| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against
> taking action
On the contrary, I summarised what I think is appropriate action here
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12670
> but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your
> own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the
> world everywhere and the murderers will stop murdering". Please explain how
> that would work. I don't see it.
Does "concrete plan" == "the right response"?
> We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, internal
> and external. But now is not the time.
On the contrary, I think we've just been shown it *is* the time.
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > And how is applying military force to the people of Afghanistan, many of whom
> > don't follow the Taliban regime, gonna provide any result. It's likely to • kill
> > a lot of innocent people, and unlikely to cause any major harm to bin Laden.
> > And what if you later find out that bin Laden *wasn't* the perpetrator?
>
> Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. His gang are terrorists. The Taliban are
> accomplices who need to be brought down. So do all the rogue states, for
> that matter. What is being proposed here, though, is something far broader
> than just "going after" the particular perpetrators. It is a "war on • terrorism".
>
> That makes bin Laden a target, a very important target, whether he's the
> perpetrator or not. So your question is irrelevant. He has enough blood on
> his hands to be a target regardless. If he didn't do this particular crime,
> he's still a (previously indicted) criminal worthy of punishment and after
> we find him, we'll find proof it wasn't him with his stuff.
>
> It will take years and trillions of dollars to do this war. It may cost in
> real dollars as much as WW II did. I think the people of America are ready
> to spend that though. We are slow to anger as a nation but our anger is a
> mighty thing once aroused.
It will probably also cost a comparable number of innocent lives, many of them
American. Are you ready to spend that much? I'm not. And I'm not ready to deny
these people the right to a fair trial, just because they deny me that right.
> There is an editorial circulating that I think sums this feeling up pretty • well.
>
> http://www.miami.com/herald/content/features/columnists/pitts/digdocs/000565.htm
> (that may not be the only place to find it, I have seen it elsewhere)
>
> > Again, you're lumping the whole Afghan population together here, and I very
> > much doubt that they all support bin Laden, in fact I'd be surprised if more
> > than a small minority even knows he's there. If it's OK to let these innocent
> > people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
> > Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
>
> The first bombing of Afghanistan needs to be with leaflets. It needs to
> explain what happened and what is about to be done and offer a choice. Rise
> up, aid the cleansing force, overthrow the Taliban, or be part of the
> infection, and be cleansed.
And what if they really want to, and give it their best shot (presumably with
help from NATO, etc), but fail? And do you think bin Laden and his precious
Taliban will sit idly by while they're trying? I don't think this is a fair
ultimatum at all, and will just end up with more innocent deaths on both sides.
> Ditto for the first bombing of Iraq and the
> first bombing of N. Korea, and the first bombing of Libya, because this is
> not about Afghanistan and Afghanistan alone.
>
> > I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments,
> > but that's just how I feel about Dave's comments.
>
> I think there is merit in questioning, up to a point. We need to make sure
> we do things in as safe and effective manner as possible. But once the
> questions have been satisfactorily answered, the perception of the
> questioner isn't that they are heartless, but that they are clueless. You
> aren't over that line quite yet. Quite. But you're close.
With respect, Lar, you have *no idea* how close I am to *anything*. That's a
very arrogant statement, and I realise that's your way, but I have yet to see
anything that provides satisfactory answers to my fears.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) addressed what to do if the Taliban, even after being presented with clear and credible evidence (assuming it can be developed) that anyone else would accept, thumbs their nose and says you can't have him. So you're nitpicking against taking (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against taking action but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the world everywhere and the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
