Subject:
|
Re: Response to Misinformation (Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:55:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1087 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Dave writes:
> > This will be as easy as catching the wind and holding onto it for dear life.
>
> And given that metaphor I fail to see why it's a good idea. The need for
> vengeance will wear thin, and reality will set in. I insist that given a
> possibly impossible task, we should look for longer-lasting alternatives to
> war. And a lot of those solutions will derive from overhauling our current
> foreign policies.
I never claimed it was a good idea. I'm just pointing out that no good ideas
have spung from this. We've proven in the past that quick surgical strikes slow
the problem down, but don't stop it simply because zealots are willing to use
their own people as shields to stop us. Foreign policy overhaul? Sounds good.
Let's NOT help countries in need, as this will undoubtedly make us shine like
diamonds in the eyes of the world.
> > Your idea would have merit if we weren't talking about religious zealots
> > who fallow a faulty code of honor. Fanatics can't be reasoned with. The key is
> > to stop them from achieving their goal. If you don't believe me, I'll just post
> > a couple of names here to illustrate my point: David Koresh and Tim McVeigh.
>
> Can you cite an example of a non-faulty code of honor? If you follow the
> Golden Rule: "Do NOT unto others as you would have others NOT do unto you"
> -- it makes any act of aggression difficult to justify unless there is an
> immediate gain to keeping the peace.
Excellent point. You've stopped me in my tracks with this one. Unfortunately,
this also proves that we can't talk our way out of trouble as we've tried to do
in the past.
> I find it interesting that in a country that supposedly valorizes religious
> freedom that we are so quick to criticize anyone whose chosen religious
> views do not match our own. If the people of other faiths will leave me
> alone, I would be happy to leave them alone. Instead, I get missionaries at
> my door more often than I'd like and Xtianity rammed down my throat
> everywhere I turn. Have many of you given serious thought to what a better
> world we would create if we kept our own private little mythologies out of
> our policy decision-making? Live and let live...
Agreed. As an atheist, I'm tired of others ramming their religious beliefs down
my throat and against my will. Freedom of speech allows them to do this, just as
it allows me to respond to them in the delightfully sarcastic tone without
fearing retribution. The seperation of church and state has always been a
fundamental belief for me, one that is constantly thrown back in our faces as
being mistaken by most religious folk.
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
>
> I see people mention that our support of Israel stems from either some
> flimsy historical claim to the land, or that it is because they are the
> light of democracy in the middle-east. You know what? Who cares? What
> makes us think that anyone elsewhere in the world needs us to dictate any
> kind of idealogy to them? And if you can't understand that, then you just
> discovered what "fanaticism" really is -- the inability to see the truth two
> inches from your face!
Here, here! This is the main problem with being the biggest 'defenders of
Democracy'. Those who want the support, get it. Those who don't want the
support, get it anyway, and we get stuck with the bill.
>
> Anyway, if we can't fight a quick and efficient battle against terrorism in
> this case -- then the only sensible thing is to NOT fight. Otherwise, it's
> the same tic-tac-toe game I saw last week in "Wargames." We can't win
> because the game is unwinnable...
Then we may as well learn to live with the fear of imminent terrorist attack.
Since we can't convince them to cut it out any other way than acting upon this
agression, we are screwed. If you can't talk your way out of the fight, and you
can't fight your way to peace, you may as well just give up on peace. I, for
one, will NOT be standing in a convenient terrorist kill zone (WTC). They'll
have to come looking for me one-on-one, just the way I prefer. Perhaps then,
they'll realize how silly this little Jihad is.
> Maybe the best offense will prove to be an excellent defense -- tighter
> security in the States. Throw in a little reexamination of foreign policy
> matters so that they will achieve our TRUE collective goals, and I think we
> may have a better solution than throwing money at aggression in Afghanistan...
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Better defense? Agreed. I've been saying this throught the 90's as Clinton
disemboweled our military might. Now it looks like that was a bad move. Good
going, Bill! As far as foreighn policy is concerned, I thought it was fairly
liberal, but 9/11 seems to have proven me wrong.
-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
|
|
|
|
