| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > 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
>
> There's no plan there. You say that you support trying them but you haven't
> 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 action.
Huh??? Yes, I'm against military action. That doesn't mean I'm against 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 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.
>
> Please elaborate. Why now rather than after bringing the fever down?
Because thinking about it now will reduce the needless deaths which will
just mount up the longer we leave it.
> > > 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.
>
> No one is, at this juncture, asking you to. Take it up with your government
> if and when they decide to support the US and you don't agree. America will
> no doubt have to bear the brunt of this expense just like we always do. So
> be it. It is the burden of Empire. Ask Kipling.
1. List all the wars in history.
2. Put a tick against those for which America bore the brunt of the human
expense.
3. Have another look at your last paragraph.
> I'd prefer that we be an inward looking Republic but the world may not allow
> us to do so and if we have to save the rest of the world (again) at our own
> expense to make things safe, why then I guess we will just have to do so.
>
> > And I'm not ready to deny
> > these people the right to a fair trial, just because they deny me that right.
>
> Nor am I.
And yet you're happy for America (and whoever wants to help) to launch bombs
in many countries, and likely kill hundreds of thousands of people without a
trial, justifying it with words like "it was war" and "they started it"?
> > > 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.
>
> OK, what do you suggest then if you support trying them but aren't willing
> to actually go arrest them? Let's hear something concrete. That post you
> referred to above wasn't it. Posit for the sake of the discussion that bin
> Laden is guilty, and that the Taliban says "screw you". (neither of those is
> established yet) Now what?
I ask "what if"s and you call me a nit-picker. All I've heard from anyone
hear is "lets go and launch an attack on all rogue states and those known to
harbour terrorists". I think that's no more concrete than "attempt to arrest
the and try the known terrorists, and look at where foreign policy can be
changed for the better". What do you advocate doing when they retaliate
again? Another round of missiles? You really think they can be totally
eliminated?
Let me try another way to describe where I'm coming from.
Lets say Taya (sp?) and Julia have a disagreement. It starts getting a bit
heated, and Nick walks in. He sides with Julia, and Taya asks him to butt
out. But he keeps on, and he & Julia start saying some really nasty stuff,
Taya's getting really upset now, and lashes out, kicking Nick. Hard.
Nick runs inside to dad, crying and obviously hurting pretty bad, what do
you do? Do you recommend going in & beating the living daylights out of
Taya? Obviously not, because it doesn't solve any problems, and you end up
with two badly hurt kids, who think violence is the answer to such situations.
Maybe you explain to Nick that he's just experienced the consequences of not
stopping when he was asked, and leave it at that, but that's probably not
appropriate either, as it hasn't addressed what Taya's done wrong, or the
original problem between Taya & Julia.
You've got to come up with some way to show all of them they've done the
wrong thing. You've got to show Taya that it was wrong to kick Nick, but
you've also gotta try & sort out why Julia & Taya were arguing in the first
place, and why it was wrong for Nick to jump in when it wasn't anything to
do with him.
It's a difficult problem, with no simple step-by-step solution. They're all
individuals, and will react differently to different solutions.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) So what is your plan then? Ask nicely? What if asking causes Pakistan to topple and the Taliban to launch a war? (...) So you are so sure that you know what to fix that you see debate as "needless"? My, I wish I was that certain. I see debate (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
