OT : Australian intervention in Solomon Islands

[oleg]

Originally posted by sachmo:
...But we will protect ourselves, and that's where things get ugly. I am an American, and I want my children to grow up and be safe. Whatever it takes.

So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?

And why do you belive what US goverment is doing is actually protecting your chieldren ? I have a feeling US became less secure after this colonial war. Saddam was no danger for US as we can see now. He had no WMD and was keeping religious fanatics in check.

[ July 10, 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: oleg ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by oleg:
So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?

Were the Iraqi children safe before? Will they be safe five years from now?

While it is U.S. National security that truely motivated that incusrsion (see some of my more hawkish rants in the Iraq thread), these are things that should be taken into account when one wishes to consider 'right' or 'wrong'.

[dogscoff]

If a man were to break into my house and try to harm my family, I would kill him, or die trying. Unfortunately for me, I can't see the distinction in this case, except my government is doing the figting for me.

And that's where your metaphor falls over. If you were on one of the 9/11 flights, with a chance to rush the hijackers- that would be analogous to fighting off an intruder in your home to protect your family. In those cases you would be justified in taking some fairly extreme measures of self defence.

However, waginbg war on Afghanistan/ Iraq is analogous to going out of your home, finding someone who might be an potential intruder (or a friend of a potential intruder, or someone who is rumoured to be prepared to sell burglary equipment to a potential intruder, or maybe just someone you don't like the look of), breaking into their home, killing a few of hisfamily members and smashing up their possessions.

Then, when your target has fled out the back door, you award the contract for the repairs to his home to your best buddy (with the target's surviving family selling off their remaining assets to pay the bill), build a few airbases in his back garden and start threatening the neighbours.

[Loser]

I firmly believe all government comes from, and remains closely related to, organized crime. I'm not surprised the similarities show so strongly in your stretched analogy, Dogscoff. When a better solution comes along, I'll jump on it (if I don't get too old and static first), but I don't see the dove path working, I don't see the isolationist path working, and I just don't know what else to say (Pax Schmax).

One things for sure. There will continue to be terrorists, but any government is going to think twice before backing them or giving them sanctuary. Of the rest: omelets, eggs, you know the deal.

[sachmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

And that's where your metaphor falls over. If you were on one of the 9/11 flights, with a chance to rush the hijackers- that would be analogous to fighting off an intruder in your home to protect your family. In those cases you would be justified in taking some fairly extreme measures of self defence.

However, waginbg war on Afghanistan/ Iraq is analogous to going out of your home, finding someone who might be an potential intruder (or a friend of a potential intruder, or someone who is rumoured to be prepared to sell burglary equipment to a potential intruder, or maybe just someone you don't like the look of), breaking into their home, killing a few of hisfamily members and smashing up their possessions.

Then, when your target has fled out the back door, you award the contract for the repairs to his home to your best buddy (with the target's surviving family selling off their remaining assets to pay the bill), build a few airbases in his back garden and start threatening the neighbours.[/QB]

If my government tells me it is fighting this war to kill those who would do me and my family harm, I will support them. *shrug*

I see your point, but I still see that the government is protecting me and my family. I guess everyone is differnet.

However, waginbg war on Afghanistan/ Iraq is analogous to going out of your home, finding someone who might be an potential intruder (or a friend of a potential intruder, or someone who is rumoured to be prepared to sell burglary equipment to a potential intruder, or maybe just someone you don't like the look of), breaking into their home, killing a few of hisfamily members and smashing up their possessions.

Then, when your target has fled out the back door, you award the contract for the repairs to his home to your best buddy (with the target's surviving family selling off their remaining assets to pay the bill), build a few airbases in his back garden and start threatening the neighbours.

If said person had already come into my house and hurt my family, I would hunt him down and kill him. Or if he told me, "I will come to your house sometime and hurt your family", I wouldn't wait for him to show up. I'd go and get him first.

[ July 10, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: sachmo ]

[sachmo]

Originally posted by oleg:
So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?

And why do you belive what US goverment is doing is actually protecting your chieldren ? I have a feeling US became less secure after this colonial war. Saddam was no danger for US as we can see now. He had no WMD and was keeping religious fanatics in check.[/QB]

If it were my daughter, I would trade the world for her life.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

and this is how militia Groups form. all of them, in essense, believe they are protecting there own little group. the rule of law must be upheld. everyone must receive justice.

The fact is that there were plenty of divorces, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and unscrupulous rakes back in more austere periods of history. It simply wasn't talked about back then. I know this for a fact because it happened quite a bit in my families history and, thinking this must be some terribly uncommon trend, I eventually looked deeper into the issue.

The problems were just covered up better back then. A good percentage of Charm Schools and Boarding Schools were actually Schools for Wayward Girls (institutions for hiding pregnancy). Lack of birth control just meant that most 'loose women' were professionals, and the natural increase in prostitution adds to organized crime, it does not add to general virtue.

although i wasn't thinking of that, i am aware of said theories regarding boarding houses, although i cannot say by what i know wether said theories are correct. if they are, any such problems where probably caused by ignoring said social problems, which nearly always makes them worse. i don't like band-aid solutions.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sachmo:
...But we will protect ourselves, and that's where things get ugly. I am an American, and I want my children to grow up and be safe. Whatever it takes.

So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?

---

How nice. An either/or fallacy with cynical appeal to emotion. Not to mention a bit insulting. Shall I ask how many Iraqi children you were willing to "trade" for "keeping religious fanatics in check" or similar?

If you really want to play the appeal to emotions/"what about the chiiilllldren" game, you might want to stop and think about a few things.

And why do you belive what US goverment is doing is actually protecting your chieldren ?

Because I don't expect barbarians to play nice. (No, I don't think the Iraqis are barbarians. They certainly were ruled by some until Last April. Al Qaeda and other Groups also fit that description.)

. o O(Why do I get the feeling someone's going to bring in the "well why didn't you go liberate some repressive nation arbitrarily chosen and preferably way out in some area that would take months to deploy to" claim? Wonder if they think WWII was illegitimate because we didn't bust open all the Gulags? Wonder if they're going to use that first claim, then say we don't have enough troops in Iraq? )

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:
So how many Iraqi children want you trade for one American? All of them ?

And why do you belive what US goverment is doing is actually protecting your chieldren ? I have a feeling US became less secure after this colonial war. Saddam was no danger for US as we can see now. He had no WMD and was keeping religious fanatics in check.

That was really stupid. How many American young men gave their lives to keep Hitler from
spanking all of Europe? After the English had proclaimed “Peace in our time.” and paid a full
measure of appeasement? And the time before that when Europe took the world to war over the killing of a has-been royal that probably would have not been able to maintain his holdings for
another generation. And in the process set communism loose on the world. Which America
then held off at your door step for 50 years at great cost in lives and materials. And lets not
forget that most of this crap in the Middle East right now is the result of French and English
diplomacy at the end of world wars. IMHO it is far better to stamp the **** out of evil
governments right at the start, than to wait until the situation takes on an energy of it own. You speak with the naiveté of a person who has never risked all that he had for the benefit of others.

[ July 11, 2003, 00:36: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[Q]

Originally posted by sachmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Q:
May be not all western governments (I believe I live in a country that still puts human rights first before combat against terrorism) but I must agree that some activities of the US government really frighten me more than any terrorist activities. And if deccan is right (I know too little about the political situation in that part of the world) I am worried about that too.

Well, if that's true, then it's a good thing you didn't have any relatives working in a certain New York building on a certain day in 2001.
Once something like that happens in your country, the matter becomes a lot more complicated.

---

I am a citizen of the country the Geneva convention comes from, which the US government not longer obeys when it comes to the war against terrorism.
But my compassion for the victims of the terrorism is absolutely independent of their passport and I sincerely hope that my reason would still govern my emotions when a relative would be under the victims.
But no matter how much I share the cry for justice, no matter how much I understand your concern for safety: the basic human rights must never never never be canceled for a human beeing, even if this human has commited the most horrible crimes. If you go over this line you will end up in tyranny and become inhuman yourself.