posted
"I'm curious - how is learning that someone wants to kill us not a valuable lesson."
Ah. I wasn't aware that, besides perhaps Dennis Miller, people were actually surprised by the fact that there were individuals out there who hated the United States and wished to do its citizens harm. I suppose that someone falling into this category might find a terrorist attack instructive.
I certainly hope, however, that our government did not rely on 9/11 to discover this bit of information. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I would like to say that I have loved discussing this topic with the varied and intelligent people on this forum.
Secondly, I think that Tom and estavares are exactly right. 9-11 is an event that happened. Planes piloted by muslim extremists from the middle east were flown into the Twin Towers in NY and the Pentagon in DC and another was flown into the ground in PA after passengers resisted the hijackers.
These are a few of the facts of that day. It is true that anything else that we attach onto those facts, meaning in other words, is an individual choice.
That action of attaching meaning to otherwise inert events is the process of being alive and being human.
Cats and dogs do not have the ability to attach meaning to stimuli. All their actions are simply instinct - you can condition them to respond slightly differently than they normally would in the wild, but you cannot condition a cat to trumpet like an elephant, it is simply impossible - animals simply respond to stimuli, without thinking.
There is no meaning to any event to an animal, there cannot ever be any meaning to an event for an animal.
The argument that every event is a blank slate that means nothing until we attach meaning to it is exactly true. The famous story is of Michael Jordan being cut from his hs basketball team. What does that event mean? What is the lesson that it teaches? To most people the "lesson" that it teaches is that you are not a good basketball player and that you will probably never be that good, you should probably find a new sport and that some obstacles are too tough. To Jordan, the "lesson" that he took from that inert event of being cut was that he needed to work harder, being cut from the team was just a small obstacle that he would overcome in his quest to make it to the NBA.
Who was right? The thousands of kids who have been cut and never played again or Michael Jordan, who went on to be one of the greatest players of all time?
We can all sit and argue both sides of the issue until our faces turn blue and we would still come down to this fact: The event meant something different to different people. This difference in interpretation of the events changed their actions. Those differences in actions changed the world.
So the real question is (if you choose to accept it) How do you make the world a better place.
And who decides anyway?
Since the beginning of time, through the Enlightenment and Locke, Madison, Bastiat, Smith and others, to modern day and men like Lincoln, Churchill, Eisenhower, Reagan and now George W Bush, man has struggled to bring "meaning" into his life to figure out the best way to do things. The great men in history did not sit on their hands and say, "You're right, I'm right we're both right. I cant tell you what to do because how can I ever prove that my way is best, 100% of the time??"
This sort of attitude can lead to inaction.
That is why we humans (or was it God? or Allah?) invented morals, and values and ethics and tried to judge peoples actions according to a standard. People decided to try and measure an action according to how much it was ethical and moral, completely revolutionary concepts to creatures just past the animal stage. That is why men like the aforementioned did what they did, they were united by beliefs that would give each man the chance to make the right decision, a decision that makes sense to him morally.
Now, what happens when people with different morals, different ways of seeing the world, different ways of interpreting inert events, come in contact with each other?
That is where wars begin and people are killed and gum is stolen from the corner store and adultery is committed and where government begins.
There is no country in the world where acts of murder on innocent non combatants is acceptable.
Notice I used the word innocent, I am able to use a descriptive word of that sort, a word which has meaning, because I have a set of morals that I adhere to, and in my set of morals no person, no matter how desperate or angry has the right to kill innocent civilians. If I was in an alley with people who believed differently about that and were going to prove it starting with me and my family, I would not ask if they were desperate or angry or if they disliked my wealth, I would kill them.
Any other reaction by someone in that situation, by my standards, is unacceptable.
The reason why 9-11 was/is the powerful event that it was, is because it allowed the president, (who, as people have noted, had already begun noticing the problem of terrorism, esp foreign powers with WMDs)(do we really need to argue that point? Everyone in the world, Russia, UK, UN, and USA believed that Saddam had WMDs, and they still could be out there) the moral justification to begin hunting down and destroying (or converting, I am fine with that too, just as long as they no longer believe that killing innocent civilians in peacetime is ok) all those who would destroy the USA and the advancement and progress that we represent.
That is my final word (dont hold me to that, I may start rambling again anytime) I would love to hear other opinions, and if Mr Card would deign to bring more light to the situation we would all be much obliged.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Notice I used the word innocent, I am able to use a descriptive word of that sort, a word which has meaning, because I have a set of morals that I adhere to, and in my set of morals no person, no matter how desperate or angry has the right to kill innocent civilians."
posted
ha, I knew this would come up! The Iraq and Afghanistan battles have been the most safe and accurate in the history of warfighting as far as civilian casualties. I would direct you to an OSC article on ornery.org for more info.
The question you must ask yourself, if one innocent person dies in our endeavor in the middle east, is that endeavor therefore unjustifiable?
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The question you must ask yourself, if one innocent person dies in our endeavor in the middle east, is that endeavor therefore unjustifiable?"
So what you're saying, then, is that in the set of morals to which you adhere, a person -- no matter how desperate or angry -- has the right to kill innocent civilians if it's really important that he kill other people and the civilians get in the way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont have all the answers to these questions, Im struggling with them as many people are but... I do know that sometimes people who have a lot of responsibility must weigh the consequences of their actions and decide which is best. They would do this by looking at that action according to their set of morals. Sometimes actions lead to people dying, sometimes inaction leads to people dying. That is why a person must make the best decision he can, that is all he can do.
Every action someone makes or does not make is made by a set of morals, whether that person knows it or not. When someone makes an action that some people find morally reprehensible, they, as a society, punish him. Sometimes they do this by completely removing that person from that society by the death penalty.
Its not a matter of just being important, its a matter of being the right thing to do. As I outlined previously, the example of the hoodlum in the alley, if he threatened my family I would not wonder if he was desperate or if my money was important to him or if he disliked the brand of clothes that I wore, those actions do not measure up to me morally, the only actions that fit my criteria of being morally acceptable is one that allows me to protect my family and remove the threat of that person from my family. I would do this by any means necessary.
People always will come into conflict with one another, we can dream of a time when we are all so morally advanced that other points of view are accepted, but that is almost contradictory. To even have the idea of moral progress you must have a goal, an ideal to which you as a society, you as a person aspire to, a place that you progress toward. Sometimes people endanger that progress, sometimes people are not as far on that path as others, this is a sad fact of life. Some people just have not put in the time and study to even begin to grapple with the issues that we are discussing.
The people that I believe offer the best chance for a free, democratic, self-determining world (that is the place I mentioned that all humans strive toward) are the people of America, UK, Japan and many other countries whose message of freedom, hope and responsibility is being embraced in countries all over the world in places where this previously seemed impossible.
When something endangers this progress that thing should be stopped at all costs. That is what I believe and what I will always believe.
Some ask whether this is fair to someone raised in another culture.
If that is a culture in which flying planes into buildings is not considered a morally reprehensible act, but an act of righteousness worthy of emulation and admiration, that culture does not deserve an understanding nod or a slap on the wrist, that culture deserves to be annihilated, or so completely changed that it is hardly recognizable.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The lesson we should have learned, although we haven't, as a whole, is that we are still vulnerable.
It is too easy for people in this country to have a false sense of security. We're the most powerful country in the world, with allies on all borders, we all have great lives. It makes us feel very safe. When we heard about terrorism in Israel, genocide in the Congo, ethnic clensing in Serbia, we seperated ourselves from it. Those millions of people dying, that's not us. That's not people, it's a number .
What September 11th did was show us that we aren't safe. We won't be safe. It put into perspective all that happens in the world. It opened up our eyes and told everyone, "It's not just a number. These are real people, with real families. People just like you."
But like I said, that's what it should have taught us. Whether or not it did is still a question up to debate. If it didn't, it's because we're still being controlled by the top minority that directs world affairs, that moves it's chess peices into place to gain more power. They don't want us to feel vulnerable, they don't want us to have passions about an event that touched us deeply. Not unless it suits their own aims, their own gains.
They really do need to make the footage public. This is something that needs to heal itself, not something that we can simply ignore.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if one innocent civilian dies in the prosecution of a just war, the war all of a sudden becomes unjust?
So what of World War II? I think most people would say that was a just war, and that ending that Holocaust was a noble deed. But we sure killed a lot of innocent civilians in that war - does that erase the good we did?
I believe that the fights in Afghanistan and Iraq were just. I believe that they freed people from genocidal regimes and that they truly did make us more safe. Did we kill innocent civilians in the process? Yes. Did we try to avoid this? Also, yes. Unfortunately, collateral damage is impossible. However, what we did was still just, was still worth doing, and it still stopped some evil.
I think that arguments like this are just conveniences to attack things that are disagreed with. It's just like during the Cold War - the Soviets did all these horrible things, millions of their own people died in gulags - yet in the minds of some deluded people, the United States was the bad person. Today, terrorists deliberately target innocent people, yet when we accidentally kill innocent people while going after the terrorists, we become the bad guy.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When something endangers this progress that thing should be stopped at all costs. That is what I believe and what I will always believe.
Some ask whether this is fair to someone raised in another culture.
If that is a culture in which flying planes into buildings is not considered a morally reprehensible act, but an act of righteousness worthy of emulation and admiration, that culture does not deserve an understanding nod or a slap on the wrist, that culture deserves to be annihilated.
Roy, look at what you wrote. This process -- the process of democratization and cultural homogenation -- should be continued at all costs.
If that cost included flying an airplane into a building, would that be okay? Or is it indeed true that this process should be continued at, say, only most costs?
Consider an example in which, rather than flying an airplane into a building, we instead drop a bomb that kills tens of thousands of people -- but stops a war that might have, had it continued, killed hundreds of thousands. That's an okay cost, right?
-----------
"It's just like during the Cold War - the Soviets did all these horrible things, millions of their own people died in gulags - yet in the minds of some deluded people, the United States was the bad person."
I think by someone who lived in an unaligned state at the time, both the USSR and the United States could have easily been called "bad persons." Opposing a villain does not make someone a hero.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Consider an example in which, rather than flying an airplane into a building, we instead drop a bomb that kills tens of thousands of people -- but stops a war that might have, had it continued, killed hundreds of thousands. That's an okay cost, right?" Yes. We did this (twice) to end the war with Japan.
"I think by someone who lived in an unaligned state at the time, both the USSR and the United States could have easily been called "bad persons." Opposing a villain does not make someone a hero." Yes, it does. That's what heroes do, they oppose the villian instead of sitting idly by and let someone else do the opposing.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im not sure if this is the topic that started to come up from my beggining post but im gonna say it anyway. Some people in America(hopefully all of us) want peace. We dont like sending off Moms, Dads, Brothers Sisters off to fight wars. We dont like hearing the countless deaths, nobody does(hopefully). But when your trying to have peace with a country that dispises you, hates you for having freedom that we died for, hates women with rights, you cant really say lets put down our guns. These people that we are fighting dont sign treaties, their form of peace is us crying over death and us giving up. We tried didnt we. Mr.Bush asked nicely, even on the Tube. You think he likes being called a Nazi for starting a war, you think he enjoys people protesting against him cause he had to start a war. No, and dont go all up in my face saying yes. He wants to eracticate them at the source, so they dont attack on home soil again, so those cowards who hide in their little holes and tunnels can try to bring down a country that already has enured so much. The answer was war, i want peace just like any other normal person, but you cant put out a forest fire with just a little gardening hose.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm still curious as to your take on how the U.S. should have responded to 9/11.
What could the nation have done to see justice accomplished in a way befitting the crime? What does anyone else have to say on this?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The process of "doing the right thing" and "opposing the villains" of the world is something that is done at all costs.
The question of the degree and the appropriateness of the response that this opposition should take is a silly one.
What you are asking is like a stranger to the game of football asking a player whether he really thinks that it is appropriate for that player to use the violence of a tackle on another player, and whether that action was morally appropriate. Of course it is appropriate, the player would reply.
Inside the context of the game, it is tackle or be tackled, if you pause to discuss the relevance of the rules of the game while you are in the process of playing, you are going to lose.
In the international game of survival that we are playing in right now, I believe that care and planning should be put into the research of the methods that we use to win the game. But, this care, this self-questioning nature of our country is not appropriate while the game is on.
During wartime, that self-quesioning nature, that questing search for what is right actually hinders rather than helps us achieve our goal.
Do not partake in the backdoor protest of an action by questioning the degree or method of acheiving it while claiming that you are in favor of it, that is a trick being used widely today.
If you would like to protest the validity and morality of an action, by all means protest it, before the game starts. During the game, while you are in danger of being knocked down and stomped on, the question should not be whether we should be playing, that is already decided, the real question we should be asking is "How do we win the game?"
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But when your trying to have peace with a country that dispises you, hates you for having freedom that we died for, hates women with rights...
Two points: I seriously doubt the 9/11 terrorists OR Saddam Hussein hated us for our freedom. And I really doubt that "women with rights" played a major role in the selection of our enemies, or else we'd've invaded Saudi Arabia well before Iraq.
quote:Mr.Bush asked nicely, even on the Tube.
When was this? I may have been briefly distracted by an amusing anecdote for a few seconds when this happened. Was it on a Wednesday?
quote:You think he likes being called a Nazi for starting a war, you think he enjoys people protesting against him cause he had to start a war. No, and dont go all up in my face saying yes.
I'm baffled. You think the issue is whether or not Bush likes being protested? You honestly expected me to disagree with you on that score? I'm surprised by this. The evidence very clearly shows that Bush strongly dislikes having people disagree with him.
quote:He wants to eracticate them at the source, so they dont attack on home soil again, so those cowards who hide in their little holes and tunnels can try to bring down a country that already has enured so much.
Again, a few more points: the citizens of America have endured a lot less than those of either Afghanistan or Iraq. Furthermore, I'm not sure you can call Al Qaeda "cowardly" for using caves and tunnels to evade American recon and air support; as it's enabled them to continue operations despite our best efforts and has kept Bin Laden out of our hands, I think the word you're actually looking for is "smart."
------
quote: I'm still curious as to your take on how the U.S. should have responded to 9/11.
In hindsight, it's easy for me to say what I think we should have done; I'm not a big fan of armchair quarterbacking. But at the time, I suggested that we go to the World Court with an ultimatum that Osama bin Laden be turned over to justice, or else we'd declare war on his extranational organization in the same way that we once declared war on the Barbary Pirates. But, then, I think there's this bizarre mental connection that people make between Bin Laden's attack on the Twin Towers and Hussein's Iraq; I don't think invading Iraq made any sense, especially since it's my opinion that, had an invasion of Afghanistan ultimately proved necessary, the reconstruction of that country would have been a better focus for us. Of course, Afghanistan lacks the resources necessary to be a major player in the region, and we wanted control of a major player: ergo Iraq.
-----------
quote: The process of 'doing the right thing' and 'opposing the villains' of the world is something that is done at all costs. The question of the degree and the appropriateness of the response that this opposition should take is a silly one.
No, see, you make the same mistake again. You use the phrase "at all costs," and then suggest that there's such a thing as "degree and appropriateness of the response." It's either one or the other. Either we conduct this opposition "at all costs," or we indeed accept that there are costs -- like, say, the murder of innocents -- we are unwilling to pay.
In fact, I submit for your approval the suggestion that "war at all costs" is exactly what Al Qaeda was attempting to conduct.
quote: In the international game of survival that we are playing in right now, I believe that care and planning should be put into the research of the methods that we use to win the game. But, this care, this self-questioning nature of our country is not appropriate while the game is on.
Which is why we previously established rules for this "game." The Geneva Conventions, for example. Our requirement that Congress approve all uses of force. Agreements with NATO and the United Nations involving military action.
We have broken many of these rules, and bent many more, to conduct a war "at all costs."
To use your football analogy: it's like deciding that we need to win the game, so we start deliberately injuring the other team, cheating whenever the ref isn't looking (and insulting the ref when he does catch us), and paying the guy in charge of the scoreboard to give us a few free points.
If the only goal of the game is to "win at all costs," then this behavior is okay. If the goal is to win in accordance with the rules we previously agreed upon -- the rules of football or of war -- then it is not.
I may be a Dolphins fan (to use a random team), but that doesn't mean I should look the other way if Marino punches somebody in the face -- or tell other fans, "Hey, don't you support the team?"
Arguing, in other words, that we should turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of our own government merely because it has decided to engage in an optional war is, as far as I'm concerned, about as evil as nationalism gets.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The process of "doing the right thing" and "opposing the villains" of the world is something that is done at all costs.
Sounds like somebody's been reading the same comic books as George W. The only villians in this world that we as Americans see are those who oppose our way of life. It's interesting to think that for the most part, they would resent being forced into our way of life just as much if not more so than being stuck with the one we view as abhorrent. The "lessons learned from 9-11" weren't that we should "crush," "destroy," or "annihilate" enemies of the United States, but rather that our foreign policy and national security both need a lot of work. What's happened instead is we've been given less privacy, the illusion of security, and a long-term war against an insurgency.
quote:The question of the degree and the appropriateness of the response that this opposition should take is a silly one.
I would tend to agree if the response were against an action. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and barely had a military (as we saw during the invasion). Their WMD program was non-existant as far as the UN was able to discover, whereas North Korea and Iran both had very public and very obvious WMD facilities. Why did we invade Iraq? Because it was easy, and it gave us a foothold in the middle east. In the long-term one might even think it's useful, but 9-11 (and the first Gulf War, and the Iran-Contra affair, and...and..) reminded us that our foreign policy in the Middle East leaves MUCH to be desired. Perhaps a foothold there isn't what we need so much as a definitive absence.
quote:What you are asking is like a stranger to the game of football asking a player whether he really thinks that it is appropriate for that player to use the violence of a tackle on another player, and whether that action was morally appropriate. Of course it is appropriate, the player would reply.
No, what he's saying is because one black man punches you in the mouth you don't hate all black men for the rest of time. A few crazy Arabs flew planes into buildings, does that mean all Muslims are bad? Apparently in some people's world it is. Toby Keith and Ann Coulter are good examples of those. A radical fundamentalist is not the same thing as the average member of the religion they claim to represent. What if suddenly everyone in America started hating Baptists because of the Abortion Clinic bombings? What if everyone started hating the Catholics because the molestation charges?
quote:Inside the context of the game, it is tackle or be tackled, if you pause to discuss the relevance of the rules of the game while you are in the process of playing, you are going to lose.
That's funny, because inside the context of the game you also have referees who do determine, interpret, and enforce the rules, much like the United Nations is supposed to do.
quote:In the international game of survival that we are playing in right now, I believe that care and planning should be put into the research of the methods that we use to win the game. But, this care, this self-questioning nature of our country is not appropriate while the game is on.
During wartime, that self-quesioning nature, that questing search for what is right actually hinders rather than helps us achieve our goal.
Do not partake in the backdoor protest of an action by questioning the degree or method of acheiving it while claiming that you are in favor of it, that is a trick being used widely today.
No offense sir, but you disgust me. A true patriot in this nation constantly questions and analyzes the actions of his or her government.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918) - Theodore Rosevelt
EDIT: (I hate to do this, I'm not normally a quote fanatic but there are certainly a few that need to be represented here) Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. - Harry S Truman
Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed -- and no republic can survive. - John F Kennedy /EDIT
It is morally reprehensible to me to say that as soon as the government makes a decision and involves itself in warfare that it is my civic duty to support that war until the government has decided that we should no longer do so. Not only is this servile and foolish, but it's counterintuitive as we live in a Republic and in a Republic the government represents the citizens. As a citizen I do not support these actions, and I will question them to my heart's content.
quote:If you would like to protest the validity and morality of an action, by all means protest it, before the game starts. During the game, while you are in danger of being knocked down and stomped on, the question should not be whether we should be playing, that is already decided, the real question we should be asking is "How do we win the game?"
I cannot comprehend how this might actually make sense to you, so I'll just quote the movie War Games.
Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
posted
Sigine, i must totally agree with you(war games was a great movie). Wether this war was because we wanted that little control in the middle east, or because we truely want to liberate a country, it all started because of 9/11. A scab that has been there for a while, was ripped open.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That's funny, because inside the context of the game you also have referees who do determine, interpret, and enforce the rules, much like the United Nations is supposed to do."
The point I was trying to make was that we thought we understood the rules of the game, the tactics that teams used and the tendencies of our opponents, on 9-11 we realized that not only was our opponent not playing by the rules, he had left the field, and set fire to our house while we stood and bickered with officials.
The game we were playing is over.
Your option is to complain to the old refs or challenge them to a game on the old field, but that does not do any good.
Your option leaves America clinging to tradition, rules and politeness when we are dealing with a pack of rabid dogs. You do not make treaties with rabid dogs. Rabid dogs do not have the slightest inclination to obey them.
I do not understand your logic. Terrorists kill people. We kill terrorists.
Therefore, we are the same? The actions carry the same moral weight?
I believe the actions are completely different in motivation, execution, design and intent. Not to mention that we are acting in self defense.
Of course we live in a republic and taking advantage of those rights and voting is a fundamental part of keeping them, but after you have elected your representatives, the citizens job is basically over.
The discussions we are having right now is a fundamental part of educating ourselves so that we can more clearly articulate what we look for in a candidate.
After the candidate is elected it is his job to make the best decisions that they can, not to cater to the whims of the media and the elite.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thank you, but unfortunately this war in Iraq wasn't really a reaction to 9/11 at all. There are multiple memos, leaks, and white house staffers who have said that Bush was looking for a reason to sponsor a regime-change in before 9/11 (March of 2000 was the first report, I believe). 9/11 just turned out to give him enough political ammunition to go for it. It's not really that he duped the population or the international community, but he also duped congress.
quote:107th Congress 2nd Session HJ114 JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
<snip> SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. </snip>
So Congress only voted to authorize Military Force in the case that all diplomatic means failed and that the use of force was the only way to ensure the National Security of the United States of America. This of course assumes that he could not prove that Iraq was behind 9/11, which of course he cannot.
I'm really surprised people aren't even more ticked off by this, because I'm certain this resolution never would have made it through congress if it said "and the President can invade Iraq whenever he chooses going against UN Resolutions, UNSC decisions, and without any definitive proof of Iraqs involvement in 9/11 or capability to threaten the National Security of the USA."
Posts: 68 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point I was trying to make was that we thought we understood the rules of the game, the tactics that teams used and the tendencies of our opponents, on 9-11 we realized that not only was our opponent not playing by the rules, he had left the field, and set fire to our house while we stood and bickered with officials.
The game we were playing is over.
No, a ragtag team of Islamic fundamentalists took advantage of our lax security measures at airports and made a massive attack. The same kind of thing (on a different scale) has been happening in Israel for years. Usually Israel uses covert ops teams to locate and destroy the terrorist cells causing the damage whenever they can, and they will use their military force to occupy the neighborhoods known to harbor said terrorists in the case that they cannot handle them with covert ops alone. Often times, Mossad agents will bomb terrorist hideouts, there's even more than a few reports of them using car bombs, bombs implanted in cell phones, and other similar "terrorist" techniques to fight terrorism.
As far as the "game we're playing" it's not a game and it never was. It's the global stage, it's world politics. No country was responsible for 9/11, zero, zilch, none. Al Queda used Afghanistan because it was a fundamentalist Islamic nation with little to no policing capability. They could and did do whatever they wanted to there, but the Al Queda operatives behind 9/11 operated inside the United States.
Additionally, as everyone who actually follows the facts knows, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein wasn't exactly a friend of America, but he hated Islamic extremists just as much as any of us do today. Al Queda probably would still be trapped like rats in Afghanistan if we hadn't destabilized a nation near their hiding grounds for them to happily run amok through, even creating a lot of public dissent against ourselves to make hiding themselves even easier.
quote:Your option is to complain to the old refs or challenge them to a game on the old field, but that does not do any good.
Your option leaves America clinging to tradition, rules and politeness when we are dealing with a pack of rabid dogs. You do not make treaties with rabid dogs. Rabid dogs do not have the slightest inclination to obey them.
No, my "option" is to not blatantly disrespect an organization that was established to prevent World War II. My "option" is to not invade sovereign nations unless they are preventing us from finding and bringing enemies of the state to justice. My "option" clings to tradition far less than yours does, mine supports blaming only those responsible for actions taken against our nation and our people. Your option is to invade every nation which could possibly be a threat to our national security. That idea went over really well in Vietnam. It also could have gone over quite well in Russia. It might even go over well in North Korea.
America is not and cannot be the worlds police force. We cannot and should not invade every country that has a fundamental difference with our own.
quote:I do not understand your logic. Terrorists kill people. We kill terrorists.
I don't understand your lack of logic.
Terrorists killed roughly 4000 people during 9/11. We kill some terrorists. We kill all members of a foreign military not harboring terrorists that wanted to protect their sovereignity. We kill over 100,000 people, most of whom are civilians, members of non-terrorist foreign militaries. We completely destroy two foreign governments (admittedly both abhorrent).
I think our reaction was a tad bit unjustified.
quote:Therefore, we are the same? The actions carry the same moral weight?
Sorry, see above. Completely different things.
quote:I believe the actions are completely different in motivation, execution, design and intent. Not to mention that we are acting in self defense.
Acting in self-defense is protecting yourself from an aggressor who has harmed you and can continue to harm you. What we did during the early days of Afghanistan was self-defense. What we did in Iraq was not. What we continued to do in Afghanistan was not.
quote:Of course we live in a republic and taking advantage of those rights and voting is a fundamental part of keeping them, but after you have elected your representatives, the citizens job is basically over.
Excuse me? So if we elect representatives who completely go against everything we stand for we're supposed to stand idly by and accept their treachery? No. I encourage you to read the First Amendment and take a civics class. The duty of a citizen is not to remain humbly complacent about what our leaders do, it's to make sure they continue to represent us. Thinking anything else is downright foolish.
quote:The discussions we are having right now is a fundamental part of educating ourselves so that we can more clearly articulate what we look for in a candidate.
After the candidate is elected it is his job to make the best decisions that they can, not to cater to the whims of the media and the elite.
Once again, incorrect. It is the job of a representative to represent his people, not represent his own personal interests. We call the latter "corruption" and was one of the reasons the Roman empire fell.
Posts: 68 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, would you say that if we had reason to believe that another regime was an unacceptable danger to our nation, that we have the right to do what we have to do to end that threat? (And no, I'm not just talking about WMDs)
I believe that we have the responsibility to do what we need to do. A nation unwilling to protect it's civilians is no nation at all. And I would rather that our leaders make mistakes while trying to protect us than to do nothing.
I believe that there is a need to evaluate what we do as a nation, but I think that all too often, these days, thoughtful evaluation has disintegrated into partisan carping. Why are some people always willing to believe the very worst of our nation, and the very best of our enemies?
It's so easy to second-guess and say that things would have been so much better if we hadn't done thus and such. And this too frequently becomes the isolationist belief that things would have been perfect if we'd just pulled every American back, locked up our borders, forced our corporations to get rid of all their foriegn assets, and crouched down pretending that the rest of the world wasn't there and didn't affect us. Even more frequently, this becomes the other side of this rotten coin, the socialist idea that if we'd just roll over and give evil people everything they want that they would somehow morph into good people.
I actually doubt that the Left truly believes that they can change into good people, or that such a change is even important. My suspicions are is that they symphasize with their beliefs and hate America for not implementing their own idealogical agenda, that they think that if the terrorists tear down America that the Left can build up a bright shining socialist paradise that somehow will work this time and not murder tens of millions of people and enslave the rest.
Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people, and we have imperfect leaders. And we have enemies, people who see us, and in many cases rightfully so, as their opposition, keeping them from getting what they want. Which I for one am thankful for, as a one-world communism or Islamic caliphate isn't anything that I'm willing to live under.
Back on the 9/11 topic, it was a lesson. Saying that it was just an "event" and that "it only has the meaning we assign it" is simply moral relativism. I wonder if that's what Hitler thought when he invaded Russia, that what happened to Napoleon was "just an event" and that he wasn't going to "assign a meaning" to it. Well, he certainly learned that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
And 9/11 was a lesson. Some of us learned the right lesson from it. Some of us didn't. I hope that I am in the first group, but only time will tell. But there is a right lesson from it, a true lesson. And those who didn't learn it will repeat it.
It seems to me like there are people here, very well-spoken, yet with foul beliefs, who follow only idealogical partisanship. Ask yourself - can Bush ever be right? Can he be right and you be wrong? Is there that possibility? If the answer to all three of these is no, and answer honestly - then you are a close-minded idealogical bigot.
The meaning of right and wrong isn't determined by you. Or by me. Or by group consensus. It's determined by something Larger. That's why we should always be questioning what we believe. And I believe that even my enemies can be right at times, and if so, I want to identify it and learn it. But hey, what do I know? I'm not a "free-thinker". Whatever that really means.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My suspicions are is that they symphasize with their beliefs and hate America for not implementing their own idealogical agenda...."
Let me assure you that this is not the case. While I don't doubt that, in a nation of millions, there may indeed be a Leftist or two who believes this -- in the same way that there might be a member or two of the Religious Right who's hastening to bring about the Apocalypse -- I can say with absolute certainty that it's not a common motivator.
While I'm hardly a "Leftist," everyone I know who opposed the invasion of Iraq, has disapproved of the way the Afghan reconstruction has been conducted, and has otherwise disliked the results of the Bush presidency is not in fact motivated by a desire to tear down America.
quote: Saying that it was just an "event" and that "it only has the meaning we assign it" is simply moral relativism. I wonder if that's what Hitler thought when he invaded Russia, that what happened to Napoleon was "just an event" and that he wasn't going to "assign a meaning" to it.
I think you're confusing moral relativism with lessons on military tactics. The lesson Hitler should have learned from Napoleon's invasion of Russia was that invading Russia just before winter was a bad idea -- and that's not a moral lesson at all. (By the same token, I submit that Bush's team could have learned some lessons about Afghanistan from the Russians. But YMMV.)
That said, military strategy isn't the kind of lesson we're discussing here. Otherwise, the "lessons" of 9/11 put forward would have been purely practical things, like "build double-core skyscrapers." And I think we have learned those lessons, because tactical lessons are always perceived faster than moral ones.
quote:
It seems to me like there are people here, very well-spoken, yet with foul beliefs, who follow only idealogical partisanship. Ask yourself - can Bush ever be right? Can he be right and you be wrong? Is there that possibility? If the answer to all three of these is no, and answer honestly - then you are a close-minded idealogical bigot.
*wipes brow* Whew. I was worried for a second, there, but you've absolved me.
You go on, however, to argue that moral relativism is a shallow philosophy in the shadow of "something Larger." Let me point out that agreements on what this "something Larger" is are unlikely to be universal, and this is precisely why moral relativism is a far more sensible philosophy in a diverse society. As you've pointed out, even your enemies can be right at times.
Me, I'm a free-thinker. I work pretty hard to be a free-thinker. Because if you're not thinking freely, you're not actually thinking.
posted
Holy Moly, I go away for a few hours and everyone types a book I'll try to catch up...
"Terrorists killed roughly 4000 people during 9/11." Yes, but I guess we should forget all the other people killed in terrorist attacks around the world, and funny how they are just 4000 people not innocent civilians like we kill on purpose "We kill some terrorists." Indeed we did. "We kill all members of a foreign military not harboring terrorists that wanted to protect their sovereignity." We killed all members? All of them? I thought that they were giving up by the thousands. Afghanistan was not harboring terrorists? The Taliban had nothing to do with terrorists? Terrorists from Afghanistan didn't flee to Iraq? Iraq didn't pay the families of suicide bombers? "We kill over 100,000 people, most of whom are civilians, members of non-terrorist foreign militaries." Since most of that number is attributed to sanctions wouldn't that mean that the UN under Kofi and Iraq under Saddam killed them? I mean since Saddam agreed to terms of surrender after the first gulf war, then he blatantly violated those terms so the world imposed sanctions on Iraq shouldn't the UN get the blame? Of course Saddam starved his people so we (meaning the members of the UN) started the Money for Kofi and his family & Saddam program, I mean the Oil for Food program to help out. But I suppose those deaths are our fault since we could have just let bygones be bygones like we did after WWII (Japan is still not allowed to have a military because of their terms of surrender). And are they truly non-terrorist foreign militaries if their leaders support terrorism?How come our military is the puppet of the evil overlord Bush, or Cheney, or is it Rove but they are just simple non-terrorist foreign militaries. "We completely destroy two foreign governments (admittedly both abhorrent)." Or stated another way, we liberated two countries from abhorrent dictators
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
War, war, justification of war. How ugly is all this?
Wars are ugly. Killing people is ugly.
I think the bravest thing to do is to decide how to LIVE. Not to waste time arguing coulda-woulda-shoulda. Not to waste time hating people and trying to get back what was lost. Dead people don't come back to life.
I will die someday, perhaps unexpectedly. So will you. So, the lesson from 9/11 is simply this:
How you live, what you choose to do with the time you have, is IMPORTANT. Don't waste it.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love obfuscating...I mean the word, not actually doing it. The word is just like it sounds "obfuscate" it's even a little confusing to say! Not like redundant. Redundant should be something like redundantredundant. That would be funnier Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think you're confusing moral relativism with lessons on military tactics. The lesson Hitler should have learned from Napoleon's invasion of Russia was that invading Russia just before winter was a bad idea -- and that's not a moral lesson at all. (
What happened in 9/11 was a military operation. And morals are inextricably intertwined with this.
quote: Let me point out that agreements on what this "something Larger" is are unlikely to be universal, and this is precisely why moral relativism is a far more sensible philosophy in a diverse society.
Agreements on what this something Larger may not be universal, but as I said, it's not up for a vote. There is an absolute morality, which is right, and being right it is the most sensible philosophy, regardless of diversity of society. I'm not saying that I know everything about this absolute morality - or even anything - but I'm searching to learn more. Moral relativity is a copout, it's the equivalent of saying that whatever I believe is right is right for you, whatever you believe is right is right for you...and if you believed that then you wouldn't be bothering to have this discussion, would you?
I believe that I am a free-thinker - a real one. But when my professors use it, what they mean is "someone who follows my opinions in lockstep."
quote: Wars are ugly. Killing people is ugly.
General Sherman, marching though Atlanta: "War is Hell".
There are worse things, however. And brave men will be willng to go through Hell to protect what they consider is important.
I'm curious, for those of you who are "antiwar". Is there ever a time when war is necessary? Not just for us, but for any given group/nation? How should a nation rationally deal with another who is irrational?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is an absolute morality, which is right, and being right it is the most sensible philosophy, regardless of diversity of society.
Fine. Prove it.
Disprove it.
quote: Absolutely. It's never right, but it's occasionally necessary.
How does that work? Also, if you are a moral relativist, how can you state that something is never right?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So many things to deffend both sides of the table. Killing the innocent, but remember 9/11. The fact is, no matter what any one or any one says, were fighting war. We can point fingers and say this and that, but this war is already in play, and i think we will be in there for a little longer then planned. But think about it, two country's have been liberated. And for saying about all of the innocent people that are dying. It is a war, people die. Also, if some of you remember Saddam Huesaine would pull people off of the streets and shoot them, just take away their life in a minute. We've freed the people of their fear of death(unless you count their fear of us). Crowds of Irag's stood around the falling statue of their dictator, they cheered. These people are willing to take the chance to be free from Evil's rule. Of course some people want us out, but others want us to stay and help. Were making the terriost scared, they are attacking and attacking to try to kill us, but they can't. Were even training Iraqies for police and military work. Wether we use the outcome the war for our benefits or not, we are giving people freedom.
In most( notice the word to the left) of our wars we didn't fight for us. WW1 and WW2 we fought for European country's. We helped get rid of necesary evils. Now we are doing the same(i know someone on this board is gonna qoute me and say some right back) we are fighting a country for its own good. We are fighting it to free the people who want to be free.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want evidence that there is an absolute moral standard, "something larger", I invite you to look at a former atheists take on the subject, C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity". His scientific, systemic movement from point to point is difficult, if not impossible to refute.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You want me to disprove the existence of something? Tell you what: I'll get around to that when you finish proving that a giant purple panda did not create the universe, and that we're all not going to go to the Hell of a Million Fish after death if we don't eat spareribs at every meal.
If you're going to try to dictate behavior based on a universal ethical standard, bucko, the burden of proof lies on your claim that such a standard exists.
quote: How does that work? Also, if you are a moral relativist, how can you state that something is never right?
I never said I was a moral relativist -- although I suspect that I'm a great deal more relative than you are. Like you, I believe that some things are empirically better than others, and some things are empirically worse. In my moral code, the killing of innocents is always wrong. But it is also occasionally necessary. This isn't as oxymoronic as it sounds; rather, the truly moral thing to do is to arrange matters so that it is not necessary to kill innocents in order to achieve other necessary goals.
That said, I believe that government and public discourse -- particularly in a democracy -- have to be relativist and secular in nature in order to function sensibly. If you can't defend an ethical construct with sound philosophy, it shouldn't be written into law or used as justification for law.
I would argue that there's a huge difference between "society should be able to produce secular, internally logical arguments for its ethical codes" and what is traditionally called moral relativism: the idea that any society is entitled to its own beliefs, and that no ethical code is any better than any other.
I believe that some ethical codes are indeed better than others. But you're going to have to convince me that yours is better than mine through some method considerably more convincing than claiming it was handed down to you by "something Larger."
quote: His scientific, systemic movement from point to point is difficult, if not impossible to refute.
Read it. Sorry. I thought it was a load of crap. The whole "triune paradox" in particular is laughably bad. Basically, Mere Christianity is another one of those apologetics that only winds up sounding compelling if you're already in the choir. The "liar/devil/madman" option is almost but not quite as weak a proof as "God exists because we can imagine a perfect being, and something perfect would by definition be more perfect if it existed than if it didn't exist, so therefore God must exist." Which was the reigning example of "scientific proof" for quite some time, believe it or not.
Lewis talked himself into believing, but it's a real stretch to think he applied any kind of scientific "standard" to his search for God; any skeptical read of Mere Christianity reveals holes through which you could drive a truck.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Basically, Mere Christianity is another one of those apologetics that only winds up sounding compelling if you're already in the choir.
Whereas, if you are tone-deaf, it holds no appeal for you.
When you ask me to prove the existance of absolute morality, you are asking me to prove something which has been the guiding belief of the world's greatest religions and even philosophers for many thousands of years over a new and untested theory which only sounds compelling if you are in the choir.
Let me give you a mathematical analogy. You aren't asking me to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 as opposed to 1 + 1 = 3. You are asking me to prove the existance of the system of mathematics, a group of absolute rules which have been proven by people far smarter than myself, and claiming that if I can't prove it, that your theory is valid that if one person thinks that 1 + 1 = 2 and another person thinks that 1 + 1 = 3 are equally valid.
And there is no middle ground between absolute morality and moral relativity. If absolute morality doesn't exist in even one part, then it isn't absolute, now, is it?
Of course, moral relativity is impossible to prove. How can you prove the theory that nothing is provable?
But I don't believe you are a moral relativist at all, nor do I believe that anyone is. Everyone sees their own beliefs as absolute, that their belief of what is right and wrong is the correct theory of right and wrong. Our difference is that I appeal to a higher power as my source of my beliefs, and you appeal to...you. This sets you up as your own God, the final arbitrar of right and wrong. Your feelings and your thoughts are all that define what is moral and what is not. The biggest difference between this is that my basis for my beliefs provides me a self-correcting mechanism, the question "Are my beliefs in line with God?". Yours has no such mechanism. I can have a conversation with another moral absolutist, because we are both exploring the nature of morals, just as one mathematican can have a conversation with another about proofs.
The truth of the moral relativists is that they believe that they are absolutely right, and they use "moral relativism" as a smokescreen to sucker people into not fighting for their own beliefs as hard as the "moral relativists" are for theirs. It's all a lie.
Far too many people confuse situational ethics with moral relativism. I believe firmly in situational ethics, and my ethics in any particular position are based upon my understanding of the laws of absolute morality. I ask myself, is there a higher law which applies, are there any mitigating factors. So shooting someone who is trying to kill my wife is moral, but shooting someone because I want their wallet is immoral. It's the same action - shooting someone - but in one situation it is moral, in the other it is not. This isn't moral relativism.
Just because someone thinks he's right doesn't mean he's right. John C. Calhoun thought slavery was right, Hermann Goering thought that killing all the Jews was right, Vlad Tepes thought that impaling twenty thousand people was right, and the drug addict who burned down her own house because her adult children wouldn't give her more money for cocaine thought she was right.
Likewise, the people who caused 9/11 thought they were right. Were they? No, and that is a topic for discussion. But it's sad, we have a discussion about "O How some of us forget" and some people are like, "What's to forget", that there was really nothing to it and that in their scheme of things it wasn't important. How callous. And how blind.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
If I may interject, war is wrought by fools on both sides. But, it's natural and it culls the herd (unlike that possessive apostrophe [see this sentence] - egads!).
quote: If I may interject, war is wrought by fools on both sides. But, it's natural and it culls the herd
That's an extremely demeaning and extraordinarily condescending way to look at the honorable and brave men in our military.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: a group of absolute rules which have been proven by people far smarter than myself, and claiming that if I can't prove it
Tell you what. Show me one conclusive "proof" of your morality. Even if you can't understand it, and follow it only because men wiser than you have put it forward, let me see what you consider a valid argument for those "absolute rules." The fact that people have used 'em for years isn't proof; people believed for thousands of years that the planet was flat, or made out of the body of a dead giant. Popularity is not exactly evidence of accuracy.
quote:Our difference is that I appeal to a higher power as my source of my beliefs, and you appeal to...you. This sets you up as your own God, the final arbitrar of right and wrong.
Ah. See, I would disagree. Whereas you appeal to your idea of what God is, I appeal to fairly rigorous logic. I submit that mine is in fact the far higher standard, as logic is something that, unlike God, is actually exposed to regular scrutiny and is not permitted to hide behind assertions of ineffability. I also submit that if you consider God to be merely the arbiter of moral systems -- if, for example, someone appealing to someone else as the arbiter of their morality is all that's necessary to set the second person up as a "God" -- then my requirements for Godhood are considerably more stringent than your own.
quote: This isn't moral relativism.
No, see, I think most moral relativists would say that it is. But I understand why you'd feel reluctant to admit to sharing their opinions on some issues; it's clearly a matter of pride for you that you cannot.
quote: How callous. And how blind.
Hm. I believe you're calling me both callous and blind. What have you read that would suggest that I neither understand the impact of the attack on the Twin Towers nor feel sorrow for those killed?
quote: Tom, it seems that you are using a definition of "right" that is different from the common usage.
Yep. I think we misuse the word "right;" we tend to apply it to moral dilemmas where we should use the word "justified" instead.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, please explain why "right" is wrong in certain moral dilemas.
Because it's short-sighted to think of a moral dilemma as existing in isolation, in my opinion. When someone is pointing a gun at you and taking your purse, this has happened for a reason; something turned that person to armed robbery, and something made you a target of that robbery.
A far better way to "solve" this dilemma is to arrange matters in advance so that you are not a target, or -- even better -- the aggressor is not compelled to rob anyone.
You often hear questions like "if a speeding train is careening down a track which switches towards an old man or a pregnant woman, what would you do?" Such questions miss the point -- because the right choice is to keep the train under control in the first place.
In other words, ethical dilemmas become dilemmas only because someone, somewhere, screwed things up originally, when they had the chance to prevent the problem altogether.
War -- with all its attendant human misery -- can sometimes be the most sensible and least evil of the options available to a nation at a given point of time. But the first evil, the greater evil, the one that people tend to overlook, is the one that made war the most efficient option in the first place.
So, yeah, war is never right. It's never a good thing to do. But it can sometimes be the best thing left to do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would the opposite of right be to you? It's obviously not wrong. It's not wrong to cause pain to somebody who is trying to mug you, and you you claim it's not right either.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not wrong to cause pain to somebody who is trying to mug you, and you you claim it's not right either.
No, see, it IS wrong. It's just also justifiable. I think the issue is not how I define "right," but rather how I define "wrong." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that something can still be wrong even if it's the least miserable of a bunch of bad choices. There's no need to dignify settling for the lesser evil by calling that "right."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
