The "War" model

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Yorick, sorry if what I was trying to say strikes you as simply "arrogance" regarding america's strength as compared to the smaller countries in the world.

I see it as something quite different, namely a deep concern for what will happen to some of those small countries and the people in them if my countrymen accept the idea that we really are at "war."

I apologize if concern for the innocent babies and other people who will be blown to smithereens under our attacks using the "war" method of trying to find a just outcome to this case strikes you as being "arrogant".

Actually I don't apologize. As a matter of fact, I have no clue as to your hostility in this post and what in hell you are babbling about.

[John D Harris]

No need to apologize Yorick I knew you wern't generalizing I was just yanking chains, rattling cages, tweeking noses, pulling legs any more cliches I can use

------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[Tancred]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Hmmm . . . that is exactly what I am afraid of, Tancred.

Well... this is just it, Dio. When Bush said 'This is a War' that is what he meant. He'd already made up his mind about what he was going to do. He knew there was no way the FBI would catch Bin Laden, in the same way the French secret police couldn't really arrest Sir Percy Blakeney for being the Scarlet Pimpernel (kind of a skewed analogy, but I hope you see my meaning...) There's no point being afraid of it coming - a war is going to be fought, by the American military if no-one else. This is not Bush being over-eager with his soldiers, this is Bush trying to solve a problem by exterminating it. Simple, but very, very extreme and guaranteed to be bloody. You can't deny this is war.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Yorick, sorry if what I was trying to say strikes you as simply "arrogance" regarding america's strength as compared to the smaller countries in the world. I see it as something quite different, namely a deep concern for what will happen to some of those small countries and the people in them if my countrymen accept the idea that we really are at "war." I apologize if concern for the innocent babies and other people who will be blown to smithereens under our attacks using the "war" method of trying to find a just outcome to this case strikes you as being "arrogant". Actually I don't apologize. As a matter of fact, I have no clue as to your hostility in this post and what in hell you are babbling about.

By defintion you are at war. As I said, is not Israel and the Palestinians at War? All this formal garbage is ridiculous. North and South Korea are still "officially at war" yet no shots have been fired in what? 50 years?

I don't think your finger is on the pulse regarding the attacks. Bush mentioned a different war. Covert, hidden and unreported even in victory. I agree with the honest labelling of the conflict and hope that it brings a zero tolerance of terrorism the world over. It's about time. Innocent babies are already being blown to smithereens in Israel by suicide bombers. The bombers themselves are children.

Regarding my infuriation (a distinct from "hostility") it is all in my posts. No hostility friend, just infuriation with an idea - not a person.




------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[The_ Fur_Cough]

Difficult subject,

I agree with patience, I agree that an investigation has to be carried out. The most important thing is to get the right people. The people who did this must be bought to book. It's kind of disturbing that all roads lead to the same place yet four of the suspects supposedly on the planes are in fact alive and well according to BBC reports:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_...rica_attacked/

If four have been mis-identified, how many more?

Now the flip side,
action must be taken as swiftly as is humanly possible. These are highly organised forces capable of terrible destruction. The fight as I see it must be taken to their doorstep. Anyone capable of such atrocities...well, you can't wait for them. No doubt they are plotting as we speak. Unfortunately Diogenes, whilst I agree with much of what you say, the fact is that judicial law is insufficient to deal with an attack of this nature and magnitude. There was only ever one way to prevent the attacks of the WTC and Pentagon and that was by military intervention, the shooting down of your own civilians.

If ever captured alive, these people should certainly be tried in the States, whether under military law or judicial law I know not.

As I said, difficult subject.

------------------
Aaahh.... Fur Cough.

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Tancred: Well... this is just it, Dio. When Bush said 'This is a War' that is what he meant. He'd already made up his mind about what he was going to do. He knew there was no way the FBI would catch Bin Laden, in the same way the French secret police couldn't really arrest Sir Percy Blakeney for being the Scarlet Pimpernel (kind of a skewed analogy, but I hope you see my meaning...) There's no point being afraid of it coming - a war is going to be fought, by the American military if no-one else. This is not Bush being over-eager with his soldiers, this is Bush trying to solve a problem by exterminating it. Simple, but very, very extreme and guaranteed to be bloody. You can't deny this is war.

I will not deny that Bush has already chosen the War model

What I am saying is that he does not have too

Time will tell soon enough I guess

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: By defintion you are at war. As I said, is not Israel and the Palestinians at War? All this formal garbage is ridiculous. North and South Korea are still "officially at war" yet no shots have been fired in what? 50 years? I don't think your finger is on the pulse regarding the attacks. Bush mentioned a different war. Covert, hidden and unreported even in victory. I agree with the honest labelling of the conflict and hope that it brings a zero tolerance of terrorism the world over. It's about time. Innocent babies are already being blown to smithereens in Israel by suicide bombers. The bombers themselves are children. Regarding my infuriation (a distinct from "hostility") it is all in my posts. No hostility friend, just infuriation with an idea - not a person.

Yorick, my apologies for getting a bit testy in my last reply

I fear you are not taking into account the psychological factor of using the term "war." It is not a mere word. On the contrary, it can have very powerful effects on the psyches of the american people and the lengths they will go to win it.

America has a long tradition of a totally uncompromising approach to warfare, greater than most other countries of the world because of the peculiarities of our history. Americans have long been of the "unconditional surrender" frame of mind, and tend to view limits on war with great suspicion.

What model we use to look at this problem with -- whether it is a case of a relatively isolated and small number of individuals who can be brought to justice by more ordinary means and ordinary laws, or whether we as a nation are really in a state of war, has profound and far reaching consequences of our attitudes. Don't expect much in the way of mercy or measured restraint from the US gov't and military, if the american public accepts that we are at war, no matter what Bush says publicly, if our past is to be any indication. Bush and his people know this psychological fact. That is one reason they are so eager to use the WAR analogy -- exactly because the American people will more readily accept extreme actions if they start thinking in terms of war.

There is no NEED to rush off to war, here. That is the point. We should at least TRY to use our existing laws first. I think they probably could work in this situation.

In any case, I hope you are right that Bush will be level headed and restrained. We shall see soon enough.

[Yorick]

Diogenes you do me a disservice. I understand the psychological implications. That is my point. Also Americans are not the only nation with the mindset you mentioned. It is hardly unique in that aspect.

I repeat. Did you hear Bush's speech to Congress? Your posts strongly suggest you did not.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-23-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by skywalker: Geez! The Hawks are beating the crap out of the Doves on this forum lately! Tancred, you should read some of the propaganda you're writing! Mark

What's that supposed to mean? Who are you calling Hawks here? I am a Pacifist and it seems Diogenes is.

Huh?



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Tancred]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: I will not deny that Bush has already chosen the War model What I am saying is that he does not have too Time will tell soon enough I guess

As for what Bush does not have to do... I think he is listening to his advisors, and the American nation as a whole. I think he has to do this. I think his hands are tied - or that it is out of his hands entirely. The entire American sense of being american is out for blood. A legal action would frustrate them and cause a massive spread of disappointment and bitterness. Maybe it would be he right thing to do, but that doesn't mean Bush has the option.