Ask this guy:
:
Posted on 11/02/2001 11:59:31 AM PST by Starmaker
This question will be construed by many to be unpatriotic, un-American, and simply uncalled for. Many will scoff at the idea that such a question should even be addressed, but I believe it is one that we should ponder. Why? Because we are currently attacking another nation for carrying out acts of mass destruction that pale in comparison to what we ourselves have done.
Before I'm tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, let me just say that I support the idea of a legitimate, just, and, yes, even moral war. I believe such a war can and should be declared when the security of the citizens of the United States is directly at risk. After all, the primary job of the federal government, contrary to the modern teachings of liberal and neo-conservative collectivists, is to provide for the common defense of the nation. If the security, liberty, and lives of its citizens are threatened, the government has a sworn duty to eliminate that threat.
Unfortunately, most of the conflicts we have seen in the last century were the result of the federal government ignoring its obligation to the immediate defense of our own nation in order to pursue more global concerns. Can anyone make the case that the conflicts we saw in places like Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia had anything to do with protecting the freedom of American citizens?
Now, the same people who were so quick to send soldiers off to kill and die for democracy overseas while ignoring the government's assaults on our liberty here at home are calling for unity in battling yet another foreign enemy. Perhaps our current predicament calls for some serious self-examination.
In our nationalistic frenzy we have been so intent on rooting out evil overseas that we have failed to notice the sins of our own nation. Again, I ask, what separates the U.S. from the terrorist nations of the world?
Many would say that we have a much greater respect for life and would never consider unleashing the kinds of atrocities we saw on September 11. Attacking innocent civilians with such cold-blooded calculation is beyond our comprehension. This kind of thinking lends credence to the old adage "ignorance is bliss."
During the last "just" war, World War II, the U.S. made it standard military procedure to specifically target civilians. German cities like Hamburg and Dresden were subjected to some of the most intense bombing raids in history. Even Japanese non-combatants in Tokyo could not escape the relentless firebombing. This policy of attacking civilian targets culminated in President Truman's order to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result of these kinds of attacks throughout the war was a civilian death toll that climbed into the hundreds of thousands. Our government deliberately utilized this kind of warfare in order to strike terror in the hearts of foreign civilians. Sound familiar?
Needless to say, we do not have to look outside our borders for examples of the very evil we claim to loathe. Case in point, abortion. Since the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973, we have witnessed the government-sanctioned murder of over 40 million innocent children. This is an accomplishment that even the worst terrorist nations cannot claim. Why have we failed to unite against this particular evil?
It is understandable that Americans continue to feel outraged by the attacks of September 11. The media guaranteed that all of us had a front row seat to the grim scenes of death and destruction. We could not escape the gruesome images of commercial airliners slamming into skyscrapers, people hurling themselves out of windows to avoid being burned alive, or a million tons of steel and concrete raining down upon victims and rescuers.
Think of the collective outrage that would ensue if we were granted the same kind access to the carnage inside an abortion clinic. Imagine if we were to catch a glimpse of the bloody, twisted heaps of mangled limbs, see babies survive an abortion long enough to be tossed out alive with the rest of the medical waste, or hear the screams of mothers realizing, too late, the devastating consequences of their actions.
Are all these innocent lives worth it? Should we applaud the deliberate killing of over 200,000 Japanese civilians by our atomic bombs because it ended World War II a few weeks ahead of schedule? Are we to just accept the murder of 1.5 million children every year because of our distorted view of individual liberty and personal choice? Do we continue to tolerate the actions of a government that believes it has more important things to do than protect the rights of the innocent?
Foreign civilians, unborn children, national integrity— evidently, these are the sacrifices with which we are willing to live. Such a thing is to be expected when a society adopts an "end justifies the means" philosophy. In doing so, we have only succeeded in demonstrating that we are just as capable as any terrorist nation of committing acts of senseless violence with little or no regard for the sanctity of human life.
So, just what exactly is it that separates the United States from the terrorist nations of the world? Maybe the answer is more elusive than we care to admit.
...."Come on, spinky. Show me the money."....
Somehow or other, I get the feeling he'd rather discuss masturbating!!! :)
Go back and re-read the article.....
God Bless the USA.
Hahaha! Bless her for what?? If your defense of the little pink baby-men on this pathetic thread is valid then God wouldn't consider blessing America for a second and then what would slime like you do?
Don't you cowards who constantly rant against this country have a cesspool you can meet in, instead of stinking up this site?
I can't believe I'm still responding to this. Do people really don't have a brain or they just don't want to use it? Does the US ever conspire, pre-meditate, target to maximze murderings of innocent civilians simply for the sake of wanting to murder them?
People who can't see 9/11 for what it was are either without a brain or without a heart.
Yes, except you bore me Mr Shelton, so I won't bother.
And as usual, she lets that sexy mouth overload her ass with ridiculous, liberal emulating diatribes against things she hasn't the faintest idea of which or who she is talking about. But then, sheet.....that ain't never stopped her before from running off at the mouth before!!!
Why do you worry about this site, Deb? You and your ilk are protected, much like the Endangered Species Act, protects sucker fish....spouting your garbage is safe. I daresay if you bitch, moan, groan, and complain a little bit more you'll be able to get everybody that doesn't march in lock step with all the brown noses on FR banned....that will really help restore the Constitutional Republic, won't it? I mean, that is what Free Republic is all about, isn't it?
Being called a liar, slime, or a coward by you must mean I'm doing something right....and I hope it keeps pissing you off so bad, your panties get all bunched up in a wad so bad they choke off your keyboard!!!!
God bless America, Land that I love
There....did that piss you off again.........GOOD!
In a war, there aren't innocents.
Bin Laden is targeting American civilians. He's thrown down the gauntlet.
We'll just have to kill more diaperheads than he can kill Americans.
We'll kill more diaperheads.
You can always be counted among those who despise the United States.
No surprise there.
Believe me, your sit behind a keyboard and decreeing there "are no innocents in war" doesn't do a thing for me either.
You said, "Bin Laden is targeting American civilians". Well, guess what, sinkspur--we targeted Japanese civilians in WWII and German civilians. Yeah, I know--we excused our actions "to save our guys"--just as that SOB Bin Laden excuses his thugs 'to save his guys".
And it is so cute how you toss around those names like "monkey", "diaperhead", "towelhead", yada yada yada.... as though name-calling adds anything to your conversing skills--but it fits you're local skidrow bar mentality.
My, but you sound so tough and macho with 'killing this diaperhead or killing that diaperhead'.....hey, Keyboard Cowboy--have ya ever killed anything more than a 6 pack of Bud?
Your lack of surprise in my being counted among those who despise the United States is only exceeded by my lack of surprise at your brown nosed butt kissing sound of agreement with everything the government does!
There should be no surprise that you didn't receive a very cordial response to your non cordial post.
Are you counting our funding of the State Department's Agency for International Development (USAID), the UN Population Fund (UNPF), the World Bank, and the IMF?
Domestically, the U.S. has murdered 40 million babies in the last 30 years.
Time to use your heart and brain.
Hi Torie....I believe mentally I would feel better in knowing that we were at war if in fact our fedgov actually followed the Constitution. How could anyone be 'happy' at the thought of going to or being at war? Well, I guess there are gung ho types who would thrive in a war environment, but generally, I don't believe people like war....the costs in human lives, whether 1 or in the thousands, not only of deaths, but of wounds that all too often last the rest of a lifetime.
That said, I sure as hell don't like terrorists hijacking planes and diving them into buildings full of innocent, unsuspecting persons....to me, that is as dispicable as bombing entire cities full of innocent civilians....undoubtedly, the performers of these atrocities believe they can justify or excuse away their actions--but I find them both wrong.
Torie....I'm not celebrating anything ..substance over procedure, or procedure over substance....I'm concerned about the lives and liberties of my fellow citizens, whether soldier or civilian. I'm concerned about a country that seems to have gone bonkers since 9/11.....where we have people called traitors and cowards because they aren't lining up in lockstep like Hitlers' henchmen marched in lockstep behind him never questioning, just marching and doing whatever they were told--whether soldier or civilian. Where laws were passed 'for the good of the country', which came in handy later for a tyrannical government.
You asked if I was a lawyer, Torie.....that is actually more insulting than anything Deb or sinkspur wrote. Laywers are a very large part of the problems our country faces....but then, you knew that.
It has in some ways. The airport security thing is totally nutso. Folks make decsions not understanding the odds. They are inept Baysians. Some other acts I think are prudent that you probably think are excessive. The concept of freedom should be delimited to the extent that it does avoids becoming a suicide pact. The lawyer riposte was an indulgence of mine. I couldn't resist. It was naughty. But I enjoyed it nevertheless, and would do it again. :) Cheers.
This is PC garbage. Actions count, not motives. Did Bob Kerry wipe out a defenseless village simply because he got a thrill out of seeing the people die? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is irrelevant. Murder is murder, no matter why you do it.
Ask this guy:
:
For instance, this classic: Should we applaud the deliberate killing of over 200,000 Japanese civilians by our atomic bombs because it ended World War II
fallacy one - he asks the question, does not answer it, but finds us guilty anyway. fallacy two - it is counterfactual - we don't applaud this. Every sentient being regards this as the most terrible decision anyone ever had to make, and is just happy he was not in Harry Truman's shoes. We are also thankful that we had a President who called it straight and true - which politicians are generally not wont to do.
a few weeks ahead of schedule? fallacy - special pleading and speculation. -A few weeks, a few months, a few years? A few lives, a few 100,000 lives - who are we to say. WHO IS HE TO SAY. Also, maybe some folks wanted to get a war over with so 2 Billion people around the world could go about their business in peace. Fallacy two - irrelevancy - what happened in another time and another place done by other people is another case. These are not facts pertinent to this case - his case - whatever it is and we don't know.
Foreign civilians, unborn children, national integrity fallacy one (fallacy of composition)- these things are not of a kind. Fallacy two (inverted logic) - Being guilty of one is not being guilty of all.
— evidently these are the sacrifices with which we are willing to live fallacy one - it is not evident at all. Fallacy two - His assumption. I'm not willing to sacrifice national integrity, or unborn children (but that is irrelevant to his argument) or innocent foreign civilians (to the extent that they are not responsible for the actions of the government of their country).
Such a thing is to be expected when a society adopts an "end justifies the means" philosophy. Fallacy one - he asserts one thing and then concludes another. He has not demonstrated that we have adopted an "ends justifies the means" philosophy. What ends have we argued justify what means? For that matter what ends has he argued justify what means? Fallacy two - were he to demonstrate this, it would not support his argument. In moral philosophy, at some level, the ends are used to justify the means. The end - the good of society - does justify the means - our moral code. The problem is when one clearly desireable end requires that we override our moral code and thereby threaten some other greater social good. He has not argued that we are doing so, however.
In doing so, we have only succeeded in demonstrating that we are just as capable as any terrorist nation of committing acts of senseless violence with little or no regard for the sanctity of human life. This is his conclusion - but he has not demonstrated it. It contains the fallacious assumption that our acts of violence are senseless, though we have very well defined logic supporting them. If we had no regard for human life we would have flattened Kabul and Kandahar as the quickest means to the immediate end. After all, there is a long chain of moral monsters who have done just that sort of thing, from Alexander to Scipio to Caesar to Ghengis Khan to Hitler and Stalin to terrorists. Are we the moral equivalent of this crowd. Perhaps we are, but he certainly has not demonstrated it in this article.
Ask them.....
:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
