| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 murderers will stop murdering". Please explain how
> that would work. I don't see it.
That's childish. I could summarise your position as "lets kill lots of
people somewhere far away - that'll make everything better", but that would
be equally insulting. I certainly don't recommend the US try to march in
everywhere to 'right injustice'. I'm glad that some others are urging
restraint now, as are various world leaders, as this is a painful argument.
I've already offered what I can as a solution, and I'm sorry if it doesn't
provide the quick-fix that some people are crying out for. But, to me the
actions of these terrorists are the result of long-term frustration, and I
don't see a short-term answer bringing anything but more instability.
> We do need to right injustice. We do need to examine our policies, internal
> and external. But now is not the time.
No, now is exactly the time - otherwise the US will make the same mistakes
it always has by making unwelcome military interventions.
> ...
> 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.
But you have no more reason to go after him than you did a month ago. The
only difference is a wave of public fervour that can justify a jump in the
'defense' budget. The US will lose the support of the rest of the world if
it attacks Afghanistan without proof that bin Laden was responsible for
these specific attacks. It will also upset an enormous amount of people who
in turn might want to retaliate against the US, probably with more terrorist
attacks, since they don't have the resources to strike back at the US any
other way.
> 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.
Yes, it costs the US money. On the other side of the world, however, people
will be paying in lives, poverty and political instability for years afterwards.
> > 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.
Now you're insulting anyone who wants to see restraint. I know you're a
resonable bloke, and I know that subjects like this bring out extreme
opinions where people are bound to disagree; please don't dismiss other
peoples' with insults.
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes: <snip lots of mischaracterisation by Jason and myself> Let's try to see if we can find the common ground here. You and Ross agree with me and others that the terrorists who perpretrated this (...) (23 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
