| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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:
> >
> > > > > 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.
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.
> But righting all the worlds ills cannot come first.
> We need to clean up the messes we made and that's about it.
Sure. I just disagree with the notion of bombing Afghanistan (with bombs, not
propaganda).
> > > > 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.
That's why there's a question mark at the end. However, you do seem ready to
bomb these countries if propaganda doesn't work. How far should the pressure
option be pushed? When do we decide "OK thats enough talk, we're gonna blow up
those ruins of yours a bit more"?
> 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?
Perhaps we all should.
> 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.
No, you're just voicing an opinion I don't agree with. You think I haven't
thought about what options are available? Just because I don't have an answer
doesn't make the answer you (and others) are proposing the correct action, as
I've said before.
> The course of not willing to go the next step if required to do so has failed.
Just gotta find that next next step. Damn, these torch batteries die at the
most in-opportune moments...
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
