Author
|
Topic: How to justify a military action.
|
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554
|
posted 14 September 2001 11:24 AM
Hypothetical: Let's say that the US has rock-solid proof that Bin Laden is responsible, and that the Taliban helped him.IMHO, this would justify military action. Now, must the US military prove their case in court (or before Congress, for example) BEFORE they take action? That would be a very public display, would take a long time, and would tip-off the "enemy" of our intentions. But, it would definitely legitimize the US' position. Would it be enough if the law stated that hearings must automatically be held whenever the US engages in a military strike. Would it be enough if the US had to justify their actions after the fact? What would the punishments be if they couldn't meet a prescribed burden of proof? In the past, when communications weren't nearly as instantaneous as they are now, the President could consult with Congress without tipping the enemy off. They could even have a vote without tipping off the enemy. Nowadays, that would be impossible, which obviously poses a challenge for the democratic conduct of military action. Thoughts?
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 14 September 2001 03:12 PM
They can just kick all the reporters out and shut off the C-SPAN cameras.Boom. Closed session of Congress. Dubya's already got $20 billion appropriated in the snap of a finger and he's got virtually a blank check for any extra military spending.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
krishna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1242
|
posted 14 September 2001 09:58 PM
The problem is whether to follow rule of law If the U.S. doesn't follow international law in this high profile case, no other country will ever have to do so again in regard to grievances against persons in other countries. To counter the "survey" there's an online appeal to end the cycle of violence It needs a bit of help to get the same magnitude of numbers as the CNN poll so please do what you can. Thanks!
[ edited to fix url oops ] [ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: krishna ]
From: Ottawa and Rideau rivers area | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 14 September 2001 10:03 PM
If any other country required forming a coalition half as broadbased as the U.S. is right now before military action. We would never see military action by others.I think that the U.S. is setting an enormously high standard as to what type of international support is required before undertaking military action. Bravo to them. [ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 15 September 2001 11:13 AM
Well I guess if that accusation is true. All 19 member countries in NATO, Russia, Japan, Australia and so many others are making that same end run as well(I apologize for leaving many supportive countries unnamed, theres just too many). China has also offered some partial support statements. Asking for permission, and support from countries surrounding Afghanistan also makes them guilty of an end run around the U.N. Not only are we in good company, the amount of that good company is larger than ever before in the world.Not obtaining a U.N. Mandate (which they may still obtain) means so little right now. Of the 191 independant states in the world. The U.S. is obtaining a coalition greater than any other one of these country has ever obtained before proceeding with Military action. Probably one of the largest in the history of the world. That is why they should be commended. If any other country would hold to that standard that the U.S. has so nobly set; War would then probably be eliminated. [ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rabble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 283
|
posted 15 September 2001 01:13 PM
quote: Every action the U.S. has taken since Tuesday has proven you wrong. 100% Wrong
U.S. actions BEFORE Tuesday prove Kneel has a point.
From: rabble | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
GulfAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1259
|
posted 15 September 2001 03:42 PM
I hope that any response carefully considers logical consequences of Bush's statement that he will root out this terror from wherever it grows.There is a frightening possibility that, if Bush's carries through on his "not only the individuals but also those who harbour, help, etc" statement, Pakistan may become the enemy too. The frightening part is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons aimed at India and elsewhere? I found a story in the Asian Pacific Post (www.asianpacificpost.com) Sept 13-26 issue published here in Vancouver entitled "Pakastans Powerless People Man" from which I excerpted the stuff below: ============================= When is a dictator not a dictator? When he can't get things done. If Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf had had his way, Professor Muhammad Yunus would be a free man. Yunus was sentenced to death last month under Pakistan's notorius blasphemy law. His offence was to, during a physiology lecture at Islambad's Homeopathic College, tell students that Mohammed was not a Muslin until the age of 40, and that the Islamic practice of shaving pubic and armpit hair was unknown among Arabs until the advent of Islam. Yunus, at this students' request, was merely passing on historical information. But the shadowy Mullahs who continue to hold great power in Pakistan decided that his remarks denigrated the prophet, breaking the blasphemy law enacted under Pakistan's last military dictator, Zia ul Haq, in 1981, which states that whoever "directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the prophet is punisable by death". The blasphemy law that put Yunus on death row would have been repealed if Musharraf had had hisway; earlier he tried to abolish it. But the shadowy Mullahs would not allow it. And this keeps on happening. Last month, the Government trie dto clamp down on "jihadi" (holy war) organizations, the militant religious set-ups which pervade Pakistan. The Home Minister Moinuddin Haider said: "ALl jihadi organizations have agreed to surrender the weapons after a nine-hour meeting with the Government." But leaders of the groups flatly denied it. "If we surrender the weapons," one said, "If we surrender the weapons then it means the jihad is over." The Government blinked and the initiative fizzled out. Musharraf knows what he has got to do, but for all his commando swagger he is unable to do it. ================================= Even though Pakistan has pledged full cooperation, they may not be able to comply because the same people in control in Afghanistan have power in Pakistan.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 15 September 2001 07:12 PM
I feel confident that as long as the government of Pakistan offers their cooperation. The U.S. will understand their problems and assist them with those people.I doubt the U.S. would attack anyone who is trying to help but is not fully able because of reasons out of control. Maybe the U.S. will give technical or monetary or consultative aid to their government to help them with the 20% of their population who needs to be educated.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
GulfAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1259
|
posted 16 September 2001 02:22 AM
I hope that the Americans do not bomb the hell out of Kabul or other populated centres in Afghanistan. Instead, I hope that they, and the Russians, and bizarrely enough it is possible the Iranians might be compelled to assist, go into the country and physically remove all guilty parties with a minimum of destruction to Afghanistan property or people. It would be difficult as the Russians could attest, but it would be much more "just". While they are at it, they might as well remove the Taliban and help the Afghanistani people setup a proper democratic government. A little of the carrot with the big stick. The longer term solution is to pressure all governments to have a non-tolerance policy for terrorists within their borders. It used to be thought that you could find off-shore havens for your money but even that is nearly at an end as all nations are beginning to comply with strict reporting for tax and legal purposes. There is no reason governments should balk at the same treatment for terrorism especially given that many Arabic and Islamic jurisdictions have condemned the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 16 September 2001 05:49 PM
quote: What kind of military action are Western governments proposing?
Well a big part of the Taliban is their Ministry to promote virtue and eliminate vice. It is used to oppress the Afghanistan people. I don't think that ministry should continue to have the priveledge of a building to house them anymore. [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690
|
posted 16 September 2001 09:56 PM
Does this sound familiar??? quote: In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO.
I found this here. It's on the history of Palestine. I also found this site:The Electronic Intifada The news section has a blurb about the celebration video, too. All this stuff sounds eeriely familiar to me. [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228
|
posted 16 September 2001 10:19 PM
quote: Hypothetical: Let's say that the US has rock-solid proof that Bin Laden is responsible, and that the Taliban helped him. IMHO, this would justify military action.
This assumes there was a typical political war about economics and boarders. Sure bomb the shit out of whatever country in the Middle East. Afganastan seems like the target of choice. NATO, or whoever, could bomb them back into the stone age but Afganastan is already there, and its defacto government is in fact anticipating just such an attack. This just plays straight into the hands of the zealots, and now by this time a movement, responsible for the US attacks. This movement does not have boarders and its victims are killed, with the blessing of whatever God. The amount of people they have dispatched in the US are miniscule in comparison to the people of the same nationality in the countries they reside. This thread topic demonstrates a total lack of rational understanding of an issue that is far to complex for people bent on pure revenge. Revenge sure would feel good. Send in 100,000 troops into Afganastan and go where? A long drive through the mountains and desert looking for one single man or groups of men who welcome death in their freakish war. Perhaps Wacko Texas but on a massive scale? I understand the grief we feel and the powerlesness. I've been feeling it all my adult life and it just keeps getting worse. If only a few sugical strikes and an invasion were the answer I would be all for it. [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Pimji ]
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 17 September 2001 04:58 PM
What if the leaders in of the richest nations got together and agreed upon two paths of action: On one hand, they would, as a group, direct and focus their intelligence toward identifying and bringing to justice alleged terrorists, their financial sponsors, and leaders; on the other hand, they would begin a major effort to eliminate hunger, disease, homelessness, joblessness and cancel the third world debt; also, they would seek to end all conflicts around the globe with a combination of economic and peace keepining initiatives?Nah, that would never work.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
marty raw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1137
|
posted 17 September 2001 07:58 PM
Nuke them til they glow and then piss on the ashes. NUKE THEM TILL THEY GLOW AND THEN PISS ON THE ASHES!!!!(Nuke who, you ask? Good question. Let's start with Afghanistan and then see where it leads us....) P.S. I'm serious. If they want terror, if they want dead women & children, that's do-able. Say the word.
From: Toronto, baby | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29
|
posted 17 September 2001 08:13 PM
Take what you said and apply the word "Litton." Hurts, doesn't it? Please, there are people here with family in the Middle East. They have faces to put with your suggestion. This kind of talk has no place on this discussion board. quote: You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use babble to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening ...
Not to mention the fallout from nukes wouldn't respect borders, anyway. [ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]
From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 19 September 2001 11:49 AM
quote: Marty your vengence seems strong...
... feel your hatred! Give in to the Dark Side of the Force! (ksshh...ksshh...)
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554
|
posted 19 September 2001 12:20 PM
Sensei: Anger is a weapon, only to one's opponent. Do you know who said that? Ki Lo Ni, the great teacher.Student: Well, the best defense is a good offense. You know who said that? Mel, the cook on Alice. - The Frantics
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Croesus_Krept
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 964
|
posted 19 September 2001 07:53 PM
Military action may come, but the usual technique of aerial bombing may turn out quite fruitless. Many innocent people will die if that's what happens. Before going to war, the president or the army chief should go to Afghanistan personally and appeal for the release of bin-Laden - and hand-over the proof of his complicity. If the Taliban still refuses to cooperate, then they should send in several teams of commandoes and get him like that... Bombing and stuff like that is hell and will kill kids. Innocent people in a poor country should not die... ( Think of it this way: If they are going to bomb, why not bomb some oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, since it is claimed all the terrorists came from there... But Saudi is a rich country with too many strings in America and Britain - so you see how unbalanced and unjust our Western justice will always be... Until the world learns how to share its development, everything will be a messy war... ) cr,,s,s
From: Taiwan | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
PanzerLeader
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1166
|
posted 19 September 2001 09:12 PM
Marty Raw, NUKE THEM TILL THEY GLOW AND THEN PISS ON THEIR ASHES!!! Well, your heart is in the right place, but that is overkill. I perfer this, as Bin Laden looks to the sky this is the last thing he will EVER see. Ohh. Yeah
[ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: PanzerLeader ] [ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: PanzerLeader ]
From: Ottawa, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29
|
posted 19 September 2001 10:44 PM
I repeat: the mainstream news has NOT reported that all the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. "All" as I use the term means "all." Don't know about you. And anyway, quote: Meanwhile, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that the FBI is investigating whether some of the hijackers may have used aliases of people who may still be alive ...
According to The New York Times. Yes, were DO I get my news! [ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: judym ]
From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 03:22 PM
Isn't that what the 8 aid workers who were arrested in Afghanistan recently were trying to do? quote: , "There is plenty of money in wasteful and ineffective economic development aid and other nonessential accounts to cover the cost of these new operations." Since World War II the United States has spent nearly $1 trillion (in 1997 dollars) on foreign aid. The result is debt, dependency and poverty.Even many advocates of foreign assistance have been disappointed by the results. For instance, USAID admitted in 1993 that "much of the investment financed by USAID and other donors between 1960 and 1980 has disappeared without a trace." USAID administrator Brian Atwood admits that in the case of Zaire, "the investment of over $2 billion of American foreign-aid served no purpose." Decades of experience demonstrate that government-to-government transfers do not generate self-sustaining economic growth. Virtually every Third World state has received significant amounts of foreign aid, yet the majority have stagnated economically, indeed, many nations have been losing ground. Fully 70 developing countries are poorer today than they were in 1980; 44 are worse off than they were in 1960. Nowhere do aid levels correlate with economic growth.
Didn't the last guy who won the nobel peace prize win it for statistically proving that starvation had more to do with lack of freedoms in countries than it had to do with lack of food. Specifically North Korea. That wonderful little girl you mentioned has noble goals, however naive they are. [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 03:47 PM
Exactly, thats why aid doesn't work if you give it to corrupt gov'ts.If you try to deliver it personally you get the results such as the arrests in Afghanistan. If we decided to build a $1 billion dollar mosque in Afghanistan we would end up with a $50 dollar tin shack and probably finance the next terrorist attack. If we try to control how it is built, those sent over to watch the money will be arrested. I won't argue that most of the aid money was wasted because that is exactly my point. Since there is no alternative to stop that money from being wasted then you have to look at reforming the corrupt gov'ts first. That includes our own as well. Just not to the same degree as it does the corrupt gov'ts in the starving countries. If somehow, military action ends the control of the Taliban, they will have done more for the starvation of the Afghanistan people then aid alone will. [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 04:03 PM
No, it justs proves that aid alone will not solve the problem.Thats what Judy basically implied, if ALL military expenditures were diverted to aid then it would solve the problem. I am for aid totally, I just think that it should not be given willy nilly. Just as we are obligated to help the less fortunate with aid. They are obligated to work with us. Its a two way street. They can't go arresting the aid workers. How's that gonna help starving people. We shouldn't just let them do it either. Those aid workers deserve a level of support and protection.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 04:36 PM
quote: But aid workers being singled out is rather rare
Rare in most of the world, common in Afghanistan. You want to give more aid, fine, take it out of a budget other than defense. Maybe they should give the $1billion that they owe in U.N. dues.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621
|
posted 20 September 2001 04:59 PM
Actually, Markbo, Afghanistan has a fairly good track record with aid workers. It's the largest Red Cross mission in the world, I think there are over 1000 staff members there, of whom about 1/10 are expats and there have been few if any incidents. The only recent incident I recall was when Bill Clinton bombed them, an Italian UN worker was shot (afterwards). Prior to that, there were few fatalities, except for people caught in crossfire, shelling, etc. Once in Mazar-i-Sharif the forces of General Dostum and Hizb-i-Wahdat fought over the ICRC offices and residences, demolishing them to the ground. But no one was hurt.
The country is also heavily mined, which is a major danger and a legacy of the Soviet invasion.
One guy I know was hit between the eyes by a stray bullet that somehow missed every vital region of the brain as it passed through. Classic "good luck within bad luck".
Many local workers are threatened or killed though.[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 05:29 PM
quote: They see the world in black and white as does he, apparently. They see no virtue in U.S. society and he see s none in theirs.
What virtues do you see in the policies of the Taliban. Please educate me. These people have the desire to see us dead. They've proven they also have the will and the means. What would you have us do sit there and take it? I am no war monger. I hope that any U.S. military response targets only those who would like to kill us for the sole reason that we exist. Many people on these threads allude to the fact that they may have some justification for killing us or their desire to kill us would change if we just took some unrelated action. This is not true. No one has been able to argue that even with vague or remote success. PROVE ME WRONG if you could. The day that they give reasonable demands would be the day that I would support negotiating. Afghanistans attempts to dialogue are too late. They ask for evidence which they could plainly get by speaking with Bin Laden or watching the vidio tapes of his hatred of us. Remember only 3 countries in the world (out of 190) even recognize their legitimacy. One of those three is now threatening them along side of the U.S. while the other two have condemned their actions. When I was in Labour negotiations, (twice with the CAW) I also refused to negotiate with labour leaders that hated me solely because I existed (and there were one or two). Unrealistic demands would be called out as such and not be entertained except to explain why they were unreasonable and unrealistic. We always settled our differences.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331
|
posted 20 September 2001 05:46 PM
quote: They see the world in black and white as does he, apparently. They see no virtue in U.S. society and he see s none in theirs. They beleive the U.S should be destroyed and he believes they should be destroyed. All in all, they would seem to have much in common.
Like Northrup Frye said about trying to make a fire breathing dragon out of tweedle-dee and a knight in shining armour out of tweedle-dum. All sounds like WWF only difference no one is allowed to watch from the audience. Note that the Americans who are less supportive of this "no holds barred" match get their information from Canadian sourses. The coverage of even the same events started to differ along time ago - for ever it seems. We have the multiperspective view of history and events on one side and the single black/white perspective on the other. Since tonight they are repeating the first segment of the Battle between Louis Riel and Sir John A. we must ask if Americans were telling this story instead of Canadians how the telling would differ. What would the story look like from an American perspective?
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 05:52 PM
Again, I am openminded to learning any redeeming quality or virtue of the Taliban. Please educate me on one of them. Show me this other perspective of the Taleban that I cannot see.THE MOST ELOQUENT RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO ARGUE AGAINST ME IS HERE. quote: The practical point made by these consequentialists is that we can't stop terrorism without addressing its causes. A diagnostic approach, they argue, is wiser than simply lashing out in anger. They're right about that. But their wisdom falls short of the next insight: Consequentialism is a two-way street. It's true that terrorists can impose consequences on us. But it's just as true that we can impose consequences on terrorists.Superficially, it's empowering to analyze every situation in terms of the consequences of our own acts. Understanding how we can change the enemy's behavior by changing our own appears to put control in our hands. It also gratifies our egos by preserving our sense of free will while interpreting the enemy's conduct as causally determined. We're the subjects; they're the objects. But the empowerment and the ego gratification are illusory. By accepting as a mechanical fact the enemy's aggressive response to our offending behavior, we surrender control of the most important part of the sequence. This is the problem with the consequentialist argument for revising U.S. policy in the Middle East. Maybe it's true, for other reasons, that we should rethink our position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, or ease sanctions on Iraq. But if we do these things to avoid further attacks on our cities, we're granting terrorists the power to dictate our acts by dictating the consequences The consequentialists present themselves as humanitarians and idealists. They purport to speak up for the plights, principles, and aspirations of people who are driven to commit acts of terror. But their mechanistic analysis dehumanizes these people. Terrorists aren't animals. No law of nature compels them to blow up buildings when they're angry. We don't have to accept their violent reactions to our policies. We can break that causal chain. How? By turning consequentialism on its head. We can dictate what happens to people who attack us. Suicidal terrorists may be impervious to this logic, but their commanders and sponsors aren't. Launder money for a man who destroys the World Trade Center, and your assets will be confiscated. Shelter an organization that crashes a plane into the Pentagon, and your government buildings will be leveled. Expel terrorists from your country, freeze their bank accounts, and you'll be liberated from sanctions and debt. Will this approach succeed? We don't know how each would-be terrorist or sponsor will respond. It's an open question. But that's the point. As long as we view it the other way around—ourselves as the actors, and our enemies as the imposers of consequences—the question is closed. Our enemies' reactions, and therefore our options, are rigidly defined. We can have troops in Saudi Arabia, or we can have peace at home, but we can't have both. Challenging the false objectivity of these dilemmas doesn't require us to ignore the potential consequences of our acts. Some of our Middle East policies do anger many Arabs or Muslims. We ought to worry when others don't like our behavior. But just as surely, they ought to worry when we don't like theirs.
[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ] [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 07:37 PM
No I just actually need to hear a little bit more detail before I accept: quote: They see no virtue in U.S. society and he see s none in theirs.
You imply that the Taliban have a virtue. Please list it or retract your statement.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 08:22 PM
I'm right, they're wrong. You admit that you can't see a virtue in them either so you must be in agreement with me. You've just proven that you are in total agreement with me.Its good that we agree. [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 20 September 2001 08:33 PM
quote: You admit that you can't see a virtue in them either so you must be in agreement with me. You've just proven that you are in total agreement with me.
Yet, sillier. I didn't hear a tree fall in Algonquin park today. Does that prove that none have? I don't see a virtue in yoga, either. Does that mean there is not one. And again, I do not need to see a virtue in any society, movement, religion or other social construct for those who belong to see one. Likewise, I could belong to the the Greater Beings of Saturn and Her Moons. It is not necessary for you to see a virtue in that organization for me to see one. I hope I do not need to start drawing pictures.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 08:46 PM
Wingnut. Somethings are universally wrong. Some times its not a matter of opinion. No intelligent person could argue that the Taleban do have any virtues. Your so willing to believe they see themselves as having one but you know deep down that they don't. The taleban are one of the most oppressive groups this world has ever seen. Other than killing innocent men, women and children directly, they have indirectly caused the suffering and deaths of countless more. GO to the Amnesty internation sight on Afghanistan and look at their record.They are not virtuous, they are twisted. I'm sure Hitler saw the nazis as virtuous. Didn't make it true. 'lance your probably right, he's probably a prince of a man. Any Crown attorney could prove this man guilty of uttering death threats. That is in itself a crime. Glad your not a crown prosecutor.
Besides the Americans would grant him a trial. They would grant him a defense attorney. He would have more chance at a justice in the U.S. than he would if he faced the same charges in any other country on earth. He could even hire the "dream team" as attorneys. [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292
|
posted 20 September 2001 08:59 PM
Okay, good. Maybe we are getting somewhere. Suppose Churchill was in power in the mid-1930's. Would he have stood aside while Hitler ignored Germany's treaty obligations, rose to power and began attacking the jewish population? Maybe,maybe not. We don't know. Yet, the Taliban, who you say is without virtue and more than once you have likened to the Nazi's, were aided and abetted by U.S. policy, arms and money. Consequences!So, what do we do about it now? If the Taliban can be removed without civilian casualties, excellent. that is unlikely. They can, however, be contained. But will the U.S. learn from this experience and give greater forethought to their activities around the world? Not a freakin' chance. Because they are in some ways so much like the Taliban. They do not believe they can be wrong. They cannot believe others do not worship them and do not want to be like them. They cannot believe that by throwing their weight around like a bully they are pissinf so many other s off. They cannot understand why they should be subject to the same international laws and treaties they would seek to impose on others. They do not believe that when they sign on to an agreement they are expected to honour it. They cannot believe that selling arms and munitions to every little terrorist organization around the world has consequences that could return to haunt them. They are oblivious to the suffering and consequences of their own actions. When Bush says "you are either for us or aginst us," ignoring the rules of neutrality and essentially forcing the world into camps of "us and them: he proves the U.S. has learned nothing. It is still a bully with more in common with the taliban then you might care to admit.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 20 September 2001 09:02 PM
quote: 'lance your probably right, he's probably a prince of a man.
I didn't say, or mean, any such thing, and you know it. But do you want to justify a military action in which unknown numbers of people, many of them bystanders, may be killed, and which probably won't work besides, based on the evidence that's been presented to date? Come to think of it, what evidence has been presented to date? As for the Americans granting Osama bin Laden or whoever's responsible a trial, so they should, or perhaps the World Court or the UN. That's what civilized nations do when confronted with a crime of this magnitude. By the way, where did WingNut claim to see virtue in the Taliban? If he did I must have missed it. And I've said it before and I'll say it again: comparisons of the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein, or Muammar Gadhafi (have I missed any major ones over the last 20 years or so, babblers?) to the Nazis are overdone, overblown, intellectually lazy, and evidence only of the speaker's demagoguery. They're all oppressive, yes, but the Nazis were not merely first among equals, they were sui generis.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 09:19 PM
quote: But will the U.S. learn from this experience and give greater forethought to their activities around the world? Not a freakin' chance
Bullsh** The U.S. behaviour has improve incredibly since the end of the Cold War. They now seek coalitions which they never did before. They are far more transparant and accountable then they were before. I will never argue that the U.S. is in any way perfect. I just see them improving far more than anyone will give them credit for. Sure I will grant you the Nazi's were worse, but have you informed yourself as to the nature of these people want. People talk about the U.S. being isolationist. These are the ultimate isolationists. They destroy human lives, oppress women, destroy art and other cultures. They would have entire cultures wiped from all islam territory not only limited to the borders of Afghanistan. They killed countless innocent men alongside women and children. Taleban Theres many other articles like that about the Taleban.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 09:29 PM
Again they've done some stupid things. It would be impossible to argue that they haven't. But why is the good they do dismissed so readily. Look at the restraint they've shown in the aftermath of these attacks. You telling me that the Russians would show the same restraint. As I recall they bombed Chechnya immediately after some apartment buildings were bombed. They didn't ask for anybody's support.I think this tragedy proves that the Americans are trying to be a responsible superpower. Until now they have shown nothing but responsibility and courage in the face of this tragedy. How can you not admire Guiliani. Someone that wasn't well liked previously. We'll see Bush speak tonight, I'll bet you it will be very explanatory and very responsible. I'm guessing it will be one hell of a speach. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. And I'm taking a big chance because the guys not known for his speaking.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 20 September 2001 09:53 PM
quote: You telling me that the Russians would show the same restraint. As I recall they bombed Chechnya immediately after some apartment buildings were bombed. They didn't ask for anybody's support.
The Russians had already waged, and lost, one savage war in Chechnya when these bombings took place in Moscow, and were well into their second. Of course they didn't show restraint. But savage actions or craven ones, my dear fellow, have consequences, as the Russians learned to their cost. Or rather didn't learn, any more than I expect the US to.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 10:32 PM
quote: But savage actions or craven ones, my dear fellow, have consequences
So why would you not want there to be consequences for the terrorists. Why don't you think its their turn to learn that there is consequences for their actions. [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 20 September 2001 10:51 PM
Fine if they don't resist arrest. But just because they resist arrest doesn't mean that we should stand by idly. We also have a legitimate beef with those who support them. As the president said "they should suffer the fate of the terrorist"As the president also said, if they will not be brought to justice, then justice will be brought to them. I fully believe that at any point in time, if they choose to surrender they will face a trial. [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 21 September 2001 12:42 AM
quote: The U.S. behaviour has improve incredibly since the end of the Cold War. They now seek coalitions which they never did before.
I'd be inclined to guess that the methods by which they gain such a consensus are somewhat dubious as to their honesty and/or transparency. I think it's far more likely that a lot of behind-the-scenes string-pulling and plain bullying goes on to get those "consensus" votes. Kinda like voting in the old Soviet Union dontchaknow. Whenever NATO "supports" a US action, I hardly see NATO member countries OTHER than the USA rushing to arm their fighter planes to the teeth to drop more than just a few token bombs. As regards the Russians, I hardly would expect them to ask for international consensus on what is a domestic issue for them, as Chechnya is a breakaway province of Russia. And besides, the Russians seem to be pretty straightforwardly, almost brutally, blunt about what it is they'll do. They either will flatten Chechnya or they won't. Nuff sed.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 21 September 2001 12:50 AM
The Northern Alliance may be "good" in your eyes, but the fact is that the Afghanis as a whole haven't even progressed to the stage of nationalism. They're in a bloody time warp, Markbo! They still act and behave like tribalistic-feudalistic peoples who happen to bump up against each other.Think of how Europe worked in Feudalistic times, with barons, lords, and every head honcho controlling his turf and not giving a damn about what happened outside it. Same thing in Afghanistan. The point is you're superimposing Western ways of thought onto a country that hasn't even progressed beyond feudalism, let alone nationalism. And don't try to put words in my mouth about this international consensus about terrorism thing. I'm talking about previous US military adventures such as Kosovo, Somalia, Grenada and Nicaragua. Kosovo was an American operation, through and through. The bombers were American and the Americans dictated the terms under which they would halt. Not NATO and not the UN security council. The Somalian operation was USA-sponsored through and through as well after, IIRC, the UN security council passed a token resolution supporting it. The thing that makes this different (other than the passage of NATO article V, which I believe the USA had a fairly heavy hand in cajoling the others into voting for) is that there is no way the USA could have possibly bullied or cajoled or even string-pulled nations into offering the kind of condolences they did.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690
|
posted 21 September 2001 12:57 AM
quote: Did the U.S. allow IRA training camps too? Did they supply the IRA weapons?
That is a good question. Does anybody have a list of U.S. sponsored, equiped and trained "terrorist" or guerilla groups? I hear all kinds of countries being listed like Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel More seriously, Nicaruaga, Panama, Angola, Somalia, Kosovo... The list seems so big, I need a reference. Sometimes I just think it's a cliche, or a left-wing fantasy.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 21 September 2001 11:08 AM
quote: The Northern Alliance may be "good" in your eyes, but the fact is that the Afghanis as a whole haven't even progressed to the stage of nationalism. The point is you're superimposing Western ways of thought onto a country that hasn't even progressed beyond feudalism, let alone nationalism.
No I want to superimpose a government on the Afghanistan peopl that they support. One that is willing to negotiate and accept aid without arresting the aid workers. quote: I'm talking about previous US military adventures such as Kosovo, Somalia, Grenada and Nicaragua.
Somalia was a peacekeeping mission. The U.S. had no interest there and it was supported by the U.N. quote: Kosovo was an American operation, through and through.
What the hell are you talking about. Kosovo was a NATO operation. quote: as well after, IIRC, the UN security council passed a token resolution supporting it.
Your pretty omnipotent to know which U.N. resolutions are token ones and which aren't. quote: which I believe the USA had a fairly heavy hand in cajoling the others into voting for) is that there is no way the USA could have possibly bullied or cajoled or even string-pulled nations into offering the kind of condolences they did.
Since you telepathic powers are so good at figuring out peoples motives, why didn't you warn the people in the WTC
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 21 September 2001 12:03 PM
quote: No I want to superimpose a government on the Afghanistan peopl that they support. One that is willing to negotiate and accept aid without arresting the aid workers.
You're still doing it, Markbo. you're superimposing (do you understand what that word means? It means "to lay over, to lay on top of" - meaning you're trying to fit the grid of Afghani culture into your own so you can frame a response) Western notions of nationalism and supranationalism onto the culture of a nation that hasn't even progressed to nationalism. They don't see themselves as a nation for the most part. They still see themselves largely as a loose collection of differing tribal-feudal groups who happen to have been smushed together by someone else (Great Britain) who had little clue and less interest in the fact that they were creating a nation where there was no operational form of nationalism to bind the peoples together. In the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Afghanis ALL wanted the Soviets out, but as soon as any one Afghani kicked out a Russian, or any group did, they reverted back to caring about their own turf - which is what you would expect from a feudalistic form of government under which the central government is weak or nonexistent and the bosses (nobles, lords, whoever) only care about their immediate turf and don't give a damn what goes on outside it. This natural decentralization means that Afghanis think of themselves as Pashtun, Tadzhik, etc, first, and Afghanis a distant second if at all. So ask yourself what would happen if a Tadzhik-Uzbek government were unilaterally imposed onto Afghanistan via US help for the Northern Alliance. Consider! What supraethnic government the Afghanis have had has almost always been Pashtun - and right now they're under sway of the Taliban. So you're talking about bumping out a group that holds a good chunk of the country and a sizable chunk of its population under sway, and replacing it with their ethnic enemies. I leave the conclusion to this latest adventure in "install your own government into a nation that didn't really have one in the first place and which will be hated by a lot of people" as an exercise for the reader. [ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 21 September 2001 12:05 PM
quote: Somalia was a peacekeeping mission. The U.S. had no interest there and it was supported by the U.N.
As I recall US troops were the first to get in there - remember how the media almost outnumbered the soldiers in that landing? The reason I keep questioning the legitimacy of those UN and NATO resolutions is that you're not looking beyond surface impressions to ask yourself if the USA wasn't doing some rather heavy winknudging to get people to vote their way instead of honestly asking for support. [ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 21 September 2001 01:02 PM
So you're talking about bumping out a group that holds a good chunk of the country and a sizable chunk of its population under sway, and replacing it with their ethnic enemies.Pashtun only account for 40% of the population, how do you know how many people in Afghanistan support the Northern Alliance. My impression is that far more would support them than the Taleban. I don't know what government would be best for the Afghanistan people. Hopefully it will be one that would be tolerent of other religions and cultures EXISTING in Afghanistan. The Taleban doesn't quote: As I recall US troops were the first to get in there - remember how the media almost outnumbered the soldiers in that landing?
whats your point. quote:
The reason I keep questioning the legitimacy of those UN and NATO resolutions is that you're not looking beyond surface impressions to ask yourself if the USA wasn't doing some rather heavy winknudging to get people to vote their way instead of honestly asking for support.
Since absolutely NO evidence exists to the contrary. Since it is highly improbable that the U.S. could pressure that many countries simultaneously to support something they didn't support. Since every NATO leader who supported those actions is accountable to an electorate. Since....... No point going on. I cannot subscribe to your conspiracy theories because the conclusion would be the population cannot think for themselves in an even remote way. Which is why I hate socialists, they always insist they know whats better for people than people do themselves. They have a low opinion of the intelligence of the masses of people and hide their cynicism behind their supposed morality.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 21 September 2001 01:40 PM
So,you see hypocracy in not tolerating keeping those in power who do not tolerate others existance. Then I'm guilty as charged I don't want to see all the Taleban dead. I just want them to relinquish power and stop oppressing people. It is the Taleban who want to kill. Its like calling me a racist because I hate the KKK
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 21 September 2001 06:02 PM
Sorry about using the word "hate" when referring to socialists, no offence.I meant "strongly disagree" with them. I think there are certain truths that are universal, some views that are not a matter of opinion. I will not be tolerant of the views of the KKK. They are irredeemably wrong. I will not be tolerant of the way the Taleban has perverted Islam. These people are just plain wrong. No one here will defend their views because their indefensable. That means I don't have to tolerate them. If they had something redeemable to say, sure I might listen. I've looked for something and found nothing. I will not be sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 21 September 2001 06:51 PM
quote: Since absolutely NO evidence exists to the contrary. Since it is highly improbable that the U.S. could pressure that many countries simultaneously to support something they didn't support. Since every NATO leader who supported those actions is accountable to an electorate. Since.......
That brings up an interesting point. How many NATO countries actually require that their legislatures give formal consent to the representative who votes to approve the NATO resolution? And the same for the UN security council, I might add. In short, your counterargument to my argument would carry more weight if the representatives to those two bodies could actually have their chains yanked directly.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365
|
posted 22 September 2001 01:43 AM
Markbo, even just the threat of military action in Bush's speech last night has already forced thousands of people from their homes, running to borders that are closed, even to those who have proper documentation. These people are going to starve and die. These people are not all terrorists. They have already suffered countless injustices at the hands of the Taliban, and because of drought and other conflicts. It makes me sick to think how many women and children are at those borders right now, desperate, without aid, and with very little hope, as you preach justice against the Taliban as a method of saving them. Just the threat of intervention has already signed the death warrant of so many people, imagine what the actual intervention would and will do. Do you really think you're some kind of hero, protecting the rights and freedoms of these people? Wake up, and smell the morgue. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0138/ridgeway4.php BTW, Rouser, Allah isn't the one who can be both good and evil - it's us. We make God in our own image, based on our perceptions of the world. That's why scripture can be used to justify the most horrible evils as well as some of our greatest triumphs. The potential to do evil exists in us all, which is why the good vs evil rhetoric is so misleading and dangerous. (And PS you're confusing schizophrenia - which is a complete fragmentation of the psyche - with split personality disorder, much like that misinformed movie Me, Myself, & Irene). [ September 22, 2001: Message edited by: machiavellian ]
From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 22 September 2001 01:14 PM
Maybe I'm just a utilitarian. I am fully confident that getting rid of the Taleban will ultimately save the lives of Far more Afghanistan women and children then leaving them in power.Not only will it save more lives it will drastically improve the quality of them quote: . It's not like the people who will be killed by our military action actually voted these people in.
You don't know what the U.S. response is yet. So far its been restraint. Whatever it is I'll bet it focuses on minimizing deaths of civilians.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
machiavellian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1365
|
posted 24 September 2001 04:28 AM
Markbo - Are we all meant to be assuming here that this military action is even going to be successful? Frankly, I highly doubt it is, which of course has already been debated elsewhere - citing the fact that if you cut off one head of the terrorist hydra, another will appear. The English weren't able to win there, and neither were the Russians, who thought it would be a simple, quick operation. Remember Vietnam...what did that accomplish? It's kind of naive to believe that the States are going to go in and completely destroy the Taliban, surgically removing it and leaving a completely blank place for a benevolent government to take over. It's good for the sake of argument but not so realistic, and IMHO is a simplistic way of looking at it. Even if it were possible (or likely), I share skdadl's reservations. What benevolent government? The States? (Hah..) Who is the alliance of nations going to sponsor to be in power? What was it that Jesus said - you get one demon out of a guy, cleanse him completely, and meanwhile a bunch more demons are waiting in the wings to take him over, cuz now he's nice and spacious, and in the end he's worse off. If you eliminated the KKK that just leaves space for another white power organization to take over, because you haven't combated the root causes that allowed it to come into power - racism. The racism will still be there, ready to become organized. Remove the Taliban by removing the root causes. Some that come to mind include the economic desperation that allows it to exploit people, and the US interference that helped allow it to come to power (through funding of religious schools, etc, through training bin Laden), and etc. It's not easy and it's not as satisfying as killing 'em all but that doesn't mean it's not possible. And you're less likely to get the sequel ("Taliban II - Even More Evil") in power.
From: Peace River (no, not actually in the river, silly) | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124
|
posted 24 September 2001 01:55 PM
Its a bit of the chicken and the egg theory. What comes first, removing the Taleban or relieving economic desparation? I think you work towards both of them at the same time and removing the Taleban might be first.The Taleban was not allowing women to work. They force the U.N. to stop paying women to perform surveys for them. Can you imagine how many women want to work. But again we come to the problem. Because it is reasonable to assume that the gov't that takes over for the Taleban will not be a perfectly benevolent one than you critisize. The axiom "nothing but perfection" can be spelled P a r a l a s y s - Winston Churchill [ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|