Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
Yes, shortsighted, stupid, inhumane, and yet another reason for people in the world to view the US as a selfish bully who cares nothing for the safety and well being of the other countries of the world.
|
Really? I am not from the US yet I don't see the USA as a selfish bully. Pretty much every nation agrees that some sort of action is warranted. Even the Pope, who never condones violence has supported action.
Shortsighted, stupid and inhumane would have been an immediate nuclear bombing of Afgahnistan. As it is, it has been two weeks and no action has been taken, and the talk is of longer term more subtle approaches. More akin to longsightedness and the humane response. The USA is gathering intelligence and gathering world support - hardly hallmarks of stupidity. This is the logical choice of action.
Regarding conditions in Afgahnistan, Fjlotsdale and Diogenes, you are both naive if you presume the conditions to be as they are because of the US strikes, and it highlights how blind you are about both Afgahnistan prior to these events and what action is being taken. I suggest both of you do a little research into the recent history of the place before spouting inane comments such as this. Misinformation does nothing for your argument or for educated debate.
The Taliban has ignored creating any social infrastructure for the years they have ruled. Reaction against the USAs movements hardly did that. Members of Aid organisations were arrested long before today. I wouldn't blame them for leaving. War has torn the country apart for twenty odd years, yet you two are insisting that the conditions are resultant from actions over TWO WEEKS?! Were the boatload of Afgahni refugees turned away by Norway, Indonesia and Australia weeks ago, fleeing the USA BEFORE THE WTC ATTACK?
Diogenes, your reaction is little worse than fearmongering my friend. You seriously need to gain some perspective on the situation. There will be no third world war as a result of this, unless your countrymen possess degrees of stupidity and inhumanity never before seen.
And you Fjlotsdale, however you twist your reply stated:
"Diogenes is the most sensible man I have ever not met! And I agree with you! But no-one would listen to him. When people are angry or wounded they rarely listen to the voice of reason."
In this context, you equated "not listening" with disagreeing. Certainly you're not speaking about anyone who hasn't replied (because they weren't listening).
Who else in here was disgareeing with Diogenes? Moridin, Tancred, myself and perhaps 250. Of course I'm going to take it personally. Never have I accused you of being unable to comprehend my words when offering a reply, yet you have on more than one occasion refused to acknowledge the possibility of comprehending, yet disagreeing.
Of course I'm "scratchy". This is not a one off, but a repeated insistance during debates. Look at your language regarding this thread!
"So far, though, I have not seen what I consider to be a single good argument for military action in Afghanistan, even though I understand and have some sympathy for those arguments. My basic instinct is 'bomb the bastard terrorists out of existence!
Define "good" Fjlotsdale. By good do you mean one you agree with? Certainly in this context you're not meaning coherant, expressed, logical, informed, balanced, or any other impartial judgement about the character of an argument. You are applied a subjective assessment, and this is precisely what I am talking about.
Besides, by virtue of the above quote, it would seem you are missing my points.
I took up with Diogenes the issue of not calling this a "war". Never did I suggest "bombing the bastard terrorists out of existence" was a good option, and I repeatedly have stated I am a pacifist.
The current action being persued by the US government is NOT the action they took in WWII against Hiroshima and Japan. Nor is it Operation Desert Storm. The actions are as mentioned above in Bush's speech and in any newspaper covering the situation, and do not have me cowering with fear and dread that millions of innocents are going to die. Don't you get it! I HAVE SEEN THOUSANDS DIE ALREADY!! Don't you think that a foremost care of mine is to NOT have more die?!
Look at the scenario from a small scale. Large tends to confuse the issue.
If in a small town an individual goes around killing someone do we let them keep doing it? No. We have laws that involve confining the individual so they cannot keep doing the action. We arrest him.
Say he is being harboured in a house and the owners refuse to either hand him over, and continue to feed him and house him despite demands to the contrary.
Who's side are the homeowners on? Certainly they do not have the villagers wellbeing at heart.
What would the town do? Say the homeowners get hostile and refuse the police entry? Repeatedly. The police then get a warrant and forcibly enter to obtain the individual do they not? If any in the house do not resist there is no problem, but if the homeowners struggle, conflict ensues.
The USA have their warrant. The global community endorses the action. The have set up around the house and are calling on the megaphone for the individual to be handed over.
Diplomacy has in the past repeatedly failed. Had the Taliban denied him shelter in 1993 after the first WTC bombing this would not have happened.
That is what makes me hurt and angry Fjlotsdale. The thought that through inaction and a lack of resolve this situation could happen again - and occur on a larger scale.
------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....
A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!
[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-24-2001).]