-truths. He presented opinions and facts. MAybe it was stuff you didn't like to hear, but opinions are not half-truths.

Todd

October 8th, 2001, 16:16

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Do any of you care about the 800,000 people killed in 1994 in Uganda?
I'm sure we all care to a certain extent but it's also from 1994 and a bit off topic so it's not going to get the same attention the WTC is receiving. If another terrorist attack happens in 7 years we may look back at the WTC towers but again at that time it would be old news and probably wouldn't be a hot topic. Now back to the topic...

Dusty

October 8th, 2001, 16:27

A) I realized I forgot to put US death count... Not world wide.It's a world community. My opinion, yes, but to me the life of an Afghan is as valuable as the life of an American.

B) That was not an attack on someone."a death is a death no matter the means"

You said it wasn't a catastrophic death count for 6,000 people to die.When compared to others, even those recent, it's not that great. I'm not saying it's insignificant, but it hasn't "changed the world" as some have said.

As for half-truths. Tell me where Bush has given half-truthsAlready did, "freedom itself has been attacked". We have been attacked, truth. Freedom is an abstract notion existent only in the minds of those that hold it, it is not vulnerable to attack. A slave can be free (we're talking metaphysics now, but still). False, or at least deceiving. The line's intention was not to present facts, but to prep your mindset so you'll be more apt to agree with what follows.

Owen

October 8th, 2001, 16:35

"It's a world community. My opinion, yes, but to me the life of an Afghan is as valuable as the life of an American."

NEver did I say one life is more important to other. I was simpyl correcting a statement I made.

""a death is a death no matter the means""

Agreed. However, if someone causes the death, action must be taken to punish the guilty(not war in all cases however). The only action that can be taken after an earthquake is to rebuild and try to improve our technology.

"When compared to others, even those recent, it's not that great. I'm not saying it's insignificant, but it hasn't "changed the world" as some have said."

I beg to differ. IT has changed our world, at least America's, because this is an attack on American soil, and that affects the US.

"Already did, "freedom itself has been attacked". We have been attacked, truth. Freedom is an abstract notion existent only in the minds of those that hold it, it is not vulnerable to attack. A slave can be free (we're talking metaphysics now, but still). False, or at least deceiving. The line's intention was not to present facts, but to prep your mindset so you'll be more apt to agree with what follows."

A) You read to much into a statment. Don't take it so literally. He meant to say by that statement that we are attacked becasue of our freedom. While I don't agree that is why we are attacked, it is mere speculation until all of the evidence is put together, if ever. However, if you can tell me the exact reason we are attacked and back it up with facts, then you have the right to correct a saying, but until you prove he said it, knowingly saying it is wrong, don't bash him.

B) And I am sure all pacifists only present facts, and never obscure one word period. Pot calling the kettle black.