![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Jose wrote: I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we have already lost. Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars. Including wars we shouldn't be in. Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand. I have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my family, and all that I know. But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam, Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia? A few weeks ago I visited the American Cemetery in Manila. It is a beautiful spot. I took photos of seemingly endless rows of crosses and stars against a backdrop of flame trees. There are more than 17,000 graves there. More than 3,000 of the markers have no names on them; they are unidentified. And there is a great circle of stone tables on which are inscribed many thousands of more names of those whose bodies were never recovered. And these are just those Americans (and others from several other nations fighting under the American flag) who died in order to kick the Japanese out of the Philippines and a few islands in the Pacific. Was it worth the cost? I wonder what the world would be like if, after Hitler had sunk a single ship or if the Japanese had massacred a battalion of Marines assaulting the beach, if we had just said that the cost of opposing Hitler or Tojo was too great, if we had just made our separate peace, abandoning our allies to their fate. Maybe it would not have made any difference at all. Who knows? Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons? What do you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to finally stop the killing and find peace? And how would we appease their mortal enemies, who might very well adopt the same tactics of terror that these Islamic extremists now use? Do we just do whatever anybody holding a gun orders us to do? And what if the person holding the gun orders you to kill somebody, perhaps a friend, perhaps even your wife or your children? I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious answers to these serious questions, and stop playing the shill for domestic and foreign politicians who would sell their country out in return for political gain. That is, if you want peace, give me something other than the sophomoric arguments of Michael Moore or Barbara Streisand. Tell me what you are really willing to do in order to achieve peace. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions, and stop playing the shill for domestic and foreign politicians who would sell their country out in return for political gain. That is, if you want peace, give me something other than the sophomoric arguments of Michael Moore or Barbara Streisand. Tell me what you are really willing to do in order to achieve peace. Bravo! Excellent post, all 'round. And it points up a terrible, possibly mortal weakness in the Left in general, at least since I was in college, some 25 years ago: They only stand AGAINST things -- they never stand FOR things. For the Left (or, if you prefer, for the sake of this discussion, the anti-war movement) to answer your questions would require them to make a stand four-square FOR something, which means that moral relativism -- their central philosophy -- would cease to function. In other words, if nothing is "right" and nothing is "wrong" -- only varying shades of gray -- how can you possibly ever decide that *anything* is worth fighting for? THAT, in a nutshell, is why the Democrats (in America) and the Left (worldwide) can't seem to get any traction in the polls. Voters may not be able to put it into words, but people intuitively understand that only standing against things isn't a workable solution to anything. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:05:52 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
only varying shades of gray -- how can you possibly ever decide that *anything* is worth fighting for? [...] people intuitively understand that only standing against things isn't a workable solution to anything. This is an interesting juxtaposition. You require that one be able to decide upon something being worth fighting for, and yet "standing against things" isn't workable. You make several other logical errors, perhaps the largest of which is mixing "left" and "anti-war". In fact, even "anti-war" is a misnomer and simplification. There's a difference between a pacifist that is against war as an institution and someone that is against the current "war" in Iraq. But this is all a game of public relations. Just as the debate about illegal immigration was framed as one about "immigration" by those looking to avoid a true debate on the issues, people like to reframe the "war" in Iraq as being about the "war" on terrorism. The reality is that one can be for the "war" on terrorism w/o being for the "war" in Iraq. In fact, there are those of us that have a heightened concern about our waste of time and resources in Iraq precisely because we've this other "war" to which we should be paying attention. The question you need to ask yourself is whether you're willing to look past the silly PR on the news every day (primarily in politicians' speeches) and actually see the situation in Iraq for what it is distinct from the situation with terrorism. Yes, there are insurgents in Iraq today using terrorist techniques. But that's largely a civil war amongst its own population. We didn't cause that, but we did permit it. And we should do something about it...although, to be honest, I'm not sure that we can do enough. Can a central government be sufficiently strong to govern in the face of the sectarian tensions w/o simply recreating the horrors of the Saddam regime? But this has nothing to do with the [more important, in my opinion] "war" that we should be fighting on terrorism. Of course, neither action is truly a "war" in the conventional sense. Both really should be seen more as police actions. In Iraq, we're trying to enforce a peace between sectarian groups (thus "peace officers" {8^). In the case of the terrorists, the conflict is largely not one of applied military force but instead tracking, identifying, and locating the individuals involved. This is more the task of a police officer than a soldier (though of course "intelligence services" play a role either way). There may be some real wars in our "war" on terrorism. Afghanistan was one, and I suspect it's not the last. But the overall process isn't really a "war" (though perhaps "cold war" as a description might work). - Andrew |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
North Korea Denounces US Stealth Bomber Deployment | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 2nd 04 09:20 PM |
what bout north korea? What about it? | Anonymoose NoSpam | Military Aviation | 2 | May 5th 04 09:15 PM |
N. Korea Agrees to Nuke Talks | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 1 | August 2nd 03 06:53 AM |