quote:"Provocation" is a subjective word, and I have said all along that your provocation doesn't equal mine
quote:It's a fact of the human being that if we're told one set of facts, given nothing to contradict it (or nothing to contradict it from sources we trust) for long enough, we believe it.
What did I juxtapose these two statements? Because while "provocation" is in fact subjective, so is whether the U.S. is evil or whether democracy is good. If people have nothing to contradict their goernments telling them to hate democracy, they believe it. If there's nothing to contradict your definition of provocation, that will be believed as well.
Now, here's my problem:
While the reasons you ascribe to Hitlers invasions may be true, you can BET that wasn't what he told Germany. I'm positive the Japanese government gave much better reasons for Pearl Harbor than "they won't support our well-oiled war machine etc. etc." I'm also pretty sure that those reasons were either fabricated or mangling the truth to its breaking point. Bush is not Hitler, nor is he Frederick or Napolean. However, there are enough similarities between all four people to make me very, VERY uncomfortable. Observe:
quote:Our provocation? Iraqi refusal to adhere to peace treaties that ended a previous aggressive war, and obedience to the United Nations (which frankly I don't much care for, it is and has always been a castrated organization), open public support of terrorists who frequently and delightedly murder citizens of an ally, and giving succor to enemies of America.
What you said about Hussein's provocation was true. I wouldn't have supported a war on that basis either, for reasons already stated in this thread. But if Bush said that, at least it would be the TRUTH. He didn't. He said that there was an IMMINENT THREAT of a WMD attack. This is a horrendous justification for war, because if Hussein could have dropped anthrax on us at will, the war would have been his last, best chance to drop the bomb. And if your argument is that he had weapons to sell... if he has weapons but doesn't use it, that's a threat that should be dealt with, but it's not an IMMINENT threat. In this case, diplomacy was still an option.
So there's no way we went to war over an IMMINENT THREAT to our safety, which was the case presented to the U.N. It's possible there's some truth to the statements Bush made. For example, I've noticed Hussein has gone, in Bush's speeches, from "Imminent threat" to "Threat" to "Has nuclear weapons PROGRAMS." If Bush were telling the truth, he would stick to his story. But he hasn't. There's something fishy going on. Just as there was something fishy with Frederick annexing Silesia for "reasons of state", and there was something fishy with Japan and Hitler doing what they did for whatever BS reason. Bush, Hitler and Japan all lied. This is an accurate and very frightening comparison. Another comparison: all three defied an international organization created to stop the next world war (BTW, they could have easily said that the League of Nations was "castrated") in their invasions. And of course, all three waged attacks without provocation, "provocation" being defined as overt nation state agression. See, when you invade under less provocation than overt nation state agression and don't justify it, you get me wondering. Oh and BTW, Bush SAID he was going to give it back, but that has no practical effect on anything. Hitler could have said he was simply borrowing Sudentenland...would that have made a difference?
quote:I maintain that there is literally nothing that could be shown that would prove to you this war was justified.
That is correct. I already told you why I thought we're going about this entirely the wrong way...it's actually quite curious the way you never, EVER adress this argument, given that it is the reason I created this thread. But there is nothing particularly unusual in waging justified wars against terrorism using actual weapons. It's been done since Roman times, it's done consistently now. This war is QUITE unique in that it is an unprovoked (using overt nation state definition again) attack. I would have been able to stomach that war too, if it had gained UN approval. The Afghan war was unprovoked too, by this definition. However, PG2 did not gain approval. But what is especially frightening to me is that even BUSH, the man behind all this, doesn't seem to care whether what he says today is consistent with what he said yesterday. Even though Bush is probably not about to go Hitler on us, he may have just established a lethal precedent. There are enough similarities between Bush and Hitler that the next Hitler could justify his actions simply by saying "Bush did it", and it would work for a significant period of time. By the time the rest of the world catches on, the only solution may be World War Three. In fact, for all we know, Bush IS the next Hitler. While-and I stress this-it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Bush is the next Hitler, the possibility is not entirely out of the question.
That's why I feel this war is different than Afghanistan.
quote:They wanted it. There is not a person on this Earth who does not want a government based in democracy.
WHAT ON EARTH???
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't be terribly unhappy with a PURELY socialist society...as in, each according to his need blah blah only without the Orwell aspect. That would keep many people from living in misery, and they'd all be fairly represented.
The society I speak of, more than Stalin's Russia, is what Marx envisioned.
And by the way, Rakeesh, I qualify as a person on this earth, so I just refuted your argument.
I'm sure you aren't a bigot, and when I said what I did I didn't mean for it to be taken in that way...but can you understand how you will draw such responses when you make such astounding generalizations? Democracy, as can socialism, aboslutism, and just about any form of government, can be the devil. Almost any form of government can be heavensent as well. BTW, if I just offended you, it was inadvertant, just like last time.
quote: What I am accepting as fact-because it's true-is that the majority of the Arabic world lives in nations where their news comes from Al-Jazeera and state-owned news outlets.
You threw me off there...you said "The Arab World" implying every last one of 'em, when you meant "A majority of the Arab world." The former I cannot tolerate; the latter I agree with. Since what you said is true...ummm how did the Iraq war ameliorate the problem?
This is my MAIN POINT. Please address it. I repeat. My main point is at the beginning of the thread. And it will be repeated, drawing directly from your own comments.
quote:any response 9-11-01 except utter pacifism would have had the exact same reaction from the Arab worl.
Combining your previous two quotes, we get...
quote:Because Al Jazeera is the only news source for most Arabs, anything we do will be met with resentment.
If we're screwed no matter what, why do we need to leave the government budget in tatters instead of folding our hands and keeping the surplus? Why don't we get right to the cause? Give them another news source. A remotely unbiased news source. It's a lot less expensive than this digital war we've been waging, and more effective. This would be a prime example of the MAIN POINT behind this thread, which you've barely addressed: there are much more effective ways to wage a war on terror than the current methods, which are in essence identical to Hadrian's.
As Wheat Puppet put it, "We are attacking terrorism instead of its causes."
quote: Another comparison: all three defied an international organization created to stop the next world war (BTW, they could have easily said that the League of Nations was "castrated") in their invasions.
As a matter of fact, the League of Nations was "castrated", in the sense of being utterly ineffectual. It made a bunch of proclamations. It outlawed war without providing a single solitary means of enforcement--thus making international-law-abiding nations reluctant to go to war when Germany started annexing nations left and right. Basically, it was worse than useless.
The UN is not quite as ineffectual as the League was. It has, however, shown a remarkable tendency to leave the fox guarding the henhouse (Human Rights comes to mind). It bends over backwards to be fair to people whom it would be better to administer a good twenty lashes to on general principle. It makes rulings that, if followed, would hamstring innocent nations in favor of guilty (I speak primarily of Israel and its "defiance of international law").
The UN, unlike its predecessor, has managed to do a great deal of good in the world. It pains me to speak badly of it. But in recent years it has constantly come down on the wrong side of many issues. One way or another, something has got to change--or an organization created to prevent wars will end up instigating them instead.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't be terribly unhappy with a PURELY socialist society...as in, each according to his need blah blah only without the Orwell aspect. That would keep many people from living in misery, and they'd all be fairly represented.
The society I speak of, more than Stalin's Russia, is what Marx envisioned.
And by the way, Rakeesh, I qualify as a person on this earth, so I just refuted your argument.
quote:They wanted it. There is not a person on this Earth who does not want a government based in democracy. There are, however, many millions who, having been fed lies by state-owned media (now who does that sound like?) who, when asked, say they think democracy is the Great Satan.
I used the word "based" for a reason. That reason is because the computer ate my post, and I had written more in depth, so I shortened the re-write. So I'll be more specific.
I still say that everyone on Earth wants a government based in democracy. I do not mean Western democratic-republic capitalistic Judeo-Christian based democracy, but democracy in which the people choose for themselves which laws will be enacted, and how they will be governed.
If you were walking along the street, Shlomo, and found a genie in a magic lamp, and it said, "I will give you this one chance to help decide how you will be governed in the future. You have one shot. Choose how you will be governed, and be counted with your fellow citizens, and that is what will be done," you're telling me you wouldn't take it?
Even if the people of Afghanistan and Iraq only want a government based in democracy long enough to vote in an Islamic theocracy (and they don't), that's still a government based in democracy. Everyone on Earth wants power over their own destiny, a say over how they will be governed. They still want it even under governments such as the Taliban, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, McCarthy, your mileage may vary, attach a large and possibly lethal stigma to saying so publicly.
But at any rate, I didn't say that in my final post, so I understand your response. That was my mistake.
More another day. In the revolution thread I've exhausted my thread stamina:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I made my first post on this thread I criticized the notion that aid will solve our problems. In response others have claimed that we don't just give them money, we build schools and roads and other wonderful things. Shlomo later mentioned Oslo. The problems lie in the fact that Bin Laden's justifications have included our very presence in these areas. This means we can't actually go over there and build schools and the like, instead we must give them money to do it. The problem is that people like Arafat put a 100% tax on that money all of it heading toward his pocket. If not his pocket, then into the brain of some Israeli child in the form of a bullet or peice of shrapnel. I'm still not sure how people can possibly claim Oslo as a success. Maybe, just maybe things quieted down in the immediate aftermath, but what you're failing to realize is that was just the calm before the storm. Furthermore, there will not be peace between Israel and Palestine until a Palestinian state exists and the Palestinians will not accept statehood unless Jerusalem comes with it and that is not going to happen in my lifetime. What this all means, in and out of Israel, is that terrorists are irrational beings and must be treated as such. Reasonable conditions will not inherently satisfy them especially when they have already been brainwashed to believe that Jews and Americans are inherently evil. I won't say that the only way to fight fire is with fire because even terrorists don't understand that. I will say we need to prevent that fire from spreading and consuming us and opening our doors and becoming more open is not the way to do that. Lastly, I'm sick of hearing the arguments that when we kill one terrorist a hundred more pop un in his place. When we kill a terrorist there's one less, period. That person can no longer harm us. Furthermore, even if there are more recruits they cannot replace the leadership that Israel and ourselves most often target. Often they will try a quick retaliatory attack to show their vitality, but in reality they are far weaker and less organized in the future. All of this is why we must take action to stop terrorism and not just let come to us in its deadly forms.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
