An excellent article. I shuld have continued to post it and quit trying to reinvent the wheel. Good to see it was in the Houston Chronicle today. I guess I shuldn't expect to write as well as a journalism professor.
Hey Timing, calm down for a second. Okay. Are you okay? I think we're all inferring that the attackers want the US out of the Middle East. I think we're all inferring that the attackers want the US to stop backing the colonial power called 'Israel' and get out of their territory. I think we're all inferring that the attackers want the US to pull out of Iraq; you know, the place where we waged war so that we could secure access to oil. The place where we killed 500,000 Iraqis to stabilize our economy and to 'liberate' the little place of heaven called 'Kuwait'. Just call all of that a hunch though. I could be wrong. I'm perfectly fine and I know exactly what the attackers want and unlike yourself I seem to know those things will never happen. The US will never leave the Middle East, the US will never stop backing Israel, and the US will not pull out of Iraq as long as it is actively supporting terrorism and violating the terms of the very peace agreement that they signed. If these nations had a brain and understood how American politics works, they would lobby Congress to draw attention to their cause instead of murdering innocent Americans. If you don't think that there are millions of Americans wondering tonight why we're so concerned w/ Israel, you're deluding yourself. BTW, do you honestly think that a suicide bomber's intent is to simply kill the lives in front of them? You need to study the hatred that actually causes these people to do these things. These aren't little Ted Bundy's on steroids... they're people waging a religious war. Hell, I doubt you'd ever find a 1000 serial killers in the US. I bet though, that you could indoctrinate a 1000 people to commit a holy war in a few months. I've heard enough of this religious war nonsense. These damn people have been on some kind of religious war for the last 50 years. I'm sick of it and if you honestly don't think millions of Americans are sick of it then you are deluding yourself. They can shove their Jihad's where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned. The truth is these people are worse than Ted Bundy on steroids. They're David Koresh on speed. They're brainwashers and ill educated people who misuse religion and hate for the sake of hating. How many wars and conflicts have been fought in the Middle East in recent times? Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia. WTF? These countries are always at friggin war. They are in the business of war. I frankly don't give a damn who they hate anymore. It's clear by their history that they all hate each other as much as they could ever hate anyone else. The US is simply the latest name on their long list of hatred. I know nothing of this 'new' stuff. It actually wasn't my point. Are you sure that you actually r-e-a-d my posts? BTW, I HAVE watched military experts discuss the ramifications and intent of us dropping the bomb. Japan was a has been by the time we approached the island. The bomb was a live test, w/ live Japanese people and it was completely a sign of power. If you honestly don't believe that... well... Then again I'm debating w/ someone that keeps ignoring the fact that we casually vaporized over a 100,000 people. What the hell are you gonna do? Let's get equal time here man. Did those same military experts explain how many Americans would have died in an invasion of Japan? Did those experts explain the brutality of Japanese military tactics in WW II? Did they give you the figures on how many Americans died per square foot on many a crap island in the Pacific because the Japanese fought to the death and would not surrender? Believe it or not, World War II was much more than the dropping of the atom bomb. Maybe that's what pisses off WW II veterans so much. Japan didn't exactly give American POW's mercy when they were murdering them on the Bataan Death March. If you think the US "casually" vaporized over 100,000 people then maybe you need to redefine your vocabulary because there wasn't a thing casual about dropping the atom bomb. Okay. Sure. Keep telling yourself that. Perhaps one day you'll come to grips w/ the hypocrisy of bombing civilians period. It's not right just b/c we did it. Damn man, is this little hoity toity truism about not killing innocents only applicable to Muslims? Actually Timing, forget the entire Japanese example... b/c I know you'll never be able to question your rah rah. What do you think of the East Timor example? If we give arms and train our allies to kill others, are we to blame? If not, then why invade Afghanistan? Oh yeah, I forgot, we're the US... Maybe I missed something but aren't we supposed to help our allies? Should we not help our allies? Would that be a better idea? Should we put on a mom and pop morality clause that is added to every arms sale that's made? Here's a newsflash for you. When we sell arms, they're probably going to be killing someone with those weapons. That's what they're for. Once those arms are sold we can't stop anyone from killing anyone. Are you suggesting that we should never help train any ally and never sell arms to any country? What's the point of having allies then if not to help each other? What world are you from again? Utah! No, the hoity toity truism is that you don't intentionally go out and murder civilians. If the goal of the US were to murder as many Japanese as possible they would have bombed Tokyo twice. If the goal of the US were to murder as many Iraquis as possible they would have gone straight into Baghdad and overrun the whole country. If the goal of the US were to kill Palestinians we would be there doing it ourselves. The murder of innocent civilians to meet a political goal has never been the focus of the United States, unlike these terrorists. War is it's own hypocrisy. There hasn't been a war in the history of mankind where innocent people didn't die and suffer. Despite these facts, it sometimes becomes necessary to fight that war and in this case the war has been brought to our doorstep. Ironically, these psycho terrorists have much in common with WW II Japanese and Germans. They are ruthless, determined, and fanatical. In WW II it became necessary to almost wipe Japan and Germany off the face of the planet. Unfortunately, that might become necessary again in this case.
The use of atomic bombs on Japan was a bad example. Such a naked show of force not only saved American lives, it saves Japanese lives. If the United States had to launch an invasion of Japan, the death toll would have been ten times worse. bin Laden's attacks on the WTC, US embassies, etc. are not going to save lives. They are going to cause an increase in casualties on both sides. As for many of the the other examples, we do not control the actions of everyone else in the world. If we did, then we would not have allowed bin Laden to bomb us in the first place. Selling weapons != providing a safe haven and base of operations.
It is always frustrating when someone looks at something objectively (that would be me) and questions the validity of some statement and his or her opponent is too status quo to question their own belief system (that would be you Timing). The next time you make the statement (that I agree with mind you) that civilians are off limits, make sure that you remember the US vaporized hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. If civilians are something that we should revere in the game of war, either concede that the US did something wrong... or concede that the civilians in Japan were a means to an end for the US as were the civilians in the WTC were for bin Laden or whomever. In short, don't forget to attach that magical "but" whenever you criticize killing civilians (but if it allows my country to flex its muscle to the Soviets, then have at it).
Achebe, I hope that I do not take you last comments out of context, but it angers me when people apply today's beliefs, values, and expectations against earlier days. To elaborate, it is not easy to compare something done over fifty years ago near the end of a WORLD War that killed miliions and millions, with actions against innocent civilians who are not even at war. So far, you have done a pretty poor job of it.
Originally posted by Achebe It is always frustrating when someone looks at something objectively (that would be me) and questions the validity of some statement and his or her opponent is too status quo to question their own belief system (that would be you Timing). Sorry Achebe, I'll try and discuss things more objectively in the future! Hey but, I ain't ya opponent man! The next time you make the statement (that I agree with mind you) that civilians are off limits, make sure that you remember the US vaporized hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. If civilians are something that we should revere in the game of war, either concede that the US did something wrong... or concede that the civilians in Japan were a means to an end for the US as were the civilians in the WTC were for bin Laden or whomever. In short, don't forget to attach that magical "but" whenever you criticize killing civilians (but if it allows my country to flex its muscle to the Soviets, then have at it). I don't think I really said civilians are off limits necessarily. War is a messy thing and civilians are going to die in war. That should not be the goal however, as it is with these terrorists. Comparing the two situations there are infinite differences between the two. The US warned specifically of these attacks and gave opportunity for surrender and evacuation. We were involved in a war begun by the opposition by a sneak attack that is now indeed infamous. As gruesome as it sounds, the attacks probably saved more lives than it ended. Especially considering the military tactics of Japan which I mentioned previously. In actuality, I think comparing simply the two situations doesn't go far enough. Compare the entire war with Japan with all of bin Laden's alleged attacks. There was a previous attack on the WTC where civilians were targeted and multiple embassy attacks where civilians again were targeted and killed. This wasn't bin Laden's first time specifically killing civilians to meet a political goal. I didn't even address the attack on the Cole, his actions in Somalia, his active recruitment and training of terrorists around the world, and apparently he's been active in terrorism in Chechnya as well. I know the US has undoutedly killed civilians in military attacks but again, that has never been the specific goal. And I truly think there is a clear difference there.
My wife is vibing me for hanging out here again, so I'll keep this short. Timing, thanks for taking my shot in stride. I can read from the tone in your post (hopefully I didn't misunderstand the tone in your earlier posts) that we are finally at the peaceful area where we can agree to disagree. To me, when someone proposes a theory such as your 'temporal relativism', they should lay out the groundwork and give reasons why it is an adequate philosophy with which to judge things in the past. So far, you have done a pretty poor job of that. bitty bye now.
