Some people push back - Page 6 - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 05-22-2006, 11:22 PM #106
殉教者 (Banned)
 
殉教者's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington
That was so supposed to be in the other thread. I fail.
殉教者 is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 05-22-2006, 11:42 PM #107
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Hahaha, goofball.
zack is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 11:45 PM #108
殉教者 (Banned)
 
殉教者's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington
My heart will go on.
殉教者 is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 10:34 AM #109
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
Wow, you are a gutten for punishment aren't you? Well I guess we'll begin....

Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
1. Inforar as one enters into the realm of calculation, of who's killed more people, then yeah, we deserved 9/11/01. If we condemn violence, as I do, then no, they didn't deserve to die.
Our country is over 200 years old. Modern terrorism, as it exists today, is less than 40 years old (and that is ONLY if you say AQ is a derivative of the PLO model). Add in to that teh changes in views in what is considered acceptable metods of fight a war in that 200 years, its no wonder the US has more of a body count. They don't compare, that's like saying,"The British Government has killed millions... So they must be the anti-Christ!" Well if you look at their history, they have, however today they are one ofthe most modern societies in teh world.
The point is, once again Zack, your agruement fails.
Quote:
2. You're answering an argument I didn't make.
Are you saying you didn't say that? Are you saying that your quote wasn't in responce to my question of why YOU said you consider you and your family "Valid Military Targets"? Are trying to deny that fact that, unlike in America, in a majority of the world's nations speaking out against or not supporting the current government will get you killed? Are you dening that if we apply your rational on why YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A VALID MILITARY TARGET EQUALLY across the board then, by YOUR OWN definition the people killed bythe US are also "valid targets"? So based on your own criteria, if both groups are valid targets, and attacking the WTC was justified, why isn't the accidental death of "innocent poeple" also justified since they to are "valid targets"?

Quote:
3. DO YOU THINK IT ****ING MATTERS TO THE DEAD WHETHER THEY WERE 'ACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE' OR THE TARGET!?! How ****ing DARE you hide behind "well, it was an accident, bombs malfunction, we can't help that. We know they malfunction and we accept that. Similarly, we accept that, when you bomb a 'legitimate target' sometimes civilians get in the way and die.
Is there a difference between premeditaded murder and accidental death? According to US, Islamic, and international law there is. Do terroist commit premeditaded murder on innocent poeple? Does the military delibrately target, or kill, innocent people simply to kill or hurt them? There is a difference, you know it, I know it, the world knows it. Once more your agruement fails.

We didn't get what we deserved in 9/11, it wasn't an eye for an eye. Your logic that those people on board the airliners and in teh WTC got what they deserve because of the actions of the Government makes as much validity as saying the people of Dresden desreved to fired bombed because of their paying taxes and supporting the Nazi Governement of Germany. It simply isn't true.

Quote:
You're still missing something, so let me put it in big bold letters: ACCORDING TO US MILITARY LOGIC THE TWIN TOWERS WERE A LEGITIMATE TARGET. Now, does it really seem sound to you to say that we can exercise this logic when attack other countries but when it is used against us it's murder? Do you just not get this? Our military wouldn't even classify the twin towers as a civilian target. The kids in the building? To the military, they would be collateral damage.
Since the end of WWII and the death ofthe concept of "total warfare" the US has fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq twice, and the Balkins. In all of those wars the US has not targetted ecomonic centers because they have little, to no, military value. The reason why they have such little value is they are basically "paper exchanges" and since most business tend to keep dupicate records. Destroying one copy of an exchange doesn't cause that much of a problem because accounting, shipping, and the factory also have copies. The "paper trade", just like in NY, simply relocates to a new spot and starts up again because you can regenerate paper trails in a matter of minutes and you can meet to trade almost anywhere.

US military doctrine wouldn't and DOESN'T classify economic centers as military targets because destroying them has little to no effect on a military or goverenment. Now I know that you're having a hard understanding all that because ofteh economic damage 9/11 caused so lets look at why 9/11 hurt our economy. The biggest reason was IT SCARED PEOPLE. People who are scared DO NOT SPEND MONEY, they pull money from unsecure allocations (like the stock market) and invest them in secure allocations (like CDs and bonds), puthe two together a sharp decrease in consumer spending and loss of capital in the stock market and you have economic problems. People don't like to travel when they are scared. They tend to stay at home where they feel safer. So your travel and tourism industry also takes a hit.

Now then your claims that the CIA had an office inside the WTC might change the WTC form purely an economic to a military target, however ONE office would make it very low priority target, and there would be NO REASON to bomb BOTH buildings for ONE OFFICE. Hope that cleras things up for you and puts a rest to this whole "But our military would see the WTC of another country as a target and bomb it as well". Maybe 60 years ago when we the US had "total warfare'" as a part of our military doctrine, but those days are long gone and recent history proves that the US doesn't target economic cenmters.

Quote:
4. Actually, you're wrong about that. That was in the original article as well as all of my subsequent posts.
I am wrong? I think I just covered why the US would not view the WTC as a military target. But lets look at what YOU said again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
The point, again, is not that killing kids is the same as killing a soldier, but that ACCORDING TO OUR OWN MILITARY LOGIC THAT WE INSTITUTE WHEN WE BOMB PEOPLE both children and soldiers are acceptable targets.
No OUR own military reconizes the difference between Civilian and Military. We also distiguish between medical, religious, historical, and cultural sites from military targets as well. What you're saying isn't true! The US does NOT view them both as acceptable targets! We don't just drop bombs, blow up buildings, or shoot random people because "they all are acceptable targets".

Quote:
5. If this is the logic you ascribe to, don't whine to me when people push back. We've killed far far far more than we've lost and we've killed in a far more brutal manner.
Oh yes, we tie people's hands behind their backs and saw off their heads, we bomb random public transit systems of our enemies' country, we fly plane fulls of citiznes of other countries in to buildings, we bomb gathering places of our enemy's civiliian population, we bomb their churches durning religious services, we kill people because they are not of teh same religious sect as we are, we drive a car load of explosives up to enemy soldiers passing out candy to our children just to kill one or two soldiers at the cost of dozens of our own children. Yes, we are far more barbaric and brutal than the terrorists

Quote:
6. I stand by what I said.
__________________
CPPA #2701

Last edited by Rugrat : 05-23-2006 at 10:36 AM.
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 02:49 PM #110
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
I know but the reason why I get involved in most of these kinds of threads is to try and end pure ignorance, like what our dear Mr. Chruchill and Zack say, and to educate to those who might have otherwise believed their lies, double standards, and half truths...

I view ignorance sort of like biggotry and racism, if you turn your back on it it'll fester and spread. The only way to stop it is to enlighten people and expose those who are biggots and racists to the harsh rays of the light for all to see. Either they will see their mistakes and make amends or the exposure will show others who and what they really are.
__________________
CPPA #2701
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 02:54 PM #111
X_Paint
Once dead, now alive.
 
X_Paint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
I deleted my message out of repect for you. (Rugrat)
__________________
Ego is the opiate that dulls the pain of being obviously stupid.
X_Paint is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 02:56 PM #112
DreadLock Doc
Love Me, Don't Bother Me
 
DreadLock Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Internet Ziggurat
Annual Supporting Member
DreadLock Doc is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
3. [b]DO YOU THINK IT <del>****</del>ING MATTERS TO THE DEAD WHETHER THEY WERE 'ACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE' OR THE TARGET!?!
Of course they don't care; they're dead. But if you discover how to communicate with the dead and it turns out they do care, be sure to let us know about it.
__________________
If that's true, if you don't know who I am, then maybe your best course of action would be to tread lightly.
DreadLock Doc is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 03:07 PM #113
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by X_Paint
I deleted my message out of repect for you. (Rugrat)
Thanks for the kind words...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreadLock Doc
Of course they don't care; they're dead. But if you discover how to communicate with the dead and it turns out they do care, be sure to let us know about it.
Be sure to ask them if there is a God while you're at it, it would save us from a ton of pointless threads...
__________________
CPPA #2701
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 05:40 PM #114
BCP Klaus
Sodomization happens!
 
BCP Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
Be sure to ask them if there is a God while you're at it, it would save us from a ton of pointless threads...
LoL

and while you're at it, please ask if hot chicks in heaven really aren't permitted to wear thongs?
__________________
Support my member
BCP Klaus is offline  
Old 05-23-2006, 06:37 PM #115
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
1. Our country is over 200 years old. Modern terrorism, as it exists today, is less than 40 years old (and that is ONLY if you say AQ is a derivative of the PLO model). Add in to that teh changes in views in what is considered acceptable metods of fight a war in that 200 years, its no wonder the US has more of a body count. They don't compare, that's like saying,"The British Government has killed millions... So they must be the anti-Christ!" Well if you look at their history, they have, however today they are one ofthe most modern societies in teh world.
The point is, once again Zack, your agruement fails.

2. Are you saying you didn't say that? Are you saying that your quote wasn't in responce to my question of why YOU said you consider you and your family "Valid Military Targets"? Are trying to deny that fact that, unlike in America, in a majority of the world's nations speaking out against or not supporting the current government will get you killed? Are you dening that if we apply your rational on why YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A VALID MILITARY TARGET EQUALLY across the board then, by YOUR OWN definition the people killed bythe US are also "valid targets"? So based on your own criteria, if both groups are valid targets, and attacking the WTC was justified, why isn't the accidental death of "innocent poeple" also justified since they to are "valid targets"?


3. Is there a difference between premeditaded murder and accidental death? According to US, Islamic, and international law there is. Do terroist commit premeditaded murder on innocent poeple? Does the military delibrately target, or kill, innocent people simply to kill or hurt them? There is a difference, you know it, I know it, the world knows it. Once more your agruement fails.

4. We didn't get what we deserved in 9/11, it wasn't an eye for an eye. Your logic that those people on board the airliners and in teh WTC got what they deserve because of the actions of the Government makes as much validity as saying the people of Dresden desreved to fired bombed because of their paying taxes and supporting the Nazi Governement of Germany. It simply isn't true.


5. Since the end of WWII and the death ofthe concept of "total warfare" the US has fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq twice, and the Balkins. In all of those wars the US has not targetted ecomonic centers because they have little, to no, military value. The reason why they have such little value is they are basically "paper exchanges" and since most business tend to keep dupicate records. Destroying one copy of an exchange doesn't cause that much of a problem because accounting, shipping, and the factory also have copies. The "paper trade", just like in NY, simply relocates to a new spot and starts up again because you can regenerate paper trails in a matter of minutes and you can meet to trade almost anywhere.

US military doctrine wouldn't and DOESN'T classify economic centers as military targets because destroying them has little to no effect on a military or goverenment. Now I know that you're having a hard understanding all that because ofteh economic damage 9/11 caused so lets look at why 9/11 hurt our economy. The biggest reason was IT SCARED PEOPLE. People who are scared DO NOT SPEND MONEY, they pull money from unsecure allocations (like the stock market) and invest them in secure allocations (like CDs and bonds), puthe two together a sharp decrease in consumer spending and loss of capital in the stock market and you have economic problems. People don't like to travel when they are scared. They tend to stay at home where they feel safer. So your travel and tourism industry also takes a hit.

Now then your claims that the CIA had an office inside the WTC might change the WTC form purely an economic to a military target, however ONE office would make it very low priority target, and there would be NO REASON to bomb BOTH buildings for ONE OFFICE. Hope that cleras things up for you and puts a rest to this whole "But our military would see the WTC of another country as a target and bomb it as well". Maybe 60 years ago when we the US had "total warfare'" as a part of our military doctrine, but those days are long gone and recent history proves that the US doesn't target economic cenmters.


I am wrong? I think I just covered why the US would not view the WTC as a military target. But lets look at what YOU said again...

No OUR own military reconizes the difference between Civilian and Military. We also distiguish between medical, religious, historical, and cultural sites from military targets as well. What you're saying isn't true! The US does NOT view them both as acceptable targets! We don't just drop bombs, blow up buildings, or shoot random people because "they all are acceptable targets".


6. Oh yes, we tie people's hands behind their backs and saw off their heads, we bomb random public transit systems of our enemies' country, we fly plane fulls of citiznes of other countries in to buildings, we bomb gathering places of our enemy's civiliian population, we bomb their churches durning religious services, we kill people because they are not of teh same religious sect as we are, we drive a car load of explosives up to enemy soldiers passing out candy to our children just to kill one or two soldiers at the cost of dozens of our own children. Yes, we are far more barbaric and brutal than the terrorists
1. Actually, what I had in mind were those 200,000 Iraqi kids, not everyone we've ever killed ever. But you know, if you wanna go back in history....
2. I've explained this several times: the fact that the militaristic logic that allows for the murder of civilians as collateral damage justifies things like 9/11/01 and, say, the bombing of civilian infastructure in Iraq is the reason I reject it.
3. That was in my last post. We have the phrase "collateral damage" for a reason. You're wrong in thinking that that term applies only to bombs missing. It also applies to random people standing next to things we bomb, or in things we bomb. Also, I ask again: do the dead care why they died? They're still dead. They still died painfuly. We go to war knowing there will be a civilian casualites, it's innevitable. That makes it premeditated in my mind.
4. See the number 2 above.
5. Irrelevent argument.
6. No. We bomb idustrial districts in the Balkans. We torture people in secret CIA prisons (do you know what they do to people in Uzbekistan? It isn't just hitting them a little, they cut off fingers). We launch cruise missles from hundreds (thousands? the **** do I know...) miles away. We have the nerve to make the killing of innocents acceptable by calling them "collateral damage" as though that justifies their death. Blah blah blah, you get the idea.


Look dude, you aren't saying anything new and you still aren't grasping my very very simple argument. Let me rephrase my point in very simple terms: 9/11/01 should be viewed as a reason to re-evaluate our militarism, not reinvigorate nationalism and go to war again. Whether it's right or not: people push back. We have killed innocents and now we have had innocents killed. We can play the game of who is worse than who all we damn well please, we can try to reduce this to some political game or a game of calculation, but the only thing that matters is that there are dead children, both American and Iraqi (and god knows how many other nationalities) and that is unacceptable. The American empire has existed for too long, for too long we have viewed ourselves as above retribution and we've finally found out that we aren't. The proper response is not to go about buisness as usual, but to re-evaluate our foreign policy. 9/11/01 is not a singular event, it is the culmination of a long history of violence, on both sides, the ends up, not as a national tragedy, but as a human tragedy. At a certain point, a string of violent events becomes so large and complicated that the very idea of "innocence" and "guilt", "legitimate violence" and "illegitimate violence" ceases to make sense. In this case, we have to transcend a nationalistic perspective and attempt to find a new sense of responsibility to humanity and to the Other. We are all together in this, at the end of the day. All of our lives are precarious, all of our lives can be taken at any moment in any way. It is in this irreducible fact that we can find a new ethical calling to defend humanity against itself. It's time to mourn the dead, all of them. That's all I have to say on the subject unless you have something new and interesting to say.

I'll end with Ortez:
"You want a moment of silence
Then take it NOW,
Before this poem begins.
Here, in the echo of my voice,
In the pause between goosesteps of the second hand,
In the space between bodies in embrace,
Here is your silence.
Take it.
But take it all... Don't cut in line.
Let your silence begin at the beginning of crime. But we, Tonight we will keep right on singing... For our dead."

Last edited by zack : 05-23-2006 at 06:46 PM.
zack is offline  
Old 05-24-2006, 10:47 AM #116
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
I'll do you the favor of skipping over your responces to my post just to save you embarresment.... However if you feel that they are truthfull and relevant to this discussion let me know and I'll promply respond and dismember each one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
Look dude, you aren't saying anything new and you still aren't grasping my very very simple argument. Let me rephrase my point in very simple terms: 9/11/01 should be viewed as a reason to re-evaluate our militarism, not reinvigorate nationalism and go to war again. Whether it's right or not: people push back. We have killed innocents and now we have had innocents killed. We can play the game of who is worse than who all we damn well please, we can try to reduce this to some political game or a game of calculation, but the only thing that matters is that there are dead children, both American and Iraqi (and god knows how many other nationalities) and that is unacceptable. The American empire has existed for too long, for too long we have viewed ourselves as above retribution and we've finally found out that we aren't. The proper response is not to go about buisness as usual, but to re-evaluate our foreign policy. 9/11/01 is not a singular event, it is the culmination of a long history of violence, on both sides, the ends up, not as a national tragedy, but as a human tragedy. At a certain point, a string of violent events becomes so large and complicated that the very idea of "innocence" and "guilt", "legitimate violence" and "illegitimate violence" ceases to make sense. In this case, we have to transcend a nationalistic perspective and attempt to find a new sense of responsibility to humanity and to the Other. We are all together in this, at the end of the day. All of our lives are precarious, all of our lives can be taken at any moment in any way. It is in this irreducible fact that we can find a new ethical calling to defend humanity against itself. It's time to mourn the dead, all of them. That's all I have to say on the subject unless you have something new and interesting to say.
(side Note: This is actually the first intelligent thing you have said in the last few pages. In fact I am impressed with this. It is honest, intelligent, and expressive. Unlike Chruchill's statement which is hypocritical, full of double standards, half truths, and out right lies to express his feelings of what I woud consider nothing but hatred. If you would have posted this instead of Churchill I would have posted why I don't agree with your opinion but this thread would have been far more intelligent. It doesn't require intelligence to tear apart lies and half truths, and defending lies and half truths is just demeaning)

I fully understand your stance, its not as if I am blinded to faults of my country or my country's history. I do however disagree with you.

America's foreign policy is that of ALL nation's foreign policies, it seeks to maintain and expand America's sphere of influence and power, secure and defend America's needed nature resources, and maintain a check on those America views as a threat to its interests. That is the PRIMARY GOAL of all foreign policies, it doesn't what country we are talking about. In a perfect world this goal could be achieve with out ill effects to all involved, unfortunately we do not live a perfect world. We live in a world of violence and conflict usually fueled by need.

It would be naive and false to believe that America's foreign policy doesn't cause "hurt" to people, however one must look at it perspective that our foreign policy is driven by the requirements of our society. It is simply a tool we have created. Blamming America's foreign policy for something happening is like blamming a gun for shooting someone. Our foreign policy also gives more aid and support than most nations entire GNP. You could agrue that this is simply to achieve America's foreign policy's primary goal (which it is, have no doubt) but what makes it unique is it is more costly than simply using America's military might to enforce our will. The reason for this is America likes to think it's the "good guy", its a concept our country is founded upon,and in most cases it's the truth. Our foreign policy helps far more people than it harms while still achieving its primary goal.

This forms the very essence of where you and I disagree. It simply is not possible for us make evryone happy and make everyone love us while still taking care of our own needs. Something has to give and America tries to go to great lenghts to "do the right thing" but some poeple will still end up getting screwwed. Its just a fact of life. I'll admit that maybe the US could do more to dampen the negative effects our society has on other counrties however I also understand the reality that we still have to screw people. I feel you are being unrealistic in your critism of our foreign policy and its effects on the world. I also feel that given the realities of teh world we live in your view is biased upon the negavitive aspects of our society and it effects on the world's populations and ignores or glosses over the good we do or the fact that there is nothing we can do that doesn't hurt someone somehow (but we DO try to limit this effect).

It is understandable that those who feel they have been wronged by US would want revenge. Its a natural human behavior but this is no excuse to allow blatant crimes against humanity or the willfull murder of innocent people. Two wrongs NEVER make anything right. This is the second area you and I seem to disagree; which I believe we have already covered to great extent and therefore I need no longer to discuss.
__________________
CPPA #2701

Last edited by Rugrat : 05-24-2006 at 12:07 PM.
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-24-2006, 03:46 PM #117
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
It always makes me happy when people surprise me and you certainly have. I'll ignore the insult at the top of your post as I think you're just getting caught up in the normal etiquet of this forum. In any event, it's clear to me now that I've just failed to communicate my position properly.

I'll restate my thesis: 9/11/01 is not an event that should cause a resurgance of nationalism, but marks the begining of a time to attempt to find a new humanism that transcends borders and nationalities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
It is understandable that those who feel they have been wronged by US would want revenge. Its a natural human behavior but this is no excuse to allow blatant crimes against humanity or the willfull murder of innocent people. Two wrongs NEVER make anything right. This is the second area you and I seem to disagree; which I believe we have already covered to great extent and therefore I need no longer to discuss.
That's actually the thing we agree most on. I'll say it again because I'm not sure if I said it enough: 9/11/01 was wrong. It shouldn't have happened. I respect those that did it as I respect those that go into battle under the American flag. They are all good soldiers, whether their politics are justified or not. I don't hate them because I believe that their actions are part of an on-going human tragedy so long and so devestating for so many people that to lay blame is to efface the horror that so many have experienced and reduce it to a game of politics. Two wrongs don't make a right which is why I believe it is of the utmost importance to understand why 9/11/01 happened: so that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past that fostered the hatred and cruelty that it takes to fly a plane full of people into a building full of people. To me, the war on terror is just one more act in a tragic play that has gone on for...who knows how long. I think the answer isn't to go on but to close the curtains and transcend nationalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
(side Note: This is actually the first intelligent thing you have said in the last few pages. In fact I am impressed with this. It is honest, intelligent, and expressive. Unlike Chruchill's statement which is hypocritical, full of double standards, half truths, and out right lies to express his feelings of what I woud consider nothing but hatred. If you would have posted this instead of Churchill I would have posted why I don't agree with your opinion but this thread would have been far more intelligent. It doesn't require intelligence to tear apart lies and half truths, and defending lies and half truths is just demeaning)
It was, perhaps, a mistake for me to frame my position by begining with the Churchill essay. He's a hateful man and far too violent for crunchy hippies like me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
America's foreign policy is that of ALL nation's foreign policies, it seeks to maintain and expand America's sphere of influence and power, secure and defend America's needed nature resources, and maintain a check on those America views as a threat to its interests. That is the PRIMARY GOAL of all foreign policies, it doesn't what country we are talking about. In a perfect world this goal could be achieve with out ill effects to all involved, unfortunately we do not live a perfect world. We live in a world of violence and conflict usually fueled by need.
I agree with you, the US is no different from any other nation except on one, important matter: we are the sole hegemon of global politics. We weirld more money and more power than any other country and, as a result, our actions have a much broader and more profound effect on humanity than that of any other nation. This is, of course, why the US was the target of the attacks on 9/11/01 and not, say, France (because god knows France is just as violent as we are).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
It would be naive and false to believe that America's foreign policy doesn't cause "hurt" to people, however one must look at it perspective that our foreign policy is driven by the requirements of our society. It is simply a tool we have created. Blamming America's foreign policy for something happening is like blamming a gun for shooting someone. Our foreign policy also gives more aid and support than most nations entire GNP. You could agrue that this is simply to achieve America's foreign policy's primary goal (which it is, have no doubt) but what makes it unique is it is more costly than simply using America's military might to enforce our will. The reason for this is America likes to think it's the "good guy", its a concept our country is founded upon,and in most cases it's the truth. Our foreign policy helps far more people than it harms while still achieving its primary goal.
I disagree in saying that America's foreign policy is not to blame for 9/11/01. It created the neccesary conditions for the attacks. What this means is that, without certain US foreign policy deciscions, 9/11/01 wouldn't have happened. What it does NOT mean is that 9/11/01 was JUSTIFIED or that those that did it are absolved of the guilt that comes with killing so many.

I also believe that the question of whether we are net benificial for the world is irrelevent in that our humanitarian efforts are not contingent upon the bad **** we do. The two are entirely seperate. Note that I am not denying that the US does good things, it'd be as naive to think that it doesn't as it would be to think we aren't also terribly violent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
This forms the very essence of where you and I disagree. It simply is not possible for us make evryone happy and make everyone love us while still taking care of our own needs. Something has to give and America tries to go to great lenghts to "do the right thing" but some poeple will still end up getting screwwed. Its just a fact of life. I'll admit that maybe the US could do more to dampen the negative effects our society has on other counrties however I also understand the reality that we still have to screw people. I feel you are being unrealistic in your critism of our foreign policy and its effects on the world. I also feel that given the realities of teh world we live in your view is biased upon the negavitive aspects of our society and it effects on the world's populations and ignores or glosses over the good we do or the fact that there is nothing we can do that doesn't hurt someone somehow (but we DO try to limit this effect).
You're correct in saying that this is where our beliefs diverge, I think. You're correct, however, in saying that we WILL hurt people so long as we have our own best interest in mind. What I'm attempting to argue is that to calculate foreign policy deciscions based on the good of the nation rather than humanity in general makes things like 9/11/01 innevitable. I think the only (admitedly utopian) possibility we have for a more peaceful future is to ground ethics on a commen sense of humanity, on our common vulnerability to death and suffering. We are all human together and I think we should begin acting like it. This is where Churchill and I diverge: while he wants to see a violent end of the American empire (he talks of hanging people) I want it to come in the form of peaceful non-participation. I think our only option is to refuse the form of calculation that makes an American death more important than an Iraqi death (and vice versa, of course). I believe that violents only begets violence and that the war on terror is doomed to failure. If I shared Churchill's views, I would believe that the war on terror is a positive outcome of 9/11/01 because my personal belief is that it will be the downfall of US hegemony. But it will also be a violent fall where many many hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people die. I will hold onto my hope for a more peaceful future because without it we're doomed to repeat the same tragic mistakes. I don't expect to see anything change in my lifetime, but I will continue to hope.
zack is offline  
Old 05-24-2006, 04:34 PM #118
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
^^ Nice post (and just so you know; the opener at the top of my post wasn't ment to a jab. It was mearly my attempt to break a cycle and my honest opinion on where your line of reasoning was going. Sorry if it was taken as offensive, I can be a very blunt person at times, my wife blames the military for my lack of tact)

The problem I have with blaming America's foreign policy as the reason for 9/11 is I feel that it is a scapegoat for Islamic militantism. It is not our foreign policy that radical islam is waging a war against, it's our society and culture. If unopposed Western culture would assimulate Islamic culture like it has done to all other cultures it has encountered. The major difference between is Islamic culture an dother cultures we have encountered is islamic culture is based on a set religious beliefs which prevent fluidity between western and their traditional cultural beliefs. Even if we would have pulled all our military forces out of the mid east, ended support of Israel, removed listings of Arab nations as "terrorist supporting nations", and establish mutually benifical trade with teh Mid east a 9/11 would have still occured. Sure our foreign policy, as it is today, and historically is a source of anger in the arab world its not the root of the problem. Its our society behind that foreign policy that is the problem.

I fully agree with you that the "looking out for #1" is a tradgic flaw in human behavior that effects all aspects of our lives. The world would truely be a better place if we could rise above such pettiness. However, realistically I can not see that happening. Its against our very nature as a species. So because of that, I feel, we should try and continue on with our current stance. The realities of the world force us to be a bully, but at least "we're the nicest bully on the block".
__________________
CPPA #2701

Last edited by Rugrat : 05-24-2006 at 04:37 PM.
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-24-2006, 04:46 PM #119
DreadLock Doc
Love Me, Don't Bother Me
 
DreadLock Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Internet Ziggurat
Annual Supporting Member
DreadLock Doc is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
.
Blah, blah, blah. Americans are evil, terrible people because they pay taxes and support a military. Iraqi civilians are evil, terrible people because they did little or nothing to oppose Saddam Hussein. The world is a horrific place full of terrible, evil people.

This article is sort of difficult to argue against because it seems to be so largely based on bull****. By dredging up the deaths of all those Iraqi children, the Crusades, the issue of Israel, and whatnot, the author seems to suggest the 9/11 attackers were working on behalf of all Muslims, but that's a bunch of bull**** because Muslims are as divided as any other faith and the radical extremists are about as tolerant of liberal Muslims as they are of americans or Europeans.

If american civilians are valid targets because they are technocrats and taxpayers, then the innocent civilians whom end up as collateral damage are also valid targets (though they are not intentionally targeted) because they too pay taxes to a government which supresses not only them but also sponsors attacks against other states.

In any case, the article only reinforces Mao's assertion that power comes from the barrel of a gun. The united states has power - political power, economic power, and military might. The united states gets to have its way with the world because it has the ability to do so and it gained this ability by frequently finding ways to establish mutually beneficial relationships with various parts of the world. We resort to using political and economic pressures to solve problems in ways that benefit america and other involved parties. However, some people do not want to play ball, which is fine - until they attempt to use their military might to attack the united states. Threats are a different issue because we still largely use political and economic means to deal with threats. It is, however, not irrational to expect the united states to respond to attacks such as 9/11 with violence.

You also cannot argue that american bombings in Iraq amount to terrorism because intent, regardless of what it mattered to the innocent dead, does matter. Our bombs do, in fact, scare the **** out of people but that is not our goal. Our goal is to strike specific targets and reduce, to the greatest extent possible, civilian casualties. A terrorist's goal, however, is to intentionally strike fear into a population and to achieve a goal by scaring a population and its government into submission.

In any case, the nazi references made by both you and Churchill are grounds for invoking Godwin's Law.
__________________
If that's true, if you don't know who I am, then maybe your best course of action would be to tread lightly.

Last edited by DreadLock Doc : 05-24-2006 at 04:50 PM.
DreadLock Doc is offline  
Old 05-25-2006, 02:11 PM #120
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
^^ Nice post (and just so you know; the opener at the top of my post wasn't ment to a jab. It was mearly my attempt to break a cycle and my honest opinion on where your line of reasoning was going. Sorry if it was taken as offensive, I can be a very blunt person at times, my wife blames the military for my lack of tact)

The problem I have with blaming America's foreign policy as the reason for 9/11 is I feel that it is a scapegoat for Islamic militantism. It is not our foreign policy that radical islam is waging a war against, it's our society and culture. If unopposed Western culture would assimulate Islamic culture like it has done to all other cultures it has encountered. The major difference between is Islamic culture an dother cultures we have encountered is islamic culture is based on a set religious beliefs which prevent fluidity between western and their traditional cultural beliefs. Even if we would have pulled all our military forces out of the mid east, ended support of Israel, removed listings of Arab nations as "terrorist supporting nations", and establish mutually benifical trade with teh Mid east a 9/11 would have still occured. Sure our foreign policy, as it is today, and historically is a source of anger in the arab world its not the root of the problem. Its our society behind that foreign policy that is the problem.

I fully agree with you that the "looking out for #1" is a tradgic flaw in human behavior that effects all aspects of our lives. The world would truely be a better place if we could rise above such pettiness. However, realistically I can not see that happening. Its against our very nature as a species. So because of that, I feel, we should try and continue on with our current stance. The realities of the world force us to be a bully, but at least "we're the nicest bully on the block".
I don't have much more to say. I've said what I want to say and I appreciate the good conversation.
zack is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump