»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Trying to Clarify, not Justify
| The Alley |
|
Trying to Clarify, not Justify |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is related to Doreen's post. It's a bit long but helpful, I think, in trying to understand the potential danger of words and blanket military attacks. http://csmonitor.com/2001/0927/p1s1-wogi.html "Nor has the mood that has gripped Washington over the past two weeks done much to reassure skeptics, says François Burgat, a French social scientist in Yemen. "When Bush says 'crusade', or that he wants bin Laden 'dead or alive', that is a fatwa (religious edict) without any judicial review", he cautions. "It denies all the principles that America is supposed to be."" --from the article [This message has been edited by Brad (edited 10-18-2001).] |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
that was a very enlightening article i never would have thought to read the Christian Science Monitor... thank you for posting this... from the article quote: really? the UN said this? I'm curious... could you explain how economic sanctions could be responsible for deaths of half a million Iraqi children? i don't really understand that part.... and i'd like to... plus, is the US still bombing iraq? if so, how come we don't hear about that? i admit, i don't read the newspaper every day from cover to cover... geesh, i know so little... any clarification on these two statements in the article would be appreciated. there's some other very interesting articles at that site, as well |
||
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Doreen, the USA is responsible because there is not as much coming in the country as there one was. Someone is going to have to tighten their belt. The one person who will not is Saddam Hussein (sp?) He contiues to take the bread and only the crumbs that fall through his fingers get to the children. Look at last night's news that the Taliban has taken over 50% of the food we dropped in for the people of Afghanistan. They intend to take even more in order to feed themselves and their army. That may be an eye opener for some folks, but this had gone on down through the ages and is going on in some African countries right now. Food brought in from whatever source, the Red Cross for example, is confiscated by the ruling regime and the people continue to starve. It's an unfortunate fact of life. I am beginning to like less and less of what I hear coming from the United Nations and am wondering how many people wait each day to hear what Burgat has to say about our country. This goes back to a thread we had earlier (that I stayed out of, I think) about why the USA is always the culprit responsible for whatever bad happens in the world. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Doreen, I've been trying to find that UN report but I don't have the time anymore. At any rate, take it with a grain of salt. I don't see how they could come up with reliable results at this time; at the very least, you can't know who would have died if the economic sanctions were not in place. The bombing of Iraq, I think, refers to the intermittent missile attacks since the Gulf War. Interloper's right about the Taliban taking the food (that happens a lot, and it makes sense if you think about it.) -- but fifty percent is actually pretty good. If innocents are indeed getting the other fifty percent. Has anybody heard anything about people dying as a result of trying to get to the food? Afghanistan does have a lot of mine fields. Brad PS I just realized that yesterday I was spelling Afghanistan wrong. Nobody's perfect. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I tend to get a bit jaded when reading news like that. I mean, I've read lots of statistics about how many children have died due to the sanctions. How do they know? How many would die if the U.S. did not help at all? How many children died during the biological attacks on Kurds in northern Iraq? How many die from the minefields peppering Afghan soil? How many children will get the food stolen from U.N. warehouses by the Taliban a few days ago? It's at times like this, when countries curse the U.S.'s 'world police' attitude, they don't seem to mind at all the food we send. They hate our foriegn policy, but love our wheat. There are times when all I can think of is an old saying: Don't bite the hand that feeds you. If they don't like us, fine...that's OK. We should just take our goods and go home...after all, isn't that a slogan used? Yankees go Home? Then lets see how well these countries deal. I'm not normally so heartless. But some times, I just get sick and tired of the villianization of the United States. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Um Ali...one small thing...wouldn't you appreciate any food from whatever source it came from, if you lived in conditions like a large percentage of Afghans are living in? Seriously...and wouldn't you also complain if your country was bombed because it's leaders were harbouring terrorists? I'm sorry but the people of Afghanistan have suffered so much it makes my blood boil. The soviets, the Taliban and now the US bombing it to get to the Taliban and Osama - which are important tasks - essential even. But it's a bit sad that an entire country has to be bombed to get to its leaders... sheesh - if someone like Osama was hiding out here (the safest place to be right now apparently) and my government turned feral - I'd be a tad annoyed (to put it mildly) if the US just decided to drop a few bombs on my country... And I'd damn well take any food offered too... Don't bite the hand that feeds you you say? what about the hand that bombs you?  K |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Justification, Brad? Of course not. That goes without saying. Clarification? Not from articles like this. As in everything, there is more than one side to a story. Since it seems that the United States, due mainly to her support of Israel, ranges anywhere from a nation with misguided, questionable foreign policies to the Great Satan, I feel compelled to present a portion of the other side of the story. The Arab Nations are not the only ones who suffer.....understanding does not come only from listening to the woes of one side. Why do some journalists seem only to be presenting the views of the Arab Nations, quoting Arabs who understand and sympathize with what bin Laden and other terrorists have inexcusably done to us, but never seem to give the whole story? The Arab Nations are not faultless. Strange too, isn't it? bin Laden never mentioned, until last week, his 'concern' for the Palestinans in the Israel/Palestinan issue, an obvious attempt to whip up support from Arabs everywhere. Seems as though he was successful too, even with some of the press. Very sad. Very sad, too, that thinking people anywhere would buy into his desperate last ditch efforts. Maybe he will actually succeed in his efforts to cause World War III. Is it just coincidence that a Palestinian faction has just assassinated one of Israel's political leaders and now it appears that fighting will again be escalating in that region at the worst possible time for the U.S. and her allies? 1. Nationhood and Jerusalem - Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C., two thousand years before the rise of Islam. 2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the Modern State of Israel. 3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C. the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years. 4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 B.C. lasted no more than 22 years. 5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit. 6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. 7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem. 8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem. 9. Arab and Jewish Refugees- In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. 10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms. 11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same. 12. Arab refugees were not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey. 13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict; The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won. 14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with weapons. 15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths. 16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs-of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. 17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. 18. The U.N. was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. 19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. 20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. 21. Israel is the only member of the U.N. that is not permitted membership on the Security Council. 22. Israel has never been permitted membership in the International Red Cross. Our efforts in Afghanistan to bring the terrorists to justice had nothing to do with the tensions and problems between Israel and Palestine. But judging from news reports and articles being written, it sure seems to me that some in the Arab world will not rest until they lay the blame of the conflict at the feet of Israel and the U.S. instead of where it rightly belongs. Talk about evil... [This message has been edited by Denise (edited 10-19-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, I completely agree that the article does not contain the whole story or even the majority of the story. It simply, I think, I hope, gives a fairly clear picture of one side of the story. My fault, I should have made that clear. As to the points you gave, I didn't see the article as anti-Israel as you do, but as an attempt to understand anti-Israeli feeling and through that anti-American feeling. I still believe that America should support Israel. We give what? 3 billion a year? Sorry about that, Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Here are a few more viewpoints: http://www.join.org.au/nswjbod/jerusalem.htm --Jerusalem: the city of eternity --this is a Jerusalem timeline. [URL=http://www.jerusalemites.org/feedback.html]http://www.jerusalemites.org/feedback.html --this is an Arab point of view My point here is not to engage in a who's right or who's wrong debate, my point is simply to show, as Denise pointed out, that there are different sides to different stories. I'm quite sure that if this discussion continued in terms of lists, we would just be giving list and site and list and site. But if you look at Denise's comments, notice the stress on nation fighting nation, if you look at the Arab piece, notice the empahsis on a nation killing a people. What intrigues me here is not the correct history but the use of history to further political goals. It's all propaganda. Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (edited 10-19-2001).] |
||
|
Elizabeth
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 1999-06-07
Posts 6871Minnesota |
K, you have good points there and I'm glad you brought them up. I think most anyone would be pretty ticked if their country was attacked. In fact, I'd be more worried if someone was happy their country was attacked than if they were upset. However, the fact that Afghanistan is being bombed is not the fault of the U.S. and Britain. It is the fault of the Taliban. They had almost a whole month to surrender bin Laden, knowing the consequence if they didn't. What did they do? Not send bin Laden over to the U.S., instead they refused. They had their chance and they refused it. What are Americans supposed to do, sit here and say, "Oh, well the Taliban didn't surrender bin Laden. No problem!" If we had done that we are inviting another terrorist attack like that of September 11th. Then we would have been just as guilty as the terrorists who perpetrated the attack. It annoys me, to say the least, that people will take what they want from the U.S. and then, after they have what they want, continue their prejudice against the nation. I agree with Ali on this-you can't bite the hand that feeds you. Wouldn't you be upset if your country, your government, your people helped out another nation, and then the people of that nation said, "Those New Zealanders are the most awful people on the face of this earth! We hate them all! Australia is a much better country!" Then when there was more trouble, they would come crawling back to NZ wouldn't they? Without trying to reconsider their feelings toward the country and its citizens? I've had so many people insult my country and complain about it that I'm quite sick of hearing it (and yes, I did have those feelings before September 11th). The innocent Afghanis do have my sympathies. If their was any way at all to get bin Laden without having to bomb the whole country I would be totally for it. Unfortunately that is not the case. We tried that and it failed. I really believe there is no other way. God bless America, my home sweet home. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I haven't read all the articles posted here and I'm not going to have time to unfortunately -- but -- I do understand the sentiment behind the 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' attitude. I appreciate the fact that American's see ourselves as well intentioned and fundamentally good -- however -- there comes a point in time when the 'fed' resent having to be 'fed'. If one is raised in a culture that claims the hand that is feeding us is also the hand that is raping us and just giving us back what was already ours or should have been ours to begin with -- it becomes easier to see the other point of view. Americans are hurt and offended that we aren't universally loved throughout the world for our benevolence... it doesn't bother me though -- and I'm not particularly tired of it -- here's why... A student once asked Confucious "Master -- what does it mean that everyone likes a man?" To which Confucious replied -- "That does not say enough. It says enough that the good people like him, and the bad ones do not." Who is to judge who is good or bad? Americans are generally good. There are evil Americans. Islam is generally good, there are evil Arabs. Inevitably someone will interpret our actions in a bad light -- or even the worst possible light -- even good people will do that -- we can't even understand each other and we all speak the same language and come from ostensibly the same culture given the few regional variations -- and I'd even venture to say to Severn that our culture is not that different from the Kiwi state... This all points to the fact that we need to be doing a better job of understanding and waging the propaganda war. I assume Ari Fliescher will be replaced soon. Denise: I understand the litany you've proposed as one side of the argument -- and it is extremely one sided. How far back do you go? Ok.. the land belongs to the Caananites (sp?) because the Jews were nomads before Moses took them to the promised land and drove them out-- it goes on and on and on and on...so what? Isreal is denied a seat on the security council because it continues to act in violation of UN resolutions. Just because the PLO has waged war against Isreal doesn't mean the Palestinians haven't suffered the unjustified taking of their land or discrimination. Just because Isreal wants to defend itself against hostile neighbors doesn't mean they want to take over the Middle East. You are correct in your analysis that Bin Laden is trying to co-op the PLFP -- but he won't if Arafat has anyting to say about it -- Sure the PLO has commited some 5000 acts of 'terrorism' in it's war with Isreal -- but -- they consider themselves freedom fighters -- and they're really only fighting for what the UN has said is theirs -- The curent administration --finally-- supports a Palestinian state -- Arafat would be foolish at this point to throw any support toward Bin Laden and I doubt he would... Bin Laden's words were meant to whip up the people in the street to usurp the authority of Arab leaders throughout the region -- he wants to run it all -- he's a megalomaniac. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, the link for the Arab View is the same as the Timeline of Israel link. Also, the emphasis in the points I posted were highlighted by me, and only because they particularly struck me as important. But I'm not getting why you pointed that out. Would you please elaborate on that point? Thanks. I totally agree with you, Elizabeth. If there were another way, the U.S. would certainly be persuing that path. We take no pleasure in war or the suffering of innocent people. Sometimes there just is no other way. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., I don't see it as any more one sided than the other things I have read, at all. And that's my entire point. It's always necessary to get both sides of an issue, something that I feel is totally lacking in recent press. I couldn't agree more with you about bin Laden. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sorry about that. The wierdest thing is that I thought I fixed that. http://www.jerusalemites.org/feedback.html Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (edited 10-20-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And now the above link is working again. Amazing what happens when you actually start reading and realize your own mistakes.  Here's the whole site: http://www.jerusalemites.org/quds.html Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (edited 10-20-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, I think the different emphasis is important. The Israeli emphasis on nationhood is to legitimize themselves in the face of the world. Focusing on people takes away from their primary goal: We are a sovereign state and will defend ourselves. This makes sense. The Palestinian side argues from a more anecdotal perspective (my house, my family's house was taken away from me). This legitimizes the NEED for a state. Focusing on countries (Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq) would make it seem like they should be a part of one of these countries. This makes sense. Both avenues allow them to emphasize what they want and at the same time villify the other. I should thank you, I found some time to do a little research on the Israil/Palestine issue and found it fascinating reading. The quotes on both sides reinforce the prejudices of the other. It, of course, does nothing more than reinforce by own perspective -- that we're not going to get anywhere as long as we assert our own justification in general and moral terms rather than trying to solve specific problems. Why does everyone want to play God? Brad |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A lack of peace in the Middle East certainly isn't for a lack of trying. How many concessions have been made down through the years by Isreal to the Palestinians, and yet the peace talks break down and the terrorist activities continue, i.e., bombing of public buses, cars, restuarants, shops, parks, etc. (attacks on innocent civilians..hmmm..seems to be the modus operandi among Arab militants and fanatics)(?) Yet when Israel takes action against these acts and their perpetrators (which is incumbant on any country to do, I believe) some decry them as the trouble makers in the situation. Maybe our press here in the States is biased but I don't recall having read any reports of Israel instigating terrorist attacks against civilian Palestinians, but only engaging in responses to the attacks against those found to be responsible. Perhaps I've missed articles on those reports in the newspapers, as well, as I don't read the papers everyday. Israel speaks from the position of being a sovereign state because they are a sovereign state. Palestinians don't because they aren't. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be, but they aren't yet, that's all, and I'm sure if the world press interviewed the Israeli people, one on one, as they have done with the Arabs from different nations, we would also hear stories of personal suffering, loss and a sense of injustice having been done. And what does it say about the PLO still calling for the destruction of the State of Israel? Why isn't the U.N. doing something about that? One disturbing thing I read from the Arab View link that you gave, Brad, was that Islam is against the killing of women and small children, in most instances. Most instances.? What's that about? And what about innocent men? And what about not-so-small children? Honestly, reading through that site gave me chills, on more than one occassion. It's true, none of us should be playing God, that's for sure. In these treacherous times, though, I would certainly encourage all who believe in God to be on their knees in prayer before Him for strength, courage and discernment as we try to continue on with our lives. [This message has been edited by Denise (edited 10-21-2001).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Oh, Kamla, I forgot to mention, just in case news from Philadelphia hasn't had press coverage in New Zealand...a suitcase of military grade C-4 plastic explosives was found in a locker at the Greyhound bus terminal (nine blocks from where I work)...the same terminal that you arrived at on your trip here. Pretty scarey stuff. The police and FBI think that it was placed there to be picked up by someone who is charged with picking up these materials to be used in conjunction with other explosive materials picked up from other sites around the region, as no detonation device was with it, which is necessary. Let's hope that all such items that might possibly be stored elsewhere are found in time. p.s. Can I come live with you for awhile? |
||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
your last post, Denise, about the plastic explosives just scared the hell out of me thank you for the info today was a day i decided to take a break from the news... i guess i better turn it on... *sigh* hey, Kamla, can i come too? even if you said yes, i don't know how i'd get there unless i grew wings or something... can't swim that far lol!!!!! |
||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
nah... i'm not gonna turn it on... going out dancing instead sorry to go off topic, Brad.... wanna dance? [This message has been edited by doreen peri (edited 10-21-2001).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's the link Doreen, from today's paper. It happened on Friday. The theory that it may have been there waiting for pickup in conjunction with other pickups of other explosives was on the evening news here Friday night, though I don't see that theory specifically mentioned in the article in today's paper. I'm taking a break from the news today, too. It is getting a bit overwhelming. Dancing sure sounds like a fantastic idea, but for lack of a willing dance partner (namely my couch potato husband...lol) I think I'll take a nap! http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/10/21/local_news/PBUS21.htm [This message has been edited by Denise (edited 10-21-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, It's enough that we understand the perceived grievances of Arabs in order to deal with the situation more effectively. You see a bias in the news coverage but that bias, if it's there, is the same as mine --to try and understand the situation. Others have pointed out how they're sick and tired of America bashing but I actually see very little of it. If you're sensitive to it, however, it'll stand out more. If you're looking for evil intent, you'll find evil intent. If you're looking for victims, you'll find victims. All around the veil of "See, I told you so. It's true." I was just as 'chilled' by your statement, "Sometimes, it's the only way." But don't you see the equivalence in "in most instances"? What's the difference? And it doesn't mean anything unless you mean, "This time, it's the only way." That's a question I can't answer but, I assume, you would argue that the killing of Afghan civilians is necessary? I don't know, I don't know if this is the only way. It may turn out that the attacks on Afghanistan do everything we want (capture bin Laden, topple the Taliban, install a stable government that begins the hard work of rebuilding that country). But if it doesn't do that? What do we do? Capturing bin Laden is the first goal, I agree; crippling the terrorist network is the overall goal, I agree. But shouldn't we start thinking about other possible options in order to achieve these goals? Just in case it's not the only way. Brad PS By the way, the timeline is for Jerusalem, not Israel. If you want to keep talking about Israel/Palestine problem, I'm cool with that (I've been taking a crash internet course on the situation). But, to be honest, it seems if you want to blame anyone -- the root cause if you will -- why not place it on the British and their silly ideas about self-determination? They set up the partition process as the only solution to guarantee peace. They were wrong. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Denise - that's awful...I feel so affected, simply from having travelling to the states - I think many do. And I feel almost guilty - truly - when I say that I turn on CNN in the mornings here and say THANK YOU GOD that I am where I am. We are not immume by any means...hell, our intelligent prime minister is SELLING OFF our defence unit of the air force. In the current global climate we are left with no defence...~throwning up hands~ Elizabeth - I appreciate what you have to say, really I do..one thing though...I think it's important to stick to this time, this context - this incident. Hence, the people of Afghanistan are recieving food and bombs at the same time...(remembering the bombs aren't apparently 'aimed' at them but the Taliban - yet, the people are still affected). How must it be for many of them to negotiate the dualities. Also - consider their hunger...how many of them even care why food is being given, or who its from? How many of them even understand why bombs are falling? The Taliban makes it hard for outside information to find its why into the lives of ordinary Afghans...most of them will likely get information from in Pakistan - those who make it there...so there you are, displaced...hungry..uncertain of your future...watching your home and life fall even further apart - and America drops food and bombs. I think their confusion is inevitable and justifiable. I even think their anger is. After all - how many of those people were against, let alone even cared about, America before this all happened? Well anyway you're all welcome to come whenever you want...you can all sleep in the floor of my flat as long as you can put up with two cats...but I have ample pillows you know - you'll all be very comfy... sigh - you know what though? There's been anthrax scares here - all false alarms, but yes - it all stretches this far across the world.. doreen hon - just follow the south bound currents ~wink~ K[This message has been edited by Severn (edited 10-22-2001).] |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Severn, you said "Seriously...and wouldn't you also complain if your country was bombed because it's leaders were harbouring terrorists?" I hope you don't think we are indiscriminately bombing the civilian population in Afghanistan ... In fact I know you do not. However, that is the impression that certain people wold like the world to receive and believe. Our precision bombing is going to kill very few civilians. Will there be mistakes? Yes. But we try not to harm the civilian population which is more than can be said of other countries in a similar situation. Gee, our country was bombed for nothing more than being a friend to Israel and being very accessible. We also lost a few civilians in that bombing and they were the object of the bombing, not "collateral damage." [This message has been edited by Interloper (edited 10-22-2001).] |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Yes but the point is that civilians do get bombed don't they? And it is more than this...these people have to run for their lives from a war that isn't their own...we have to see the wider picture here...it's not just about civilians being bombed - that's too simplistic... K |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
I thought our country was terrorized by use of our own planes which had literally been turned into bombs, having full tanks of gas, we were victimized by having our own people hijacked, and the terrorists became martyrs. bin Laden will not sacrifice his own self to go to glory, as they see it, but he will lead others to their demise by promoting same... it would be a nice, clean package if we could just pick up bin Laden AND his entourage of followers. Unfortunately, that will not happen. Even more unfortunately, I do not care to see anyone get hurt, but this is the real world. And no religious war ever occurred that people weren't harmed and/or killed by it. I could do with less use of "clean aphorisms" and call it what it is. |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Too simplistic, Severn? What is simplistic about any war? People running from a war that is not their own? Whoa! C'mon, you don't believe that ... or do you? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes, Brad, I know the timeline was for Jerusalem. I brought up the Israeli/Palestinan situation because that seems to be one of the major reasons that the U.S. is hated, at least according to the interviews of those in Arab nations that I've read or listened to, because we are allies of Israel. The finest minds in history, capable of understanding both sides and all the issues involved, haven't been able to resolve the conflict between them. I seriously doubt that I could add anything to help along those lines. No, I really don't think that our disecting it further would do any worthwhile good. But if you can figure out, in your studies, why the PLO is still allowed to call for the destruction of the State of Israel in its charter and the U.N. says nothing about it, I'd really appreciate any insight on that. And no, I can't blame the British for trying, they haven't been the only ones who have failed at trying to gain peace in that area. Who knows, things could have been even worse if they hadn't. I don't believe that my saying that "sometimes war is the only way" is equivalent to someone saying that "Islam, in most instances, is against the killing of women and small children". The statement wasn't qualified with "during a war, sometimes innocents are killed, which is tragic", it just says "in most instances" (or mostly, I forget the exact wording). My questions still remain, what is that about? And what about men and no-so-young children? That statement gave me the chills because it wasn't further explained. I'd like to know when Islam is not against the killing of women and small children and why men and children in general are not included in that original statement. No, I wouldn't argue that the killing of Afghanistan civilians is necessary. I'd say that the killing of any innocent civilian, anywhere, is tragic. As I said before, you won't find anyone here dancing in the streets upon hearing of innocents being killed accidently. People here are crying, myself included, at every report. We don't want innocents to die. I find it tragic that anyone has to die. Unfortuanely, there are those in this world whose sole intention is to kill as many innocent civilians as they possibly can, and they are still doing it to us here. Two more postal workers died suddenly today, most likely from anthrax. Two additional postal workers in D.C. have inhalation anthrax and are hospitalized, not to mention the one who died in Florida, and a second one hospitalized in Florida with inhalation anthrax and numerous others with skin anthrax, in four states, not to mention the 5000 + killed here last month, most whose remains are still buried beneath the still burning rubble. An act of war has been perpetrated upon us, not the other way around. We did not wreak this havoc upon them, they came here and did this to us. They are still here among us, poisoning us, planning future catastrophic events. How do you reason with that? I'd really like to know. I've heard bin Laden's demands. They are unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination. You can't reason with unreasonable people. We did try another option before we sent our military over there. We asked the Taliban numerous times over the course of three + weeks to hand over bin Laden, the members of Al Qaeda and the members of the other known terrorist networks. The answers were "No" (sprinkled with a few insincere attempts at stalling, calling for negotiation on the matter). We are doing what we have to do, we were left with no other choice. Our military response could have been avoided if the people we were dealing with were capable of being reasoned with. Yes, I believe sometimes war is the only way, unfortunately. This is one of those times. Kamla ~ I'm on my way! I love cats! Do you have room for me, my husband, my kids, my grandkids, my sons-in-law, my sisters, my brother, assorted spouses and offspring? We're a really nice bunch! Karilea ~ My thoughts, exactly. bin Laden and his crew are very good at brainwashing others to sacrifice their lives for the 'cause' and yet they hide in caves like the cowards that they are. Interloper ~ You hit the nail on the head regarding intent. It is not our goal to kill innocents, unlike Al Qaeda, et al. [This message has been edited by Denise (edited 10-22-2001).] |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
As with Vietnam, the sanctions that followed the Gulf War have been infinitely more damaging, causing fifteen times the number of casualties.Some say the sanctions against Iraq are genocidal conduct under the law, according to the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - which, by the way, the United States refused to endorse until 1988 and explicitly refuses to comply with to this day. The sanctions against Iraq have killed more than 1.5 million people, more than half of them children under the age of five, an especially vulnerable segment of the population. Particularly in their first year, children are more susceptible to disease and malnutrition, and to the malnutrition of their mother. Many Iraqi mothers are now so malnourished that they cannot produce milk. They try to give their children sugar water as a substitute, but because the United States destroyed the infrastructure, the water is contaminated: within forty-eight hours, the child is dead. And that child could have been saved by a rehydration tablet that costs less than a penny, but is not available because of the sanctions. This is in a country that once produced 15 percent of its own pharmaceuticals: now it can't even get the raw materials. We have, in an act of will, impoverished a whole population. So the next time you see the word sanctions and think they don't do real harm, think about this. ps...it used to be that 2 million casualties was the accepted number for Vietnam, but I've noticed that people now say 3 million without much criticism. Yet that war was nothing compared to the effects of twenty years of sanctions, from 1975 to 1995, which brought the Vietnamese people - a people who had proven to be invincible when threatened by physical force on their own land - down to such dire poverty that they were taking to open boats in stormy seas, and drowning, to get to a refugee camp in Hong Kong. They went simply because they saw no future in their own country. gleaned from an interview with Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the US There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jamie (got it right this time, didn't I?), Wow, my previous statements and thoughts concerning sanctions seem positively callous when explained in that way. I confused the achievement of the goal (ousting Saddam Hussein, destablizing the Vietnamese government) with what actually happens. That is, sanctions don't achieve the stated goal and therefore aren't effective. From what you say, they are all too effective. Thanks for that. Denise, I agree it is a vague statement and can therefore be used to justify a variety of appalling actions but I see your statement just as vaguely as you see the Muslim comment. It can be used to justify any war at any time. It needs more clarification. I'm a little confused by your necessary/tragic distinction. The killing of innocents can be both necessary and tragic. This doesn't mean you want to kill them, it means that the goal, the military target, is more important than civilian lives. As a result, the death of civilians is unavoidable. If you believe these bombings are necessary and that the bombings will kill civilians then you believe that killing civilians is necessary (you believe in the attacks as opposed to alternative methods). I wasn't trying to get you to agree to something like you WANT to kill innocents. Sorry about that. Gotta go but I'll post something in Philosophy on possible alternative ways of seeing the Israeli/Palestine problem in a few days. You can rip me apart there if you like. You bring up intent in a number of ways so I want to focus on that next time. I still believe the results are more important than the intent but we can, I think, give some plausible scenarios for determining a good decision from a bad one. Brad PS Religious war? What religious war? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hi Brad, well we definitely disagree over what is more important, intent or results. But I guess that depends quite a bit on what is being discussed, the context in which those words are being used. Religious war? No, it's not, at least not on our part. I wasn't the one who made that comment. It is a religious war, though, I think, in the minds of some muslims, unfortunately. [This message has been edited by Denise (edited 10-23-2001).] |
||
|
BrightStar Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 219 |
Jamie, I think you have a few facts mixed up. Sanctions imposed upon Iraq did not kill X number if civilians. SH killed them by not allowing food to get to the people. he chose to starve the poeple, and get the world to blame America, while feeding his military and himself. Looks like you bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The only reason Iraq that is impoverished is the actions of its leader. You stated that the Vietnamese people were proven to be invincible and they left their country only when conditions became too bad to stay. Well, there was once two Vietnams. North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and conquered them. If you want to say the North Vietnamese have proven invincible (yet to be seen), then I might agree. Furthermore, the conditions only deteriorated after Ho Chi Minh occupied South Vietnam. Sanctions had very little to do with hurting a country that produced almost 100% of their nutritional needs. They left due to their treatment by the Communist regime. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well I'm not sure what the alignment of the planets and stars is today because I just agreed conditionally with Interloper on a thread in Philosophy and I'm about to do the same with Brightstar here. The refugees fleeing Vietnam are, by and large, leaving to escape communism -- just as refugees from Cuba have left there to escape Castro's communist regime. However, it's important to look at what the intent of economic sanctions are. We impose sanctions in an attempt to influence the people of a nation to rise up against their government. How? By depriving them of the necessities of life. Plain and simple. Starve the people, deprive them of things like medicine -- they will look at their situation and change it. We could equally be dropping bombs on them and killing them and say -- it's not us -- it's your leaders that are responsible (but wait -- that's what we're doing in Afghanistan eh?) It doesn't really matter the method -- the end result is the same -- the death of the innocent. Do we expect Saddam Hussein to care about the starvation of his people? No. We know he doesn't because he treats them brutally anyway. So it really isn't fair to point to him and say he is responsible. We have a choice -- why haven't we bombed Iraq with butter and medicine too? Osama bin Ladan points to the death of 6500 innocents in America and likewise says -- it's not his fault -- it's the fault of a corrupt American Government -- all we have to do is get rid of our corrupt American Government and he'll stop.... right? |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Actually - I do. I mean the people striving to get into Pakistan...you know - the citizens... Is that truly not clear enough? Kp.s - I can fit anyone into my lounge k? |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Wait, Reb ... Ah, that defibrillator did the job ================================= Do we expect Saddam Hussein to care about the starvation of his people? No. We know he doesn't because he treats them brutally anyway. So it really isn't fair to point to him and say he is responsible. We have a choice -- why haven't we bombed Iraq with butter and medicine too? ================================= The reason we haven't dropped food to the people in Iraq is due to the significant difference in the situation. With regard to Iraq we were in combat with what was considered to be a major military presence and it was being fought as a conventional war (except for some possible chemical warfare on Hussien's part). The war on terrorism is totally different and it is only humane that we help feed the people fleeing the Taliban. Or did I miss the point? [This message has been edited by Interloper (edited 10-24-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Two scenarios: 1. After 911, Bush and his cabinet discussed multiple options for dealing with terrorism. While Bush continued to use excessive rhetoric in public (you are with us or against us), he was not influenced by his own words (we know that countries can contribute in different ways, we'll work with real governments and come up with real solutions), but worked actively to gather intelligence and create a flexible but goal oriented stategy that should show results quickly. The first step in this strategy is the deposing of the Taliban while the killing and starving of civilians is a horrible thing, the long term consequences of this action will be a more stable world, a better world for America but also for the world itself. --Regardless of the result, that would be a good decision. 2. Frustrated, tired, and angry, Bush and associates scramble frantically to come up with something to do. As the rhetoric continues to escalate, the need to back up that rhetoric becomes imperative in order to maintain political integrity. There is no real plan as of yet but the need for action overtakes the need to perform the right action (Are we just going to talk them to death?). Bush and associates, listening to the American people and profoundly moved themselves, take an action with no integrated strategy. Get rid of the Taliban because it's something we can do rather than something we should do. Killing civilians, killing innocents, someone might ask. The response is not to forget that our civilians have been killed as well. --This would be a bad decision regardless of the results. In either case, or in something quite different from this, the results will ultimately determine whether it was the right decision or not. My nuetrality on the issue, it should be pointed out, is a form of trust, a closet support if you will. I very much want to believe that Bush and associates have indeed followed the former scenario (and there is some evidence for this) but there is also a lot of evidence to indicate the latter. Right now things seem to be getting worse as a result of the Afghanistan invasion, perhaps they will get better, I don't know, and I like to think that the administration is actively planning for contingencies and so forth but my increasing anxiety is that they believe what they say and are following the American tradition of vigilanteism. That's just not a good idea. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Brad -- I'd have to say that it's been a mix of the two all along -- ends justifies means thinking will always permeate throughout policy. Interloper -- what difference does it make what kind of weapon we kill someone with? Conventional forces vs. Special Ops, Violence vs. Starvation -- the means don't change the situation or the consequences -- it's all about apeasing coalitions -- and the Arab world (with the exception of the fundamentalist whacko's) have said -- ok... you can starve the people of Iraq -- but you can't bomb them. You can bomb the Taliban -- but feed Afghanistan. You can have Osama Bin Laden -- but by the way -- what about that Palestinian state? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yes, of course, it's probably both. I wasn't trying to represent what actually happened/happening. I was trying to give scenarios of what I consider a good decision and a bad decision. But knowing full well that this doesn't always determine good or bad results. I just think the odds are better if we make good decisions. ---------------------------- I don't really understand the sanctions issue here. If economic sanctions are killing people AND they aren't working, doesn't it make sense to end them? Or do people think, they are working -- but not in the ways that we originally intended? None of this 'fault' stuff makes any sense to me. I guess I'll come back to that later. Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I found this article that takes quite a different view of the Bush administration's approach: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/10/21/stiusausa01006.html? If only for a moment, it made me feel better to think that my assessment (my leaning to an assessment) may be just plain wrong. And I always thought the Churchill quote was, "Don't worry. The Americans always do the right thing -- after they have tried everything else." Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The sanctions have never worked -- they've always been an attempt to be doing 'something' in the face of damned if we do, damned if we don't kinds of situations. Once implemented we don't back down because it would be a show of weakness on our part -- and -- the predators strike at the weak. I'm not advocating it -- that's just the thought process that goes into it. Policy can be changed though without appearing weak -- even Orwell knew that. I think the administration has done fairly well, so far, they've carried the bombing thing a tad far though -- but it's part of the show -- and the play is the thing... They've done pretty much what I've been saying all along (which is a surprise) and I even heard Colin Powell mention the word 'special envoy' the other day -- so they may be gearing up for my final reccomendation -- which has been our diplomatic secret weapon we've kept in the scabbard far too long (and special shame on Bill Clinton) -- we need to send Jimmy Carter to negotiate the Isreali/Palestinian conflict -- but that may be another thread. |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Reb, I guess you're right, dead is dead. I guess dropping THE bomb would be an option, then (nudge ... tongue firmly planted in cheek ... wink). You know, there is no "clean" way to fight a war whether it is popular or unpopular. People on both sides are going to die. Families are going to grieve and folks like us will debate ... but nothing changes except the methodolgy of war. The lowest common denominator of war, any war, is death. That is just EXACTLY what bin Laden wants, only he's not getting it his way. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
