What do you think, folks? Who would the terrorists prefer as president of the United States?
I'm not sure that is a question that can be answered, but it should at least make a lot of people mad at me for asking. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Hmmm, So do you suppose that "The Terroists" would prefer a US president who inspires thousands to join their cause through brutality and injustice or one who is resolves the injustices they protest so effectively that they can disband and go home. I have never understood the psychology of violence well enought to even hazard a guess.
I suppose that the real question is what policies will be most likely to stop future terrorism. I don't know the answer to that question either but I find it hard to imagine a policy more likely to arose hatred and violence against America than the course that Bush has chosen.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I'm sure the terrorists would prefer Bush since he goes out of his way to provoke increased membership in Al-Qaeda. We have to stand firm and not give in to terrorists! Vote Kerry!
[ May 29, 2004, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Dubya, of course. Only terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and dupes of terrorist propaganda voted for him last election. Polls indicate that they think he is doing a fine job.
[ May 29, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
aspectre, you really need to get over yourself. If the type of political discourse you want in this country is simple-minded name-calling, there's lots of people happy to oblige. Your utter refusal (or inability, I’m not sure which) to attempt to find valid motives in the political actions of others shows you to be remarkably close-minded and divisive, which sounds a lot like what his detractors claim to dislike about Bush.
Dagonee
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Well, I don’t know the answer either, but I just thought of two more questions.
Is there more or less hatred and violence against America now than there was in, say, the last decade?
If we could manage to figure out just what it is that the terrorists want from us, and then gave it to them, what would they do and how would they feel toward us?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
It seems as if your trying to socratically evoke the obvious response that these terrorists don't have a single unified goal, there is no way to give them what they want since they all want different things and are accountable to no higher authority. But there is definately more anti-American sentiment in the world, even after 9-11 which actually saw pro-US demonstrations in Iran and China. Bush has managed to turn the world from the sympathetic stance embodied by the french headline "We Are all Americans Now" to spite and disgust for America.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Actually I wasn’t trying to evoke any particular response since I wasn’t aware that they didn’t have a single unified goal. So your response gives me something more to think about. As for “socratically,” I can only take a best guess what that means. I’ll have to look that one up. Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Also I'm wondering: Is Pres. Bush the cause of all this anti-American sentiment in the world? Or is there some other cause or causes? And how can we know? Or to ask it another way: Who says so? Who is he? And how does he know? Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Come on don't tell me you actually believed that these terrorists were all working under the same command, and all in the same organization? That's like some kind of bad B movie plot.
[ May 29, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
No, I didn't think that. But I've always had the impression that they have the common goal of killing every last Jew from off the face of the Earth.
[ May 29, 2004, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Samuel Bush ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Then you're pretty racist, terrorists include things like the IRA you know?
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Actually I'm not racist. I hate all terrorists separately but equally. But anyway, I was talking about the Islamic extremist type terrorists. I guess I should have made that clear from the outset.
Although, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the IRA and the Islamic extremist type terrorists have been known to be in cahoots with each other from time to time.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or to put it another way: the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"the friend of my enemy is my enemy."
This may be an oversimplification. Consider the implications of what you're saying here in the context of the question about which you wrote this thread: is the person the terrorists would vote for NECESSARILY the worst choice for president?
In other words, do the preferences of terrorists really matter to you? If so, haven't they -- as we've jokingly bantered about before -- already won?
[ May 30, 2004, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Wow, it's a miracle, what has happened to hatrack, Tom Davidson is actually offering a little bit of explanation for his statements, not a lot, but a lot more than "I'm right and so if you can't figure out why you're dumb." Kudos Tom, and I mean that. The heck of it is I think you may be wrong for once in your line of thought- obviously not the part about your enemy's friend being your enemy- that is an oversimplification. But if the terrorists are the singular definite major and generally basically evil threat, which I think many people would agree that say the Soviets or Nazis were, then what is bad for them is very likely though not always good for us, and vice versa.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But, see, there's an enormous "IF" in your statement that basically renders it impotent. ARE the terrorists the single biggest threat to our way of life? What threat do they actually pose? And what, exactly, constitutes our way of life?
For that matter, are we justified in doing anything that inconveniences them, no matter how horrible it would otherwise seem, if we accept the premise that their destruction has become the primary goal of our society over the short term?
The assumption necessary to accept that conditional is not one that I'm willing to make, and I don't think most people -- once they really considered the implications -- would be willing to, either.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
May I?
It's always good for a Bush clear.
quote: Actually I'm not racist.
Sweet!
quote: I hate all terrorists separately but equally.
Your circle of hate is divided into even pieces against those who would terrorize good people! Very noble.
quote: But anyway, I was talking about the Islamic extremist type terrorists.
What? Wait, you don't divide your circle of hate evenlly? How do you pour your cups of wrath for measurement? this statement leaves me more confused.
quote: I guess I should have made that clear from the outset.
no more guesses
"I guessed they had weapons of mass destruction."
"I guessed invading and occuping a country would create less people who believe America is the devil."
"I guessed it was rock and roll they corroded society's core."
no more guesses
quote: Although, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the IRA and the Islamic extremist type terrorists have been known to be in cahoots with each other from time to time.
I seem to recall the united states government training Osama Bin Laden for about 12 years, and they also befriended Saddam for a while during his "I'm a ruthless dick" stage.
The definition for a terrorist is pretty hazy right now. Is a palestineian kid who throws a bottle at a Isrealy tank a terrorist? Is Kenneth Lay a social terrorist? Are Iraqis who want Americans out of Iraq terrorists?
We all agree that guys who attempt to aquire nuclear weapons, bomb buses, houses, buildings, shoot people, fly airplanes into buildings, set malls on fire, etc. to be terrorists but where do we draw the line here?
I feel the same mind that tells us to "Don't do drugs" as it sells us drugs on 100 channels on the tv.
I think government all over the world is a terrorist organization, because ultimeatly government takes care of government first, business second, its friends third and people sometime after that.
quote: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Or to put it another way: the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
As I pointed out before, this logic is faulty.
Osama was the enemy of Russia, so we had sex with osama. Bad Idea.
Saddam was the enemy of Iran we had sex with saddamn. Bad Idea.
Superman doesn't pal around with the Joker because they both want to get rid of Lex Luthor.
Duh.
Where is this great evoultion of man
C.S. Lewis talked about???
Aragon!
Gandalf!
Step forward!
<T>
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
TD said: "But, see, there's an enormous "IF" in your statement that basically renders it impotent. ARE the terrorists the single biggest threat to our way of life? What threat do they actually pose? And what, exactly, constitutes our way of life?"
Unh uh. Unh uh. No they're not the biggest threat, the threat they pose is one born primarily of our own errors, and it must be cleaned up with positive action and with that in mind. We are not arguing over that though. What constitutes our way of life is not something that should not need to be defined to a rational person, and anything that threatens it most certainly threatens us. When other people really try to change your way of life for you, they do it exclusively by attacking you, because there is no insult that great.
"For that matter, are we justified in doing anything that inconveniences them, no matter how horrible it would otherwise seem, if we accept the premise that their destruction has become the primary goal of our society over the short term?"
The means are not justified by the ends but they are justified by desperation and a lack of other visible options. IF such a lack there be here, as in some other cases there is (though I personally agree with you there isn't in this particular case), it's no longer a question of what should be done, but what must be.
Here see You and Thor are trying to argue along the same lines: "I seem to recall the united states government training Osama Bin Laden for about 12 years, and they also befriended Saddam for a while during his "I'm a ruthless dick" stage."
Yeah, Ok, we definitely messed up helping out Saddam, but Afghanistan and the subsequent discontent of Russian citizens with the help of Gorbachev is what broke the back of the soviets. We were wrong to fund the Taliban, better options were on the table, but something did have to be done. Then what about Vietnam, or Korea? You think we should have just sat back and watched while tyranny took over the world? Bad idea, I say. What you guys are arguing is approximately the epitomy of what is the mainstream "liberal" argument over this, you are arguing for the right thing for the the wrong reasons, and it is not effective. If you've got a knife and somebody's trying to use a deadly weapon on your family, you don't strike to injure, you strike to kill. The fact that nobody metaphorically really has much of a deadly weapon they're very prepared to use at this point does not negate the fact that there is definitely something going on, and it needs to be dealt with immediately. We're not talking the Nazis or the Soviets here, but we're quite obviously not talking about the attack of the teddy bears either. Again, unlike the soviets or the Nazis, this is a problem that we helped create and so can actually bring down with steps of guarded reconciliation and apology (rather than steps of vigilance, negotiation, and strength) but they have to be soon and drastic, or all hell could break loose. You guys always arguing against things need to recognize that despite the above, there is a problem, and to offer a solution. Sorry if I sound like the Mad Moderate, but it's true.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: The fact that nobody metaphorically really has much of a deadly weapon they're very prepared to use at this point does not negate the fact that there is definitely something going on, and it needs to be dealt with immediately.
So we should attack anyone that could potentially attack us in the future?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Where is this great evoultion of man
C.S. Lewis talked about???
Lewis wasn't talking about it like it was a good thing. If you want to see Lewis's evolution of man, keep an eye on genetic engineering and testing. That's where the foundation will be built.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
"the terrorists", "the terrorists!", THE TERRORISTS!!!"
THEY'RE COMING TO GET YOU!!!
i'm so sick of hearing about TERRORISTS! how many people have died from terrorism compared to petty homocide? how many people have died from terrorism compared to smoking. or bee stings. i'm probably in greater risk of being dying from killer bees than terrorists, but you don't see a department of bee protection now do you?
who was it that said "history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes"? would we have all suffered an ignominious and bloody death if we hadn't stood up to them commie bastards in korea and vietnam? probably not. but goodness how effectively a scary foreign menace can persuade a country to stop thinking and go running to their politicians to save them from the boogey-man. "the terrorists want to kill your babies, we need to suspend your civil rights and abrogate international law to protect you, and by the way you don't mind if we roll back a few decades of environmental legislation in the process right? go spend some money, it's the patriotic thing to do"
Ginsberg: "America you don're really want to go to war. America it's them bad Russians. Them Russians them Russians and them Chinamen. And them Russians. The Russia wants to eat us alive. The Russia's power mad. She wants to take our cars from out our garages. Her wants to grab Chicago. Her needs a Red Reader's Digest. her wants our auto plants in Siberia. Him big bureaucracy running our fillingstations. That no good. Ugh. Him makes Indians learn read. Him need big black niggers. Hah. Her make us all work sixteen hours a day. Help. America this is quite serious. America this is the impression I get from looking in the television set. America is this correct? I'd better get right down to the job. It's true I don't want to join the Army or turn lathes in precision parts factories, I'm nearsighted and psychopathic anyway. America I'm putting my queer shoulder to the wheel"
EDIT: didn't sound snipey enough...
[ May 31, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't believe you called the threat from comunism a Boogey Man. That's too sad for words. Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
you're right, i'm sure that McCarthy really did have a list, and that every one of the 205 people on it were freedom-hating commies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The military threat of communism was very real. The threat of communism taking over the world, which was the big one used as a boogeyman, was very much a boogeyman.
edit to add: and that the opposing military threat was communist was pretty coincidental. It was a specific country/strong association that was a military threat: the USSR.
[ May 31, 2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was their stated goal to implement Communism world-wide. It was not a bogeyman.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That doesn't make it not a bogeyman. A bogeyman can be something that exists (in the metaphorical sense we're using it), just something that's blown all out of proportion.
For instance, even despite McCarthy, the Communist (and more majorly, Socialist) parties in the US were staunchly patriotic (not that it swayed McCarthy). In fact, both of them (particularly the socialists) pretty much hated what Stalin et al had done in trampling their ideals.
And since we have a bit of hindsight now, lets look at the fearsom consequences of Vietnam becoming a Communist country. Best thing ever? Definitely not. Better/worse than the South Vietnamese would have governed it? Who knows. What's so inherently wrong with the communist countries? There are many, many worse countries out there, and if they want to depress their economies a bit, works for me.
The whole fear of the communist countries working together at the time was probably true -- in the same sense the communist countries' accusation of the capitalist/western countries working together was definitely true.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
the test of boogey-man-ness isn't one's intentions, it's one's ability to carry them out. so in reality, russia's intentions are much less significant than the military threat they posed (as mentioned earlier).
i'm not saying that there is no threat from terrorism, or that the USSR didn't deserve to be a major part of our post WWII foreign policy, i'm saying that in both cases these legitimate concerns have been blown all out of proportion as a means of manipulating the electorate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What's so inherently wrong with the communist countries?
Ask the Hungarians in '56 or the Czechs in '63. Ask the people of Berlin in '48.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and my last post touches closely upon something -- Communism as an internal threat to America was a huge bogeyman in particular.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, that's what's inherently wrong with being under the control of the USSR. Ask Cuba during this time period, or China, even, which managed to get rid of a tyrannical, corrupt Republican government in favor of a slightly (emphasis on slightly, though) less of both (particularly in the early years, which were a struggle for survival) Communist government.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote: Ask the Hungarians in '56 or the Czechs in '63. Ask the people of Berlin in '48
or perhaps as long as we're talking to people who have been opressed, we should talk to the millions of native americans who used to live at your place, or the africans who were dragged over here and forced to endure two centuries of slavery, or the spanish colonists we forced out of florida or the mexicans we butchered in texas or the millions of people in south america subjugated throught the monroe doctrine.
democracy doesn't eliminate opression.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: To fugu. It's easy to say that now. Just because some people used the threat to justify unneeded policies doesn't mean the threat wasn't real.
Dagonee
[ May 31, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The internal threat was known to be blown out of proportion for political reasons even then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
kerinin, who said it did? What has been said is that the Communists' stated goal was a world-wide revolution imposing a system absolutely antithetical to individual liberty and dignity on the global population. And, comparing contemporaneous societies, the Communist regimes were FAR FAR FAR more oppressive than anything that happened here or in countries we supported.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The internal threat was known to be blown out of proportion for political reasons even then.
Blowing something out of proportion does not make it a bogeyman. There was a threat. It was serious. The threat was used to justify some policies that weren't actually needed based on the threat.
But it was real.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote: What has been said is that the Communists' stated goal was a world-wide revolution imposing a system absolutely antithetical to individual liberty and dignity on the global population
i was responding to what you had said in response to the question "what's so inherently wrong with the comunist countries". You implied that what was wrong with communist countries was that they were opressive. in order for that to be something "wrong" with communist countries, at least in the sense that we should oppose their worldwide domination because our system is better, our system must not be opressive.
quote: And, comparing contemporaneous societies, the Communist regimes were FAR FAR FAR more oppressive than anything that happened here or in countries we supported
that's true ONLY if you're comparing at the same moment in time. during the specific decades that the communists were committing their atrocities, we were not doing the same thing. On the other hand, if you look at the situation from the perspective of the evolution of a government over time, and start counting from when both our government and communist russia came into power, the argument falls apart. Did stalin kill millions of people? yes. Did the US government do the same? yes. if they did not kill as many it is only due to lack of technology. equanimity is a luxury governments can't really afford until they've established themselves through brutality, bloodshed, and opression.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Cuba was around then, we could see their relatively decent prosperity. So was China, and if we hadn't been blinded by the word Republican the Kuomintang kept bandying about, we'd have noticed that the wholesale extermination of Communist sympathizers (as just a minor example) was perhaps not in line with our values at all.
Oh, and then there was central/south america. Where at least once we've armed mercenaries to overthrow a democratically elected Communist/Socialist sympathizing government in order to install a tyrant -- does the name Pinochet ring a bell? And darn straight this is hindsight, but lets look at some things they did know: Allende hadn't done anything particularly bad. Allende was democratically elected. A military coup would mean military control of the country -- since they already democratically elected a (*gasp*) Marxist, no way we could allow democratic elections if our goal was to keep them free of Marxism. And we also knew how military governments are often run. Pinochet showed us shortly, anyhow.
Because we accepted Communism as a bogeyman, because we viewed it as an ultimate evil, we allowed ourselves to participate in that atrocity, which we knew was an attack on our own values even when we undertook it.
Oh wait, I forgot Italy in the late 40s. They were going to go Communist, so we interfered in their elections, too, though not so violently. Clearly we kept our mandate of democratically elected governments sound.
Actually, how could I forget the Philipines? Yeah, the ruin of their economy and a series of puppet rulers was a great situation for them (strikingly similar to Eastern Europe, actually).
Do we want to touch on British Guyana? They were pretty successful . . . oh wait, that was under Jagan's policies. Then the US and Great Britain used military force and bribes to remove him from office and topple the successful Democracy in place. Which led to severe economic problems.
Oh well, but at least the USSR was the evil government that ruined economies and installed tyrannical dictators (sometimes both at once, even), not us!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Didn't say we didn't do anything wrong. I did say what we did was far less oppresive than the communist regimes of the time. Let's use death count as the starting stastic. Both Mao and Stalin sit at the top of the lists.
As for comparison of governments evolving over time, that doesn't wash. Russians had their own government far longer than we did.
Note the first definition. Communism was used as a terrifying specter, when, quite frankly, it wasn't. The USSR was a terrifying specter militarily, and governmentally if one happened to have the misfortune of living there, but our inability to separate the USSR's form of government (which wasn't really Communist, anyways) from the USSR itself led us to suppress the democratic choices of countries throughout the world, sometimes violently.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
by that argument("Russians had their own government far longer than we did"), we would have to be considered an extension of the british government, in which case "our" government has been around a lot longer...
edit: clarification
[ May 31, 2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A terrifying specter; a hobgoblin.
Yes, it was. Did aome people make it more terrifying than it actually was? Yes. Does that mean it's not terrifying? No. Frankly, that definition applies to any threat considered terrifying, whether it is or isn't. Even if Communism was as serious a threat as the most extreme people claimed, that definition would apply. So if that's the definition you want to use, then I'm fine calling it a bogeyman. But from your arguments it clearly isn't.
Kerinin, whem confronted with a threat, saying, "Let's just wait 200 years for them to outgrow this oppressive behavior" is small comfort to both the current victims and the potential future victims of that oppression.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, lets total death tallies.
Who shall we give the totals for Korea and Vietnam to?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and which oppressive behavior were we talking about in the countries we prevented democratic elections in/overthrew democratically elected leaders in? None of those governments had histories of oppression, most of them didn't even get a chance to have a history. Our history of oppression was far longer (even with just the act that oppressed that particular country) than theirs. Are they automatically oppressive if they're communists, or even communist sympathizers? The idea that communism sympathizing (such as Jagan may have been -- he was definitely not a communist) = oppression is most definitely a bogeyman under any definition of the word.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How about the army that INVADED another country for Korea, the Stalinist state North Korea. Or you can personally tell the South Koreans that you wish they lived under Kim Jong-il.
my intention was never to legitimize those actions, but to support fugu's implied statement that there is moral equality between communism and our own government. perhaps more specificly immoral equality.
but you're right, platitudes do little to justify the killing and opression of innocents, which is why i've been so aggravated at all this hysteria over terrorism; it's being used as a justification for more killing and opression. So what do you do about a government, system, or culture which causes opression and unessecary death? you point it out and try to avoid it. Right now, the largest threat to the common security of the world isn't terrorism, it's our reaction TO terrorism. terrorism isn't going away, so long as we live in a technologically advanced society with large groups of unhappy people there will be terrorism. We need to deal with that and move on. Obviously changes are needed; we need to protect ourselves and address the causes of people's anger. we do not, however, need to continue this chicken little routine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Right now, the largest threat to the common security of the world isn't terrorism, it's our reaction TO terrorism.
See, we straight up disagree on the validity of this claim.
Dagonee
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
right, genocides...
from here "By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand."
add to that the slaves killed under a government sanctioned system of slavery and guess who comes out the victor in our little competition?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Korea I was going to suggest was mostly the USSR's, anyways . In fact, that was the reason I included Korea, so you could object to it. You should note something about the situation -- it was the USSR we were really opposing. Not communism. I have supported the USSR as a terrifying specter consistently.
Its communism that I think was used as a bogeyman to justify the elimination of governments that disagreed with us, despite the lack of justification other than "they're communists/communist sympathizers!"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That is, I've never been trying to assert that the US was worse than the USSR. I've been trying to say the US made of bogeyman out of Communism (which wasn't really what the USSR operated under, anyways).
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
from cnnThe Patterns of Global Terrorism report said 190 acts of international terrorism occurred in 2003 -- a slight drop from 198 attacks the previous year and the lowest total since 1969.
as of now, from the war in iraq alone there have been 752 coalition deaths (http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx)and at at least 9,000 civilian casualties (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/).
perhaps more importantly, our actions are increasing the threat of terrorism, so i would argue that even terrorist incidents that happen in the future are in part our fault because if we had acted differently over the past few years it is probable they would have been less frequent. and yes, i recognize that this paragraph is entirely my opinion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Further, we weren't doing that while we were opposing communism. Are you having trouble grasping this concept? Slavery was bad. A major war was fought at least partially to end it? Sure, it was an imperfect solution, and the racism still survives today. But slavery was ended. Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done to bring back Native Americans.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and you should note that even on one page you pointed at, "only" (I do not belittle it) a half million people died in Russia at Stalin's orders. The vast majority died because of his political decisions, as side effects, in starvation and such. In vietnam we killed 1 to 3 million people (depending on who you listen to) at our government's orders. And I don't think anyone's done the death tolls by starvation in the various areas which economies we've ruiined. We blow Stalin's (already horrific) death toll out of proportion. Similarly China's -- even had Mao Ze Dong made better decisions, China's situation was crap. Millions were going to die. Do we know how many fewer would have died? No.
And yes, Stalin was much worse than us, insofar as the death tolls he inflicted in war against us are around as bad as we inflicted as war against him, and he did have nigh a half million people killed in cold blood, which we haven't done in well over 100 years.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
perhaps more important that which is the greater relative threat is the fact that we have a certain amount of control over how we react, while we don't have much control over the existence of terrorism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, the Ukrainian famine was engineered - those starvation figures count as willful deaths.
Dagonee
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Way to keep changing the subject until you can come up with a point that can't be argued with,folks fact#1 corrupt politicians in the United States have done bad things (DUH!) fact#2 Scared politicians have done stupid things(DUH!) fact#3 Leaders of this country have occaisonally tried very hard in the last 70 years to meddle in affairs not neccessarily directly concerning them in hopes of preventing impending disaster from very real threats(DUH! DUH! DUH!) fact#4 The soviet bloc was as real a threat to mankind's survival and/or freedom as there has ever been, and probably ever will be(DUH!) fact#5 Anybody comparing Stalin to any US leader or leaders as far as extent of attroceties should go look up a few well documented figures, and anybody comparing him with regard to level of attroceties should probably attempt to purchase a new brain. One thing to effect the death by the the thousands people of your wrongly percieved "enemies" or of other lands for the supposed "greater good", but more or less accidentally, quite another to effect the death of your own people by the million and to force them into slavery(DUH!) fact#6 What was The plight of the American indians is not remotely compareable to the Soviet Bloc, and it is near exactly comparable to the vast majority of the muslim world, but sorry not Al Qaida(DUH!)
[ May 31, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Yup, no doubt about it, we have make a lot of mistakes. But we have done a lot of really really great things too. And the fact that we can sit around and contemplate our collective navel and criticize our leaders without fear of the big bad secret police huffing and puffing and blowing our house down in the middle of the night is a pretty good indication that the USA is still a really great country in which to live.
And lets not make any mistake about this: "The only people to blame for terrorism are the terrorists."
That is from an article by OSC entitled "How Bush Caused 9/11." It is on his Links page under "The Ornery American" or click on the URL below.
[ May 31, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Samuel Bush ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Whenever I read these conversations about the history of the US I'm always torn between who I find most irritating. Those who want to make the US out to be a blood thirsty monster where most rational people realize that by virtue of being a/the global superpower (depending on where we are in history) they only ever have lose/lose situations to work with. Or those who are always arguing that yeah sure, we made mistakes, but look at these guys, they're worse! Or the ever popular, yes we've made mistakes but here's all the ways we're wonderful and great! You know, it's Ok to say bad things about your country. Chill.
I guess I'm just irritated with people who look at history by starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
edit: added a bit
[ May 31, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You know, it's Ok to say bad things about your country. Chill.
Of course it is. No one here has argued that it's not. Nor has anyone said that evil done by another country justifies evil done by us. Edit: And that statement itself contains the implicit assumption that evil has been done by us.
Dagonee
[ May 31, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm curious, Dags, have you always been so concerned with how people say things? Or has it just started since taking the law degree?
I honestly have no real agenda for asking this, just wondering if people choose the best path for their mind or if their mind moulds to the path they choose.
In other words, it's a completely off topic derailment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've always been concerned about the use of language in political discourse. I opposed the demonization of Clinton (while still opposing most of his policies); I also opposed the disingenuous rationalization of his conduct as simply an extra-marital affair. I’m also concerned with the casual assumptions about other people’s motives and either the inability or lack of desire to come to understand others’ motivations.
On this board, there’s a set of members who consistently assign the basest motives to people who disagree with them on certain issues. People who hold the opposing views either have these base motives or are the hapless dupes of those who hold them.
Even worse are the absolute mischaracterizations of opponents’ positions or facts which are relevant to the debate, which happens distressingly often here. Sometimes it’s merely ignorance; too often, it’s deliberate. I’m counting as deliberate those times when a person’s incorrect post is challenged with evidence and the original poster doesn’t bother to either admit wrongdoing or produce further evidence.
Such an atmosphere makes it impossible to have meaningful discourse. I can swap insults with the best of them. I try to keep the impulse in check in the interests of preserving this as a forum for viable debate. But it’s becoming increasingly difficult to restrain myself. Pointing out such instances is my alternative to insulting back.
Law school has made me more aware of the uses of precise language, but I try not to just nitpick meanings. If I’m arguing over a particular term, it’s because I believe there are substantive issues at stake.
Dagonee Edit: To more fully answer your question, the precision of legal language (at least, the precision it attempts to maintain) was one of the things that attracted me to law. My prior career did a lot of data and object modeling. The idea of naming a concept and defining how it behaves has always fascinated me.
[ May 31, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The means are not justified by the ends but they are justified by desperation and a lack of other visible options."
This is basically babbling, isn't it? I mean, you appear to be saying that ends don't justify the means unless you really, really need those ends.
*rolls eyes*
So, let me repeat my earlier question: how bad does a threat to our security and/or way of life have to be before we are justified in using any and all means to destroy that threat? If there IS no point at which all means are justified, isn't that basically the same as admitting, straight-up, that there is some kind of moral calculus involved here?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sigh* we were having a nice discussion, too, before it got sidetracked.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and you're quite right on the intentional famine thing. I've never thought Stalin was a good guy or a better guy than us in any way. However, if anything, that episode underscores how un-communist the USSR was.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
OK, but my point was not that Stalin wasn't better it was that he was worse. A whole lot worse. Oh and nothing against Communism here, I'm a communist myself, it just doesn't really work right on a large scale of government, but Stalin and Mao did not even try.
From TD's post:
quote: "The means are not justified by the ends but they are justified by desperation and a lack of other visible options."
This is basically babbling, isn't it? I mean, you appear to be saying that ends don't justify the means unless you really, really need those ends.
No, it's not babbling. Maybe I should have left out the "visible", I don't know, might have been clearer what I meant that way. The ends have nothing to do with it. The means(individual acts) justify themselves if there's no better option, which sometimes there isn't one that can be reasonably expected to be apparent enough to be successful. I would have thought my example of someone killing for his family would have been sufficient explanation.
quote: Or those who are always arguing that yeah sure, we made mistakes, but look at these guys, they're worse! Or the ever popular, yes we've made mistakes but here's all the ways we're wonderful and great!
I've got an idea, Bob, go back and read an understand what was said on this thread and then post, it does wonders for me. There is a valid point here and that is that it would really suck to be living under the soviet tyrant or more likely to all have been blasted into the stone age along with the rest of the human race. If you think that running a world superpower is a walk in the park, then I'm glad you weren't any large part of the nation's leadership during the cold war, or we might all be dead. The fate of the entire world is not to be taken lightly. So if, and I say if, Atroceties are commited with that end in mind, it does not make them justifiable, but it does make them understandable, even if not forgivable.
quote: You know, it's Ok to say bad things about your country. Chill.
It's not really Ok to say lies about your country, though, and half truths in a case like this can be just as bad, especially when you take them and mistakenly equate them to current circumstances. At the very least, you destroy the validity of your point by doing so. Threats and problems have to be recognized and they have to be dealt with, and anybody who fails to respect that is ridiculous. How to deal with the problems, though, there's a subject for inteligent debate. But seriously folks who in their right mind really thinks that Al Qaida is a threat of the same magnitude as the USSR? Likewise who believes Al Qaida is not a serious threat to the lives of the people of the world? Well then I'm saying it's a problem that has to be dealt with, so how?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: "The only people to blame for terrorism are the terrorists."
OK.
Who gets the blame for the 12,000 dead Iraqis?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The means(individual acts) justify themselves if there's no better option...."
But, see, I think you have to admit that it's awfully convenient to be able to decide when you have no better option.
When you kill someone to feed your family, for example, who gets to decide if there is no better option? Do you ask the guy you're about to kill?
[ June 01, 2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As you may have already read, kerinin, "The Patterns of Global Terrorism report" was a "big mistake" according to Secretary of State ColinPowell. Whether deliberately or not, "The report also showed the virtual disappearance of attacks in which no one died" which indicates that: The criteria for defining an incident as a terrorist act had been changed so that eg sabotage against a USmultinational corporation's oil pipelines in Columbia is no longer considered terrorism; And/or the DubyaAdministration has radicalized terrorists even further toward the attitude that murder is the prefered method of political protest because crimes against property are no longer considered sufficient.
Either way, the old figures..."did not include most of the attacks in Iraq" and placed no emphasis on the fact that "the report counted 82 anti-U.S. attacks around the world in 2003, up from 77 in 2002" which is a 6.5% increase. And "Thirty-five American citizens died in terrorist attacks last year." added to "the virtual disappearance of attacks in which no one died" implies that at least 47 foreign nationals (excluding Iraqis) working for the US also died.
quote:A senior US intelligence official....with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment...thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign....with the intention...of keeping the same[DubyaAdministration]one in place. "[terrorists] can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now....One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."
[ June 20, 2004, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Dag you said
quote: Ask the Hungarians in '56 or the Czechs in '63. Ask the people of Berlin in '48.
I spent the first semester of last year in Budapest Hungary. People are still afraid to talk badly about communism. They always said, "We were the happiest block of communism." I tried to talk to my teachers about it, but only one would speak about it. And believe me, she spoke very badly about communism. But the others, they wouldnt speak negatively about it, as if they had a better life under communism. Which is def not true considering the city is just now repairing bullet holes from WW2 and the 1956 revolution.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
You know, if Bush had just sat back and allowed Saddam to launch some sort of attack on US interests the liberals here would be just as quick to ask why he didn't take action in the first place agaist Saddam. Notice that when his father didn't take Saddam out in 1991 it was liberals who blamed him for the massacre of Iraqis by Saddam that followed.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Fugi13 states,
quote:Oh, and you're quite right on the intentional famine thing. I've never thought Stalin was a good guy or a better guy than us in any way. However, if anything, that episode underscores how un-communist the USSR was.
Trýing to say that Stalin did not represent what communism was all about is like saying Hitler didn't try to put the principles of Darwin into political practice.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Terrorists would vote for people who don't know the difference between who and whom. *grumble grumble*
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:what communism was all about
right, because the equality of humanity and the idea of innate worth logically lead to mass murder and starvation.
have you ever read marx?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Yes, I have read Marx and I have studied Marxist Leninism and Mao's writings (gotta admit every time I have been to Beijing or Moscow they have the old boys under renovation and I have not been able to view their bodies) as well as the Fabians, etc. There is a great danger when you start messing with Utopianism on a grand scale because then you wind up with fanatics that are willing to trample individuality to attain what they perceive as worthy ideals.
Ever read Animal Farm?
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:allowed Saddam to launch some sort of attack on US interests
um, i don't think even bush ever alleged that we needed to attack iraq out of fear that saddam was going to launch an attack against us.
quote:Notice that when his father didn't take Saddam out in 1991 it was liberals who blamed him for the massacre of Iraqis by Saddam that followed.
so are you saying that "liberals" were wrong in condemning the fact that saddam was left in power? isn't this whole mess we're in now the result of having left him in power for the past decade or so while starving his population to death?
oh wait, i guess we did get a lot of cheap oil through the oil-for-food program, and we did manage to keep the country under wraps by isolating and starving them to death, and they certainly weren't much of a military threat (we of course got to operate military bases in the region), so yeah, i guess you're right: leaving saddam in power was a great idea. leaving a brutal dictator in power is a small price to pay for cheap oil and subdued adversaries...
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:you wind up with fanatics that are willing to trample individuality to attain what they perceive as worthy ideals
well here's the essence of our disagreement; i say that stalin used the rhetoric of communism as a means to excercise absolute power; that is ultimate goal was personal aggrandizement and control. you seem to be arguing that he honestly believed that he was pursuing "worthy ideals", and was simply misguided in his efforts.
i think it's pretty clear that marxist communism is a pipe dream, but that doesn't mean that the totalitarian regimes using it as rhetoric have anything to do with the ideas themselves.
[ June 21, 2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"then you wind up with fanatics that are willing to trample individuality to attain what they perceive as worthy ideals"
Unlike, um....Well, I won't say it. But you know I'm thinking it. Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:oh wait, i guess we did get a lot of cheap oil through the oil-for-food program, and we did manage to keep the country under wraps by isolating and starving them to death, and they certainly weren't much of a military threat (we of course got to operate military bases in the region), so yeah, i guess you're right: leaving saddam in power was a great idea. leaving a brutal dictator in power is a small price to pay for cheap oil and subdued adversaries...
Kerinin
So who was it who diverted money from his people and put it into palaces, weapons and his own bank account? And I guess it was a good Democratic policy since Madaline Albright and Bill Clinton supported it.
And would you have supported a full scale invasion of Iraq in 1991? And if so, why would you not support President Bush doing it in 2003, like John Kerry did?
[ June 21, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: michaele8 ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
quote:So who was it who diverted money from his people and put it into palaces, weapons and his own bank account
yes, saddam was a bad man, nobody disagrees with you here, in fact i think the whole point of my post was that Bush senior should NOT have left him in power. i'm not a democrat, and i fail to see what clinton's continuation of Bush sr.'s policy has to do with the discussion.
quote:And would you have supported a full scale invasion of Iraq in 1991? And if so, why would you not support President Bush doing it in 2003, like John Kerry did?
i don't know if i would have supported the first war, i was too young to really know what was going on. i do not think it was a good idea to have left saddam in power. that, however, is not in itself justification for having gone to war the second time. the question is not "should saddam be in power", the question is "is it in our best interest to remove saddam from power", and i believe the answer is "no".
Posted by Caitlin Strand (Member # 6631) on :
I agree with suntranafs. I got an E-mail once thats kinda relevent to this.
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? ________________________________________________________________ Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion. ____________________________________________________________ Conservative Answer:
BANG!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem, Caitlin, is that you so rarely see the flip side of that argument:
quote: A man rounds the corner, shouts something, and rushes at your wife. What do you do?
Conservative Answer: BANG! Liberal Answer: I pause for a second to assess the situation, and then help him push her out of the way of the falling debris.
While haste has its place, it's not called for in all cases.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
with my wife? two small children???!!!
i'm having problems identifying with this scenario... Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Conservative answer -- bang bang! Hey, take no chances! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, one of the essences of conservatism is a distrust for actions which create irreversible change before those actions can be fully studied. So no bang-bang.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, Dag, and communism is all about economic utopia.
Seriously, I know you're right -- but practicing and self-identified conservatives are no longer associated with the description you used.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I know - for the same reason, the whole liberal/classical liberal thing is silly.
Which is why I think my political views are becoming highly unlabelable.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
So you're not so much right or left as you are Dagonal of center?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Exactly why I identify my "political party" as Individual. Or Russell's, depending on mood.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The revision now counts "208 terrorist attacks as having occurred in 2003, with 625 dead." -- "18 more total events, five more significant events and 13 more nonsignificant events than originally reported" -- than the April original which " counted 307 deaths in a total of 190 terror attacks."
Instead of "the lowest total since 1969" as was stated in the original report, the revision shows that "...the number of significant attacks represented a 36 percent increase over 2001, up from 124 that year."
Among terrorist attacks not counted in the original, "a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November." Terrorist attacks and terrorism casualties in Iraq remain uncounted in the revision.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
No they're not the biggest threat, the threat they pose is one born primarily of our own errors, and it must be cleaned up with positive action and with that in mind. We are not arguing over that though. What constitutes our way of life is not something that should not need to be defined to a rational person, and anything that threatens it most certainly threatens us. When other people really try to change your way of life for you, they do it exclusively by attacking you, because there is no insult that great.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. In fact, that was the reason I included Korea, so you could object to it. You should note something about the situation -- it was the USSR we were really opposing. Not communism. I have supported the USSR as a terrifying specter consistently.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)