Subject:
|
Re: Response to Misinformation (Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 23:01:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
837 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Bill writes:
> > I don't think anyone is saying we should kill innocents. Official statements
> > refer to "those responsible". However, regrettably some collateral damage is
> > unavoidable.
>
> A lot has been picked over in terms of the rhetoric of peace, so fine...Does
> the euphemism "collateral damage" mean human lives? How can you be so callous?
Not callous, realistic. War is messy. Some bullets/bombs go astray. I'm not
saying it's acceptable - just true. Every death is a tragedy. A deeper
tragedy is that men choose evil and cause death needlessly.
> Aren't we in hell already?
huh?
>
> > They were returning to a land that was historically theirs and that had been >returned to them by a world tribunal.
>
> What does "historically theirs" mean? I'd like an answer to this more than
> anything...
At a specific time in History it was theirs. "So also it was the
Palestinian's," you say. Yeah, and they lost it by force as did the Israelis
to the Romans. So....
Should we give it back to it's original occupiers? OK. Who were they? The
Canaanites? No. Then who? Hmmmm...
If the Palestinians want it back, let them take it. They've tried numerous
times and have failed. Again, so....
>
> If possession of land is respected in law, and U.S. law at least tends to
> favor use, then how is that any group (the U.N.) can give land to third
> group (Zionists) that was already resided upon by the Palestinians? Really
> you are just justifying U.N. hooliganism here...
I didn't justify their actions. Just stated them as the catalyst.
>
> > They were not the aggressor. I respect the fact that the Arab people
> > disagreed with that determination and fought to retain the land - but the
> > fact is that they got their butts handed to them. And, after many further
> > attempts to regain the land, they repeatedly had their butts handed to
> > them. Reality is sometimes harsh. Israel is there and needs to be dealt
> > with. Israel is willing to co-exist, the Palestinians are not.
>
> Are you admitting that the land was taken by violence -- violence backed by
> the U.N/U.S.?
Yes, it was taken by violence. I have demonstrated numerous times that
violence is not always bad and is sometimes necessary.
Was it backed by the U.N./U.S.? If so, why is that wrong? Prove that Israel
should not have the land. That Palestinians should not is evident by their
inability to keep it.
>
> > Israel lives in a land that was legally given to them.
>
> I would contest this point. You yourself have asserted that only their
> borrowed might from the U.N./U.S. has allowed this to stand.
No, that was you. I asserted that they handed the Palestinians their butts.
>
> > Absolutely. Which is why I take issue with others who have said that U.S.
> > policy worldwide is responsible for these attacks. As leader of the free
> > world, why is it so wrong for us to act in self interest? We have done what
> > we thought to be right at any given point in time given the complex
> > circumstances. We supported Iraq because at the time Iran was a threat and
> > Iraq was not. We supported bin Laden because at the time Russia was a threat
> > and bin Laden was not. We are then portrayed as traitors for later going
> > after them. What about them? They used us as well. They received money,
> > weapons and training and then turn around and use it against us - why are
> > they not the traitors? International relations are very complex - there are
> > no easy choices. But we did what we thought was right given what we knew. No
> > country has a perfect record on foreign affairs. But I'd stack ours against
> > any other, hands down.
>
> We are not responsible for these attacks -- but our faulty, and humanly
> flawed foreign policies have created a world in which this kind of violence
> and hatred continues to exist.
Amen brother, sorta. Hatred existed long before U.S. foreign policy.
> If you can't see the kind of political
> whores the U.S. looks like before the world based on what you have written
> above, then I just don't know what else can help you to see it.
Having worked *near* such goings-on, I tend to be a bit more pragmatic than
most. I assert again that we did what was expedient given our understanding
of the circumstances.
>
> Our Constitution doesn't say much as regards foriegn policy,
Ker-snippity-snip
> I get the idea that we aren't supposed to have standing armies, but rather >access to a militia that can be called forth in times of need.
>
> Now, in the current crisis as with Pearl Harbor, we have been specifically
> attacked. I agree that we should defend ourselves to the point of a very
> concise military action (and not a prolonged war) -- I think we have that
> right.
I've made no call for war.
> But the long litany of foriegn policy abuses you listed above just
> proves to me that we also are not innocent.
I also admitted as much.
> We have blood on our hands that doesn't wash off.
I wouldn't go that far. It's like the cop who has a split second to decide
whether to shoot or not to shoot - sometimes you make the wrong choice. Does
that mean criminals should be allowed to shoot cops? Or does it preclude one
from making such choices in the future? No to both.
No country has a perfect record, that doesn't mean we should withdraw into
our own borders. Protectionism doesn't work either. Most things in life are
a delicate balance.
>
> The bottom line is: why are we even involved in foreign policy matters that
> do not specifically concern trade or defense of our homeland? You know, if
> our multi-national corporations weren't in bed with the Nazis and Jewish
> slave labor, I bet the Nazis would not have lasted very long...I dunno, I
> could be wrong.
It's all the Dead Heads who were buying VW vans!
> But I insist we can do more by opening and closing our U.S.
> purse (trade not welfare!) than with any military actions or dropped bombs.
To nations, yes. Terrorists, no. They make much of their money here!
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
66 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
