Subject:
|
Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 May 2002 13:39:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
504 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Instead of the
> > snivvling little 5 year old who was 'done wrong' so many years ago and wants
> > to hold a grudge until it eats them up from the inside, these places did
> > something constructive, rational, thoughtful.
>
> What if the wrong, which happened so many years ago, is continuing?
What if the wrong, which started so many years ago, which is also continuing
because it is being perpetuated by *both* sides, continues? Who's at fault
*today*? They *both* are.
Let me try a different analogy and see if you like it better. Let's try to
bring this down to a person. If you are in a relationship where you are
getting abused, what are your options? you could kill the abuser or you
could continue to put up with the abuse, or you could just get out. IMHO,
the first option is completely immoral, but again, is my opinion--you become
the abuser. The second option is just insane and whoever continues to put
up with abuse, with all sympathy, is just perpetuating the problem. The
third option is the *only* rational solution. If you want the abuse to
stop, *you* make it stop.
Taking this one step further, if you 'hold out hope' for the abuser to come
to their senses and say, 'Oh, I've done you wrong all these years and I will
stop my abuse to you now' is the naive bit.
Don't hold out for peace if and only if x, y, and z criteria are met. Don't
hold out for peace if and only if the other side admits they've committed
atrocities against you. they are *not* going to admit, especially during
war time, that they committed these atrocities and it's naive to think they
will. It wasn't until the '80's (again, faulty memory about history) when
the Canadian governement apologized to the Japanese Canadians interned in
Alberta during WWII. Don't go looking for apologies, don't go looking for
'them' to lay down their guns first, don't say 'we will only have peace if
they do <insert whatever here>.' Don't make your peace dependant on
anything else. If you want peace, *you* stop fighting, without any
stipulations.
Both sides are at fault. Both sides fit into this scenario. Both sides are
waiting for some sort of acknowledgement from the other side and they are
not going to get it. I'm not the naive one here. The history of warfare
shows this.
>
> > No vendettas, no shaking
> > fists at fate, whatever.
> >
> > WHen the autor says
> >
> > > “Being Arabs, they are incapable of constructing a rational polity, so their
> > > future is probably hopeless whatever happens.”
> >
> > it is cynnical tongue in cheek -- it's like saying, 'oh you say you stopped
> > drinking (smoking, doing coke, whatever--well, you've said that 10 times
> > before. prove to me that you mean it now.'
> >
> > Sure I hear that peace is wanted. I hear that terror is abhorred. I hear
> > that they want to do better. I hear many many things. I also read
> > terrorists walking into buildings, blowing them up. Words are just words
> > until action happens, reinforcing the words.
>
> You are using the actions of a minority to condemn the majority. The actions
> of the IRA, did not alter my view of those living in NI.
Again, not knowing *everything* I should, Northern Ireland talked peace,
they worked for peace, they condemned these bombings, the 'real' gov't
worked to achieve peace. Their actions equaled their speak. As I don't
condemn America for the actions of Koresh, Heston, school kids shooting
other school kids, those that blew up the building in Oklahoma, and the
other fanatics that religiously adhere to their little pieces of metal that
kill people.
These are not government sanctioned or supported. That is why I will not
'write off' these countries for the actions of a few.
> I don't agree. The problems of the ME can largely be attributed to the
> actions of "western civ" and the cold war. Extremists perpetrated the events
> of September 9th.
*Today* is what matters. History is important, but to get past history, you
must put it in the past. Blame whoever you want for the atrocities against
you. Today, what are you going to do? Commit atrocities right back, or are
you going to do something rational, peaceful, showing that you have the
ability to get beyond whatever happened to you before yesterday.
Just like the abused, you can't sit there feeling sorry for yourself and
stay in the abuse. You have to get out. You have to stop it. To abuse
right back is 'tit for tat'. It's small, petty, and childlike. Ral adults
don't get vindictive. Real adults don't look for ways to get even. Real
adults are grown up and understand that life sometimes sucks and that you do
what you can to make your situation better.
> <snip>
>
> >
> > As a final thought, coming from West Wing last week, which highlights the
> > one thing I have always appreciated about America and the way they do
> > things, is their extraordinary efforts to minimize civilian casualties.
> > America 'measures success by how *few* civilians are killed--
>
> I can't agree with this. The main measure/concern in Afghanistan has been
> the loss of servicemen - not "collateral damage". Does the US government
> even publish estimates of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan? Likewise,
> the Israelis are very quick to count their own dead and allow TV access...
> but are more coy when it comes to their own acts of terror.
>
> If the US had been prepared to risk servicemen a little more, the actions in
> Afghanistan may well have been a good deal more effective. If they had been
> willing to protect civilians a little more, the action may have had more
> international support.
>
> ...I doubt that argument would have done much for the west wing’s viewing
> figures and advertising revenues.
>
> > 'Todays enemy'
> > measures success by how *many* civilians were killed.
>
> I find this a rather naive statement.
I don't find it naive at all. Two situations. A soldier with a gun has the
option of shooting *anyone*. His professional ability allows him to attempt
to take out military targets. There will be collateral damage, as with
anything, but the effort, the training, the gun, affords the ability to keep
that to a minimum. Taking out military targets is the aim of the soldier.
Some person with a bomb strapped to themselves walking into a school,
church, restaurant, is specifically going after civilians. Pure
unadulterated non-military targets.
One way limits the civilians killed, and the ability to strategically take
out the enemy's way of fighting. The other is just to spread terror and
kill civilians.
Don't even mention the allied bombings being the same. Every attempt is
made by all parts of the allied military to make sure the bombs from the
jets and rockets are directed at *military targets*. If there are civilian
casualties, and there will be in any conflict, the superhuman effort is to
keep that to a minimum. I have faith in the American and allied military,
even after 4 Canadians were killed by 'friendly fire'.
>
> Scott A
I want peace--everywhere. That's the only naivette I have in me. I, deep
deep down, believe that within each of us, is the ability to get along and
rejoice in our differences. God made us all in her (or his) image.
Therefore we are all an image of God. We should love the differences. We
should hold our neighbours hand and say, 'I support who you are'. If
everyone did that, there would be no war.
This is where I am naive.
Peace starts by saying, 'I'm not going to fight today, no matter what
happened yesterday.'
Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
| <snip> (...) I can't agree HK is all that good a comparator. The cold war also had a huge impact in the ME… this was less true of HK. (...) What if the wrong, which happened so many years ago, is continuing? (...) You are using the actions of a (...) (23 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
