Remember when the whole world loved us?

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Everyone was behind the US 100% for doing something about 9/11. They backed the notion of taking action against state sponsors of terrorism, and generally backed Afghanistan. But, they see Iraq as a non-sequiter in the crusade, a puppet project based almost completely on non-terrorist concerns for which the tragedy is being used as an EXCUSE. And, this may very well be justifiable. Until we knew that Saddam had even lied about lying, the Iraq WoMD threat was real. Otherwise, UN inspectors wouldn't have been such an issue. We forget this often. And, it makes the Iraq situation look like it's not very connected to 9/11. However, the asserted Iraq-Al Queda link as a justification brings shame on 9/11. Because it is so attenuated, this assertion insults those victims, their families, and our intelligence. If the tragedy of "9/11" is shouted everytime the US wants to assert its manliness with a war, it becomes trivial. It's like the boy who cried "wolf." If you are going to go remove a dictator because he's tyrannical and abusive of his people, say so. If you think he might have WMD, well then that's fine too. But if you assert he's on the hook for flying planes into the WTC, you better damn well back up the connection with a-b-c details an idiot can follow or risk trivializing 9/11 altogether. As for who loves us, the US current stance seems to be that of a Lannister: It is better to have the people love you than fear you. But, if they will not love you, it is better to have them fear you than laugh at you.

I'd like to award Timber Loftis 50 points for intruducing A Song of Ice and Fire into a political debate.

Keep up the good work!

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Mouse: Nobody could fail to join with the US in an expression of sympathy and solidarity over the events of 9/11. Unfortunately we quickly diverged over how to best ensure that we minimise the chances of such an outrage taking place in future....

Djinn, I hear what you are saying, but I think this post really explains it all.

[Gnarf]

It is better to have the people love you than fear you. But, if they will not love you, it is better to have them fear you than laugh at you.

Yah... that's the thing with terrorism

[Davros]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Everyone was behind the US 100% for doing something about 9/11. They backed the notion of taking action against state sponsors of terrorism, and generally backed Afghanistan. But, they see Iraq as a non-sequiter in the crusade, a puppet project based almost completely on non-terrorist concerns for which the tragedy is being used as an EXCUSE. And, this may very well be justifiable. Until we knew that Saddam had even lied about lying, the Iraq WoMD threat was real. Otherwise, UN inspectors wouldn't have been such an issue. We forget this often. And, it makes the Iraq situation look like it's not very connected to 9/11. However, the asserted Iraq-Al Queda link as a justification brings shame on 9/11. Because it is so attenuated, this assertion insults those victims, their families, and our intelligence. If the tragedy of "9/11" is shouted everytime the US wants to assert its manliness with a war, it becomes trivial. It's like the boy who cried "wolf." If you are going to go remove a dictator because he's tyrannical and abusive of his people, say so. If you think he might have WMD, well then that's fine too. But if you assert he's on the hook for flying planes into the WTC, you better damn well back up the connection with a-b-c details an idiot can follow or risk trivializing 9/11 altogether. As for who loves us, the US current stance seems to be that of a Lannister: It is better to have the people love you than fear you. But, if they will not love you, it is better to have them fear you than laugh at you.

Davros stands up and applauds - well said TL, my sentiments exactly and expressed better than I could probably hope to. The Lannister thing was a nice touch too [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

But it is better to have people laugh at you than hate you because hate overcomes fear and drives men to desperate acts of violence...

[ 09-13-2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

*bows* Thank you Davros and Luvian.

Skunk -- does hatred overcome that much? Maybe for fringe groups like the PLO or Al Queda whose very acts of borne of desperation to begin with. But, for other NATIONS, including all UN Nations and NATO Nations, I disagree. Those with a stake and claim already made generally succumb to fear over hatred, however vocal they may be about it, I would say IMO. I'm not supporting this US stance, btw.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: does hatred overcome that much? Maybe for fringe groups like the PLO or Al Queda whose very acts of borne of desperation to begin with. But, for other NATIONS, including all UN Nations and NATO Nations, I disagree. Those with a stake and claim already made generally succumb to fear over hatred, however vocal they may be about it, I would say IMO. I'm not supporting this US stance, btw.

precisely. Which is why it's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. Forfeit the stake and claim the whole world as your own and die a glorious death in the process

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: *bows* Thank you Davros and Luvian. Skunk -- does hatred overcome that much? Maybe for fringe groups like the PLO or Al Queda whose very acts of borne of desperation to begin with. But, for other NATIONS, including all UN Nations and NATO Nations, I disagree. Those with a stake and claim already made generally succumb to fear over hatred, however vocal they may be about it, I would say IMO. I'm not supporting this US stance, btw.

Nations don't hate - people do - and hatred is generally borne from personal suffering and loss of those things which make life worth living.

Point in case - most of the fireman and policemen who entered the WTC on the last day of its existence will have been afraid for their lives, most will have had lives worth living and everything to lose. And it was the fact that they entered despite that fear that made them so brave and heroic.

On the other side of the equation are the suicide bombers. We know very little about the 9/11 hijackers, so let's look instead at the Palestinian bombers. They know that the Israeli's are better armed than they are, they know that if Israel decided to kill all Palestinians they could finish the job within a week. They know when they strap on that bomb that they are certain to die either by the bomb in or in the event of discovery. They are not filled with bravery because they are not afraid - they are too filled with hate to know fear.

Oh we can fool ourselves with empty explanations that they were all religious crackpots seeking and afterlife reward, but then why hasn't there been a single suicide bomber that had a job or a single suicide bomber that hadn't lost a loved one at the hands of the government/people that they are aiming their bombs at? The truth behind these bombers is far less complicated than religious extremism. The vast majority are not members of fringe groups or even Hamas (although the latter is certainly providing the explosives and therefore taking 'credit' for their actions).

But go back to the NATIONS for a moment. Iraq certainly feared the US (for all the good it did it), Saddam Hussein and his government didn't declare war on the US - they knew that they would lose. So Iraq never attacked the US and when the US finally declared war on Iraq, half of Iraq's soldiers gave up without a fight or melted away...

But now that the US/UK have attacked Iraq, now that the country is defeated, now that so many loved ones are dead, the partially ruined country is now totally ruined, the freedom that was promised has not materialised and so many are without work or even access to water, Iraq is *far* more dangerous than it was before the war.

The same soldiers who melted away in fear of the 'awesome' military machine are now attacking it. And every time they attack the US troops they nearly always come out worse in the attack; on average, the US forces only suffer injuries while they suffer mortalities. Hatred is a powerful factor.

And of course, turning to 9/11, it has already been demonstrated that a few hate-filled individuals, armed with the right weapons can kill as many people as an entire army brigade - in less time. And, not yet demonstrated (thankfully), one lone hate-filled individual can flatten an entire city if he has access to the right weapon.

Fear is fine as a tool against intransient nations - but when it turns to hatred, it's a whole different ballgame with much higher stakes, a game where nations stand to lose far more than the individuals on the opposing team.

[ 09-15-2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]