| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> 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.
So what is your plan then? Ask nicely? What if asking causes Pakistan to
topple and the Taliban to launch a war?
>
> > > > 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.
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 as very needful, and
ultimately, distracting. But righting all the worlds ills cannot come first.
We need to clean up the messes we made and that's about 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.
The following list is a false question... let's examine it point by point.
> 1. List all the wars in history.
Was America a power during the Hundred Years War? No. Your list needs to be
confined to those wars that have occured since we have been the largest
power. Certainly post 1900, arguably, post WW I. (I was incorrect to say
"always" when I should have said "ever since we have been a world power")
> 2. Put a tick against those for which America bore the brunt of the human
> expense.
Define "human" expense. Dying for your country is not how you win wars, it's
making the other fellow die for his. Human expense in my definition is
broader than casualties. It includes economic expense. By that metric, all
major wars on the post WW I list get a tick.
> 3. Have another look at your last paragraph.
Still there, still valid.
The US has saved the world many times since it appeared as a major player on
the world stage. That sticks in the craw of some people who don't like the
idea that the US is fundamentally a force for good (flawed yes, but
fundamentally a good guy, just as the USSR was fundamentally evil)... too bad.
The US will bear the brunt this time too, we were the ones attacked. If
securing our borders makes the world a safer place for everyone else I'm OK
with that.
> > 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"?
No, I am not "happy" for bombing. That's a monstrous distortion. Shame on you.
I have said already that I am concerned by this notion that we need to start
by bombing. To say otherwise is to put words in my mouth or to erect a straw
man that has nothing to do with what I am saying. Perhaps you should read
more carefully?
We need to start by delivering ultimatums and delivering propaganda. Only if
those fail do we do something... above I asked you (again), what if the
Taliban refuses to turn bin Laden over? You have not provided an answer. I
am thinking farther ahead than you are.
The course of not willing to go the next step if required to do so has failed.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) how (...) internal (...) I never said I know what to fix, or that the debate was needless. You said now is not the time for examining policies, I think it is, whether or not other action is taken concurrently. (...) Sure. I just disagree with (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) Huh??? Yes, I'm against military action. That doesn't mean I'm against action. (...) Because thinking about it now will reduce the needless deaths which will just mount up the longer we leave it. (...) 1. List all the wars in history. 2. Put a (...) (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
|
|
|
|
