 sj |
||
|
||
for all who wish for war
|
|
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,SharonA at the library Date: 24 Oct 01 - 08:52 PM Thanks, ddw (and DougR, too!) This thread is now well over 100 posts. Time to go to PART 2: for all who wish for war PART 2 |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Donuel Date: 24 Oct 01 - 08:43 PM The thread starter is correct. However the use of small pox, plague, binary super bio agents, Marsburg and the innocent in comparison anthrax could result in 10 - 120 million US fatalities which would indeed change the balance of economic and political influence in the world. There would then be little standing in bin Laden's way to become the grand mullah of Saudi Arabia or perhaps king. If I may be droll: You know how these family squabbles can get out of hand. BTW...Oil and religion don't mix. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: ddw Date: 24 Oct 01 - 08:13 PM SharonA —— excellent points! A little thinking goes a long way toward negating the mea culpas of the knee-jerk peaceniks would have us saying. No, folks, wars don't work if by "work" you mean create long-term solutions. Every generation has to define and exorise its own demons. Witness the fact that now there are thousands of young people around the world who think the Nazis were right. And, if the reports of those who tract such things can be believed, their numbers are growing. But, as Sharon so eloquently pointed out, peace doesn't work either if one person doesn't want to play by the rules. And her point about bin Laden certainly puts paid to the tired old have-have not economic analysis of the roots of war. I think even Marx would have admitted that what is going on here is not a class struggle, but a clash of religions and ideologies. A Marxist interpretation of WWII would have run into some problems too, but that's for another discussion. Frank —— Enlightenment would be a fine thing, but how do you enlighten someone who is already operating on the revealed word of God (or Allah, or whoever)? Larry —— "Share the wealth for peace"? I think Sharon has pretty effectively shown the hollowness of that argument, but even if you ignore her demonstrably true analysis, yours sounds suspiciously like trying to buy peace. Ever done any analysis of how best to handle blackmailers and extortionists? Isn't it conventional wisdom that the worst thing you can do is appease them, buy them off? They will always come back for more. Little Hawk —— Sure peace works, but only for a little while at a time. Watch a bunch of kids at play. Or a bunch of animals. Or, if you're given to that sort of thing, read the Bible, Koran, Book of the Dead or whatever. Things always change. A perfectly peaceful group can spawn one greedy, ambitious person and — if that person has the ability to persuade people to follow him — he can wreak havoc on everyone around him, friend and foe alike. Think about Cain and Abel and take it from there. "Peace is the normal state of affairs in the world. War is not." WHAT?!!! Tell me a time in recorded history when there has not be a war — or many wars — going on. Peace is no more "normal" than war among human beings. You can dislike it, rail against it, demonstrate logically that it's bad for everybody and wish all you want, but that doesn't make war "unnatural" or an anomaly in human interaction. I just reiterate; Would that you were right. But since I don't think you are, could you tell me who your supplier is for the stuff that gives you such a fuzzy, rosy view of the world.....???? cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,petr Date: 24 Oct 01 - 08:01 PM sure there are some who wish for war, ie. warlords who make big money smuggling drugs, weapons, but most people dont, on the other hand if someone were to hurt a loved one I would say the most ardent peace supporter would want to see blood. (like Stan Rogers in Harris and the Mare) of course in 1939 CHamberlain was all for peace (according to Churchill he wanted peace with honour and received neither) to those that suggest the UN handle this, well the UN in a way has been handling it, they were in there distributing food, in freezing the finances, and will most likely be there after the Taliban collapses, to give aid and keep peace. THe UN however is not a world govt. only an association of member states it also recognizes the right of individual states to defend themselves. Moreover the UN was unable to stop the slaughter in Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia (until NATO stepped in - now Milosevic is on trial and Yugoslavia has a democratic govt. to the root causes, and chickens are coming home to roost crowd they are all essentially legitimizing the terrorists actions on sept 11. To say the terrorists have a legitimate beef because of past US. policy is to blame the holocaust on the nations that imposed the Versailles treaty on Germany.
|
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 01 - 07:32 PM SharonA: you ask the hard questions don't you? I wouldn't expect to receive any "hard" answers though. You'll probably get a lot more philosophical rhetoric, I would guess. Probably not a lot new though. Actually, it appears to me that both sides on this issue (though I think the thread is is not titled appropriately) are beginning to repeat arguments. I don't think anyone on this forum "wishes" for war. None of us certainly "wished" the terrorists would kill six thousand of our fellow citizens or citizens of other countries at the WTC, or the Pentagon, or in airplanes they hijacked. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,just a nobody Date: 24 Oct 01 - 07:16 PM Conflict is, and always has been natural. It does not mean that I believe in the whole-sale slaughter of people. Animals, man being one, compete for resources. When resources are scarce or threatened, conflict arises. You will find that many of the 'conflicts' can be broken down into a fight over resources. A bar fight that erupts over a woman, the woman is the resource. One man wants what another man has. (Sorry for the sexist way of putting it). The difference is, when man evolved, so did the resources. Man does not fight only for a mate, food, and shelter; But they fight for a different set of priorities. But the fight is, in essense over the same thing. Just a couple thoughts. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: SharonA Date: 24 Oct 01 - 06:42 PM I'd like to hear Larry's answer to my questions, too... (though I think it's time for someone who knows how to make a blueclickey to create a "Part 2" of this thread!) ...but okay, LH, I'll respond: I disagree that "peace is the normal state of affairs in this world"; more often than not, someone is in combat with someone else somewhere, and the rest of the time soldiers are being trained for the eventuality. The world has lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation for the past sixty-some years; that has become the normal state of affairs for us today. Even in a supposedly peaceful society, there are not only murders but rapes, robberies, riots and domestic terrorism, not to mention spousal abuse, child abuse, bar fights, road rage and so forth. Violence an anomaly? I contend that it is an intrinsic part of human nature, once vital to our survival as a species, and now controlled only with limited success by societal mores. It is to our credit as humans that we have evolved to the point that at least some of us WANT peace to be the norm. I'll ask you, too, LH: what would you do with the unjust besides defeat them, remove them from the society that desires peace and justice, and punish them? |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 01 - 05:41 PM Peace works extremely well. Take a look around. War is an anomaly and an exception to the general rule in this world. Violence is also an anomaly and an exception to the general rule in life. You might not think that if you watch TV, where you can easily see several murders (or a hundred of them) in a single day, but live real life and you are quite unlikely to personally see even one murder in a year in most places. It's a very uncommon act. So I submit that peace does indeed work, it works very well, and it works most of the time in most places, because most people are peaceful by nature as long as they're not in an absolute state of desperation. Even most soldiers would rather sit around the fire and have dinner than be in a battle. I realize there is the odd exception to that...and I do mean odd. Patton, for example, loved combat, and seemed almost unable to be happy for long without it. He was a rare person in that respect. Peace is the normal state of affairs in this world. War is not. And justice? Justice is established through equality. Meaning...everyone gets a reasonably equal start in life when they are born, with equal opportunities to apply themselves. How do we achieve that? Through gradual social change all over the world. It will take generations to do it. It's not a task for the impatient, that's for sure. The impatient would much rather blow up skyscrapers and fight wars with each other. They want victory, not justice. When they secure the victory, they call it "justice"...over the bodies of those they have slain. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: SharonA Date: 24 Oct 01 - 04:11 PM Larry says: "...as to giving war a chance, we have again and again, and it hasn't worked yet." What's your definition of "working"? Please give an example of a situation in which peace has "worked." I'm thinking of the story of Adam and Eve, and even then peace didn't work because of greed and jealousy. By the way, what is your non-retributive definition of justice? How would you deal with the criminally unjust to keep them from committing more criminally unjust acts? Larry also says: "As to the rich kid and poor kid, don't forget the rich kid, in this instance has his toys because the poor kid's folks are living in poverty to maintain that particular rich kid." Now, I've been assuming that the "poor kid" in your analogy is the average Afghan or Saudi or other Middle Eastern Muslim who has turned terrorist. But up until now I'd thought the "rich kid" was the US; now I'm thinking you must mean the rich Middle Eastern oil magnates, since the US buys the oil from them and therefore they, not the US, are the ones keeping the "poor kids" in poverty. If they are not sharing the wealth with the people of their own countries, why does the US need to pay twice (once for the oil and then again for the greed of others)? Osama bin Laden himself is a fine example of a "spoiled rich kid" saving himself from a beating by the poor kids, by pointing to another kid across the playground and yelling, "It's his fault, not mine! I'm on YOUR side! Let's get him!" Instead of squandering his wealth to attack America, bin Laden could have helped the poverty-stricken of his own homeland in a constructive way. So why not tell him THAT in your letter to him, instead of complaining along with him about how terrible the US is? As for the US "using the world as a sweat shop," that should indeed be stopped... but that would require other countries of the world to stop abusing their workers and putting them in sweatshops to make goods to export to the US! The US is not the only greedy country here!!! What is your plan to stop the WORLD – not just America – from driving people to terrorism and to war? |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: InOBU Date: 24 Oct 01 - 02:55 PM Well, let's see, I have on a number of posts given spesifics, for example, to disinvest from nations with numbered and other anonimous banking systems, start developing alternative energy sourses rather and restart American production so we stop taking 70% of the worlds reasorses and useing the world as a sweat shop to the detriment of our own production workers jobs, that is a wee start. As to the rich kid and poor kid, don't forget the rich kid, in this instance has his toys because the poor kid's folks are living in poverty to maintain that particular rich kid, as to giving war a chance, we have again and again, and it hasn't worked yet. Your suggestions will do no more than to make New York as safe as Hebron. If I wanted to live in Hebron, I'd move there, but the decision you are esposing are bringing Hebron to New York, No thanks. I rather justice than war. For those of you who think justice begins and ends with retributive justice, crack a book, that is only revenge, the easest justice with the poorest results. Well, see you all later, cheers all, Larry |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:58 PM GUEST - Whaddya mean incipient socialists?!! (Damning us with faint praise!) You say that like it's a bad thing... :-) Without socialism you wouldn't have an army, an air force, a navy or a police force...well, not unless you were rich enough to hire a private one, that is...like Al Capone. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:47 PM M. Ted - Well, your eyes must be feeling quite tired by now... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,tonic_wonder Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:39 PM For those rich kid/ poor kid people out there, and there's way more than indicated in this thread (incipient socialists, you know who you are!): There are some poor kids who try not to blame anyone but work harder and build each other up. There are some rich kids who might not know what the parents of the poor kid next door are saying to them, but try to share their milk and cookies at recess. There are those, rich and poor alike, who believe that the situation is due to the 'Will Of God' and that trying to alter it is heresy. There are those who look at the world with open eyes and wonder at all the programming that goes into kids. Osama was once somebody's baby, and maybe we want a word with that somebody now, but by now Osama has kids of his own. Time to give war a chance. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: M.Ted Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:35 PM Well, this is just like a music thread--some of you know what you're talking about, and some of you only think you know what you're talking about--I'm not going to comment any farther than that--I am posting because I've read through read through the whole sordid mess, and for that, I figure I am entitled to post-- |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: SharonA Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:26 PM Oops! Typo alert! In paragraph 4 of my last post, I meant to say (of the realization by everyone in the world of the folly of war and greed): that will never happen. Sorry, but it is part of human nature to better oneself, and that will eventually put one in a better position than another person, and jealousy and greed and competition and infighting and war will result. Yes, it would be best for everyone to resist that part of our natures in favor of the nobler aspects thereof, but eventually somebody would slip (nobody's perfect!), and the whole cycle would start again. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: SharonA Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:12 PM Larry, I'm sorry to hear about the insurance situation in NY. There's a result of the WTC attack that I'd forgotten about. As far as bread vs. bullets goes: In a perfect world, nobody would give anybody else guns, clubs, boxcutters or karate lessons. No one would hate anyone, and we would all live in peace. But we don't live in a perfect world, and there IS greed in this world, as foolish as greediness may be. So as long as other big nations keep supplying little nations with weaponry for their own greedy purposes, I'm sure that this nation will do the same out of self-defense, which stems from the sense of self-interest that you espouse. Yes, the US has been the aggressor sometimes; the US has also had an isolationist policy sometimes. The US has been the humanitarian sometimes. It seems that we are disliked by some people no matter what we do. And even if we change our policy, people with long memories will still want to punish us for what we once did. And greedy people will always take advantage of generosity. It is as you say: in order to live in the peaceful world you envision, "the people of the world" must "realize the folly of war and greed." Not just one big nation, the world. Every person in the world who will ever be born. Let's face it; that will ever happen... ...but I AM impressed that most of the nations of the world are speaking out together to condemn terrorism. That's a BIG GIANT step in the right direction. Still, words of condemnation must be reinforced by action. As you say, the kid who's punching another kid in the face – for whatever reason – is the one who must be punished. The rich kid who won't share toys with the poor kid must be encouraged to do so, but can't really be punished for not wanting to be hit with his own toys by a kid who isn't interested in sharing but would rather draw blood. It doesn't matter to the rich kid that the poor kid has been taught all his life that his problems are the fault of the rich kid's parents. The rich kid only knows that HIS problem of the moment (the bloody nose) is directly the fault of the poor kid... and he knows that it's not his OWN fault for not trusting the poor kid, since the poor kid has been threatening since kindergarten to beat the tar out of the rich kid. (So much for sharing wealth for peace.) |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Don Firth Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:08 PM No solution, just in observation: -- A large part of America's foreign policy over the past few decades has been "Yes, we know he's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch!" Then, when the son-of-a-bitch turns around and bites us in the ass, we find that surprising. Good morning, America. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 01 - 12:55 PM Oh, lord, yes! Who could be more patriotic than an oil company! As for insurance companies, in a truly just and decent society they would not even exist, because the general community would help people in genuine distress and need, without charging them a cent for it...as was done in pioneer villages, for instance, and Indian camps. All for one and one for all. Gargoyle - Great song! LOL!!! Some comic relief was sorely needed here. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Whistle Stop Date: 24 Oct 01 - 12:46 PM Larry (this time I really am addressing Larry!), if you want your criticisms of our current approach to be taken seriously, at some point you will need to come up with an alternative plan that is specific, proactive, and can be implemented with some prospect of success. All this philosophical talk about the futility of war gets a little wearisome if you don't at least try to offer an alternative plan of action -- not a set of concepts or ideals, but an actual plan. I agree with some of your concerns about how war can contribute to a perpetuation of the problem; most thinking people, including our leaders, acknowledge this danger and are trying to guard against it. But what, specifically, are you suggesting that we should do to resolve the situation? |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,Greg F. Date: 24 Oct 01 - 11:56 AM Yup, Larry- an oil company. ;>) Greg |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: InOBU Date: 24 Oct 01 - 11:41 AM Well Sharon, part of the problem was not only the giving of guns, but to whom we gave them! We tend to support the worst of two evils as a general rule. The advantage in giving opportunity for betterment over guns, is that if they want to throw it back at you, it is better to be hit with a loaf of bread than a bullet. Now Tonic, you know that killing all the bastards in the world is a task no one has ever been able to accomplish, rather it tends to plant the seeds of more and worse bastards! War, when it was a matter of a tussle over a shield wall, well, it was a rather tough sport, but didn't endanger the survival of the planit. It has become a bad habit and one that in these days of mass destruction we may not be able to afford. Today the wind is blowing from the south, and so my appartment is filled with the acrid stench of the wreakage down town, and all I can say is thank God that it was not one of the small missing Russian nuclear devises, or instead of a sore throat from the smoke, my wife and I would be glowing in the dark. What will it take for the people of the world to realise the folly of war and greed? How much killing will be enough for you to stop living in the day of the grand colorful charge into the valley of death? Many of you, I know, would be willing to give your life to throw off the pain of this loss, but who of you would give the life of your wife, of your child. It is no longer a matter of carring clubs over the shoulder, rapiers at the side, six shooters on the hip. We now live in a world where war can mean a wound to the planit which we cannot heal. How blind can hate and hurt make you that you loose all sence of self interest. You speak about not wanting to be made to share your wealth for peace? Well our insurence here on our little home and buisness in New York was DOUBLED! Fully doubled! How is that for paying for the want in other nations? What do you have to lose yourselves before you see the real cost? Time is not on our side, friends. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: SharonA Date: 24 Oct 01 - 11:24 AM Larry, I agree that giving guns and weapons-training to various nations of the world is part of the problem... but NOT giving them would create problems for us also (sorry; I'm not a Quaker). |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,GUEST, tonic_wonder Date: 24 Oct 01 - 11:09 AM BTW, enjoyed the 'Discordian' note above. Reminded me of the Cult of the Subgenius, Praise Bob. I think 'wish' for war is a bit strong. Sounds like this thread was initiated with a built-in bias. Considering the lay-up for this piece of dirty work, the first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, The USS Cole, I think it is pretty obvious we're up against people who don't put much stock in talk. Remember the saying "Mankind can live in peace and toleration once all other avenues have been exhausted" It is real easy and only occasionally worthy of merit to proclaim against the futility of war, but war can settle things by killing off the proponents of one side, in this case a pretty nasty bunch of proponents who not only live in hate, but define themselves in hate, and teach hate to their children and everyone who they can reach via word, broadcast, and technology , a technology they won't take the trouble to devise, just exploit. Time to give war a chance. but it's not a 'wish' It's a conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,Greg F. Date: 24 Oct 01 - 11:00 AM I suggest... that you channel your energies into different and more rewarding pathways. Well, thanks, Chicken*. And I respectfully suggest that you self-fornicate, you patronising, supercilious little shit. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: InOBU Date: 24 Oct 01 - 10:52 AM Ah Gargoyle! You may have noticed that I avoided the hit Garg with a brick party, because I knew one day you would blossom. And Oh what a bloom! Great post old boy, I really had a well needed and long delayed chuckle. Sharon, we both look at the same things and come up with different lessons, don't we? I see us giving guns to everyone around the world as being part of the problem. We actually give away surplus and old military equiptment from small arms to amunition, and do so with less than great care about to whom it goes, so we take raw materials and cheep labour out and pour in guns and wonder why terrible things happen? No, I did not think it a good idea to give guns to oppose Russia. Kind of got us into this mess in the first place, we armed and trained Bin Ladin. Cheers, Larry |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,kendall Date: 24 Oct 01 - 10:38 AM Afraid? in what way? If you could gather every one of those bastards in a group I would be the first to push the button. However, it aint going to be that way. Fighting these pigs is going to be like herding cats. Jeffy, you sound like Homer Simpson. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 24 Oct 01 - 10:38 AM Lighten up folks, I know, lets have a song!
From the 99 DT collection, thanx RG |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: SharonA Date: 24 Oct 01 - 10:30 AM Larry says (among other things): "We have to address what it is that makes such people [terrorists], and in fact, it is unlikely religion alone. It is a deep sence of unfairness." So lemme get this straight. To refer back to the spoiled-rich-kid analogy you used yesterday, Larry, we "shared our toys" with the Afghans (Afghanis?) so they could defend themselves against the Soviet Union, and they're now punching us in the face anyway because we ALSO "share our toys" with a nation of people they hate. Tell me again who's not being fair here. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,Frank Date: 24 Oct 01 - 10:27 AM David, those who cry for Jihad can't lose because they are all going to paradise. You misunderstand the role of non-violent resistance. It is a highly proactive style of dealing with supposed enemies. You have just as much chance coming back in a body bag if you apply conventional military force as you would as a non-violent resister. In short, you would be about as safe with the Quakers as you would be with a military force that can't even identify their enemy. The enemy is religious intolerance which is found everywhere. Only through education and enlightenment can we solve the problem. We can bomb from now until doomsday and it will not solve the problem. bin Laden is only a trumped-up symbol that masks the real problem. Religious fanatacism which is found in every country in the world. How about focussing on Saudi Arabia that finances our oil as well as the Taliban? I don't agree that the Muslim community has spoken strongly enough against the Taliban, Wahhabism or other offshoots and perversions of Islam. The history of Islam is significant. Salladin and the Mongols that built the Ottoman Empire were not destroyed by those that opposed them. They were convinced of their "righteousness". Blind religious convictions devoid of humanity and spirituality are the weapons of ultimate destruction. This is a religious war whether the Bush Adminstration wants to acknowledge it or not. Education, enlightenment, providing for those who need to be shown alternatives to their entrenchment is the only answer. A military solution is a bandaid on the cancer. Frank
|
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 24 Oct 01 - 10:22 AM That's a good summation anonymous. Left. Right. Forward. Backwards. Stay put. SNAFU. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 01 - 10:13 AM Go! Stalk the red deer o'er the heather. Ride! Follow the fox if you can. But for pleasure and profit together Allow me the hunting of man. Kipling OBL is the head of one Cobra... we will kill him and scatter his ashes in pig manure. Then after that chop up the tail of the Cobra.. Then destroy the nest of the Cobra. After that with the help of the rest of the world, eradicate the other violent Cobra assholes, who think that they can change the world by murder and mayhem... Simple enough? Or you could just sit down and pontificate, and discuss peace while your people are being murdered. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST, I, hurricane (Chickens*) Date: 24 Oct 01 - 09:47 AM Nothing will make "us" better than the Russians. We will always be the same as the Russians. We will always be the same as the people who inhabit Afghanistan. People will always kill people. People will always struggle unless and until we inhabit a different world. Jesus knew all these things. Jesus does not hate me with the ferocity you display in temporary anger. I hope for peace, prosperity and freedom to strive for spiritual contentment for the inhabitants of Afghanistan. I hope the U.S., the U.K., the Saudis and the Iranians and the U.N. work fast and furiously to build irrigation, roads, power supplies and hospitals to service our suffering brethren there. I hope that three quarters of a million do not die violently in those lands as you predict. I know that al Qaeda does not work efficiently for those things. I hope the international community makes better progress in allowing the inhabitants of Afghanistan to realize their aspirations than I expect the Taliban status quo would achieve. This is a tiny interent backwater where people are expresing their frustrations. If reading this increases your frustration and anger, rather than giving you positive thoughts and aspirations, I suggest, without rancor or crudity, that you channel your energies into different and more rewarding pathways. There are very few sociopaths, and none writing to this forum, who are enjoying the pain of these events. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,Greg F. Date: 24 Oct 01 - 08:21 AM . . . and, for a fourth, we're not going to kill a million people. OK, Guest Chickenshit, say we only kill three-quarters of a million. That justifies our bombing the shit out of the country and makes us "better" than the Russians? Jesus wept. Greg |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: InOBU Date: 24 Oct 01 - 05:42 AM Hi Guys: Maybe because it is five in the morning, I just had an immage of us, when we were in first grade, in the school yard, saying, "Yeah, well of course Superman could beat up Batman, cause Batman doen't have Kriptonite..." "Oh YEAH!? Well Batman could tangle him up in his web!" "But Supeman could break it, like I said, Batman's web isn't Kriptonite! So THERE!" "Yeah, but GOD could beat up Superman!" "But that is STUPID! Cause God WOLDn't WANT to beat him up!" "OH YEAH! Well what if he did!!!" No offence all, but I think we are still at it from when we were little, and as with war, we have to change the script! All the best, a bit from a tired mind... Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: InOBU Date: 24 Oct 01 - 05:23 AM Jeeze Little Hawk! You been up all night!!! I'm up early, and here you all are still at it! Well, where to start. One reason we Quakers have the ability often to go where others can't is that we stopped going places to convert folks. We used to do that, in George Fox's day and for a while after, and we used to get killed pretty regularly. I think one of the changes came with Elias Hicks ( I know all you Wilberites are saying spoken like a true Hicksite! ) But, by establishing what became a universalist tradition, we learned to listen and help. No you can't go from the individual instance to the general, but there comes a point when the examples of individual actions can change the world. As to those who believe our army is badder and more committed than the Russians, well, historicaly more wars dragged on or were lost by over comfidence than any other thing. The English found that out when they lost an entire expeditionary force armed with Martini rifles to Zulus armed with asagis. The fact is even should we be able to bring Afganistan to its knees, the terrorists we are facing have recrutes from the Philipeans to France. What terror can you bring to make someone who is going to strap a bomb onto his own body and blow you up with him think twice? There is no sence to that arguement. We have to address what it is that makes such people, and in fact, it is unlikely religion alone. It is a deep sence of unfairness. Cheers all, Good morning. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 01 - 03:58 AM Any of y'all know about Discordianism? The religion of worshippers of the goddess Eris? It has been described as either a religion disguised as a joke, or a joke disguised as a religion; can't tell which. There's a Discordian parable which seems to the point here: One day Malaclypse the Younger asked the messenger spirit St. Gulik to approach the Goddess and request her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwords the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female voice said "Yes?" "O Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!" "What bothers you Mal? You don't sound well." "I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe." "What's the matter with that, if it's what you want?" "But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it." "Oh. Well, then stop." At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left the Polyfather stranded alone with his species. clint keller |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 01 - 02:08 AM Fuckin' "A", Jeffy!!! Let's all go out and have a burger and a brewski and give those overworked brain cells a rest! Who the fuck cares anyway? Yo! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST,jeffy Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:49 AM Oh for Christ's sake you pedantic pseudo-intellectuals... GET OVER YOURSELVES! |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 01 - 01:09 AM ddw - You're dead right with the cancer analogy, but I see a whole bunch of cancers. One set of cancers is the various terrorist groups who use indiscriminate violence to pursue their goals...and there are many such groups. Another cancer is the multinational oil companies, who have enormous influence on international politics and whose influence has led to a whole series of horrific wars in the last hundred years approx. They have also worked behind the scenes to keep us all dependent on oil when the whole world could have developed non-polluting sources of power decades ago. They intend to keep us dependent until the oil is exhausted, and the atmosphere is possibly ruined for generations...all to make more money. That is truly criminal behaviour. Another cancer is the general pursuit of profits without regard to environment or human health or sanity...this is endemic in the whole free enterprise system, and in the so-called Communist states as well (meaning now primarily: mainland China). The tobacco industry is another cancer...directly causing real cancer in millions of people. So is the alcohol industry, truth be told, but I'm not suggesting reinstituting prohibition...it didn't work then and won't now. I think you are right that the USA is in for the long haul, and the American public will back it...because of the WTC attack, and that is precisely what worries me the most. It means utter disaster for the Afghans, and possibly for Iraquis, Iranians, and numerous others as well. I frankly do not believe this war is being fought to end terrorism, although I may be wrong. I believe it's being fought to clean up a whole bunch of "problems" (from the American point of view), meaning it's being fought for major financial, commercial, and geo-political reasons which will affect a great many countries all over the world. There is great danger in that. Greater danger than that posed by the terrorists themselves, ultimately. Like I say, though, I may be wrong. But that's my gut feeling. I think this thing has been a long time in the works (since Desert Storm, possibly), but it needed a major provocation...an outrageous act...before it could be done. Some terrorist outfit has provided that provocation. Maybe Bin Laden, maybe not. In the end, it won't really matter who it was to the millions who may die as this lengthy war is fought. It would be a darn good thing if I was wrong about this, so let's hope I am. Seriously. If I'm not there is a worse time ahead than we have seen before, ever. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: ddw Date: 24 Oct 01 - 12:22 AM It's the content, LH, it's the content. HTML be damned! I read that article and it seemed pretty bang on to me. But I consider the question of bin Laden, et al completely separate from the arguments that would go on about the economics of oil and the ecological questions of whether we should be using fossil fuels or not. I know you can't actually argue by analogy, but sometimes it's useful for illustration. If you consider the world and all its peoples to be a single living organism, what we're seeing now is a growth of cancer. Like all cancers, if left unattended it will consume the whole organism or change it into something so grotesque as to be unrecognizable. Why not cut it out, surgically, before you have to lop off whole limbs to stop it? If the U.S. went in with all it's might and killed everything in their path, I'd get pretty upset and oppose it as vigorously as I opposed the Vietnam war, but that's not what I see happening. I was absolutely amazed at the restraint shown and the limited actions taken. If they don't work at first, I expect them to continue, but I don't expect them to escalate to blanket bombing. That would piss off a lot of Muslims and would be counterproductive. cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 01 - 11:56 PM And I also forgot to close the friggin' italics. Groan. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 01 - 11:51 PM It's a mission which may have some as yet unstated and very key objectives... There was an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail yesterday which mentioned the following considerations... Many western oil companies have known for decades that stability would give Afghanistan and its 25 million citizens a chance to tap into one of the world's major oil reserves. The Central Asian republics, with their access to the Caspian Sea, are thought to have reserves of at least 50 billion barrels of oil, with natural gas reserves that might be measured in the trillions of US dollars. Ahmad Rashid, one of the most respected Afghan watchers, has called the turmoil a "new Great Game", a reference to the time when powers such as colonial Britain and Russia used Afghanistan as a geographic buffer and trade route. "The scramble for oil and influence by the big powers in the Caspian has been likened to the Middle East in the 1920's," Mr. Rashid wrote in his book: Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. It [Afghanistan] "represented possibly the last unexplored and unexploited oil-bearing region in the world, and its opening up [by the breakup of the Soviet Union] generated huge excitement amongst international oil companies." The breakaway Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan signed deals with international oil companies after the collapse of the Soviet empire a decade ago, hoping to guarantee rich futures. Afghanistan positioned itself as a transit country for the pipelines that would be needed to take the oil to tankers on the Arabian Sea. [much subsequent local warfare, however, and the nature of the Taliban regime prevented that from happening] There is [also] the possibility that Afghanistan, a massive piece of geography that is largely unexplored after decades of war, might yield even more massive deposits of oil and natural gas, as well as gold, copper, and other minerals. "Not only can Afghanistan play a role in hosting pipelines connecting Central Asia to international markets, but the country itself has significant oil and gas deposits", notes the India Times, one of India's leading newspapers. [The article goes on to explain that the fighting between mujahedeen and other groups in the civil war that followed the Soviets' withdrawal in 1989 virtually closed down natural gas production and facilities, and ended deals for the supply of gas to several European countries.] [This article is BTW not anti-American or anti-western in tone whatsoever, but looks optimistically toward a new regime in Afghanistan after the current war, a regime which will open up all that oil, gas, and other stuff to be got at and fully exploited by the big international companies. Just thought I'd mention that, in case anyone thinks it's an America-bashing article. It's not.] However, it suggests any number of hugely significant agendas for waging a long and costly war in Afghanistan, quite aside from avenging terrorist attacks or ending international terrorism. No wonder Britain and America are willing to invest in a major effort here. There are trillions of dollars at stake there, and a bunch of very big chickens are indeed coming home to roost. Osama Bin Laden may be the Lee Harvey Oswald of the present moment...a patsy...or he may not be. Time will tell...or maybe it won't. We still don't know for sure about Oswald, after all...and probably never will. The article is in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Oct 22/01, page A4, the journalist is Miro Cernetig, writing from Islamabad, which I believe is in northern Pakistan. I had to type the whole darn thing out...sigh...could not get it off the net. The parts in brackets [ ] were added by me to help clarify the rest in places. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: ddw Date: 23 Oct 01 - 11:36 PM sorry bout the boldface — typo in the HTML coding....david |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: ddw Date: 23 Oct 01 - 11:30 PM kendall, Sorry, I was writing intermittantly and working while you were replying to my earlier post. I've already addressed some of your points, but there are a couple of things I didn't mention. 1. The Vietnamese never levelled the WTC and killed 6,000 people, so the citizenry of the U.S. wasn't quite as pissed off at them. 2. The Soviets, et al, who have invaded Afghanistan went in with all guns blazing, killing indiscriminantly. I won't pretend there won't be some innocents killed, but I think the U.S. will be a lot more surgical than its predecessors. 3. Bombing bin Laden's camps will piss off the rest of the Muslim world? I don't think so. He's already at odds with most of the Muslim countries' leaders and has openly declared it. The al-Qaida in Egypt has for several years specifically targetted "infidel" tourists, on whom Egypt relies for a large chunk of its income. It ain't oil, but it's not chump change either. Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship after the attacked them for letting the U.S. have bases there. About his only supporters are among the various refugee populations, the Pakistani equivalent of Jerry Falwells and the Iranian loonies still chasing Salmon Rushdie. 4. Throughout history the people of the Middle East have been merchants. They still are, and the bin Ladens of the world are bad for business. And if the U.S. plays its cards right — and so far they appear to be — this may turn into an opportunity to clear up a lot of problems in the area. Some are already hinting at troops going into Iran next. I have some friends who lived in Iran for quite a few years — they had to get out when the ayatola came home from Paris — and they offered some insight into the mindset of the people. Those people who are hell bent for Islamic Jihad are mostly from the less educated, less travelled classes and they, like most human beings, view the world from the perspective of what they "know." What they're told is that the decadent Americans are so overfed and flabby that they can't possibly mount any serious offensive against the hardened fighters they are. Besides, Allah's on their<'b> side. They don't believe they can possibly lose. I even heard one BBC journalist interviewing some of the al-Qaida fighters and they actually believed they were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. These people have no idea what they're facing. Nobody's seen the U.S. so universally pissed off since Pearl Harbor and I suspect this time has sparked an even deeper resolve than that did. Hawaii wasn't even a state at that time, but this is on home turf. Whole different ball game. The other thing to keep in mind is that they have little in the way of weaponry except what's left from the Soviet era. The U.S. had given them some weapons and the Soviets left a lot behind when they pulled out, but after the recent bombing a lot of that is gone. There are a few worn-out tanks some AK-47s, a few rocket-propelled grenade launchers (with not that many grenades left) and a few anti-aircraft guns and missiles. But when those are gone, where are they going to get more? The Bush-led coalition is cutting off their supply lines pretty effectively. Don't think they'll hold out too long. cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST Date: 23 Oct 01 - 11:21 PM . . . and, for a fourth, we're not going to kill a million people. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 23 Oct 01 - 11:12 PM kendall: is your point that you are afraid? We are all afraid. That's a little disingenuous of you to try and trick other Muslim nations to do your violence for you, don't you think? Three differences from the Soviet experience: we have technology they didn't have; we have soldiers with moral conviction, and we have a discrete mission. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: ddw Date: 23 Oct 01 - 10:54 PM Ebbie, One in which you could go to work in the World Trade Center and not have to worry nearly as much about some lunatic crashing a planeful of jet fuel into it. Mine's not the perfect solution, but it's one which — in the long run — will kill fewer innocents than not acting. Larry, I wasn't talking about the rangers — those are the kids who just want to be special forces troopers. I'm pretty tight with two SF types (a niece's husband and my daughter's boyfriend) and, believe me, they're scarier than most people know. They just don't tell anybody about it. Were you aware that there was contingent of them on the ground in Afghanistan less than 48 hours after the WTC? As for history favoring the Afghanis.... True, they kicked out the British and the Soviets, but both those countries went in there to wage conventional warfare. They had no troops trained in fighting in that terrain or equipment that could do the job. The Soviets went in there with tanks, which couldn't maneuver in the mountains and were eaten up by the sand. The troops the U.S. is going to send in there won't have such encumberances. They will be fast, light and very mobile and they will operate mostly at night. The Rangers will follow when things are softened up for them. The Afghanis are also not used to troops trained to operate in their high altitudes. Ever hear of the 10th Mountain Rangers? They train at high altitude and are used to breathing rarified air, just like the Afghanis are. Makes a big difference. Your story about the rabbi and the Nazi is interesting, but a logician like yourself should know you can't argue from the specific to the general. One incident says nothing about mankind's experience; it only illuminates one incident, period. And, finally, since bin Laden, et al have made this a holy war, I wouldn't bet on infidel Quakers surviving any better in their lair than some of the deadliest killers on the planet. If I had to go in with one group or the other, it sure as hell wouldn't be the Quakers. cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: kendall Date: 23 Oct 01 - 10:48 PM Have any of you war mongers ever studied history? The Russians were in Afghanistan for 10 years. They killed over a million people, for what? what did they acomplish? Not a God damn thing! In the end, they went home with their tails between their legs just as every invader from Alexander the Great, to The British to the Russians have done. Now, what makes you think we will do any better? Have you forgotten Viet Nam already? Do you really think we will maintain our resolve in this thing? We sure as hell didn't in Nam. What would I do you ask? I said in another thread what I would do. Granted, I dont have all the info needed to make an intelligent decision, but, the last thing I would do is put ground troops in there. We should be doing everything we can to turn the rest of the Muslim world against the Taliban. Dropping bombs on them will only piss off the rest of the Muslims. |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 01 - 09:43 PM Kendall, my friend, I was going to reply to your post, but ddw presented the case much more effectively than I could. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: for all who wish for war From: Ebbie Date: 23 Oct 01 - 09:11 PM Now you could kill him and the whole problem would go away — for a while.
"But there would always be someone who would want to take his place, who would be convinced he failed because he was too weak or too stupid or not ruthless enough.
You've got the same list of possibilities, only now you're dealing with an even nastier adversary.(Bold:Ebbie)
You can reason with these people all you like, but I think in the long run the better solution is to kill them, one by one as they arise, until they all get the idea that operating outside the society is not going to be profitable or good for their health and longevity. David, how does one keep on killing each progressively nastier one? And what kind of world do we end with? Ebbie
|
| Share Thread: |