![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 54. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by kid_A on September 11, 2001, at 14:06:54
Its not as simple as saying person A and person B are responsilbe, and their lives are exempt from guilt.... I dont believe in capital punishment because I do not think it acts as a deterant to crime, but who grieves for the dead men walking, other than their mothers? How can we even think at this moment to dedicate even a tiny iota of our emotion to the possible future loss of life in a country which so openly supports acts of terrorism against inocent victims...Two wrongs do not make a right, but one rightly placed act of vengence can save many future lives.
Posted by tina on September 11, 2001, at 14:43:47
In reply to why not grieve the deaths of the terrorists...?, posted by kid_A on September 11, 2001, at 14:06:54
>, but one rightly placed act of vengence can save many future lives.
I wonder if it will stop there............
Posted by kid_A on September 11, 2001, at 14:49:18
In reply to Re: why not grieve the deaths of the terrorists...?, posted by tina on September 11, 2001, at 14:43:47
> >, but one rightly placed act of vengence can save many future lives.
>
> I wonder if it will stop there............perhaps not, violence in any aspect is regretable and not something we should honor, but to not try would be a much greater regret...
Posted by tina on September 11, 2001, at 15:01:43
In reply to Re: why not grieve the deaths of the terrorists...? » tina, posted by kid_A on September 11, 2001, at 14:49:18
> > >, but one rightly placed act of vengence can save many future lives.
> >
> > I wonder if it will stop there............
>
> perhaps not, violence in any aspect is regretable and not something we should honor, but to not try would be a much greater regret...
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 11, 2001, at 15:05:20
In reply to Re: why not grieve the deaths of the terrorists...? » tina, posted by kid_A on September 11, 2001, at 14:49:18
This is what has scared me most about all of this... the consequences.. people calling for a whole nation to be killed.. do you really want war people?? So many more innocent lives lost??
I know I;m not American, but I have watched CNN all day, often in tears. I live in London, UK where we have an almost daily threat of terrorism over our heads, but to call for the whole of ireland to be wiped would be futile.
Please, remember the loved ones who are lost, try and remember them with love, not vengence in mind.
Nikki
Posted by kid_A on September 11, 2001, at 15:25:13
In reply to Re: why not grieve the deaths of the terrorists...?, posted by NikkiT2 on September 11, 2001, at 15:05:20
> Please, remember the loved ones who are lost, try and remember them with love, not vengence in mind.
>I understand completely, and I regret the use of my word vengence, I meant rather, that it is means, possibly, hopefully, to save the lives of those who may be killed in the future by like minded individuals.
I'm no racist, and war breeds racism, I simply abhor terroist acts, and can not find sympathy for any person who celebrates acts of terrorism as a triumphant event... Who so totally and completely disregard human life...
My heart and my tears go to those victims and their families and those who have witnessed this act first hand, the injured physically and mentally by this horrible thing. I cant put into words how this has affected me.
Posted by Adam on September 11, 2001, at 18:01:07
In reply to why not grieve the deaths of the terrorists...?, posted by kid_A on September 11, 2001, at 14:06:54
I just got back from the gym. From what I heard of the chit-chat in the locker room, the populist vote will go something like "bomb the motherf***ers straight to hell." That was more-or-less an exact quote. This followed by a chorus of assention. I can't see how Bush could possibly resist an attitude like that, if it is widespread. I sit in a lab where literally half the people I work with have lived in the US for less than fifteen years, and that sort of talk isn't heard. But at a local gym, hoo-boy. I'm largely insulated from the "guy on the street" during the day, unless I'm there. An informative contrast.
The Bush team of Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have communicated their my-way-or-the-highway attitude with such unabashed forthrightness, I simply can't see any other course of action but a worldwide hunt for bin Laden, even if he wasn't in charge. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable to assume he or those loyal to him were somehow connected. Woe be to anyone who gets in the way. Other nations will be pressed to turn over all they know about bin Laden's movements, under threat of sanction from the US. I do not doubt their resolve or their ability to maneuver Bush into using the War Powers Act to counter any action by Congress, if there is one, to rein-in the response. Powell, no doubt, will not dream of cutting off the marionet strings at a moment like this.
It's not good, this attitude. Look at Israel. What has a hard-liner (Sharon) gotten them so far? More dead, an even greater resolve on the part of their enemies, with no end in sight. You fight religious fanatics with force, and they'll throw their dead babies at you before they'll give up fighting you back. And they never forget. One is forced to either use one's head and deal with them diplomatically, or kill every last one of them. The latter simply isn't an option. We'd be monsters if we took that route. So what are the options? Act in self defence, avoid retribution, and deal with the fact that, as the last superpower, we will always be a target. I think that's the best we can do.
>
> Its not as simple as saying person A and person B are responsilbe, and their lives are exempt from guilt.... I dont believe in capital punishment because I do not think it acts as a deterant to crime, but who grieves for the dead men walking, other than their mothers? How can we even think at this moment to dedicate even a tiny iota of our emotion to the possible future loss of life in a country which so openly supports acts of terrorism against inocent victims...
>
> Two wrongs do not make a right, but one rightly placed act of vengence can save many future lives.
Posted by Rach on September 12, 2001, at 0:24:30
In reply to Re: why not grieve the deaths of the terrorists...?, posted by NikkiT2 on September 11, 2001, at 15:05:20
I am tired of discussing this; I was tired of discussing it after my second post above, but felt I had to defend my point. I am glad that I'm not the only one coming from this POV. I don't think I explained myself very well, though, but you're doing it wonderfully.
xxxRachael
> This is what has scared me most about all of this... the consequences.. people calling for a whole nation to be killed.. do you really want war people?? So many more innocent lives lost??
>
> I know I;m not American, but I have watched CNN all day, often in tears. I live in London, UK where we have an almost daily threat of terrorism over our heads, but to call for the whole of ireland to be wiped would be futile.
>
> Please, remember the loved ones who are lost, try and remember them with love, not vengence in mind.
>
> Nikki
Posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 4:40:23
In reply to Re: why not grieve the deaths of the terrorists..., posted by Adam on September 11, 2001, at 18:01:07
> I just got back from the gym. From what I heard of the chit-chat in the locker room, the populist vote will go something like "bomb the motherf***ers straight to hell." That was more-or-less an exact quote.
That's what you get for taking actions like this. I can appreciate the hijackers' reasons, if it is the Palestinians -- they have a legitimate complaint, and they haven't been able to get anyone to hear them or take them seriously for the 50 years since they were displaced from their homeland -- but this sort of act just won't be effective in getting them what they want. (Maybe they could use some CBT? < g >)
> I can't see how Bush could possibly resist an attitude like that, if it is widespread.
And he's probably inclined that way anyhow. [visualising Bush Jr. calling daddy on the phone and asking him what to do] I can also see him using this as a way to rationalise more wasteful "defense" spending (not to mention even more harrassment of people in airports!).
> I do not doubt their resolve or their ability to maneuver Bush into using the War Powers Act to counter any action by Congress, if there is one, to rein-in the response.
Pardon my ignorance, but which one is the War Powers Act?
> Powell, no doubt, will not dream of cutting off the marionet strings at a moment like this.
I'm a little confused by this remark too.
> It's not good, this attitude. Look at Israel. What has a hard-liner (Sharon) gotten them so far?
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean, about the Palestinians' feeling that they have no other choice. (And while I was unsure earlier today, it seems more and more likely that OBL was involved.) Although I can hardly blame the US govt for siding with Israel (Israel is, after all, the only democracy in the region), but the Palestinians did have their country taken away from them. (A fact which, ironically, will make it very hard to use our nuclear might as a threat or deterrant.)
> More dead, an even greater resolve on the part of their enemies, with no end in sight. You fight religious fanatics with force, and they'll throw their dead babies at you before they'll give up fighting you back.
Yes, exactly. Yet the hatred keeps escalating.
> And they never forget.
Just as we will never forget this day. The only things in my lifetime that even come close are the Murrah Building bombing and the Challenger explosion.
> One is forced to either use one's head and deal with them diplomatically, or kill every last one of them.
The former seems unlikely..."we don't make deals with terrorists," and all. I think there is a third option, namely the one I mentioned before -- sending in covert forces and taking out the terrorists without harming those uninvolved. Once you eliminate the fanatics, there's a chance of negotiating peace with the sane majority.
What do you think?
-elizabeth
Posted by Adam on September 12, 2001, at 10:07:32
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Adam, posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 4:40:23
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but which one is the War Powers Act?
>
OOPS, I really blew it on that one. I got it backwards (it's been a while since that class on Vietnam). The War Powers Act was signed as a countermeasure to the Executive Order for military action. Basically, the president has the ability to commit military forces for a certain period of time before either A) congress must vote to declare war or B) no war is declared and forces are returned. I'm not sure how that all fits in with "peace-keeping" and so on. Anyway, as I'm sure you know, we never declared war on Vietnam, the presidents during that period just recycled their executive prerogative over and over to keep troops there. The legislative response to that was the War Powers Act (I think in 1973). So I inverted my terms (not uncommon for me). You get the idea, though: The president, according to the constitution, can commit the full military for something like 100 days before a vote on whether or not we are technically at war must be made. I guess the War Powers Act seeks to assure that when the time is up, Executive Order can't be extended indefinitely.
> > Powell, no doubt, will not dream of cutting off the marionet strings at a moment like this.
>
> I'm a little confused by this remark too.
>
Powell is the only real dyed-in-the-wool moderate in the cabinet right now, and I think his lustre may have faded when he took on the whole Republican party at their national convention. You know, those rather bold statements about the need for affirmative action. He made very few friends for not towing the party line at a key function, and lost a lot of cachet as a result. He is one of the least independant Secretaries of State in recent memory, and the word in Washington is that his moderate stance on a variety of issues isn't really appreciated by the Bush-Rice-Rumsfeld troika. So he's been marginalized, which is fairly remarkable for a Secretary of State. Rather than make a stink about it, Powell has capitulated completely. He does what he's told, and apparently provides little input. He has comfortably put himself in the role of underachiever, perhaps to avoid perpetual conflict and alienation.> > It's not good, this attitude. Look at Israel. What has a hard-liner (Sharon) gotten them so far?
>
> Although I can hardly blame the US govt for siding with Israel (Israel is, after all, the only democracy in the region), but the Palestinians did have their country taken away from them.This statement would likely end my friendship with my former boss if she ever found out, but here's how I see it: Calling Israel a democracy is kind of like calling pre-Mandela South Africa a democracy. Apartheid is slightly more constitutionally subtle in Israel, but it is just as devastating to the Palestinians who live there. This is, in no way, meant as a vote of support for the likes of Arafat (who's Nobel Peace Price has renedered the entire concept of a Nobel Peace Price a ludicrous joke). But the Palestinians are the big Losers in the geopolitical scheme, something that has been true since English occupation of the region, and the subsequent incorporation of a state of Israel in 1946. It must be noted that "Israel" as an independant nation had not existed, if it ever in fact existed, for something like 2500 years. The Palestinian Arabs in the region sided with the Germans during WWII, hardly suprising given the English occupation (Lawrence of Arabia, etc., etc.), so, when the war ended, the UN formed, and national boundaries were widely reset, the losers lost again. The Palestinians, from the outset, rejected the legitimacy of the new state of Israel, and have been paying for that, ever since. It's not just the Israel, mind you, who have hurt them (the Jordanian Bedouins, ironically enough, killed tens of thousands of them in Jordan, when they got out of line), but since the Arab world has become more-or-less united against Israel, Jews are now the primary target of united Arab wrath.
>
> > More dead, an even greater resolve on the part of their enemies, with no end in sight. You fight religious fanatics with force, and they'll throw their dead babies at you before they'll give up fighting you back.
>
> Yes, exactly. Yet the hatred keeps escalating.
>>
>Once you eliminate the fanatics, there's a chance of negotiating peace with the sane majority.
>
> What do you think?
>
I don't think there is any effective, forcible way to eliminate the fanatics. Religious fanaticism is a disease that thrives on violence, and on real or perceived victimization to perpetuate itself. It preys on the helpless and disenfranchised, those who have little or nothing to lose, and uses them to do its dirty work. For every one of them you kill, you create two or more. Every action creates a geometric reaction unless you A) find a better approach, or B) exterminate all of them. That means everyone, their friends, their family, those who share their convictions. It is one of the most unbeatable forces in the world today, perhaps the only unbeatable force, from a military perspective. Making love instead of war, under such circumstances, isn't just airy-fairy-mooshy-queer-commie-liberal nonsense, it's about the only effective policy. These aren't demons with horns, they're horribly misinformed and desperate people. What's the point in killing someone who wants to die and take you out with him? The worst thing you could do to someone like that (in their mind) is make them embrace you.
> -elizabeth
Posted by San on September 12, 2001, at 18:31:55
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Adam, posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 4:40:23
> > I just got back from the gym. From what I heard of the chit-chat in the locker room, the populist vote will go something like "bomb the motherf***ers straight to hell." That was more-or-less an exact quote.
>
> That's what you get for taking actions like this. I can appreciate the hijackers' reasons, if it is the Palestinians -- they have a legitimate complaint, and they haven't been able to get anyone to hear them or take them seriously for the 50 years since they were displaced from their homeland -- but this sort of act just won't be effective in getting them what they want. (Maybe they could use some CBT? < g >)
>
> > I can't see how Bush could possibly resist an attitude like that, if it is widespread.
>
> And he's probably inclined that way anyhow. [visualising Bush Jr. calling daddy on the phone and asking him what to do] I can also see him using this as a way to rationalise more wasteful "defense" spending (not to mention even more harrassment of people in airports!).
>
> > I do not doubt their resolve or their ability to maneuver Bush into using the War Powers Act to counter any action by Congress, if there is one, to rein-in the response.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but which one is the War Powers Act?
>
> > Powell, no doubt, will not dream of cutting off the marionet strings at a moment like this.
>
> I'm a little confused by this remark too.
>
> > It's not good, this attitude. Look at Israel. What has a hard-liner (Sharon) gotten them so far?
>
> Yeah, that's exactly what I mean, about the Palestinians' feeling that they have no other choice. (And while I was unsure earlier today, it seems more and more likely that OBL was involved.) Although I can hardly blame the US govt for siding with Israel (Israel is, after all, the only democracy in the region), but the Palestinians did have their country taken away from them. (A fact which, ironically, will make it very hard to use our nuclear might as a threat or deterrant.)
>
> > More dead, an even greater resolve on the part of their enemies, with no end in sight. You fight religious fanatics with force, and they'll throw their dead babies at you before they'll give up fighting you back.
>
> Yes, exactly. Yet the hatred keeps escalating.
>
> > And they never forget.
>
> Just as we will never forget this day. The only things in my lifetime that even come close are the Murrah Building bombing and the Challenger explosion.
>
> > One is forced to either use one's head and deal with them diplomatically, or kill every last one of them.
>
> The former seems unlikely..."we don't make deals with terrorists," and all. I think there is a third option, namely the one I mentioned before -- sending in covert forces and taking out the terrorists without harming those uninvolved. Once you eliminate the fanatics, there's a chance of negotiating peace with the sane majority.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -elizabeth> >
>The time for negotiating is over. The terrorists committed horrifically evil acts. Those who support them, support evil. The country which allowed them to reside there, permitted evil to abide there among them. It is time for the world to take a giant purgative and expel this mass of degradation from the face of the earth. When the rest of the world sees that the virtuous inhabitants of this plantet will no longer turn a blind eye to their self-serving acts of pure murder, then they may think twice before doing something like this again. I promise you, the heathens of this world will take notice.
San
Posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 20:31:26
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 12, 2001, at 18:31:55
> It is time for the world to take a giant purgative and expel this mass of degradation from the face of the earth. When the rest of the world sees that the virtuous inhabitants of this plantet will no longer turn a blind eye to their self-serving acts of pure murder, then they may think twice before doing something like this again. I promise you, the heathens of this world will take notice.
Oh really? And who defines "virtuous?" You?
-elizabeth (godless heathen)
Posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 20:31:34
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Elizabeth, posted by Adam on September 12, 2001, at 10:07:32
> OOPS, I really blew it on that one. I got it backwards (it's been a while since that class on Vietnam). The War Powers Act was signed as a countermeasure to the Executive Order for military action. Basically, the president has the ability to commit military forces for a certain period of time before either A) congress must vote to declare war or B) no war is declared and forces are returned.
Bush Sr. found ways around that, IIRC. ("The Persian Gulf Conflict?")
> You get the idea, though: The president, according to the constitution, can commit the full military for something like 100 days before a vote on whether or not we are technically at war must be made.
That's not bad. (I mean, for the President. :-})
Say, did anybody read the Tom Clancy novel _Executive Orders_? That's what I'd like to see 'em do (not that they're going to, or anything, for various reasons).
> > > Powell, no doubt, will not dream of cutting off the marionet strings at a moment like this.
> >
> > I'm a little confused by this remark too.
> >
> Powell is the only real dyed-in-the-wool moderate in the cabinet right now, and I think his lustre may have faded when he took on the whole Republican party at their national convention.Ahh. He's the smartest one in the bunch, in my book. Should be president himself, I'd even say (if it has to be a Republican, that is).
> You know, those rather bold statements about the need for affirmative action.
I like that he's that brave. Most moderate Republicans wouldn't have the balls to challenge the party line like that even if they wanted to.
> He is one of the least independant Secretaries of State in recent memory, and the word in Washington is that his moderate stance on a variety of issues isn't really appreciated by the Bush-Rice-Rumsfeld troika.
That's just terrible.
> So he's been marginalized, which is fairly remarkable for a Secretary of State.
We can't have any rational, moderate people running the country now, can we? :-P
> Rather than make a stink about it, Powell has capitulated completely. He does what he's told, and apparently provides little input. He has comfortably put himself in the role of underachiever, perhaps to avoid perpetual conflict and alienation.
Oh well. So much for bravery. Maybe he'll change his mind and run for prez in the future. I bet he could win, even in the current hair-split climate, by getting bipartisan support. (He was just speaking on the local ABC affiliate, BTW.)
> This statement would likely end my friendship with my former boss if she ever found out, but here's how I see it: Calling Israel a democracy is kind of like calling pre-Mandela South Africa a democracy.
Point taken, although I think that compared to the other places in the region, Israel really does come out the moral winner (we'll probably both get flamed for this). I think the creation of Israel was done very irresponsibly: they -- I'd say "we" but I wasn't even alive at the time -- gave the Jews a country where somebody else was already living. It's not that the Jews shouldn't have gotten a place to live where they would be able to feel safe and welcomed, just that it was done with a remarkable lack of consideration for those who already lived in the place. It probably wouldn't have been possible to give the Jews a Jewish-only country (or is it country club?) in any fair way. The U.S. and other Western countries ought to have offered them asylum and assisted them in getting to wherever they wanted to go where they would be welcomed.
The creation of a state that's only superficially secular, based on a religious belief of a group that believes they are the "chosen people," seems like something the US should have had no part in.
Personally, I'd be happy for all the Jews in Israel to come to America -- we have vast amounts of unpopulated land where the climate (political and metetorological) is far more inviting than that darned desert. It'd probably increase our chances of getting Democrats elected to national office. < g > They could even have a Jewish "state" (with a truly secular govt, of course) right here, which would have a Jewish majority and a Jewish cultural feel.
> Apartheid is slightly more constitutionally subtle in Israel, but it is just as devastating to the Palestinians who live there.
Yeah, I know. The creation of Israel wasn't very smoothly done.
> This is, in no way, meant as a vote of support for the likes of Arafat (who's Nobel Peace Price has renedered the entire concept of a Nobel Peace Price a ludicrous joke).
Hey, didn't Steven Soderbergh -- that guy who directed _Erin Brokovich_ and _Traffic_ -- win one of those too? (I mean, not that they weren't good films, but wouldn't an Oscar have been more appropriate?!)
> It must be noted that "Israel" as an independant nation had not existed, if it ever in fact existed, for something like 2500 years.
And the claim that it should exist is based on the belief of a particular religious group (and, according to them, a particular *race*) is rather...well, untenable, to a secularist like myself. At the same time, if I have to choose a side today, I'd still take Israel over the Arab nations. It's just a question of which side is more fanatical and bigoted than the other. < putting on my asbestos underwear here >
> The Palestinians, from the outset, rejected the legitimacy of the new state of Israel, and have been paying for that, ever since.
Just like the Republicans rejected the legitimacy of Clinton's Presidency...? :-}
> It's not just the Israel, mind you, who have hurt them (the Jordanian Bedouins, ironically enough, killed tens of thousands of them in Jordan, when they got out of line), but since the Arab world has become more-or-less united against Israel, Jews are now the primary target of united Arab wrath.
Keep in mind that Jews make up less than 3% of the world's people and came very close to being completely wiped out only half a century ago. I think they genuinely represent a special case.
(Incidentally, in searching for that statistic, I found the following web page, which I found rather creepy in a eugenics-ish way: http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/majority.htm. What do you think?)
> I don't think there is any effective, forcible way to eliminate the fanatics.
Yeah, they'll just hide behind innocent civilians. If we attack, we're the bad guy; if we don't, they win.
> Religious fanaticism is a disease that thrives on violence, and on real or perceived victimization to perpetuate itself.
(What's this, the "disease model" of religious radicalism? < g >)
> Making love instead of war, under such circumstances, isn't just airy-fairy-mooshy-queer-commie-liberal nonsense, it's about the only effective policy.
If it's all right, I'll pass on "making love" if it turns out that OBL is the responsible one. He's kind of icky.
> The worst thing you could do to someone like that (in their mind) is make them embrace you.
I think if we tried it they might surprise us (and themselves).
I also can't help but think of the catchy tag line, "what would Jesus do?"
-elizabeth
Posted by San on September 12, 2001, at 23:05:28
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 20:31:26
> > It is time for the world to take a giant purgative and expel this mass of degradation from the face of the earth. When the rest of the world sees that the virtuous inhabitants of this plantet will no longer turn a blind eye to their self-serving acts of pure murder, then they may think twice before doing something like this again. I promise you, the heathens of this world will take notice.
>
> Oh really? And who defines "virtuous?" You?
>
> -elizabeth (godless heathen)>
>"Virtuous" (as defined by Webster)-having or characterized by moral virtue; of good, upright, moral. It can be deduced from this definition that the afore mentioned "virtuous inhabitants of this planet" are those who are good, upright, and moral. If I have to explain to you what is good, upright, and moral in this world, then you are truly one to be pitied. Moral, upright people do not sit on their hands and talk while thousands of innocent people are slaughtered.
I also found it interesting that on you next post, you say you can't help but think "what would Jesus do?" Then you sign you follow-up to my post as "godless heathen." You seem quite confused. I wish you well and will remember you in my prayers----------San
Posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 6:24:31
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 12, 2001, at 23:05:28
San,
It may be hard for you to believe that there are people who believe that Jesus was a very compassionate person (who believed in a higher power). I can want to model my life after that of Jesus' -- serving others, not judging, not throwing the first stone, etc. -- yet choose myself not to believe in some concept of a diety. There is not confusion in that concept.
akc
(another godless heathen)
Posted by Elizabeth on September 13, 2001, at 6:49:18
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 12, 2001, at 23:05:28
> > Oh really? And who defines "virtuous?" You?
> >
> > -elizabeth (godless heathen)
>
> >"Virtuous" (as defined by Webster)-having or characterized by moral virtue; of good, upright, moral. It can be deduced from this definition that the afore mentioned "virtuous inhabitants of this planet" are those who are good, upright, and moral. If I have to explain to you what is good, upright, and moral in this world, then you are truly one to be pitied. Moral, upright people do not sit on their hands and talk while thousands of innocent people are slaughtered.
> I also found it interesting that on you next post, you say you can't help but think "what would Jesus do?" Then you sign you follow-up to my post as "godless heathen." You seem quite confused. I wish you well and will remember you in my prayers----------SanJesus was a person. A good person with a good message. You don't have to believe in supernatural powers to believe that. I assure you, I'm not confused. But from reading your post, I had to wonder if you meant only Christians or only religious people by "virtuous." It really did come across that way because you used the word "heathens."
Non-religious people (who make up about 15% of the U.S. population) are one of the most marginalised groups in this country. Please try to be more considerate.
-elizabeth
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 6:58:23
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by Elizabeth on September 13, 2001, at 6:49:18
Do you believe that England should go into Ireland and bomb the hell out of them. They have put England under the terror of attacks for the last 20 years... Infact one of their recent bombs was very close to my home.
I know none of their attacks have been anything near as devastating as the recent attacks on America, but calling for blood and revenge is not going to help. Killing more innocent people is not the way to go.
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 7:52:22
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by Elizabeth on September 13, 2001, at 6:49:18
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 9:23:37
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Elizabeth, posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 6:58:23
> This is a different situation from Ireland, Nikki. Comparing them again and again is not going to help.
I think as we debate what we feel to be the correct actions to be in the upcoming days, which I think we should do, we better keep this as a separate issue.
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 10:47:48
In reply to re: two wrongs... » NikkiT2, posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 9:23:37
So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
I'm not starting an argument, just trying to explain my view that War, and calling for the blood of people we still don't know were really involved is not the way to go forward on this.
I just don't want more INNOCENT people killed...
Nikki
> > This is a different situation from Ireland, Nikki. Comparing them again and again is not going to help.
>
> I think as we debate what we feel to be the correct actions to be in the upcoming days, which I think we should do, we better keep this as a separate issue.
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 11:19:55
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Adam, posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 20:31:34
OK, my memory is REALLY bad.
The War Powers Act _was_ an answer to executive largess in Vietnam, and it does put some severe limitations, at least in principle, on what the President can do with the armed forces as Commander In Chief. I guess, according to the Act, the president is only directly authorized to commit the military in "war" when the country has been attacked, and then only for 60 days max, before further authorization from Congress is obtained by vote.
You would think I would remember more about this. At the time I took the class on Vietnam, it was during the Gulf War, and I was living in the Republic of Ireland...probably the safest place I could be at that time. The Act came up quite a bit, and was entirely apropos to current events. I think I may have killed a few too many brain cells in the pub while there.
I do remember my prof. being pretty rankled by the Gulf War. He had a good grasp of the history, and laid out in pretty stark terms how Saddam was once our guy, and how we armed and supported him, knowing full well what a genocidal nut case he was, because it was strategically convenient (warring with Iran, our then Enemy #1, etc.) I can't stress enough how left-leaning the prof. was though (an American, visiting Ireland like me, who had lived in Canada and Japan for ten years because he dodged the draft, making him an exile until Carter granted amnesty). He had huge scars on his right arm from a police dog that mauled him during a demonstration. He was pretty hard core.
Anway, as much as a "flaming liberal" as this guy was, he had his facts straight, if not always his interpretations. The power-politics of the US is a pretty sad tale in iteself, and surveying the history of Vietnam, from our support of Ho Chi Minh to expel the Japanese, through our rejection of him to back a colonialist power (France) after the war, to our eventual adoption of their role following the defeat at Dien Ben Phu (think I spelled that right)...it's like watching a devastating train wreck unfold in slow motion.
As for "making love" and so on... I think bin Laden has earned himself a few hundred consecutive life sentances, and even if he had nothing to do with the recent attacks (unlikely), prosecuting him would be a worthy cause. Going to war with Afghanistan to get at him, though...that's a lot more dicey, and I hope like hell the US doesn't do something that stupid. Tracking the perps down, bringing them to court, prosecuting them, that's the way to go. Best of all, we should really work the international coalition angle to put pressure on the governments who harbor these criminals to turn them over themselves, or allow UN forces to go get them without interferance. I really hope we take that route. Compelling the heads of these nations to follow international law, and giving them due credit when they do, that's the best possible way. Constant diplopatic engagement and pressure to stop lending support or giving safe harbor to terrorists, that's the future preventative course that will best serve us in the end, I think.
I'm not sure there is much popular support for such a protracted and focused campaign, though. That's what concerns me. Those calling the shots are hawkish enough, and the general population seems angry enough, to support some major military efforts, perhaps in multiple states, to punish those countries and their citizens. If we do that, we lose the moral high ground, and harden the resolve of the terrorists to strike again. We make lots of new ones in th process, too. We'll never be safe.
No, I sure as heck don't want to see those responsible go unprosecuted. Some people really do deserve to be punished, and punished severely, for this, if they are still alive. I just think we should be restrained in our action, and remember it's not like the USA hasn't done some pretty terrible things in the name of national interest even in the recent past. We can't assume moral superiority to anyone as a country, but we can behave very morally, with equanimity, and that course will always make our future brighter than it could very easily be.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:24:22
In reply to Re: re: two wrongs... » Krazy Kat , posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 10:47:48
thing. You're creating more dissention by doing that. The horrific situation between Ireland and Britain has different dynamics. It's not the same thing.
This is not just an American thing. Our allies will be affected as well, I'm certain.
I have yet to comment on who is responsible for these attacks, but it seems to be getting pretty narrow.
Let me make it clear, that I in no way endorse people targeting Arab Americans. It is outrageous, and guttural, and just Stupid. But that does not mean we can't be angry at the people who did do this act.
And again, I would ask, what is the solution if this person(s) and those responsible aren't held accountable? What if the U.S. or Britain or France or Japan is attacked tonight? And then tomorrow?
"On AMERICAN soil" (sarcastically said) - geez, do you have something against Americans? And how dare you use such an irreverent tone in light of what has happened?
I take great offense at your comment.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:36:09
In reply to Re: Many factual wrongs » Elizabeth, posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 11:19:55
Can this be done? It seems like we're (America) not getting a lot of support here.
I agree with you - this is ideal, but I really think, IMVHO, that it is wishful thinking.
"Tracking the perps down, bringing them to court, prosecuting them, that's the way to go"
Apparently we had "him" a few years back and let him go. I'm sure there was already sufficient horror to link him to. Why wasn't he contained then?
"Best of all, we should really work the international coalition angle to put pressure on the governments who harbor these criminals to turn them over themselves, or allow UN forces to go get them without interferance"
The UN isn't really that active in our favor. There's a reason we're considered aggressive. Why wasn't this road taken before?
Of course we've done horrible things as well. But this is all so idealistic. I amquite unaware of what can and cannot be accomplished, but we can look at it historically and piece together why political movements occurred, etc.
Throw us some more thoughts, please Adam! :)
- K.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2001, at 13:03:05
In reply to Don't make this into an American versus others..., posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:24:22
> If I have to explain to you what is good, upright, and moral in this world, then you are truly one to be pitied.
>
> You seem quite confused.> "On AMERICAN soil" (sarcastically said) - geez, do you have something against Americans? And how dare you use such an irreverent tone in light of what has happened?
Many of us naturally are having lots of strong feelings about the attacks -- and related issues. There's enough lack of consideration for others in the larger world; here, please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong and be sensitive to their feelings even if they hurt yours -- and please don't be sarcastic, post anything that others could take as accusatory, or put others down. Especially now. Thanks,
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding civility should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 13:18:25
In reply to But, it's not that easy, is it?-Adam, posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:36:09
> The UN isn't really that active in our favor. There's a reason we're considered aggressive. Why wasn't this road taken before?
>
> Throw us some more thoughts, please Adam! :)
>
> - K.I agree there is much that could have and probably should have been done in the past that would have been constructive. It's too late now, quite obviously.
But remember, the estimates for the death toll at the WTC are approaching 20,000. That's about 1/3 the number of all the American servicemen who were killed in Vietnam, during the entire campaign, which lasted over ten years. Maybe 3500 people died during the attack on Pearl Harbor. A staggering number of people have been killed in literally one fell swoop. We have to consider that hundreds or thousands of them were not US citizens. They came from all over the world, especially China, UK, Japan, but really all over. This attack has crippled commerce in the area, amputated large pieces of some major international corporations, and seriously impacted global markets. The terrorists couldn't have picked a better target if they wanted to harm not only the US, but secular society and capitolism, the latter a force as great and compelling as any religion. The destruction caused there rivals any single attack in modern war history. The only things I can think of offhand to compare are the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
So this is just plain different. It's so shocking, to what I hope is a universal sense of human decency, and so inclusive in its scope, that interest in an international anti-terrorist effort may be more keen than in the past. Hopefully something permanent and constructive might come from such an alliance.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.