Subject:
|
Re: Peace! (was Re: Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 04:18:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
584 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Dave:
>
> I think some of you may be confusing "give peace a chance" with doing
> absolutely nothing and taking it on the chin. I am not advocating that at all.
Good. We've done enough of that already, and frankly I'm tired of it.
> I absolutely think it's time we take a long hard look at the air
> transportation industry and beef up security measures considerably. I
> certainly think that TOO Many items are brought within the passanger area to
> make things completely safe. At the same time I think the industry has to
> take far greater responsibility for items that are checked in rather than
> just the usual complete denial of any liability for anything you give into
> their hands. I mean, if Fed Ex can tell me where my stuff is almost all the
> time and insure it besides -- so can American Airlines, right? So great,
> here's my laptop and other stuff --if you damage it, I get compensated.
> Also much greater security around the cockpit would mean less or no access
> to the flight controls. There is no reason for Tuesday's tragedy to ever be
> repeated if we are vigilant.
Agreed. Security is a large issue here. My brother-in-law work for Delta
Airlines and I could tell you some amazing stries about lax security, but I
don't see any point to doing that right now.
> As to everything else, I would simply say this: nothing we do now will
> rebuild what was savagely torn down -- it's gone; nothing we do now will
> bring back those we have lost -- they are gone from this world for good. I
> mourn them all, we all mourn them together.
Again we agree, but with one difference. I believe the WTC can and will be
rebuilt. I believe that we will overcome this. I believe that the key to doing
this is to make an example of those cowards who started this fight. If you can't
even show your face, you shouldn't enter the boxing ring.
> If we can find those truly responsible, and not just some convenient patsy,
> I say let's round them up and make them pay for what they have done with
> life in prison. For once, let's be an example of civility -- and not just a
> wannabe. If you or I do not individually have the right to kill each other,
> then there is no basis for thinking that the state as a collective has in
> any way been bequeathed such a power either. Justice demands prison terms
> -- not the hooliganism of war abroad. I want to be stainless before the
> world and show them they we can bring those who are guilty to justice
> without having to resort to the low violence of those who have so
> egregiously wronged us as would be the case with indescriminate bombing. I
> don't want to create martyrs -- I want to catch murderers. Of those who
> might peripherally be the support group or relatives of the guilty, I would
> suggest we engage them in a dialogue and find out what they think is wrong
> that some of them are so vehemently opposed to the U.S. I would suggest we
> try to arrive at some kind of policy of "live and let live", if not actual
> friendship, with such people that future violence and terrorism may be
> forestalled. Hey, I am just saying that sometimes its hard to see our own
> faults and that they have to be pointed out to us. It's not okay to point
> out our faults by killing our people -- surely there must have been another
> way to get our attention. But too, let's be sure they get our attention
> before they feel more desperate and that there must needs be violence.
Boy do I disagree with you here. Take your high road. I see no point to trying
to have a dialogue with Tim McVeigh or any other wacko who would sacrifice
innocents just to get attention for a perceived slight against himself. It
almost seems like trying to talk to the guy who fed his neighbor's dog tainted
meat just because it barked at night. There will always be those who can't live
within the confines of a civilized society. These are the people that can't be
reasoned with who will resort to extreme measures just because they feel they
aren't being heard.
> The U.S. is a great country. Many of us honor the idea of the U.S. as it is
> supposed to be, and what it may some day become. Many of us defend the
> ethics and republican ideals of it's founders. Many of us hold almost as
> sacred the much emulated U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights --
> documents whose creations stand as triumphant moments in human history. We
> have a long way to go before we can truly be thought to have fulfilled the
> dream of what the Untied States may be and was intended to become. We will
> not arrive there by being the bullies of the world. We will arrive there by
> being the most civilized, peace-loving people on earth.
Which we try to do on a daily basis. We only hit back if we are hit first and
sometimes we try to talk our way out of a fight. This is not a time for talking.
5000+ people in New York and Wachington are dead because all we do is talk.
> Peace is not something that happens by itself -- it must be actively worked
> on! If we applied the same dedication that we have for our interpersonal
> relationships to foreign affairs, things like Tuesday just wouldn't happen.
> We wouldn't be mad at others in the world -- they would be our friends and
> nieghbors. We would have a forum for settling disputes without war. We
> wouldn't let our neighbors and friends kill each other over issues like
> where the fence can be erected, we would have a dispute resolution
> methodology in place to stop such things. Hey, people get on each others
> nerves -- but must it end in bloodshed?
Where fanatics are concerned, the answer is 'Yes'. Too bad that's what we are
dealing with. Notice how many countries we get along with and have great
relations with. I can't even name all of them as there are too many. We have a
project called the INTERNATIONAL Space Station. It's called that because sixteen
countries around the world came together for a common goal.
> Giving peace a chance might mean something like turning over 1/2 of what we
> spend on the military and giving it over to education (I have the insane
> belief that educated people tend to shy away from violence as the only
> solution). Giving peace a chance might mean engaging "third world"
> countries in a meaningful share of the riches of the world, instead of just
> bleeding them for cheap labor. Maybe peace might mean a computer in every
> human dwelling -- so that no one feels left out -- everyone can dialogue
> with anyone else in a time of need (Motherbox anyone?). There simply must
> be a way to create peace, rather than simply allowing hatred and murder to
> continue because of our indifference.
But we aren't indifferent. We offer aid to those that ask for it. We try to get
along with everyone even when they stick a knife in our back. We cut military
spending and Saddam rose back up to kick dirt our way. In case you hadn't
noticed why GWB was in Florida on Monday and Tuesday, it was to promote
education. As a former Educator, I agree that eduacation is our top priority,
but ignoring defense when we obviously have so much more to learn seems to be a
shame. We're already making great strides regarding our neighboring countries,
it's the extremists that force us to spend so much on military might. View the
strides made via NAFTA and you'll realize where I'm coming from.
> Do we want peace or do we want to move forward as brutes? That's the
> choice. If all we do is keep enacting the Hatfields and McCoys in the
> world, who then is the first to put down their sword or drop their gun?
> Shouldn't the strong yield to peace first?
Not if it means thousands of more civilian casualties....and it most certainly
will.
> I say we are the strong and that we may yield to peace first.
>
> -- Richard
What can I say, we agree to disagree.
-Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
66 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
