Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:30:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
946 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > And most if not all of the Palestinian aggression is in retaliation for
> > Israeli terrorism.
>
> Palestinian "aggression"? You can't even bring yourself to call it
> "terrorism". I don't really want to go here, though, because I fear it is an
> issue of differing perspectives.
That's just silly. I have no problem calling it terrorism. Any tactic
designed primarily to inspire fear (or "shock and awe?") is a terrorist tactic.
I still stand behind the notion that terrorism sometimes makes good sense. My
verbiage was intended to directly mirror your own with the sides changed. What
you're saying is exactly like me saying that you can't even bring yourself to
call it "agression."
> > I think the burden of extraordinary works of peace falls on the Israelis.
> > Once they are toeing the line, the international community _must_ take their
> > side. That would greatly ease the peace process.
>
> Well, I bet you can guess how much I value the support of the "international
> community". The IC will always do what's best *for themselves*, not Israel.
Aren't _we_ part of the international community? Are we just doing what's best
for _us_ in Iraq right now, or are we trying to liberate the downtrodden? If
we're simply doing what's best for us and that's OK, then why would you
possibly argue with Richard over his oil/reconstruction contract concerns?
That would just be another example of people (the President and VP) doing
what's best for _them_. If you think we are not simply doing what's best for
_us_ then why would everyone else? Do you suppose we ride the only white
horse?
> I don't think it can begin with the Israelis and here is why: if the Israelis
> refuse to answer terrorist attacks, it merely emboldens the terrorists. This
> is an undisputed fact. You simply cannot appease terrorists, because they • will
> always push for more and threaten more violence if their demands aren't met.
Wait a second there. Undisputed? You're just asserting that. What if I
dispute it? Or did you mean undisputed by the people who agree with you? It
is really quite clear to me (though this is certainly disputed) that the
Palestinians are resorting to small scale terrorist aggression because it is
the only tactic that they have available. If they were given their due, I
expect that most of the hostilities would cease. This become less and less
true over time as the violence becomes more and more entrenched as a way of
life.
> And could we really expect Israel to absorb terrorist attack after terrorist
> attack without responding? Would America have stood for no response to 9-11?
I think that the US was less directly responsible for the WTC attack than
Israel is for the Palestinian unrest. It's not like those groups want the
Israelis dead for unreasoned hatred's sake. It's because the Israelis have
been nasty to them. And anyway, what do you figure they would do if we made
our donations to them contingent on pursuing the peace process?
> > > And the fact that a supporter of terrorism had
> > > chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nukes doesn't scare you?
> >
> > How has he supported terrorism that I should be worried about?
>
> You realize of course that he has been paying the families of homicide bombers
> attacking Israel don't you? That is sick.
1) Sure, it's sick.
2) Why would that scare me?
3) Why has he done it?
4) How much has he done it and was it preemptive, or just providing welfare?
> > Don't just use
> > that at a catch phrase because as far as I'm concerned the US uses terrorism
> > too and I'm not convinced that it's wholly inappropriate. You do what you • can.
> >
> I think we have different definitions of the word "terrorism".
It seems from your writing that this may be so. It _seems_ like you think
terrorism is anything you can point a finger at that "bad" people do that seems
naughty. I think that terrorism describes those activities which are designed
to induce fear.
Oddly, the dictionaries I can find agree, but mostly also point to the purpose
of the incitement of fear as being to coerce governments or societies.
So my impressions above, aside...what do you think that terrorism is?
> > > How
> > > closely are you willing to flirt with disaster? What would you give to be
> > > able to take back a terrorist nuclear attack?
> >
> > Not our precious freedom. If we have to give that up to be safe, then we've
> > already lost. This nation, absent all that makes it great, is nothing worth
> > saving. It's not the land or the people that make this a pretty good place.
> > It is our history and our institutions and our way of life.
>
> But don't you see? It is conceivably *very* easy for ONE madman to wipe out
> our history. In a totally open and free US society, all it would take would • be
> one sick individual to detonate a nuke in D.C. Try to imagine the
> ramifications if D.C. were incinerated. Think of the chaos. It's practically
> unimaginable.
I don't think that would wipe out our history. It would be a set back, or
maybe an opportunity, but it wouldn't strike at who we are. We can make
anywhere the capital. Our federal government could be distributed across the
nation and the internet. Our entire legislature could be permanently aloft.
Our freedom and way of life are not tied up in DC. Our "states" are supposed
to be able to function completely without the federal government. Times would
be chaotic, but it wouldn't end us.
> > I'm just worried that our motives are not pure. Is that so odd?
>
> Not that this is an excuse, but whose are? Consider this. If it weren't for
> France and Germany (and to some extent Russia), the world would probably have
> lined up behind the US on the Iraq invasion.
It sounds like you're saying that if the world hadn't been against our action,
they would have been for it. Well...yeah.
> And so it would have been deemed
> "just" in the eyes of the UN. But since it *did* meet opposition, it is
> considered "unjust", but isn't it plainly obvious that the reason France and
> Germany objected was, not on moral grounds, but because of self-interest!
> Yes, RM, it *is* about oil, but about *European* oil interests!
Sure! Of course their objections are commercial in nature. But given that
this is so tranparent, why is it so opaque that we might be acting on the same
basis?
> But I, like you, am willing to wait and see what happens to the oil. I • believe
> Bush when he says that the fields belong to the people of Iraq. Now if an
> American company were to come in at the invitation of the Iraqis and, say, • help
> them get the oil to market or something (I don't know), would that prove that
> it was indeed about oil for the US? Or if an American construction company
> came in on a bid to help rebuild? I don't think so. But a conspiracy • theorist
> might.
And if these oil and infrastructure companies -- the ones that all _happen_ to
get the contracts, are the ones that the Bushes and Cheneys _happen_ to be
heavily invested in...that still won't be evidence of shady dealing, or will
it? I fear when talking to people who sound like you do, that I'm talking to
someone who belives that our president is without fault. Do you think it is
possible that Bush and company might abuse their positions of power to increase
their personal fortunes (like every other president has done...I'm not singling
him out)?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
|
|
|
|
