BS: Difference between peace and anti-war

Subject: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 12:25 PM

I thought it might be interesting (in light of the anti-war songs thread contributions) to discuss what people feel the difference is between being for peace, and opposing the war.

There seems to be definite philosophical differences between the two, if the song suggestions of the anti-thread are anything to go by.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 01:59 PM

I don't know anyone who would prefer war to peace.

The division of opinion between people as related to war is,in my opinion, the fact that some people believe that war is necessary under some conditions in order to achieve peace. The other side believes that making war is not justified under any circumstances.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: hesperis
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 01:59 PM

Anti-war

For Peace

Probably long load times, sorry. The price of Art and all that...

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: 53
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:07 PM

anti war could mean 2 things, #1 is that you have a good reason to oppose the conflict and #2 is that you might think peace will come if we just sit and do nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: hesperis
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:13 PM

Why is "sit and do nothing" always the only other response that people think of?

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 06:00 PM

Hesperis: I think folks who feel that way (sit and do nothing), and there are many people who feel that way, in reality would find that hard to do. Why? Because they have their heads in the sand.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 06:31 PM

Nice artwork, Sirepseh, esp. yours!

I agree with you, why do most think the only alternative to war is to do nothing? That is an absurd assumption. Did the Quakers and other conscientious objectors do nothing during the Vietnam war? No, many of them served in the military in non-combat positions. There are endless things one can do to try to help while not actively participating in nor advocating war.

DougeR, I know there's plenty of loose sand in AZ, but up here the old clay dirt is packed so hard and so dry, even an ostrich couldn't hide its head. :-)

Saying that people for peace are not aware or people who are against the war are not aware is just not true. It's sounds like saber-rattling to me.:-)

Peace,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:20 PM

Anti-war and peace activism is about taking action (that is what activism is all about!)

There is conflict resolution, negotiation, consensus building, boycotts, non-cooperation, non-violent resistance, and many other tactics used by those who wish to shut down a government, a corporation, etc.

And none of the above strategies is more or less effective or time consuming than than bombing people back to the Stone Age.

But what I am interested in discussing here is not war vs. peace, or war vs. anti-war, but anti-war vs. peace.

I believe there are important philosophical differences, and I would say if anyone were going to be standing around hand-wringing it would be people who advocate peace, but have no strategies and tactics for getting there.

Case in point: yesterday, the Republic of Ireland re-interred the bodies of 10 IRA men executed by the British, and buried in Mountjoy Prison in Dublin.

There is a certain amount of "outrage" over this honor being paid to the IRA who fought the war of independence which ended in the partitioning of the country by the British in the 1920s, and the Provisional IRA, who have fought for independence for Northern Ireland since 1969. The pro-British folk claim both the contemporary *and* historic IRA are/were terrorists.

Their argument goes along the lines that anyone fighting against the British are terrorists.

It is this sort of ambiguity I'm talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 09:07 PM

Anti-war and peace, they are pretty much the same creature in different clothes.

You speak of the ambiguity of the term terrorist with the IRA. When the call to arms originally went out to defend Nothern Ireland, There was a military presense, it fought against a military. By that definition, it is a revolt. When the Real I.R.A., planted the bomb in Omgeah (sp?), That was terrorism. Terrorism targets civilians and non-military. Terrorism erodes the confidence of the people that support the military, and weakens the governments ability to continue a given action. Basically, there is little ambiguity in the word.

I suppose, since I drifted off the topic, if you really want to know the difference between pro-peace and anti-war lay out a scenario. I just heard on the news that a 7 month old has been diagnosed with Anthrax. If this is followed back to a terrorist group, what would you do? Look closely at how you feel, define yourself as anti-war or pro-peace. I think within a few posts you will find your answer. I refrain from my comments now, because I just put my 3 month old daughter to bed and my thoughts are vile. Untill I can calm down my belief is tainted by immense greif, horror, but most of all rage.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:25 AM

Just a Nobody,

After I wrote my post above, I was off to see the newborn baby of a friend of mine. I heard about the baby with anthrax just before I left. We were celebrating of course, especially because our new baby was severely distressed during labor, and had to be resucitated in the womb.

I guess I'd answer your question with a question--if the anthrax cases *aren't* traced back to Middle East terrorists, but are found to be the work of American(s) citizens interested in gaining notoriety on the back of Sept 11th, what would you have us do? Bomb their Atlanta neighborhood?

While I do have tremendous compassion and empathy for the victims of the Sept 11th attacks and their families, and the victims of the anthrax mail attacks and their families, I also have tremendous compassion and empathy for the victims and families of the US bombings in Afghanistan. My compassion and empathy isn't limited to my clan, my nation, or my religion.

So if a person is enraged over the attacks on America, I suggest they try and transform that rage into compassion by coming to grips with the suffering with others as well. You might try this link for starters:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011016/ts/attacks_refugee_children.html

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:36 AM

Oops! Just a nobody, I meant to also say I was in agreement with the distinctions you made about the IRA. Except for one thing.

The Provos always said they only targeted Unionist and British police, military, and economic targets and never civilians. However, as many of us well know, they did kill quite a few civians in their bombing campaign on the British mainland as "collateral damage" (as our military preferes to refer to innocent civilians).

Now, there are those who would still say they were acting with reason and just cause under the circumstances, and there are those who would still condemn them as terrorists no matter what they do to bring a just peace to Northern Ireland.

But the fact of the matter is, the Provos lost a lot of their supporters when they took to the bombing campaign in Britain, because of the civilian deaths. Does this mean that the IRA's supporters never had the stomach for "real" war--or the resolve to conduct "a different kind of war" as we claim to be doing with the convention and covert war we are now waging in Afghanistan?

I certainly hope so. And I certainly hope that as we see what carnage and suffering is being inflicted upon the innocent civilians of Afghanistan, we too will lose our "resolve" and stomach for this war, no matter how just and right many feel it to be at this time.

Seeking revenge and acting out of rage will always be cause for regret somewhere down the road, even if you are the richest and most powerful nation in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:45 AM

Whilst I think a lot of people were for the peace movement before and during the 2nd World War. I think the overwhelming need to defeat facism led them to fight againt the Nazi's. I think that similar sense of 'fighting for justice' was also apparant during the Spanish Civil War. So the paradox is that you can be pro peace but feel strongly enough to fight !!

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:52 AM

McFat,

I find your contention that pacifists become soldiers when the enemy is evil enough to be pretty offensive, not to mention wrong.

True pacifists never serve in the armed forces. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:59 AM

I never used the term pacifist 'Friend'. True pacifists are as you say wedded to the belief that all fighting is wrong. The main tenant of my argument is that where the cause is justified i.e. disagreeing with something that is inherintly evil causes some people who would be peace loving to want to fight. Another interesting thought is that 'the state' refused to let 'soldiers' who had fought in the International Brigades against the facists join uo into the regular British Army

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:01 AM

Where do you see him saying THAT, 'Just a Friend'???

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:03 AM

It is rude to answer a question with a question :)

However, lets assume there is some group hidden in Atlanta that are behind this Anthrax attack. Arrest them and put them on trial, with any luck, execute them. Now, as to your rather outrageous idea of bombing thier neighborhood. Not literally, I don't think so. But lets bring it into light of what is going on. If Atlanta officials said that the Federal Government had no right to arrest these people, and threatened the feds if they tried to arrest them. I think it is safe to assume we would give every chance for the culprits to be turned over, then we would move in whatever force was needed to capture them. There are many differences however. The people of Atlanta elected thier leaders, it is not a military power, there are others, but I think you can tell that such a comparison is not very effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:05 AM

53, I keep seeing people equating doing something other than waging war as doing nothing. And DougR has said that there are many folks who advocate doing nothing. I really can't understand where people who say things like that get idea that anyone advocates doing nothing. I haven't heard a single person say they think we should just sit and do nothing.

I have heard a lot of people say that of all of the possible things we could be doing, waging war either shouldn't be the first option, or it isn't a good option. But everyone I've heard on this subject has come up with plenty of ideas about what we should be doing instead of waging war. I think the "do nothing" accusation is a specious one.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:46 AM

My argument isn't that insisting on peace (when your opponent is waging war) is "doing nothing"; rather, it is that it is "accomplishing nothing". Civil tactics will not, INHO, make much of an impression on this foe.

Pacifism is an ideal, and a very fine one, at that. But, to every thing there is a season, and (to paraphrase something that Doug said above) at times the only way to arrive at peace is to wage war.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:11 AM

"the only way to arrive at peace is to wage war".
=
the only way to achieve chastity is by fucking

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:24 PM

Guest: Huh?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: InOBU
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:29 PM

Hi Guys... I just posted two new Quaker songs, which I think show active pro peace, in the face of war... Cheers Larry
PS The posts are EVEN ANOTHER! Quaker song (from Larry) and I think the other was Otway's Latest A Quaker Song 4 today

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 02:26 PM

Guest Just a Friend, think a little bit. think of 1938 Munich, when the England and France who had an alliance with Czechoslovakia (ie if any country is attacked the others will come to their defence.)

at Munich, England and France signed away Czechoslovakia to the Germans, (the Czechs werent even present) Neville Chamberlain the Prime Minister came back saying we have 'Peace in Our Time' why should we go to war over some country and people we know little about. (I note that many Czech and Polish pilots later fought in the Battle of Britain)

Churchill told Chamberlain he wanted peace with honour but instead received war and dishonour. ALl the sit-ins and boycotts in the world would have done nothing against Hitler. The Germans were a ruthless bunch of gangsters who wouldnt have been stopped except by war. In fact after the war the Germans said they expected an Allied reaction after re-occupation of the Rhineland, and after the occupation of Sudeten land in Czechoslovakia (which by the way was never part of German territory, and was heavily fortified with formidable gun installations - Czechoslovakia was a well armed industrialized nation). each time the Germans thought that maybe there will be a reaction and Hitler might be overthrown. But in fact each time they were emboldened by the opportunity.

I dont think there are many people who dont want peace but there are times (as in wwII) when there is no alternative to war. As Stan Rogers sang in Harris and the Mare when his wife is struck down by a drunken madman, 'I was a conshie in the war but I had to see his blood to be a man'.

what is there to learn from wwII, certainly that leaving Europe in a mess after the First war led to a lot of instability -- for those that want to talk about root causes -- on the other hand the root causes of the holocaust had nothing to do with the west. (this I think parallels todays discussions of those seeking root causes of terrorism -- ie. while there are legitimate beefs from the Islamic world, poverty, anti-globalism, the palestinian problem, many of those causes have their origins there (and have nothing to do with the west) ie. not all dictatorships were installed and maintained by western powers - as in Pakistan which was a freely elected govt. later overthrown by the military. its like saying the holocaust was a direct result of Versailles, it wasnt.

its pointless to talk about anti-war and peace, sometimes you have to defend yourself, but more important is that there is a mechanism, a new Marshall plan, if you will, to stabilize that region afterwards perhaps under the auspices of the UN, so that an opportunity for a long term period of peace and stability is not missed (as it was in the early 90's after the Russians pulled out.)

as well as look at long term political goals, ie. forgive more 3rd world debts, try to establish checks and balances on trends in globalism ie. protection of environmental and labour rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:02 PM

Carol: I've read those alternate suggestions. To me they just equate to doing nothing. This thing can only be settled by force, and from all reports we are making pretty good progress.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Justa Picker
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:47 PM

I think that everytime the media reports on the fallout in Afghanistan from the U.S. military action, they should juxtapose the images of the plane flying into the WTC along with the collapse of the towers - just to maintain perspective of why this military action is being taken. (I couldn't care less about the terrorists, those that support them, and the very limited residual casualties in Afghanistan. I just keep thinking about Sept.11 and all of those firemen, policemen and the victims from the crashes, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania and their families. The Taliban brought this on themselves and their country. Pure and simple.)

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 06:15 PM

Right you are, Justa Jingo!

I couldn't care less ...the very limited residual casualties in Afghanistan. Dead innocent civilian wogs are perfectly acceptable. Only deaths of U.S. citizens matter.
When your young, white soldiers start coming home in boxes perhaps Mr. Bush's approval ratings will drop a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 06:30 PM

This is no longer a civil discussion. I'll leave it to you hawks to bully the audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 06:43 PM

guest although innocent civilians were killed in the bombing of Yugoslavia, I think most agree that it was a worth while cause to stop ethnic cleansing and the corrupt govt of Milosevic. After 78 days of bombing they gave up, now they are on the way to democracy (and I doubt there are many terrorists or ethnic cleansers coming out of Serbia).

LIke wise the US strikes on Libya following the Lockerbie bombing and other terrorist incidents in the 80s. We certainly dont hear much from Khaddaffy now. it really does work. THere is also a difference if you are targeting civilians as the Sept 11 terrorist cowards did (and they are cowards, why not take credit or responsibility if you are a hero), and targeting military targets in a defensive war and happen to hit innocent civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 06:48 PM

Just because you don't agree with the methods suggested by those who advocate doing something other than waging war doesn't mean that you are correct in imputing motives to those with whom you disagree, DougR.

It is correct to say that these people think we should do something, but it is something with which you don't agree. It is not correct to say that they advocate doing nothing.

In the opinion of many who disagree with using war as the first option, it is possible that using war could cause the stated problem (terrorism) to increase rather than decrease. If this were to happen (and you are no more in a position to predict whether it will than I am), the people who wage war will have accomplished, at best, nothing. At worst, they will have made things worse, rather than better.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 07:44 PM

so CarolC what are our non-military options? Boycott Yemeni honey? The war IS being fought on other fronts as well, (political, financial, propaganda).

re. ....it is possible that using war could cause the stated problem (terrorism) to increase rather than decrease. If this were to happen (and you are no more in a position to predict whether it will than I am)...

likewise maybe not responding militarily might embolden them to do more (as did Nazi Germany after they re-occupied the Rhineland, or took over CZechoslovakia) and whos to say the sight of those towers blowing up didnt enlist further terrorists to the cause.

I would say historically, when terrorist groups and states that help them were targeted militarily (as in Libya when the US struck in the 80s) or Abu Nidal when the Jordanians finally had enough when they targeted Jordanian diplomats and even called for an assasination of King Hussein. The Jordanians responded by rounding up ABu Nidal suspects' relatives, (mothers brothers etc) and got someone to give the suspect a phone. The relative would say talk to them or they will 'take care of me'. And they all talked. Now Abu Nidal is pretty much a nonexistent group. Im sure that more terrorists may be created, but by taking away the Havens where they operate, we are doing a lot to stop them. You will never stop every terrorist, but you can certainly prevent them from running training camps, stockpiling weapons. etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 07:44 PM

If it is OK for the U.S. to kill innocent civilians to further its own political aims, then why are we up in arms about someone else killing innocent civilians to further their political aims??
The "logic" escapes me.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:00 PM

At this point, I prefer to not get involved in debates over the particulars of the way things are being handled right now. My argument was, and is, with the idea that people who advocate non-military approaches to the problem are saying we should just sit and do nothing. That simply isn't true, and I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to show me a post in which someone has said anything along the lines of "I think we should just sit and do nothing".

GUEST,petr, if you want to know what people who would like to see a non-military approach think we should be doing, read the many dozens (if not hundreds) of posts contained within the many threads on this subject, that list numerous alternative approaches. They're there. If you don't see them, it's because you choose not to look.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:00 PM

I never said that doing nothing is an alternative to war, but in this case not striking at them militarily, (as well as politically and financially) is doing nothing.

because anything else is a waste of time. THey view inaction as weakness.

You will never stop all crime either but you do need force to deal with it sometime.

Interesting that Stephen Lewis the former Canadian ambassador to the UN (quite liberal and humanitarian) is hawkish on this issue (go get them he says)..

Anyway, I experienced war as a child - when my country was invaded by Russian and eastbloc forces, my hometown surrounded by tanks. In this case it would have been suicidal to fight, there are alternatives, although another generation led wasted lives under a repressive govt.

I dont know what youd call Chamberlains' 1938 appeasement policy whether it was anti-war or pro-peace the end results were the same. (he wanted peace with honour and got neither)

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:07 PM

GUEST,petr, the US has been responding to terrorism with military force for a couple of decades now. That approach hasn't eliminated terrorism. On the contrary, the 11 Sept. attacks were a massive escalation in the severity of terrorist attacks. If military force works so well, why have 20 or so years of that approach only accomplished an escalation in the severity of terrorist attacks rather than eliminating them?

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:20 PM

Peace is what everyone wants.

Anti-war is former hippies and hippie-wannabes who finally have something to do again since the Vietnam War.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:40 PM

Carol, I have read many of your ideas on how to approach this issue without military force. I agree with many of your assertions, however I still believe that force needs to be used at this time. Sanctions only produce more martyrs and sympithizers. We have formed a coalition of nations, while we did not negotiate the outing of Bin Ladin, we made it clear that he was to be turned over, or force would be used. I don't think anyone here has said "sit and do nothing". I think what has happened was something that occured very early on in this debate. Even yourself, Carol, just said we shouldn't rely on force, with no real alternative. It wasn't until I started asking, what would you have us do that the options started comming in. I think some people are just saying War is stupid war is killing people that are innocent so we should stop. ok... then what? when people leave the option blank it looks like it is do nothing. Just as to some, those of us who support the military action but did not say it should not be exclusively military, were considered dick-waving patriots. I think it is a matter of perspective, when we look at a side that disagrees with us, we want to see what ideas they have. When those ideas are not present, then it looks like it is exclusively one thing or the other.

A Friend, I am more than willing to enter into discussion. I am one of the hawks you assume bully the rest of the people around, I would like to know why such a sweeping comment would come from you. After all, you wished to enter into this discussion to find the diference between peace and anti-war. I am for peace, but I am also a hawk. It seems by your attitude that hawks are unable to desire peace. I don't know if it is because you cannot understand that sometimes, not all the time, not even a majority of the time, force must be used. I could come up with many examples, but I think you know them, if you take time to think a little. I suppose you have answered your original question. People for peace, are willing to use force. Anti-War is not. It doesn't mean they are not for peace, just that they eliminate military force as an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:02 PM

GUEST,just a nobody, I think it's a mistake to lump all of the people who do not feel that military force should be used as a first option into one group that you regard as "the other side". I think there is a whole spectrum of opinions about what should be done that range from using nuclear weapons and not addressing any other issues, to only addressing non-military options.

I actually began to give my opinions about other options earlier than you appear to think I did. However, I didn't begin to address those questions in detail until I was asked because so many other people were doing such a good job of addressing them for me. I don't feel a need to post opinions here unless I feel that doing so serves a purpose that makes some kind of sense to me. If others are doing an adequate job of saying what I feel or think, I don't feel a need to repeat what they are saying.

I think, if you research the 11 Sept. threads right from the start, you will see that quite a few people were addressing the issue of non-military options practically from the first day.

As I said before, I don't want to get into any debates about how things are being handled right now. I am willing to wait and see whether or not the approach being used now is effective before I decide whether or not I think it was effective.

I was willing to give my opinions about what might be the best approach to take prior to the onset of the bombing in Afghanistan because I felt that if my words were going to make any kind of difference at any point in time, that was when it was most likely to happen. At this point in time, I feel that for me to give opinions about how things are being done would serve no good purpose at all.

But I will attempt to correct any mischaracterizations people make about those who advocate non-military options.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:03 PM

ok Carol lets be specific. actually military strikes appear to have dealt with Khadafy fairly well, we have not heard from him for 15 years or so and I maintain that Abu Nidal network was destroyed when the Jordanians got tough with them (is it ok to kill innocent relatives of suspected terrorists, does it create more terrorists?) Whats the difference between that and collateral damage (to me that is worse)

the First anti-US terrorist attacks were by the Hezbollah in Lebanon in the early 80s (the Embassy and Marine Barrack) (and the US did not respond militarily, they quietly packed up and left) Did that stop them or encourage them?

(I would say that in that instance the US did bring it on themselves as they bombed the SHouf mountains where many of the training camps existed. Clearly they were taking sides, they were not just peacekeepers.) THen They just made themselves sitting ducks.

In fact the Israelis made the mistake of expelling top Hamas activists to LEbanon for a year where they learned from Hezbollah members what is probably their most effective and terror inducing tactic, that of suicide bombing.

IN the Us the policy of dealing with Hijackings has always been to negotiate, (not in France as French Commandos stormed a hijacked Algerian airliner in 1994 (which the Hijackers planned to ram into the Eiffel Tower) -which is where AlQaeda got their idea, and was able to use weaknesses in the American system to their advantage.

my point is that a lot of this was evolving. up until the attacks on the US barracks in Saudi, and the World Trade Center in 93 no one suspected that terrorists would act globally.

I dont make any apologies for past US policy either, they bombed Vietnam into oblivion, as well as Laos and Cambodia, where probably half a million died as well as having the countries infrastructures bombed to the stone age. No one would have expected Vietnamese to bomb the WOrld trade Center or something equivalent. (Partly that would have been a publicity failure as much of the war was fought politically in the US)

Global terrorist networks did not appear until the early 90s. The attacks that followed in Khobar Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, the East Africa Embassy bombings, these were all unprecedented 20 years ago.

when Clinton responded militarily by firing off a few cruise missiles in response then it was a kneejerk reaction and did turn the world upside down, Bin Laden rose in popularity (things were looking bad for him as several hundred Africans died in those embassies) but when the US struck back he became even more popular. At the time the alternative was to send in commandos, which were being trained in Pakistan but that failed when there was a coup in Pakistan and the new govt Musharraf would not do it. (Also there were fears of large US casualties which would be seen as a failure)

after the USS cole bombing in NOv 2000 the US state dept, fearing more reprisal attacks, decided not to retaliate.

so what happened next? the attacks continued (the millennium bomber who was caught crossing the border, and others that were foiled in Jordan)

then came sept 11. (bin Laden says it in his videos and statements, Americans around the world should be killed, American is weaker than it thinks and can be defeated with simple weapons and faith in Islam.

The last time the US did not respond militarily and got sept 11.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:17 PM

GUEST,petr, I disagree with your version of what transpired in the couple of decades leading up to 11 Sept. And that's about as far as I'm willing to go with this debate at this point in time.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:23 PM

Carol... Those were the posts I was refering to...the ones made in threads just after sept 11... :) I am just as guilty as anyone by lumping people together. Sometimesjust out of laziness. When refer to those on the other side, I mean anyone who has different opinions. When we first started talking about this, you and I had completely different views. While we still do, I have an easier time with you because you have posted your ideas. I think there are some people that are just entering this very late in the debate that don't really want to read all 14 chapters of the America Attacks thread....

I know that we all have different opinions on how things should be done. When I say the other side, I am refering to the basic idea of using force or not. I think there are many that say force is needed but not desired. But we have exauhsted all reasonable attempts to avoid military action. It does not mean that we are enemies, or that we can never agree... I suppose I am just tired, and my thoughts are rambling, sorry if it is not making sense.

Actually Carol, of all the posts that have been made, I appreciate yours most. They are well thought out and you made good points. I'm much more prone to listen to you than someone I have just seen start posting that decides to blast away at "Hawks" because their notion of achieving peace is different from thiers. Sorry if it seemed that way, that and I'm tired so don't try to make too much sense of what I have written, it is likely to cause your eyes to bleed.

Just a really tired nobody.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:28 PM

Why thank you, GUEST,just a nobody. I appreciate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:33 PM

Of course... I could appreciate them more if you agreed with me... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 01 - 12:11 AM

Carol: It's not really important whether anyone agrees with me or not. I still read the "pacifists" suggestions as "do nothing." And I still see that as a great way to say to the terrorists, "hey, come on over! You want the U. S.? Take it! You folks are obviously right, and it's all our fault, because we have abused you folks for so many years ...do what you will to us! We obviously deserve it."

That of course includes justification for their murdering over 4000 people in the WTC, the Pentagon, and the airplane that dived into the turf outside Pittsburg.

Do you really think you would be comfortable wearing a garment all of the time that covers you from head to foot? I doubt it.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Oct 01 - 12:32 AM

DougR, if you want to render people into caricatures of who you want to think they are rather than who they actually are, that's certainly your choice. But it does make interacting with you less interesting than it might otherwise be for the ones to whom you do this.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 01 - 02:34 PM

Carol C: my post was in reply to your post on October 16, at 6:48PM in which you took me to task for stating an opinion that differs from yours on the subject of the current military operation.

How you read my reply as a "caricature" of you, or anyone else, is beyond me.

My arguments are not directed at individuals. They are aimed at the opinions of individuals. I have never posted a message that in any way could be construed as my being opposed to those individuals having their on opinon on any subject.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Oct 01 - 04:20 PM

of course its your right to disagree with my 'version' but the facts speak for themselves.

after the failed millennium bombings in Los ANgeles airport and Jordan and after the attack on the USS cole in Nov 2000 the US decided not to retaliate for fear of more reprisals (as happened after the missile strikes following the east africa bombings) the terrorists just stepped up the attacks. This is not an opinion its a stated fact.

As long as they have a haven to operate, they will continue to do so, the alternative to military attacks is to do what they want. TO change US policy, leave Saudi Arabia, stop supporting Israel (Bin Laden by the way is not interested in having any Jewish state there whatsoever) To do that would be giving in to terrorism, and letting them know that all you have to do to CHange US policy is to commit acts of terror.

(having said that Im sure there will be more attempts for a peace settlement in Israel and definitely the US will not act militarily, in a knee jerk fashion again.) Many people have, predicted inaccurately that BUsh will react just the same way, but in fact the administration did not. They built an international coalition, collected evidence (and after seeing the Al qaeda propaganda videos they pretty much admitted to committing the acts - namely applauding them and threatening further attacks )

As far as the intensity of military campaigns of the last 30 years or so, they have in fact diminished in intensity, Full conflict in Vietnam and carpet bombing in and around Cambodia, Laos, etc. to the last few actions in Gulf War and Serbia which were not retaliations against terrorist govts but rogue states. The attack in the 80s on Libya after Libyan agents were linked to the Lockerbie bombing - we really havent heard much from Libya since.

the intensity of the air strikes (40 a day) in Afghanistan is still less then Serbia in 99 (300 per day). and the targets are more precise, with the intent of having low civilian casualties.

the terrorists do not operate in a vacuum, and not many countries will allow them to operate openly, even Sudan kicked them out under diplomatic pressure, in this case Taliban and ALqaeda support each other.

say what you want but saying you dont agree without stating facts is not a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Oct 01 - 05:09 PM

DougR, I wasn't taking you to task for stating an opinion that differs from mine. I was "taking you to task" for trying to define other people's opinions for them. There's a big difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Oct 01 - 05:12 PM

say what you want but saying you dont agree without stating facts is not a debate.

That's exactly right, GUEST,petr. I am not interested in engaging in a debate on this subject right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 17 Oct 01 - 06:45 PM

If I thought that ending US involvement - either military or otherwise - in the Middle East would bring peace to the world, I might have to consider it. But it wouldn't. this is a fight that was brought to the US, which is why comparisons to the Viet Nam conflict are beside the point.

I said I would "consider it", rather than "be all for it" because I really don't think that "Peace" is a goal. It is a state that is achieved at times as we evolve as a species; and we have a lot of evolving to do before we even come close to it. I don't believe that Peace, achieved by forfeiting the Middle East to the Taliban or other fundamentalist groups, is something to be desired.

Guest - Virginity is a temporary state that most of us have a biological urge to leave as soon as is practical. Chastity is a choice you make, and in my mind an anti-human one. Neither relates at all to my point. At times the way to secure a real state of peace, even if it is only temporary, is by eliminating those who choose to break the peace to achieve their ends. It's unfortunate. It's not, contrary to what some may state, our first choice. Perhaps we have simply run out of cheeks to turn.

Have a great eveneing, folks.

Bart

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: heric
Date: 17 Oct 01 - 07:14 PM

Oh, DEBATE! That's three rooms down on the left. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 05:14 PM

"...It seems so strange. Who permits it? To see or feel that a power is in existence that can and will hurl masses of men against each other in deadly conflict- slaying each other by the thousands- mangling and deforming their fellow men- is almost impossible. But it is so, and why, we cannot know." Major William Child, September 1862

It's been working real well, hasn't it!

There is a natural progression of understanding. Remember 'Spare the rod, spoil the children"? Then, "a man must not whip his wife with a rod thicker than his thumb"? Then, finally, "Corporal punishment is not permitted in our public schools".

War, it seems to me, is the primitive thought that whipping accomplishes a change of heart. Surely, society will someday understand that killing each other is an archaic method of reaching agreement.

In my opinion, the reason we have fought so many wars is that we have always waited too long seek an alternative for it to work. Why can't human beings work on solutions as problems present themselves?

Sorry- much of the 'We must go in and root them out and destroy them and teach them a lesson' sounds like a thing of machismo.

Put me in the Anti-War column. Of course, we have to do something, but doing same old, same old is not what we need to be doing.

Elva Bontrager

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 08:07 PM

Well, Elva, what would you suggest we do?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 11:59 PM

Be WILLING to do a 180. Go immediately into a totally security-based mode. Acknowledge that the old way does not work. Call together the best minds that each country, each antagonistic country, can offer. Meet in an open-ended format that has definite parameters in turn, i.e., TALKING, LISTENING, EXPLORING, BRAINSTORMING. Perhaps points could be publicized and discussed in community roundtables all over the world.

We have always said that the Asian world is concerned about saving face. We might admit that the western world has the same problem- although our concern is about appearing weak. But who was it that said something like, "He who bends to assist the powerless never stood so tall"?

I don't KNOW the answer, DougR. You got any ideas that don't rely on brute force and short term fixes?

Ebbie Elva Bontrager

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 09:44 AM

Make that brute force and short term fixes which have nothing to do with the original attacks on America, and which will come back to bite us in the ass in short order.

Hasn't it occurred to any of you hawks that Pakistan has nukes, and a military divided over supporting Americans and supporting the Taliban? What is to prevent a military coup of the Taliban generals from occurring there, and then what sort of bloodbath of do you suppose "our boys" will suffer at the hands of our military hosts in the region?

Or what is to stop a disgruntled general from using a nuke against us? Or Europe? Or China? Or Israel?

The stakes have never been so high, and the response has never been so poorly thought out as this one.

But hey--Bushie Boy and Cheney have the Caspian oil fields in their sights, and they are going for it!

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:14 PM

Guest: If you want to be taken seriously, get yourself a name.

Ebbie: No, I think the situation is being handled as it should be. I do not think anyone believes that the current campaign offers a short-term solution though. The war is against terrorism. Not just terrorism in Afghanstan. It is going to be a long-term solution and may take many years.

Sitting around conference tables "talking" would only serve to provide encouragement to the terrorists. While we were "talking" they would be flying more airplanes into our buildings, power plants, schools, or spreading germs among the populations. Not just the U.S. population either. I assume everyone is aware that a package containing traces of Anthrax has been discovered in Kenya, and it was mailed from Atlanta, Georgia.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:34 PM

DougR:"Go immediately into a totally security-based mode."

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 04:13 PM

I think DougR needs to find his way into a safe, insulated world where no one will hurt him and his feelings anymore.

We should probably stop badgering him with difficult concepts like "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." I think it makes the voices telling him to avenge the innocents get louder and louder.

Noam Chomsky is right. There is no point in trying to explain the elementary to those who choose to remain intentionally naive and ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 04:34 PM

I assume everyone is aware that a package containing traces of Anthrax has been discovered in Kenya, and it was mailed from Atlanta, Georgia.

I'm having difficulty understanding what that has to do with our "war on terrorism" until we have some evidence indicating who is responsible. If it was mailed from Georgia, it could just as easily have been mailed by an American with an agenda as by a member if Bin Ladin's organization.

Until we have evidence, it's all just speculation. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? We pinned that on middle eastern terrorists, too. Until we found out that it was our own boys who did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 04:45 PM

Guest: you can't hurt my feelings, so don't concern yourself about it. You are a noperson until you get a name anyway.

Carol: I don't recall mentioning that Ben Laben or any of his crew were responsible for the mailing from Atlanta. Regardless of who mailed it, it is an act of terrorism (that, my friend, is the connection).

Nope, Ebbie, I, like you and so many others here, are allowing others to insure my security as as they face the enemy in Afghanstan. This provides us the security that allows us to second guess, bitch, moan, complain and pontificate about what would be a more effective approach to the problem.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 04:48 PM

DougR, you recently said on another thread that terrorism is sometimes justified. You can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Troll
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 05:54 PM

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
What a lot of hogwash!
First of all, the last guy standing can still see. Secondly, you don't negotiate with a rabid dog. You put it out of its misery as quickly and humanely as possible.
You still don't seem to understand that bin Laden and his friends want us dead. I'll repeat that, THEY WANT US DEAD>.
How in the world are you going to deal with mad dogs who want nothing more than to see your entire nation destroyed; man, woman, and child. They have stated, repeatedly, that this is their goal. Why are people in this country so reluctant to believe him.
Are you -anti war or pro-peace- willing to die because your ideals are more importamnt than your lives.
If you are, please let me know because, if it comes down to it, I don't want one of you guarding MY back.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:07 PM

Well troll, I don't think you would have to worry about one of them guarding your back. It appears they wouldn't even guard their own.

CarolC: Sorry, can you point me to that thread? I don't recall ever posting that I thought terrorism could be justified under any conditions. I'd appreciate it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:09 PM

DougR and Troll- you just don't get it, do you. Take the club away from the schoolyard bully and he thinks there is nothing to be done.

I, for one, am not equating all things evil with the United States of America. I, like most here, love my country- it is HOME. The best thing about this country, in my opinion, is that we are pluralistic, that we are willing to entertain new ideas, that we are idealistic.

Wouldn't you rather live with the legacy of being the country that tried? Rather than the country that was so bullheadedly angry it couldn't even see the cliff?

I remember the '50s slogan: Better Dead than Red. Which is absolute bullshit. No administration has the right to doom its people (or the world) to extinction. And make no mistake about it- I think we are flirting with things way beyond our ken.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:21 PM

Here you go, DougR...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night.
From: DougR
Date: 18-Oct-01 - 11:31 PM

Before this is all over, I think we may need lots of graduates from the School of the Americas. I hope they are well trained and that they know how to deal with terrorists.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night.
From: CarolC
Date: 18-Oct-01 - 11:38 PM

They ought to, DougR. They are terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night.
From: DougR
Date: 19-Oct-01 - 01:16 PM

Yep, and it may require terrorists, perhaps, to defeat terrorists, CarolC.!

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Troll
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:33 PM

No, Ebbie, I DON'T want to be known as the country that tried.
I want to be known as the country that survived.
You are the one who doesn't get it. These people want to kill every one of us.
You want to open a dialog with them.
How mant times do youhave to be told before it finally sinks in. They don't want to talk. As far as they are concerned, there is nothing to discuss. If we give them everything they say they want, we'll all be dead.
And you talk of alternatives and the free exchange of ideas. With terrorists.
Amazing.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:35 PM

Like I said, You don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 12:02 AM

And like Troll said, Ebbie, you must don't get it.

Carol: I did not propose in that post terrorist attacks against innocent people. As far as I'm concerned, terrorist tactics used against terrorists is totally justified, and that is what we are going to see with our Special Forces.

Read the thread, Carol! Don't read into it what you would like to see there. Read what is there.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 12:19 AM

DougR, in the same thread from which I got the above posts, you said you think you would probably support the activities of the terrorists who are trained in the School of the Americas, even though you admitted that you don't know very much about it. The terrorists whose training we have sponsored at the School of the Americas have killed many, many innocent people at our behest.

Maybe you're the one who needs to do some reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 11:34 AM

Doug can't be bothered to do any reading or learning, Carol. He's stated this repeatedly for a year or more in dozens of threads; he's 'too busy', he's 'done all the reading he's going to do', yadda,yadda,yadda. If you've time to waste, just search back and you'll find all the examples you need. Suggestion: simply don't waste any more time on him. "In his heart, he knows he's right". Divine inspiration, apparently.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 05:31 PM

Uncoiled again huh Greg? That's kind of good. I've missed you spewing venom around here. You've been entirely too tame recently.

Carol: No point in my attempting to explain my position to you it seems. You still read into whatever I write whatever you want to see. Nope, I'll try one more time.

I think we are going to have to employ guerilla warfare against the terrorist as we evidently are at the moment in Afghanstan. These tactics are similar to those employed by terrorists when fighting in the field. I do not propose under any circumstances that we employ terrorist tactics against civilians.

I think it rather likely that our Special Forces probably received training at School of the Americas and if they did, I support it.

I doubt seriously that anyone posting here, including you, Carol, know anymore about School of the Americas other than criticizms you have read written by its critics. If it was not serving a useful service, I don't believe our government would operate it. As to the damage that has been done to people in other countries by its graduates, I suspect the same is true. You only know what some biased writer has written about it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 05:50 PM

If it was not serving a useful service, I don't believe our government would operate it. As to the damage that has been done to people in other countries by its graduates, I suspect the same is true. You only know what some biased writer has written about it.

See what I mean, Carol?

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 07:11 PM

Yep, Carol, see what Greg means? It should be pretty clear. It's only a five word sentence! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 07:56 PM

"You're right from your side, I'm right from mine
We're both one too many mornings and a thousand miles behind
I've got no right to be here, if you've no right to stay
We're both one too many mornings and a thousand miles away"

(Bob Dylan)

- LH