ProNihil

I have read so many anti-war threads on these forums that I am begenning to think that all people of atheist proclivities think that G. Dubya is evil.

However, I have not seen a post which relies on reason and logic to dispute his claims that war is the best choice.

I am just begenning to learn about logical fallacies and such, and would appreciate some responses that are against the invasion of Iraq, that make use of logic and critical thinking, and that actually make sense, as opposed to mindless drivelling about world peace (which has never occured in the history of mankind) and that really make sense.

One thing I have noticed is that it is popular nowadays to say that the Iraqui people have no vested interest in the war against the worldview and indeed the world-philosophy of the so-called infidels, i.e. those who do not subscribe to the tenants of Islam.

It makes me sick to my stomach when I think about innocent civilians being slaughtered by American bombs, but it also makes me sick when I think about what freedoms and such a pro-islamic state would suppress were it to rule the currently democratic country of the Uninted States of America.

Some of you infidels out there have a seething hatred of Christianity, but I'm wondering where the seething hatred of Islam is? On this particular board, most of the threads against theism are in regards to Christianity, and this is not a surprise, since Christianity is the major religious faction here. But where are the scathing remarks for Islam? This religion is surely just as "bad" as Christianity insofar as religious intolerance and non-thinking bigortry go.

I am frightened. I am frightened that Islamic fundamentilists will bomb and find another way of destroying a small portion of the American way of life. You can be sure this has happend when telivision commercials appear that support pro-american sentiment.

I am frightened that there are more Osama Bin Ladens out there who hate the west because to them, it represents everything they were brought up to believe was "wrong." Make no mistake, Islamic fundamentilists will provide political arguments as to why their followers should hate the West, as well as theological.

For those of you in non-participating regions such as the Netherlands, I would say that you, although you enjoy basically the same freedoms as the U.S., insofar as the right to do and say as you please, you will perhaps be the next target.

Osama and his gang of cronies are basically giving a big old "fuck you" to the free world. They are saying that if you don't live under Islamic law, then you are a being who deserves death. I maintain that it is not a far cry from Saddams position to that of Osama's. Both are based on fear of the unknown, and will continue to threaten the lives of free people everywhere untill the truth of the matter is brought to the citizens under the rule of these tyrants.

I will say that I believe that if you or I were born and raised in Iraq, that we would have a different outlook on what it is that is important. People are only as good as what has been brought to their attention, and, as the Iraqui people have had nothing worthwile brought forth, indeed, could have not have anything worthwhile brought forth, then it is in their own best interest to be rid of Tyranny and oppression forever.

BTW- The people of Iraq do not have a chance to voice their opinions of an open forum such as this one. Their views are suppressed. I urge you infidels out there to really think about this. If they express the desire to change the current establishment, they are in danger of torture and death. Don't take your freedoms lightly!!! They are a hairs-bredth away from being lawfully taken from you due to popular vote. That vote I might add, will be based on the views of people who have been coddled and tricked into believing something false because they lacked critical thinking ability as well as the freedom of speech that we take for granted. I myself would be in violation of law, if I was an Iraqui citizen writing this right now. I would be in serious danger of torture and death, as well as the members of my family.

I believe that Iraq can become a free country. I believe that the people of Iraq, having tasted what real freedom is, would be willing to die for that freedom. As I believe all human beings are inherently the same, I believe that the promise of freedom would override religious dogmatism and serve as a catylist for inner reform. This worked for America, why not Iraq?

Ok, here it is. What I have written in the above post is what I feel in my heart. It is a personal diatribe against those who would deem rule me and my thinking as a thing that is not fundamentally a given right. No doubt, this comes from living in a country where I can say what I want without fear of reprisal.

Now I am asking you to post replies of significance, since I realize that I am a fallible creature. I want people to tell me where I go wrong and how. I am looking for arguments that logically attack what I have written. Where are the fallacies? No, this is not a test, but an honest inquiry into the nature of what is happening in our world. It brings (literally) tears to my eyes to think of people having to bury their loved ones because of some kind of political nonsense. I cannot believe it is nonsense however, because it brings tears to my eyes (literally) when I place myself and my loved ones in the position that so many Iraqui citizens are in now. I guess the whole god damn fucking thing just pisses me off so god damn fucking much that I cannot help but rant about it. More-so than making me mad that there are those who presume to rule over others with an iron fist, is the fact that it makes me sad, and I wish that I could wish it out of existance. Some fucking world we live in huh?

P.S. Having consumed copious amounts of beer this evening, I must apologize for my ranting. However, when I am not under the influence, my position remains the same, and I am still saddened by the lack of a worldview that states that it is worth it to give ones self in the hopes of freedom.

Zar

I only have time right now to deal with the approach you are taking here and will reserve other comments for later.

Do you really expect to get real help with a plea like this? If you think what has been going on here represents such unmitigated intellectual baseness all around (thanks to your "beginners" knowledge of logical fallacies), what makes you think any of the responses to your OP will be any more "logical" and make any more "sense" than before?

Anyway, I think things here work on a topic by topic basis. No one writes long manifestos from first principles to the current minute everytime they speak. People take a news story or a factoid and talk about its veracity and meaning, and then I think everyone absorbs that and moves on to another topic. Sometimes people even make general arguments on a plan of action, but it is necessarily terse and not like a 300-page analysis, so there are going to be gaps that you have to fill with what you believe or take some time to look something up if you are curious. It takes quite a while to get a really good picture of what someone thinks about things no matter how thoughtful their posts are. As you get used to being here, you can tell who is serious and who is just blowing off steam. And even here you can only go so far in this format.

About "logic". IMO, logic is a necessary condition in the sphere of issues pertaining to human society (if you want to do anything good), but it is not a sufficient condition. There are places where any position must make contact with human feelings and external realities. People hate to hear this. They want there to be a "proof" down to the last syllable of an argument. But sometimes it comes down to things like fear, empathy, self-centeredness or consideration for others, which have not a single thing to do with logic in themselves, though they might be employed as instruments toward some logically constructed proposal.

trillian

I certainly don't think he's evil (referring to your orig. question on Bush before the slide). However, I have been concerned about him since learning about his religious beliefs- and I don't see how he can separate it from his decisions. For example, if you were leader and you "truly" thought a good chunk of the world would suffer eternal damnation because they didn't accept Jesus as savior- shouldn't I be concerned about your abilities for objectivity in world affairs ...especially those with religious ramifications? Even against someone rigid regimes?

Each time he speaks and uses religious tones, I cringe. I can feel the recruitment numbers of terrorists rising. Its more dangerous for us to let him go to war. Though I do feel for the Iraqui situation, it simply makes no sense for a US war. Better to wait for another president or a true threat.

Read this:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0303/Iraq.html

It may give you some pause.
I still have an open mind since I know the public never knows the "real story" but with what we have its a no-go. Nothing humanitarian, just common sense.

ex-idaho

To address your OP title, I do not think Bush is "evil", just horribly misguided.

As for reasons to not go to war there are a few.
1. Liklihood that it will destbilize the region creating greater opportunity for the spread of anti-Americanism

2. The possible increase in terrorist attacks on the US and its interest

3. The fact that the Bush admin has bungled every single step of the lead up to this war.

Of course I am not opposed to removing Saddam, even by force if needed. I am still anti-war as far as the current leadership goes.

The fact that the Bush admin has yet to level with the world on this issue has only weakened any legitimate argument that could be made for going to war. First it was the Al Queda connection, then the nukes, then WMD, then to liberate the Iraqis and now to spread democracy throughout the region. Well so far every single one of these reasons has been either a lie, an overstatement, a forgery or contradicted by documents from our own government.

Sure I would love to Saddam gone and a rational and compassionate leader take his place. But it ain't gonna happen. Besides there are far greater threats in the world that NATO, the UN and the world community would have supported us on. That is until Bush went and shot his diplomatic wad in the face of every single ally we have ever had.

edoggsmooth

What particularly irks me about the Iraq debate is that although Iraq is a dictatorship and its people are supressed and whatnot, we wouldn't give two shits about their people if they didn't have oil. Think about it. How many dictatorships can you name that supress their people and don't allow free speech? China? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? When was the last time Bush said that China had better shape up or wed be rolling in. Hell, North Korea has been out and out threatening us and we're not even listening!

I heard it on Bill Maher the other day and it made sense: While I do no support the war, I would be more willing to believe in Bush's "we're bringing democracy and ridding evil" if he said that we weren't going to stop with Iraq because its only one evil regime. If he is only willing to do it in one nation that fits his political interests, well then hes being hypocritical

BTW, isn't it weird that to bring democracy to Iraq we have to circumvent democracy in the UN?

-ed

Hubble head

Well, I understand your frustration. I have gone back and forth myself over the high and low points of what is about to happen.

In a nutshell, we still don't know for sure. We don't know if Saddam and Al Queda are really working together. We don't know if he hid weapons in Jordan or Syria. We don't know if he has dangerous biological weapons he wants to unleash on American soil (all his other supposed weapons and WMD would be useless and virtually undeliverable to US soil)

Are all Islamists bad? No, just the ones who think they live in a fantasyland created by a magical god who wants them to kill people not like them. We really don't know if the moderate Islamists who hate us do so because their Gov't tells them to or because they really oppose Micky D's and free speech but they aren't stupid enough to mess with the US.

Osama made it more than clear that he simply hated us for interfering with the Arab world in the ways that we do. If we didn't interfere, there would be no Osama. Reverse the roles and see how you would feel.

We don't know if George is evil. We do know Saddam is an uncooperative dictator who came from the gutters and runs Iraq like his own personal crime family. We know George won the right to lead the most powerful world in the country from a botched election and what only a very, very few of his daddy's friends decided was right.

That being said there really is a lot more we don't know but seem to be willing to kill people over, disrupt the region and cause of a mass exodus of millions of refugees which will result in more hardship and death for innocent people -even if they are fundified Islamists who hated us all along for encroaching on their quiet little corner of the world. Most Arabs will tell you they only wish oil was never found in their sand.

I can't help but notice the corporations who gave the most to help Bush get elected are now gaining the most from this war. I also can't help but wonder about why did they plagiarize part of a report to the U.N. with a grad student's decade old paper? Why are we now hearing that Israel or some other country fabricated information they gave us on Saddam's nuclear program? Why has NO SMOKING GUN BEEN FOUND?

There is more too. Your post makes some illogical assumptions that we are also free. Freer than most in the world? Yes. The freest of all? Not even close!

I could write more but I think you need to read what some of our world's greatest visionaries and human rights activists have had to say on the logic of this war. Try searching for someone�s POV you would consider a great visionary and contemporary mind. I could point to ones I respect but must leave it up to you to determine who to believe and who to distrust and why at this point.

Koyaanisqatsi

No apology necessary. After all, we're not muslim .

I can't speak to what "all people" think (much to the misguided shock of my opponents, no doubt ), but I certainly consider him to be "evil," inasmuch as instigating the known and accepted slaughter of thousands of innocent people held largely captive by Hussein's Iraq is "evil."

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, since I've seen nothing but posts which rely on reason and logic to dispute his claims that war is the best choice.

Do you mean you want someone to put the elements of instigating a war into a syllogism?

I.e., If A, then B. If B, then C. Therefore, If A, then C kind of thing? I don't see what the purpose such a formal deconstruction would serve and I'm still not sure what you mean by your claim that no one is using "logic" or "critical thinking." What do you contend has been the method of thinking employed in the posts you are referring to?

Are you contending that the anti-war posts around here have not been relying on logic or critical thinking; i.e., that everything has been the result of emotional reactionism, for exampe? Sympathy for the innocent Iraqi citizens who will most likely be blown apart in the thousands while enjoying their end-of-work day meal? Naivete?

Since these are the exact questions that must be raised in a discussion of such an emotionally charged juggernaut such as war, shouldn't such topics dominate?

I live in Manhattan, for example, and was in the city when the attacks against the WTC happened. There was nothing but emotionally charged discussions flying all over this place for the first week (then, in typical New York fashion, it was back to work and tough shit for the other guy, though nobody would ever admit it). But that is the result of such tragedies and I can't help but separate out the empathy factor no instilled in me since I experienced what was going on first hand (in a way; technically, the real first hand was in the towers).

The first discussions I remember anyone having in my circle of friends was how all those people--just normal every day Joes and Janes--were like pieces in a huge, ultimately pointless game of checkers. I'd say chess, but that is giving too much intellectual credit to the whole affair.

What really happened on that day is that a group of desperate, fanatical people had been so conditioned as to think that killing innocent people on a bright September morning actually meant something more than just that.

In their minds, they were striking back at Goliath; the same Goliath who had been using their people for decades in their own game of checkers, only then it was with Russia and with energy concerns (i.e., private, corporate interests).

So on a very real and tangible visceral level, I know "first hand" that when you strip away all of the bullshit and the posturing and the dicks on the table, the end result of all that talk is that thousands of totally innocent men and women will be blown apart violently and for no ultimate purpose.

You can experience this feeling to if you watch the footage of the planes hitting. There is a moment of inevitability that occurs at a certain distance from the building; like when an antelope being hunted down by a tiger hits some sort of "pre-death" wall and, in a defining moment, seems to accept its own demise, which is, of course, at the moment the tiger catches it and goes for the kill.

It's in that moment, of course, that true clarity can be gleaned, since it is the final moment.

Before that moment, the plane is still a plane and the possibilities are limitless; but at that moment, all possibilities collapse (the wave into the singularity; sorry, I too have been indulging ) and the plane is no longer a plane, it's ordinance.

Now, our unelected, court-appointed President is declaring that it is America's decision that we leap immediately to that moment.

I would argue that the moment of clarity is upon us, then, and the plane (i.e., the rationalities employed by daily existance in denial of mortality) has turned into the ordinance (the final moment).

Which, of course, translates not into politics or nation-states, but only into a warhead shreading and incinerating innocent human lives.

So, since Bush, Inc. has forced us all to that moment, the only legitimate questions to be raised should spring directly out of that moment's clarity, yes?

Ok. Our President is telling us all that we (as a collective) are now ordinance' that we are at that moment. Well, don't you think it is therefore perfectly legitimate to ask him why he has turned a plane into ordinance, just as we all ask ourselves why the al Queda decided to turn a plane into ordinance?

What are the justifications for doing this? What are the options we have to avoid it? Why is this a necessary time to bring us all to that moment and what possible suspect motivations might you have that would allow us all an "out" to that moment?

It is, after all, the final moment (which, by the way, and off-topic, is yet another reason to champion atheism).

In essence, Bush, Inc. has short circuited all of that by moving the troops (and therefore the rest of us) directly to that moment just prior to the kill, which, in turn means that he has put all of us in our death beds and told us when our final breath will be breathed (both metaphorically and literally, for the most unlucky few).

Ok. You've put me in my death bed. Well, the perspective from my death bed is necessarily going to radically change from my perspective spent largely in the pursuit of denying or ignoring I actually will ever have a death bed.

Which, in turn, means all bets are off and emotions more than anything else should come forcefully into play, because in those emotions lie empathy and sympathy, the basis for human morality.

A plane can take you to exciting new places or familiar old places or to points in between that panolopy of experiences, but ordinance can only take you one place (that we know of); the grave.

To deny this as well (as I'm sure is necessary in our troops' psyche's as well as in our own) is, arguably, the very worst thing that we could ever do.

[pedant] I know you're in the same state I am in and as most people know, I have dyslexia, so I shouldn't be a picker of nits, but just to make sure, it's "tenets" not " tenants" (unless you're talking about a superintendant named "Islam" that lives on your block ). [/pedant]

Sorry, that's just a pet peeve of mine. Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

Agreed, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the result of the cult of Islam. We're a "christian nation," to be sure, but that does not always mean that the tenets of christianity determine how we govern.

Take careful note of my qualifier "always."

It's a fine line, of course, and the argument can be made that we are dominated by the christian cult in this country (I know, I've made that argument ), but there is still a far more deeper and more sinister element to governing, which is the knowledge that all such exterior fronts (such as cult like Islam and Christianity and their true purposes; to herd the sheep) is likewise a fraud deliberately used to obfuscate the real goings on behind closed doors.

When one is at that level of rule, there are no rules (literally), since you are the rule makers, and the others under you are little more than the rule enacters.

And I'm not talking about any "conspiracy theory," here, I'm talking about the actual breakdown of how humans behave toward one another. There is ultimately a leader of the pack and everyone else serves under that leader.

In America, we have sought to put as many roadblocks in the way of that element of basic human nature (to be sure, it can be and has been overcome in benevolent ways as well as the more sinister ones I imply, but the effect is the same); we're still necessarily playing dice whenever an election occurs (or doesn't occur, at least not in the way it was supposed to, here, but, tangent).

Thus, the entirety of politics can be reduced to, "Oh no you don't!" With "Of course you can," being the rarer of the two, unfortunately.

If any axiom is true, it is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We're in a horrific state, where almost all of our checks and balances have been systematically shut down so that absolute power has been placed (or, arguably, taken) into the hands of one man (at least in a titular and "rules and regulations" way; ie, he's the one that pushes the button).

So, what is all this in aid of? Well, the same deconstruction can be applied to Hussein; the differences are only in the policy and the actions.

Hussein has near absolute power and Bush has near absolute power. Hussein has the power to have his internal enemies physically tortured and killed, if need be; Bush has the power to have his internal enemies investigated and ruined, if need be. Hussein is interested in using his power to his own ends; Bush is interested in using his power to his own ends. Hussein is willing and able to kill innocent people for his own ends; Bush is willing and able to kill innocent people for his own ends.

The only difference is the degrees of these similiarities (and the "face" or "spin" that is put on it all to the public).

Now, luckily for us, we have many convoluted gears built into our system for redress, but that normally only comes post facto; i.e., we don't actually have any rights; what we actually have is means of redress perceived and established transgressions (but we first have to establish those transgressions as fact).

Yes, the platitude is, we are innocent until proved guilty (and comparatively speaking to the rest of the world's jurisprudence standards, that's fantastic; don't get me wrong), but what actually happens is that you a guilty until proved innocent.

An assertion of guilt is made and it is this assertion that tramples your supposedly inalienable rights, for which we have instituted mechanisms through which you can seek redress for anything that was not borne out from the assertion of guilt to begin with.

In other words, our justice is largely retroactive.

In this instance, however, Bush, Inc., is fully exposing that hypocrisy and using it, IMO, as a false justification for instigating a war based entirely on private interests and not the interests of the people who write his direct paycheck.

He is saying, in essence, to hell with our pretense of jurisprudence, it is better to kill ten innocent men in order to get one guilty man and, sitting as I am now forced to sit by him (on my deathbed, metaphorically speaking), that simply is not an acceptable "ethos" to impart in my name (and checkbook).

It's the same, at least for me. All cult mentality (even the cult of politics) is anathema to me.

But are we necessarily dealing with the cult of Islam in the best manner by going to war against them, thereby confirming their cult beliefs?

I would argue, resolutely, no, just as I would argue that instigating actions that fundamentalist christians would (and are) interpret as "endtime events" is a good idea.

IMO, the best (and only) way to deal with cult mentality is to demonstrate by example how it is flawed and why a change needs to take place, not by simply confirming everything they have been indoctrinated into believing.

Now, it gets more complicated, of course, when you throw into the mix the fact that, the entire reason there is anti-American sentiment instilled into the more fanatical sects has nothing to do with christianity ultimately; we're nothing more than the bullies in their neighborhood, only instead of just punching them, we send in WMD's on a regular basis and influence their governments to do arguably immoral actions that go contrary to their beliefs.

In other words, the cult leaders are each exposing themselves to the other sides as the frauds they ultimately are, and, as a result, the people on both sides are therefore easily manipulated through their allegiance to which ever side they're on.

We call Hussein Hitler and they call Bush Infidel, when the reality is that they are both far more similiar to each other than different, once you scrape away all the paint and the rhetoric and the apologetics, just like when an atheist seeks to scrape away all the paint and the rhetoric and the apologetics of any cult mentality presented.

Hussein is 1984 and Bush is Brave New World. They are both dystopian novels; they only differ in the manner in which that dystopia emerges.

Agreed, and, if you'll just hunt a little more carefully, you'll find the same things being argued against Islam that are argued against Christianity, but, as you get to in a minute, the primary reason is that we are a largely christian nation and are therefore not as directly concerned with the problems of Islam.

I'm not saying we shouldn't, but remember that this is an atheist website. This is our "Zion," so we are normally a more reactive board than anything else.

Yes, issues of theism are often instigated by atheist members here, but that does not necessarily mean that the purpose of this board is to be anti theism. A theism. Without theism and what that means in a theistic world.

Umm. Ok, but I have news for you. Because we live under the auspices of the Brave New World dystopian model (i.e., a boot crushing a human skull, but with a face on it) that will never stop (and has been occuring) throughout our future, until we stop meddling violently in other nation's affairs to our own private interest ends.

America is by no means an innocent victim in any of this. You might want to pick up an excellent book on this by Chalmers Johnson, called "Blowback."

It is our nefarious actions in the Middle East, for example, that has caused the anti-American sentiments and "instability" in the region, to the degree we're talking about.

Yes, the region is rife with many factions, but we (and others, like Russia and France and Germany, yes, yes) are the ones who have been playing checkers with the lives and beliefs in the region for decades in the exact same manner that we systematically, ultimately, wiped out the native American Indian population. We felt we deserved what it was that the Indians already "owned" (in our limited, militaristic, imperialistic minds).

And of course, this brings us back to the fine line, since this genocide was justified by a call to cult mentality (i.e., "Manifest Destiny"), but, again, I would argue that this was little more than the "face" put on the genocide in order to placate the citizens, who, if they actually knew what was going on in their names, would have most likely lynched their representatives (or so we can only hope).

But then, that in turn brings us back to that moment of clarity I spoke of earlier. Bush has brought us to that moment of clarity, but hasn't provided us with any means to justify it.

Think about this scenario. Let's set the wayback machine to the when the first "settlers" arrived at Jamestown in America. Had the "settlers" been aware that they were carrying with them pathogens unknown to the native population that would result in their mass slaughter, I would bet that the "settlers" would have opted for any other option that didn't result in mass slaughter.

They didn't know what hell they brought with them, of course, and the native population was wiped out en masse (a leit motif that is replete in imperial history, BTW).

Well, here's a situation where we know we are going to deliberately wipe out thousands of innocent people that none of us have any personal reason to kill, let alone maime and dismember, were it not for our propaganda telling us in very subtle ways that they are our enemy, or at the very least, tragic but necessary losses in the war for peace.

And arbeit macht frei.

I guess this is just a long winded way of saying, we, as humans on this planet, have learned from our past mistakes and one of the largest mistakes anyone on this planet can make is to instigate a war.

That isn't to say a war may be a necessary last resort, however; it's just to point out the fundamental understanding that, hopefully, most intelligent, well rounded human beings have arrived at as necessary students of human history.

Well, then, rest assured, since that isn't really what's going on. What's really going on is that we treated that region in the same way we treated the native American Indians; which is to say we used them to help us then slaughtered them to suit our needs and, finally, left them to rot once they became hopelessly dependent upon our presence.

Stop that mentality and you will have nothing to fear.

Support it by supporting such things as instigating an unjust war, and then you will have something to really fear.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. We are Goliath in this scenario and they are David.

In case anyone's forgotten that story, David, ultimately, won.

They don't have to! We've been using them as our puppets for decades; training them in how to effectively kill and torture Russians, for example. Did our government really think that you can just turn such a juggernaut on and then cut it loose without repercussions?

Well, apparently, yes, since their only solution, it seems, is one that no one outside the military strategists meetings would ever consider; it's perfectly ok to flip the violent on switch when it suits your needs, because if it ever turns against you, you can always blow the shit out of it.

That is military mentality to its corps .

And it is precisely the inevitable result of that initial policy that is coming back to haunt us, but instead of simply throwing open the books and admitting on bended knee all of the attrocious attrocities that our "black operatives" have wrought throughout decades in that region (all over the most irrelevant of motives from the deathbed "moment" everyone in the Middle East is born into, BTW), we are doing the absolute worst thing we could; denying that we have any culpabilitiy in the instability of the region that has resulted in anti-American sentiments.

Imagine if I came into your life with unimaginable wealth and gadgets and a whole team of specialists whose sole purpose (told to you) was to make you a star! You'll have everything you've ever wanted and will be able to do anything you ever wanted, if only you sign here in blood on the dotted line.

It's no coincidence that the "sell your soul to the devil" propaganda motif is rife in American culture, since we need to inculcate our citizens against recognizing that this is precisely the deal they sign everytime they fill out their 1040 forms or step into a voting booth.

There are no "just wars;" there are just wars and only governments go to war; people don't. And although I firmly agree that the cult mentality was designed to manipulate those people into accepting the whims of the ruling elite, it still, ulitmately, comes down to a false precept that result in a very real consequent; the pointless murder of thousands of innocent people.

That is just not acceptable unless absolutely positively no other solution can ever be thought of, no matter how much time it may take (and so long as there is no imminent danger), IMO.

The Netherlands? Are they ever a target?

Oh, please. What "free world" are you talking about? You mean "comparatively freer world" yes?

Again and especially in light of what Bush, Inc. has done under the radar of this Iraqi bullshit is to sytematically remove just about every single right you ever thought you had!

Did Osama do that? NO! WE did that in response to an arguably deserved retaliatory strike against a one-time ally that left them all twisting in the wind when we no longer needed them.

We Americans are so fucking fat and docile in our priviledged luxury that we actually think that one successful attack every ten years or so is a national tragedy of unparalled proportions!

I don't mean to belittle the loss of anyone (I had a friend from college die in the WTC), but come on! Compared to what goes on in the rest of the world and especially what we've been doing to the Middle East for decades, three thousand dead is nothing.

In the gulf war alone we killed well over a hundred thousand people, with no reported breakdown on how many were "soldiers" and how many were inocent men and women just like the ones who unfortunately were killed not two miles away from where I am typing this.

To put it into military terms and do as you earlier implied we should do (put it into reason and logic) the only thing that really happend beside the personal tragedy of innocent lives lost on Sept. 11th was that we got a richly deserved stab in the gut.

If you can't separate out your emotions when reflecting on our losses, then don't seek to separate them out when discussing their losses, because there is no fucking such thing as "us vs. them." It never existed and was always the result of machinations and manipulations from within.

And what will we deliver in return for that stab in the gut (to the wrong people no less; i.e., Iraq); a phosphorous tipped evisceration of not just the one who stabbed us, but his family, his friends, his business associates, his neighbors and thousands of total strangers who had nothing whatsoever to do with the guy and never met him.

Agreed, absolutely. Cult mentality, in whatever form it exists, should be erradicated, but I don't think carpet bombing innocent people is the way to do it.

Well, it's late (early) so I'm going to leave it at that. I don't know what either of us really did here, but I enjoyed it.

Vorkosigan

ProNihil, if killing thousands of people to get rid of a dictator one dislikes and replace him with a dictator of your choice isn't evil, what is?

leonarde

Previous post:Uh, that's exactly what the US did in WWII to Japan and Germany. In Japan MacArthur was military governor for about 5 years. In Germany, due to multiple occupation zones it was a tad more complicated, but military DICTATORSHIP was the immediate result of Allied victory; the Bundesrepublic came a bit later. In BOTH countries 'democracy' was forced upon the the locals after things stabilized under a military occupation.

Cheers!

DoubleDutchy

That happened more then once in history. I don't expect you to know anything about it, not pretending either would be nice though.