| |
|
quote:Originally posted by zerone:
Oh my god you can't be serious.
I’m one hundred percent serious. War is an obsolete concept that is rooted in the “Might Makes Right” mentality of days past. The way you win a war is through the use of violence in order to topple your opposition. What this means is the side that is stronger (in terms of military prowess, intelligence , etc.) wins. That means the winning side gets to do it their way. Their way is not necessarily the best way, and it certainly doesn’t necessarily take into account the issues that started the conflict in the first place.
You and I disagree on this issue. If I were to jump on top of you, pin you to the ground and cover your mouth so you couldn’t talk, would I then “win” the argument? Or would a more effective LONG-TERM solution be to discuss the issues surrounding our disagreement?
quote:
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 really take issue with the above comment here. I’m going to point out that you are comparing my beliefs to middle aged mothers who watch Oprah as an attempt to weaken my position. This implies that middle-aged mothers who watch Oprah are not able to make informed, rational arguments for their beliefs. I think there’s a hint of sexism there, which, (sexism, not the comment) coincidentally enough, I believe has its roots in the “might makes right” mentality that fuels war. But that’s really a topic for another thread.
quote:
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 do understand that the trick with my belief is convincing others (people and nations) that we don’t need war. I also believe that we need to protect ourselves. I don’t think that attacking Afghanistan in the manner in which we’re doing is the way to achieve that. It’s a short term solution to a long-term problem.
Don’t forget that the terrorist attacks on September 11 have their roots in previous military actions the west has engaged in. The seeds were sown for that attack through the continued presence of troops in Saudi Arabia, continued sanctions against Irag (sanctions that don’t hurt Hussein but do hurt civilians), and our essential abandonment of the Afghan people after the Soviets moved out of Afghanistan. If we had at that time looked for a long-term solution to this problem, rather than putting a band-aid on it, it is entirely possible that we would not be in the predicament we’re in today. More Muslims get angry at the West over the current military actions EVERY DAY. I just heard a report this morning on NPR that the overwhelming sentiment of new arrivals to Afghan refugee camps is that the U.S. HAS been targeting civillians. Now, tell me: do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that the current military campaign will have NO adverse effects for the U.S. and Britain? Please explain why you think so. Don’t forget that the U.S. originally trained and funded bin Laden.
One reason we don't have a world without war is because, on a very simple level, people DON'T BELIEVE we can have a world without war. But believe it or not, ENTIRE CIVILIZATIONS (I'm thinking of Crete in particular) existed for centuries WITHOUT engaging in warfare.
Remember, there was a time people believed slavery was a regrettable but inevitable aspect of life. There was a time when it was believed that I couldn't engage in this conversation with you because as a woman I simply wasn't capable of engaging in rational intellectual thought. WHY is war any different?
quote: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?
The last time I checked, Afghanistan was not under the jurisdiction of the United States, Britain, or any other western state that thinks it knows what the Afghans need.
That said, I have been anti-Taliban, due to their brutal treatment of women since shortly after they first came to power and I heard about them. The question I ask myself is where was this anti-Taliban sentiment when we KNEW they were all ready treating their women horribly? Where was this sentiment when they blew up buddhist statues early this year? Oh that’s right, I forgot – the U.S. was REWARDING the Taliban (with financial aid) at that time for destroying poppy fields. Destroying farmers’ crops, I might add without giving those farmers ANY OTHER crop alternative. Thus impoverishing still more Afghans.
But I digress. The American attitude of “Police Cop of the World” has effectively alienated and infuriated many people throughout the world. Ideally, people who live in a country should be allowed who governs them. And remember, the Afghan people WELCOMED the Taliban when they initially took power. It should also be pointed out that several groups in the Northern Alliance (you know, the military group we’re funding and training now?) have reputations for being far worse than the Taliban and just as brutal to women.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t offer assistance. I just think the U.S. and Britain don’t have a right to determine Afghan policies.
quote:
How do we get them to change their ways?
But how do we implement this?
I don't have all the answers to this question. But simply because I don’t think war is the answer doesn’t mean that our only alternative is to impose sanctions. I really don’t think the PEOPLE of a country should be punished for what their GOVERNMENT is doing. I’ve been against the sanctions of Iraq from the beginning – and I think it’s completely ridiculous that nearly 40 years after Bay of Pigs, we maintain sanctions on Cuba. By that same token war punishes people for what their government is doing. And in this case, the people are being punished for their government allowing ONE PERSON to stay in the country and we think (but don’t tell me you KNOW) that one person was the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.
From a logical perspective, doesn’t it make more sense to go after THAT ONE GUY and those connected with the attack than a country? I don’t think we should roll over and play dead, but guess what? Not one person who died on September 11 will be brought back to life for anyone WE kill in Afghanistan. You would agree that “an eye for an eye” is rather limiting in terms of policy and possibilities. Don’t you see that this is exactly the same thing?
quote:
How do you physically get Bin Laden from where ever he is into a court?
It can be done. Other criminals have been caught and tried before a court of law. Bin Laden isn’t superman. We either catch him, or we don’t catch him, but I think this is should be considered as an option.
quote:
Also. Isn't one of the main directives of bombing to do exactly what your saying they should do? Disabling communications?
I’m well aware of this, and I support this objective. I don’t think we need to wage war in order to achieve it, however.
And finally, I can assure you that my stand is not based on any need to appease my conscience. I simply believe my theory offers a more workable, long-term solution to the problem.
[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Cherry Bomb ] |
|
|
