Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Oct 2001 12:31:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak.
I don't think that many of our wars have been against a group of people, but
rather violent usurpers who somehow manage to gather dedicated supporters.
If we could simply walk in and take out the individuals responsible for
slaughtering millions of innocents, I think we would. Unfortunately they
have VERY dedicated followers. These deranged individuals prey upon the
weak and force liberators and defenders (such as America) to go through the
innocent, to get to the problem.
I've read that Stalin was responsible for slaughtering over 50 million
people, and was prone to sending unarmed civilians ahead of his regiments (I
may have confused two differnt Russian despots here). I am certain that
this was a lose-lose scenario.
We could have sat WWII out. I've read that this was the intention of our
President.
While Hitler was trying to produce a master race, while Japan was swarming
the orient, while Turkey was getting ready to move into Africa (was Spain
involved in that plan?), America was just sitting back enjoying our safety
and freedom.
Then someone decided America was a good target.
So America got involved, helped arm the allies, stopped Hitler (in the end
of that one, we didn't even have the chance to touch the creep), sighed with
relief as Russia erupted into a civil war (which I believe put a stop to the
advance into Africa as well), and then had one last thing to do.
We were conten to sit and watch the show and Japan hit us while we were
sleeping. Then when they were being driven back to their island they had
the audacity to suggest that they might surrender to Russia? Russia had
been part of the problem until their civil war occupied their attention!!
It seems obvious that Japan had no intentions of really quitting, only
pausing to regroup and lick their wounds.
It is my opinion that the bombing of Japan was the only thing we've done
right since entering foreign conflicts. We couldn't get to the leaders and
their supporters, so we took away their ability to make war. Innocent
civilians died, it is true, but their descendents are all the better for
that sacrifice.
If we had taken care of Russia early on, I believe Russia would be better
off right now as well.
Does this make it ok for us to "police" the world, no, it just so happens
that some of our most horrendous deeds have payed off, while many of our
charitable deeds have caused things to become worse.
I was watching CNN last night and heard about the thousands of protestors in
the UK. Negeria and other nations are now beginning to side with Afganistan.
Why?
The Taliban has taken over approx. a third of Afganistan. If someone
doesn't stop their progress hard and fast, more of the country will fall to
the Taliban, more and deadlier terrorist regimes will be born there. To
take a safe political stance now is far more dangerous to the future than
our bombs.
We now have Anthrax popping up in three different states, originating from
Malaysia of all places. I doubt that we will be bombing Malaysia however,
as we well know that the source problem is in Afganistan. So we take out
the nest, and chase after the survivors as they make themselves known later.
Unfortunately civilians are going to die because the violence and its
supporters are hiding amongst them.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Do you have a cite for that?
>
> Two articles I recall off the top of my head, one in "Time" and one in
> "Newsweek," as well as a lengthy documentary on the History Channel. On the
> web, here's a historian who has done extensive research on the matter. You
> actually have to take the time to READ it entirely, skimming won't do:
>
> http://www.doug-long.com/
>
> > Surrender to the Russians would have been unacceptable.
>
> For whom? Do you mean America surrendering to the Russians? Or do you mean
> that the Russians consider surrender as unacceptable? :\
>
> > We had set goals for this war and it is important to set goals and stick to >them.
>
> Even regardless of the innocent people who get killed, who have nothing to
> do with nothing? Goals, shmoals, the bottom line is there used to be such a
> thing as chivalry. The movie "The Patriot" pointed that out and it is as
> true then as it is now. The "anything goes in war" mentality applies to
> terrorists and cowards. It is very easy to kill defenseless women and
> children, there's no bravery, heroism, patriotism or honor in that. If
> anyone thinks there is, I suggest they talk to a Vietnam vet sometime.
>
> > Our current
> > little war is somewhat lacking in concrete measurable goals which I think
> > will lead to trouble.
>
> Little war, eh? Tell that to the Afghan civilians, who have no control over
> their leadership and are being terrorized for the sake of our vengence. If
> you take exception to the word "terrorize," then you have to convince me
> that the Afghan bystanders are not scared senseless each time a plane flies
> overhead and bombs go off around them. Sure, our supposed targets are not
> civilians, yet already we've killed the innocent "by accident." And we
> somehow find a way to justify children with their arms and legs blown clear
> off by our bombs. Ooops. Hey, it's going to happen, this is war.
>
> But I shouldn't single out your comments, Larry, because lot's of people say
> the same things perhaps not seeing the bigger picture. We cannot continue
> our cold indifference regarding murdering bystanders, whether we do it or
> someone else does.
>
> > WW II goals, as agreed to between Roosevelt and Churchill were unconditional
> > surrender of all 3 Axis powers. No negotiated surrender, no surrender to
> > third parties. There were good and sufficient reasons for those goals and
> > deviating would have resulted in an unsatisfactory outcome.
>
> And look how much better things have been after WWII? You know, more bombs
> have been dropped in the past 35 years than all the bombs dropped in WWII?
>
> > Unless you hold that all war is murder no matter what, it is inaccurate to
> > categorise use of a weapon during war as murder. I commend use of the
> > appropriate weapon for the situation. Any death is regrettable but war is
> > war and deaths happen during wartime.
>
> And "anything goes." That's part of the reason why we keep having more wars...
>
> > Or do you think one can win a war with no death whatever?
>
> I was under the impression that war was a lose-lose situation. Could we have
> demonstrated our atom bombs elsewhere, without killing the innocent-yes! And
> it was advised to do so but darn it all if ol' vengence wasn't in heart of
> little Harry Truman, especially after those yellow Japs bombed us at Pearl
> Harbor. The whole thing stinks, Larry.
>
> > Would you rather we had invaded Japan and possibly paid
> > millions of deaths on our side to find out that they weren't actually ready
> > to surrender after all?
>
> We'll never know, will we? But this is the world we make for ourselves and
> our children, why are we making the same mistakes?
>
> > We had just went through the conquest of Okinawa,
> > one of the bloodiest butchers bills of the whole war.
>
> Yup.
>
> > Just to reiterate, I dispute that these bombings were "unnecessary". You are
> > engaged in historical revisionism which is deplorable in and of itself,
>
> Deplorable only to simple souls like yourself who cannot learn from history
> and lack the ability to change their paradigm. If something that IS true is
> revealed and changes the way we should justly think about something, how is
> that deplorable? Look at the discoveries regarding our prior knowledge of
> the impending raid on Pearl Harbor? So we should ignore the truth and stick
> to the lie? Are you saying you reject evidence that refutes long held
> misconceptions?
>
> > but
> > since you have a nodding acquaintance with truth at best, it's not too
> > surprising.
>
> Baloney.
>
> > > I suppose you voted for Ronny, eh?
> >
> > What is that supposed to mean? Some sort of slur against a fairly good
> > president
>
> You're joking, right?
>
> > or belittlement of me because I use the appropriate phrase for
> > the situation (are you saying the USSR *wasn't* evil or wasn't an empire?)
>
> I can't even comment on this, it's so absurd. But if that's the way you
> feel, I'll leave it alone and sorry I brought it up.
>
> <snipped>
>
> The bottom line: As Americans, I feel that our indifference and distance
> from the killing fields has warped our sense of value for human life to the
> point that we shrug it off too casually. After the tragedies of Sept. 11th,
> we cannot allow more innocents to suffer. In seeking justice/vengence, I
> think we have spawned a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions in
> Afghanistan. Lot's more innocent people, mostly children, are going suffer
> and die this winter and I don't find that at all acceptable or just.
>
> Dan
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) I'm weak too; I can't pass up clarifying historical confusion. 'Tis an occupational hazard. (...) I've never heard that. The general consensus was that FDR (assuming you're American, of course) was particularly eager to get into the fight, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) AKA "a group of people". :-) (...) Yeah, right. America is good, those who don't follow it are bad. A little simplified, perhaps? (...) Probably Stalin, but fewer deaths and not *that* lunatic: maybe send cannon fodder, but not *civilians*! (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) Two articles I recall off the top of my head, one in "Time" and one in "Newsweek," as well as a lengthy documentary on the History Channel. On the web, here's a historian who has done extensive research on the matter. You actually have to take (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 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
|
|
|
|
