| |
|
"Oh my god you can't be serious. I'm sorry to sound like a jerk, but this sounds just as naive as the weeping, hysterical middle age mothers on Oprah crying frantically 'Why do they hate us?'"
I suppose I can see where you get that, but I think that was an ad hominem approach -- less pushy, but ultimately similar to PM's approach.
And while I can see where you might get that, I don't think it adequately applies to Cherry if you pay reasonable attention to her argument.
"Yes it would be nice if everyone in the world could be diplomatic and talk out their problems. But why isn't it like this?
I agree with you on the point that we don't need war. Nobody needs war. However, can we let the Taliban be allowed to exist?"
That's a tricky question. But, perhaps, this is just as tricky: How is it "we've" been allowing the Taliban to exist for years now?
The real question is, who has the right to make the decision that a particular group of peoples cannot be permitted to exist?
Yes, I understand that the Taliban are radical militants. Yes, I understand that they came to control Afghanistan via violence. Nonetheless, to a greater or lesser extent, this can be pointed out from the roots of any nation with a little bit of history.
Yes, I understand that they're horribly oppressive towards women, and I understand that they use sports stadiums for public executions.
The question I'm asking is, how does the U.S. find itself in the role to be making these calls? And, supposing we trust a nation with this sort of immense responsibility -- the responsibility of choosing who will and will not be allowed to exist -- what happens when this nation fucks up?
Where are the checks and balances in this system?
And if this nation has a history of fucking up -- perhaps philanthropy too, but healthy doses of fucking up -- which the U.S. clearly has, how can we blindly trust such an authority with the right to choose who can and cannot exist?
Do we agree with this because of the sentiment? Because nobody likes what was happening in Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Where is the line drawn?
And without answering these sorts of questions and receiving answers, how can you simply condone violent action that could result in the death of thousands of innocent people?
As I've said before -- none of this is to say the military action in Afghanistan can't be appropriate.
But, I haven't spoken with one person who can tell me, in absolutely concrete terms, why it is.
"How do we get them to change their ways? Ask them nicely? Maybe we should give them a "Time Out." I support millitay action because I believe that Bin Laden's guilt or innocence is beside the point. The Taliban needs to be ousted immediately. If the US was bombing a more moderate democratic regime because they suspected Bin Laden was hiding out there, I would be the first in line at the peace marches. However, he's suspected of hiding in a country whose government puts any dystopic sci-fi novel to shame."
You make it sound as if the living conditions there haven't somehow been causally related to prior military actions.
I'm not saying the fundementalist Islamic regime there doesn't do some simply wretched things -- but I am asking the question: If this is to be our justification, than how can we honestly give the U.S. carte blanche to unseat these people without first demanding the approval of a world court?
"Sounds great. But how do we implement this? How do you physically get Bin Laden from where ever he is into a court? Also. Isn't one of the main directives of bombing to do exactly what your saying they should do? Disabling communications? And yes, I know. Civilians have been killed. It fucking sucks. And it makes me feel horrible when I see the footage of screaming, suffering children. But the question still stands. How do you effectively knock out the Taliban?
Impose sanctions? Will starving children in the dead of a freezing miserable winter be preferable?"
Perhaps you didn't realize that the U.S. has managed sanctions in Afghanistan -- via Pakistan, who received enormous amounts of diplomatic pressure from the U.S. Children will starve more because of this military action.
"I keep hearing alot of theoretical soloutions that sound great to appease everyone's morality and conscience but what I don't hear are concrete ways to implement these ideas. The reality is that all of our options stink. Catch 22."
I don't think any of us can really say what the reality is. I think there are plenty of perfectly available options. Some might be more difficult than others, but there are others in reach. Or, perhaps, were.
"Now on a more positive note. I agree with Auto that the most important battle is to fight the roots of terrorism. This is something that everyone of us can do. By doing what Jello Biafra says and "Become the Media". The most imporant (and perhaps one of the most dangerous) things to do in the near future is to bring to light all of the past transgressions of the US Government. Essentially expose their own terrorism that they've been implementing for over 50 years across the globe relatively unchecked. Well until now anyways. This is going to be really tricky for us in the left now because it will demonize us and make us seem as unpatriotic turncoat terrorists. It's going to be a damn tough fight, but one where cooler, more articulate, ( and not to mention damn groovier) heads will prevail."
These are sentiments I agree with. I very much appreciate your standpoint, here. I think it'll be difficult and very critical for U.S. citizens to take more responsibility for their government's behaviour. I think everyone needs to do this.
"What I don't agree with Auto is that this is the only way to fight terrorrism. This is more of a long term soloution. But however, we still need some short term action as well. Why? Because Bin Laden and Al Quaida need to answer for Sept 11. But hold on. I'll even give you the benefit ot the doubt... say they had nothing to do with it. We still need short term action because regardless of Bin Laden's involvement, the Taliban is too brutal be allowed to exist. Hands down."
I can't accept your reasoning, here. The reasons you give for "why" are more related to where -- and even as such, I don't believe they stand up to good argumentation.
When you make the claim that short-term action is necessary, you must begin by laying the foundations for the argument. It's important to establish what will happen, for instance, if short term action does not ensue, and to clearly communicate why these ends would be less preferred to the opposite standpoint.
My rebuttal would be a very simple point: Shortly after the bombing began, it was declared that we would be exposed to a 100% risk of further terrorist action.
If prior to the bombings, the probability of further terrorist attacks was 100%, then all we've shown is that, in the short-term, action and non-action are equivelent. Non-action relative to the action, I suppose.
Now, we can't really presume to know what the long-term results of either action will be -- unless you want to talk about divination.
So, at best, I think, we can show that the difference in reducing actual threat, in the short-term, is negligable.
So, while it could've increased the risk (the military action), it couldn't have reduced it. From the standpoint of risk, then, the citizens of the world have nothing to gain from military action in Afghanistan.
That's just operating on what we know. There are a plethora of possibilities that could render such understandings absolutely inconsequential -- but if we want to follow reason (which is admittedly, at times, overrated), we can say this (the military action) simply did not reduce anyone's risk-level.
[ 31-10-2001: Message edited by: Frances ] |
|
|
riginally posted by patriot metalhead: