Subject:
|
Re: Response to Misinformation (Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 22:23:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
813 times
|
| |
|
|
Bill writes:
> I don't think anyone is saying we should kill innocents. Official statements
> refer to "those responsible". However, regrettably some collateral damage is
> unavoidable.
A lot has been picked over in terms of the rhetoric of peace, so fine...Does
the euphemism "collateral damage" mean human lives? How can you be so callous?
Aren't we in hell already?
> They were returning to a land that was historically theirs and that had been >returned to them by a world tribunal.
What does "historically theirs" mean? I'd like an answer to this more than
anything...
If possession of land is respected in law, and U.S. law at least tends to
favor use, then how is that any group (the U.N.) can give land to third
group (Zionists) that was already resided upon by the Palestinians? Really
you are just justifying U.N. hooliganism here...
> They were not the aggressor. I respect the fact that the Arab people
> disagreed with that determination and fought to retain the land - but the
> fact is that they got their butts handed to them. And, after many further
> attempts to regain the land, they repeatedly had their butts handed to
> them. Reality is sometimes harsh. Israel is there and needs to be dealt
> with. Israel is willing to co-exist, the Palestinians are not.
Are you admitting that the land was taken by violence -- violence backed by
the U.N/U.S.?
> Israel lives in a land that was legally given to them.
I would contest this point. You yourself have asserted that only their
borrowed might from the U.N./U.S. has allowed this to stand.
> Absolutely. Which is why I take issue with others who have said that U.S.
> policy worldwide is responsible for these attacks. As leader of the free
> world, why is it so wrong for us to act in self interest? We have done what
> we thought to be right at any given point in time given the complex
> circumstances. We supported Iraq because at the time Iran was a threat and
> Iraq was not. We supported bin Laden because at the time Russia was a threat
> and bin Laden was not. We are then portrayed as traitors for later going
> after them. What about them? They used us as well. They received money,
> weapons and training and then turn around and use it against us - why are
> they not the traitors? International relations are very complex - there are
> no easy choices. But we did what we thought was right given what we knew. No
> country has a perfect record on foreign affairs. But I'd stack ours against
> any other, hands down.
We are not responsible for these attacks -- but our faulty, and humanly
flawed foreign policies have created a world in which this kind of violence
and hatred continues to exist. If you can't see the kind of political
whores the U.S. looks like before the world based on what you have written
above, then I just don't know what else can help you to see it.
Our Constitution doesn't say much as regards foriegn policy, and I for one
deny that military strength may be used abroad according to it. We should
defend our borders, that's about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States;
<snip>
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no
Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and
Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the
Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal
Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't see a lot of stuff there that suggest to me that we should be
running around the world with spies, military forces, and so forth, killing
others abroad in the name of the United States. Look at all the limits
discussed there "for the common defense", "To raise and support Armies, but
no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years"; and there is also talk of a "militia" which is an army composed of
ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers, a military force that
is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an
emergency. Do you see where it says "To raise and support Armies" and "To
provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions"? I get the idea that we aren't
supposed to have standing armies, but rather access to a militia that can be
called forth in times of need.
Now, in the current crisis as with Pearl Harbor, we have been specifically
attacked. I agree that we should defend ourselves to the point of a very
concise military action (and not a prolonged war) -- I think we have that
right. But the long litany of foriegn policy abuses you listed above just
proves to me that we also are not innocent. We have blood on our hands that
doesn't wash off.
The bottom line is: why are we even involved in foreign policy matters that
do not specifically concern trade or defense of our homeland? You know, if
our multi-national corporations weren't in bed with the Nazis and Jewish
slave labor, I bet the Nazis would not have lasted very long...I dunno, I
could be wrong. But I insist we can do more by opening and closing our U.S.
purse (trade not welfare!) than with any military actions or dropped bombs.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
66 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
