Another good read from UT prof

excellent article, this one shouldnt anger either side

 

Forgive my prejudice, but a professional who has never grown out of wearing blue jeans and T-shirts is not to be taken too seriously. He is "likely" a perpetual protestor who has never seen the US do anything good. Is he anything but a critic? His group is busy protesting Colin Powell and getting Henry Kissinger cancelled.

His argument is prejudicial and flawed ("especially when the force being called for is likely to be so massive and indiscriminate ...).

That is his basis. It is a great leap of bad faith. Got anything better?

 

The Grinch strikes again. Your post are pitiful man. Ignored.

 

Reading the excuses for avoiding war is giving me nasuea. I am hoping this attitude in limited to only a select few in the South, and that the rest of the real americans are ready to stand beind our troops when the prepare to fight our enemies.

So little respect is given to our servicemembers past and present when i read BS printed by pacifists such as himself. Its guys like him that were loyalist during the Revolutionary War, or ran off to Canada during the Vietnam war. His decisions revolve around immediate selfish needs to remain his comfortable environment, without paying the price for that very freedom. Many articles will be written in support of the U.S. rolling over. Maybe my interpretation is distorted, but I do consider their thoughts cowardly.

Life is not easy, and the best decisions are almost always the hardest and most difficult to choose from. Rarely does the easy route prove to have any long-term benefits. I hope for the country sakes, the U.S. repays back those responsible times 100.

 

Glynch,
I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I respect your opinion, but I can't help think of a Simpsons quote that I would like to tell Professor Jensen about this statement:

"The problem of terrorism will be solved by making peace and seeking justice. That will not be achieved at the end of a gun, but by changing the posture of the United States in the world. We must move from claiming the right to make unilateral demands to truly multilateral engagement."

From the episode, Blood Feud:

Homer: Marge (Professor Jensen), you're my wife (my professor) and I love you very much (treasure your friendship very much). But you're living in (a fairy voice) a world of makebelieve. With flowers and bells and leprechauns, and magic frogs with funny little hats...

Bart: Yeah, Mom (Professor Jensen). We got screwed!



Sorry, but I couldn't help but think of that line.

 

You know, if everyone were a pacifist, the world would be a much better place.

Even the most well-intentioned people who use violence as a tool are subject to mistakes.

For this reason, even if pacifists are incorrect, I think they deserve respect. I don't actually buy all of what the guy said.

IMO, reform of overall foreign policy objectives should come hand-in-hand with a crackdown on terrorism. But the guys arguments were certainly better than the ones you dismissed them with.

 

NCSTATE fan....

So, your saying that GW deciding not to go to war, and instead to reexamining our current policy would be the "easy way out", while deciding to use our giant army to crush a small country that every idiot in America wants crushed is a hard descision? You are smoking crack. Get therapy.

 

I wonder what it would take for Proffie Peace and Love to defend his country. The worst terrorist attack in the history of mankind doesn't seem to be enough for this guy. It's a good thing we didn't take military action in WW II because that would have never worked out. After all, those Nazi's were just fun loving reasonable people when you really think about it.

 

...the United States is an empire


when did that happen?

 

haven: in theory, you are right BUT theoretical living is absolutely WORTHLESS and it will get us into trouble. Any theory needs to be tempered with reality.

It's not so much that we don't respect the guy... it's HIS IDEAS that suck and are dangerous to America. With those we can't pussyfoot around and just let naive people get suckered by his nice-sounding arguments. Remember, Lucifer is The Shining One.

Sometimes truth is ugly and sometimes we have to make hard choices not easy choices. There's a reason we call them hard choices.

Do you think anybody here WANTS this War on Terrorism just out of the blue just for the heck of it?

 

Good post Rich Rocket.

 

That's a good question but no I wouldn't.

These are men who are daily engaged with dozens if not hundreds or thousands of people's lives-- solving problems, overcoming setbacks, providing leadership and taking on responsibilities and mentoring the activities of a community of people.

Yes, they are striving toward an ideal themselves but their activism has a real, unselfish outreach.

 

I respect the hell out of many pacifists. I think we should all seek peace, no doubt. Having said that, in a world full of evil pacifism costs lives. I'm betting the Jewish people who were forced into concentration camps wished that Neville Chamberlain wasn't so much the pacifist to Germany. Give men of terror an inch and they'll take a mile. That's a lesson from history. History is littered with instances where such pacifism ultimately resulted in the pacifist getting burned. I pray we're not doomed to repeat that, but I think we're already seeing the fruits of that kind of thinking today in New York and Washington. I have to say that there is no one's opinion on such issues I value less than a college professor. I went to law school and learned from professors who had never once learned what it was to be a lawyer. How much more when a journalism professor comments on the military response of America to a horrific attack? Give him his 15 seconds this morning, and move on.

 

I completely understand the pacifists. If you want to label them un-American cowards or draft dodgers and start singing the Star Spangled Banner then you are the one who is ignoring history. US foreign policy in that region has been anything but smart, and in a way, we have set in motion a series of actions that led to a conclusion that was completely predictable. Blindly accepting the past actions of our politicians and military would be admitting they never make mistakes. Who wants to admit that the average politician is less biased and more thoughtful than us?

That said, I have to side with the war mongers. I think war will prevent more terrorism than it will provoke. Islamic terrorist groups aren't going to be swayed by anything. It is the only choice, and it is going to make a lot of people angry. I wouldn't doubt it if this entire scenario repeated itself in 5 years when these groups get back on their feet after our inevitable attack. BUT. Turning the other cheek in this situation is only going to get the other side of our face bashed in. That fact is supported by the African embassy bombings, the previous WTC bombing, and the Cole attack... along with Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on the US in 1996.

Also, revenge and payback shouldn't be a factor in war. If it was, then there would be a lot more of them, and they would continue on FOREVER. One side attacks the other, then they get payback. What happens after that? More payback. To say "they endanger our freedom, therefore we must fight" can get us into a lot of trouble. You have to look further down the road than that.

I'll end this rant with a couple of agnostic quotes (I really value our separation of church and state):

"If I were asked for a one-sentence soundbite on religion, I would say I was against it."
-Salman Rushdie

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65 A.D.)

 

I think we just need to shoot somebody.

 

Sorry for the length, but half of this is the journalimsm professor's garbage.

From the 'journalism' professor:

"But we have to show the terrorists that we are strong."

Is the use of force -- especially when the force being called for is likely to be so massive and indiscriminate as to bring more civilian death -- a sign of strength? Or can people, and a nation, show strength through the wisdom to not repeat tragic mistakes of the past?

As Doctor Robert stated, any logical person would understand that we have no option at this point, other than decisive military action. These people are crazy with hate and no pacifist rhetoric will convince them of anything.

He assumes that we will kill many innocents. That remains to be seen.


Although we may not like the label, the United States is an empire. And like empires of the past, the United States is quick to try to solve problems with its overwhelming military power.

The United States is quick to solve problems with military might? When has this Empire struck the first blow? Remember how quick we were to fight in the World Wars?
If someone shoots a gun at you, and you have one in your hand, do you ponder your response? Maybe you can ask him not to shoot again, and we can discuss it?


But this problem will not be solved by force, by the "global campaign to wipe out terrorism" that officials are calling for. We should not forget the wiping out terrorism inevitably will mean wiping out many innocent people, which will only deepen the resentment of the United States around the world -- especially the Third World -- and strengthen the resolve of terrorists. It will not end terrorism but create new terrorists.

Again, he assumes that we will kill many innocents. He also acts like the US will act alone. Almost every country on the planet supports our actions against the terrorists. It will not be just us trying to end terror on this planet. How in the h*ll can he ignore that?

The problem of terrorism will be solved by making peace and seeking justice. That will not be achieved at the end of a gun, but by changing the posture of the United States in the world. We must move from claiming the right to make unilateral demands to truly multilateral engagement.

What pie-in-the-sky crap. His concepts are good for the long-term, but he offers no reasonable solution now.

Multilateral enggagement? Isn't that the 'global alliance' that we seek?
In other instances, the world asks us to take unilateral action because others cannot decide on a course of action. How long do other, much closer countries, wait to end ethnic cleansing?

If the United States were to announce its intention not to avenge this attack with violence but with a new approach -- one based in a commitment to a real peace in the Middle East based on real justice -- the world would not see it as weakness. Such a declaration would be the ultimate sign of strength.

There is a difficult truth about the United States that we must come to terms with if we are to understand why we were targeted for this cruel attack: For more than three decades, the United States has been the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and until we reverse that position we will be the target of the frustration and anger of many people there.

Impressive that he can boil-down the MidEast conflict so easily, blaming it on US. Does he mean that if we did not support an ally, that their country would have been defeated and there would be no conflict? Couldn't the biggest obstacle be that so many Palestinians and Arabs will never accept Israel? Was he privy to what the remaining issues were (that could not be resolved) but Clinton's administration?

Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 is at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East, and that occupation has been possible because of support the United States -- through Republican and Democratic administrations. We call ourselves the architects of the "peace process," but in truth we have for decades blocked the international consensus for peace, which has called for Israel to give up the occupation and demanded basic rights for the Palestinian people.

I am absolutely for a Palestinian country, but again, the heart of the conflict is whether most Palestinians will ever accept Israel and live in peace. And whether those Palestinians who seek peace, will circumvent efforts by those who don't.

If we had a neighbor whose populace sought our absolute destruction, and we were not convinced that they would stop attacks on our people, would we ignore that? Thats what he wants to force on Israel, and what he also wants to force on us now.

Since 1991, when the Bush administration made sure that a U.S.-led war would be the only response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the resentment of the United States among the people of the Middle East has only deepened. Our willingness to use massive and indiscriminate violence in that war, and our eagerness to establish what has become a permanent military presence in the region, has made us few friends.

Would he recommend an embargo? That has worked really well, hasn't it. He does not mention that almost all Arab countries were in the coalition against Iraq. We made enemies because of our permanent military presence in the region, OF FUNDAMENTALISTS WHO FEEL THAT WE ARE HEATHEN AND DEFILE THEIR HOLY PLACES. Is that OUR problem or theirs? The truth is that most of the world wants our military presence there to stabilize a volatile and important region. But no, we pissed off so fundamentalists so why don't we acceed to their wishes.


Yes, we need to do something -- but something to shift our policy in the Middle East from rule-by-force to the quest for justice. Nonviolence is not simply about refusing to make war; it also is about creating justice in the world so that war is not necessary.

That's fine. Let's help create justice, AND do away with terrorism.

The appeal of war is that it seems strong and promises results quickly. It makes us feel safe.

But if we are to fight a global war against terrorism, we will show the world our weakness and trade the promise of peace and justice for the illusion of victory.


There is no question about illusion here. If we succeed, we have no more terrorism. If he calls that an 'illusion', I'll take it.

 

How long is it gonna take people to realize that this needs BOTH the war against terrorism and the commitment to peace in the middle east. Asking for peace and trying to change our policies and educate those people is a very good thing that I hope is attempted. But foregoing retribution to solely pursue peace is ridiculous. If it is at all possible to take down terrorism, please do it. If it requires massive action and Americans have to die or civilians have to die (I'm not saying be indiscriminate but if it becomes necessary we can't avoid it) then so be it and god bless those who give their lives for us. One thing about killing terrorists will only make more of them. From everything I've been hearing, terrorism is a very expensive operation and requires training and funding. If you start to take out all that funding and leadership, other followers may rise up but have far fewer means with which to act. So please go after terrorism now before it is too late. And don't stop going after it in a few years after the initial strike back.