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.
I guess my first mistake was expecting more from my government than I would expect from the government of countries like Afghanistan. My second mistake was believing that it was still legal to criticize the government, something you collectivists have no problem with when there's a Democrat in the White House. Didn't some of you speak out against Bill Clinton's bombing of Serbia? Weren't we "at war" then? What about the other undeclared wars I mentioned in the article? Is the U.S. morally right in every single conflict no matter who or what we destroy?
I thought I was quite clear that although there may be such a thing as a just war, we cannot adopt an "end justifies the means" mentality where anything goes. Would you all have been just as quick to endorse the killing of civilians in WWII if instead of bombing Dresden American soldiers walked around slitting the throats of women and children as they slept? Apparently, since "there are no innocent civilians in war," you would have been happy with that. I wonder why you don't ascribe that same philosophy to the terrorists? They, like you, believe there are no innocent civilians in war, and a war is exactly what they believe they are fighting.
I can only feel sorrow and regret that people believe the government can only be criticized during peacetime. I suppose if I point out the dangers of the new and permanent powers the government is claiming for itself I'm a bad American for that as well.
You must realize that a government that cannot be trusted in peacetime does not suddenly change when there is a war. You need to question. You need to stay vigilant. You must never let down your guard.
I challenge anyone to point out where I said that we shouldn't bring the terrorists to justice. The article merely posed a question, one that addresses our national morality. It was also a question that everyone avoided. You would obviously disagree with me, but I believe it's important for us to examine ourselves as a nation. Once this war is over, is it back to business as usual? Are the deaths of 1.5 million children each year less important now that we are engaged in a war? Would God want us to forget that? Has He forgotten? Just because we have a feeling of moral superiority now doesn't mean we won't have to answer for our sins in the future. If you think that what happened on September 11 somehow wiped the slate clean you are sadly mistaken.
Before you continue on your holy crusade of wiping out every last "diaperhead," pick up your Bibles, dust them off, and read Luke 12, paying close attention to verses 35 through 48.
I want my child to grow up in, and inherit, a world where America is just. American might will be our downfall, American right will save us, and make the world a better place for us and our children.
America of the past twenty years or so reminds me of my ex-wife. She always had to be right and have her way, or EVERYONE paid for it. Thank God she changed her ways.
This article is one long rhetorical fallacy from beginning to end. He did not just state an opinion. He tried to justify his opinion in the form of an extended argument. His argument is full of holes, and what we are left with is his opinion.
I have merely demonstrated that his arguments are not any good - anywhere. It is his duty to make his own arguments - or yours to make them for him if you wish to sustain the thesis
In fact, as Sinkspur argued, the authors major premise is we are currently attacking another nation for carrying out acts of mass destruction that pale in comparison to what we ourselves have done.. [and therefore we are...some blank the author has not filled in]. As I said, the conclusion of this syllogism is left blank for us to fill in. Worse, the minor premise that we are carrying out the alleged acts of mass destruction has not been sustained and, in my opinion is unsustainable, but that, again, is his responsibility or by proxy, yours, not mine.
If you don't know what I am talking about then go do some studying, but don't come to a pistol fight armed with a wet noodle.
Examples? And, no, I don't mean examples of enemy propaganda to their own people (like palestinian textbooks). I mean please give me examples of the US policy you are talking about.
Thank you.
Dammit I'm tired of reading/listening to the American critics bitch about the uselessness of our attempts to defend liberty! More innocent people were killed for the sole purpose of destroying our Constitution right to freedom than died in previous wars. The scare tactics move forward with this inane anthrax attack. Yes, inane, more people have been killed by dogs during the same time period.
What did the previous administration do to prevent this? They ALLOWED TERRORISTS TO WALK! What does that say to anyone planning new acts of terrorism? Who is Clinton to tell the world he is better capable to handle this mess than Bush and what does that say to terrorists? What does Hillary's, Sen Hillary's get-out-of-jail-free/I-will-always-condem-Bush's-terrorist-plans say to the world about America and terrorism? OUR PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION BOUGHT A SEAT FOR HILLARY WITH TERRORIST SUPPORT!
What seperates us, and the slime that supported the slime?
Might makes right.
The "winner" get's to write the history.
This is another example of this author's intellectual swindle - that you fell for. He asks the question and then quick -which shell is the pea under- the question is declared unanswerable and then - after another shuffle where you loose sight of the argument - voila - moral equivalency between the U.S. and terrorists.
Now, he does not try very hard to answer the "unanswerable" question, nor does he exert himself in any effort to show that the U.S. and the terrorists are, in fact the same. He just uses your intellectual laziness and gullibility to draw sucker you into the conclusion that he wishes you to draw.
The question does have some answers which are so obvious that his ignorance can only be intentional: 1. democratically elected representational government under a constitution vs government by theocracy, warlord, or military dictator. 2. Jurisprudence tradition based on Islamic law (Shari'a) vs English common law 3. Post industrial social structure vs. a medieval social structure, etc. 4. Judeo Christian beliefs vs Islamic beliefs 5. English speaking vs. language of Arabic or Turkic or Persian origin. And on and on and on. Again, since he wishes to maintain the thesis, it is his responsibility to construct his argument in such a way as to take into account such obvious objections.
But it is easier for you to give him an intellectual and moral pass than to fire up a neuron or two.
The problem, in my untutored eye anyway, is that as long as the right sees these things as "liberal" claptrap, and the left sees them as "ammunition" for self-righteous posturing, nothing will be done. US foreign policy has much to do with how American companies operate overseas.
Along the same lines, as long as American companies are going into overseas markets to use cheap labor and not putting much back into the local population, it will be construed as less than beneficient by the locals. You and I can buy cheap clothes and cheap gadgets because 10 and 12 years kids make them for next to nothing in sweatshops, sweatshops setup and maintained by corrupt governments that we support. Like it or not, American companies ARE America in the eyes of the people that live in the places the companies do business in.
Trade is such a common human activity that it's frequently how a people are judged by other nations. We Americans tend to be insulated, because of geography, from the repercussions of trading practices implemented by American companies overseas. When a 10 year old girl in Thailand, Indonesia or [insert developing nation here] has to decide between working in a sweatshop for next to nothing, becoming a prostitute or begging, because unscrupulous members of her government struck a deal with American business owners who turn a blind eye to her plight, we are saying, as Americans, we don't care if you or your kids live or die, as long as we can have cheap stuff.
That said, I must say, "Sorry, A.J. ……no cigar".
You came out immediately with your "This article is an intellectual swindle" sentence. Didn't even bother to stamp it with the standard "In My Opinion (IMO)….so, I must ask, "What are we being deprived of intellectually or otherwise, for that matter" that you believe warrants your making this 'fact' statement?
My Webster's Dictionary defines 'swindle' as 'depriving of something by deception or fraud'. It was you who made the statement this article is an 'intellectual' swindle; therefore, you should be able to explain this--or offer your proof. Oh, what was that? Huh? Oh, just rhetoric? Is that what you said? Hmmmmm…
You next stated, "He makes assertions that are so obviously false that no one questions them and then derive the most amazing drivel in conclusion"……Hmmmmm…must be some more of that 'rhetoric' crapola you're talking bout. Why don't you go back through the article, paragraph by paragraph and point out where there are 'assertions that are so obviously false'….tell you what, A.J.--"in your wildest dreams, AJ, your wildest dreams"..
Out of 14 paragraphs, you selected 12 and 13 to complain about and vent….after making your cavalier comment about 'assertions that are so obviously false' and 'chain of illogic, none of which holds up to close inspection'…so let's see what you're 'nit-picking, A.J.
According to you, one of the 4 questions asked in this paragraph (factoid), is a classic…that being the one about the more than 200,000 Japanese civilians being killed. You label the question a fallacy; correctly state the author did not answer the question; and then declare 'the author finds us guilty anyway'.
Interesting…considering the paragraph consists of nothing but 4, count em, four, questions….how do you figure the author 'found anybody guilty'? Are we back to that rhetorical crapola again? Still on Paragraph 12, you also point out where the author had written "a few weeks ahead of schedule? After a few words of BS, you ask "who are we to say"…for crying out loud, man, er woman, WE WON THE FRIGGIN WAR, THE WINNER WRITES THE HISTORY, AND WE DID THE FRIGGIN BOMBING FOR OUR OWN PURPOSES--I BELIEVE THE MAJOR ONE OF WHICH WAS TO SHORTEN THE LENGTH OF THE WAR AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS KILLED! In other words, better them than us. That is what the history reports. And you're concerned about intellectual swindle!!! Sheesh…
As to Paragraph 13, you are not willing to accept that we do, in fact, have a policy of "the ends justify the means"….hate to tell you, but we do it all the time. Just look at the above paragraph---we dropped the "A" bomb to stop the war sooner--regardless of the cost in innocent lives! As to your conclusion about the writer's conclusion: opinions and assholes seems to go together….everybody has at least one of each.
The real problem appears to be in your answer….and the attitude that sinkspur and others have about it……..you believe that only you, or the US, has the right answer… you act as though citizens of other nations are inferior to us in thought and deed, that only the USA can be altruistic, that only the USA can be good……
I doubt you've given a thought to the concept that where you said, "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."
Replace dear old Harry with the SOB bin Laden and what happened 9/11. Can you not see that he, his followers and admirers have a point of view that would be just as valid as Harry…it just depends on which audience they are playing to!
In summary of the article:
"An international human rights group says it has filed a lawsuit against the giant ExxonMobil oil company, accusing it of actively abetting human rights abuses in Indonesia."
Exxon says:
"Our company rejects and categorically denies any suggestion or implication that it or its affiliate companies were in any way involved with alleged human rights abuses by security forces in Aceh,"
And the suit hasn't been concluded. So I can't help but conclude from this that you have an inherent anti-corporate bias, since you quote unproved allegations as proof of corporate misconduct.
...US foreign policy has much to do with how American companies operate overseas.
Yes, thank God. You imply that there is something unsound in our foreign policy as it applies to American companies abroad, yet from your article:
"The action is being taken under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows US jurisdiction over acts committed outside the US."
Which means that if there is misconduct it will be remedied due to American rule-of-law and a foreign policy that extends fairness and justice to that country's workers.
Along the same lines, as long as American companies are going into overseas markets to use cheap labor and not putting much back into the local population, it will be construed as less than beneficient by the locals...
You like the BBC, so to quote their later article on the matter, which is here
"Indonesia is heavily dependent on foreign exchange earnings from exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Japan and South Korea. In March, the army poured 2,000 extra troops into the Arun field region in a failed bid to persuade ExxonMobil to maintain production."
The point being that the local government sees ExxonMobil as not only beneficial to the area, but essential.
You and I can buy cheap clothes and cheap gadgets because 10 and 12 years kids make them for next to nothing in sweatshops ... we are saying, as Americans, we don't care if you or your kids live or die, as long as we can have cheap stuff. [Note-heavily abbreviated, see gone_to_hecks's earlier post for full content]
You are assuming facts "not yet in evidence here." You claim sweatshops, but offer no proof. You imply that American buisness overseas harms the locals. Yet those very same "hurt" locals rush to gain and fulfill those jobs.
Finally, your argument's conclusion that an (unproven) American message of "we don't care if their kids die" is equivilent to the terrorist's 9/11 message of death to our kids seems.... insufficient.
I'm far from anti-corporate. My family has deep roots in corporate America, and that has afforded me many benefits denied most of the world. My grandfather ran a large coporation for many years, my ex-wife's dad was founding president of a large, well-known insurance company, my current wife's dad is VP of an international concern. Being compassionate does not mean being anti-corporate, no matter what misguided but well-intentioned people on the left or right say.
To say that American companies are providing jobs for locals where pay amounts to nothing, and then say "It's better than what they had" is akin to saying "Yeah, the guy's dying of thirst so I took a leak on him. It's better than what he had." That may be business, but it ain't right. For them or their children. And what happened on 9/11 ain't right, for the victims or their children. Why should both sides keep losing?
I'm not saying American policies re: overseas tade practices are the main and contributing cause to our current difficulties, but it is a piece of the puzzle. Indonesia and Pakistan are on the edge, and those are both places American businesses have been very active. If we, through government and business contacts, have been fostering goodwill, then we have little to fear. If not, we'll have the devil to pay.
Let me know about that searching task, if you don't have the time, ok?
Im not sure what your saying. You want me to do the research to support your position? Do I have that right?
How about I'll research my position, and you research yours, and we'll compare results? Each of us may learn something the other has missed.
My position is that American overseas business practices, by and large, by multinationals based out of America, have done little to improve the lives of the people that do the actual labor for them, and have in many cases made their lot worse. The seamstresses, the tailors, the assemblers, the machine-workers, the actual producers of the goods that the companies sell, must do their work under conditions that would be illegal in the US, not to mention it being brutal and inhumane by any standard.
I can't assume your position as you've not stated it.
Whaddaya say?
And the view of the people who want me and my kids, and you and yours, dead has been shaped by years of US policy that appeared to them as though we wanted them and their kids dead.
I asked you to substantiate it. You attempted to, and my belief is that you did not. You then asked that I research your assertion for you.
My position is that to date, you have not substantiated your claim.
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.