American Hiroshima: yes to if, no to when

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 11080
PAGE 8 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

I.e., it has no place.

Hero, I find you guilty of using your impressive intelect to subvert your humanity. Your lack of humility astounds this court. Your inability to empathize with your fellow man not endowed by their creator with your geographical location on this world seems to know no limits.

Your conscience is hereby ordered to gnaw away at your psychological superiority defence and it's ancillary fear-reaction subroutines until you retreat from the dark side, or go mad, whichever comes first.

This court is adjourned.

The honourable Judge Topher Chrisisall

Funny, but in a to-keep-from-crying sort of a way.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:39 PM

HAHAHA!!! I'd like Hero to be either redeemed by his words, or convicted by his silence by next Friday. Hero- Are you willing to let this stand?

The point about "winning the peace" seeming hopeless is important. We can point to what WON'T work (MAD) but we don't seem to have an equally muscular alternate. And when things look dire we want a vigorous reponse.

I think we would need to do something really dramatic and follow it up by a consistent pressure in one direction. What really dramatic action could we take that would give everyone hope that we can "win the war on terror"?

(I say that with tongue in cheek, knowing that our actions themselves constitute a form of terror.)

HERO

Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm waiting for Hero to say, in his own words, who the "guilty" are and the collateral damage he's willing to accept.

Just like any other war. The guilty are those who give the orders, in this case, the mullahs, islamifascists, and money men who command our enemies. I'm sure you'll lump Bush in that catagory, but he never bombed a single Arab country till after Sept 11th (although to be accurate he may have dropped a bomb or two on Iraq, it was happening whenever Iraq took too many potshots at American and British planes in the old no-fly zones). Ultimately guilt or innocense is determined by history and history is written (in America) or dictated (in fascist regimes) by the winners.

Our enemies are those who take the field in armed conflict against us and those who support them either directly or indirectly.

In WW2 we killed soldiers on the battlefield, workers in factories, but only enemy leaders were later tried and executed. War brought death to our enemies and peace brought justice to the guilty. Its a novel 20th Century concept, like a kind of social new technology to go with the smart bomb, instant coffee, and Hershey Bars that don't melt in the desert.

As for "collateral damage", its dictated by two things. First is our technology, which is used to limit such damage. The other thing is the action of our enemies, which tends to increase such damage. I would be perfectly happy to designate a small section of otherwise useless land, far from innocent people or extranious structures, upon which our enemies can gather for orderly neutralization. If they cooperated they might even survive the experiance since we could subistute big nets for 500lb bombs. That they choose not too, opting instead to occupy Holy sites, schools, or homes, and surround themselves with human shields, is hardly the fault of the American military.

We do our best and pay really big bucks to limit damage as much as possible. It'd be equally effective and far more efficient to pay a little less and destroy a little more. Right now we destroy buildings instead of cities. I'd say that's pretty good.

H

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

I.e., it has no place.

Hero, I find you guilty of using your impressive intelect to subvert your humanity. Your lack of humility astounds this court. Your inability to empathize with your fellow man not endowed by their creator with your geographical location on this world seems to know no limits.

Your conscience is hereby ordered to gnaw away at your psychological superiority defence and it's ancillary fear-reaction subroutines until you retreat from the dark side, or go mad, whichever comes first.

This court is adjourned.

The honourable Judge Topher Chrisisall

Ah! Well worth the wait, Chrisisall! O'course, the first Americans were endowed by their creator with the same geographical location and it didn't help.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
But instead of just flopping to the other side, I seem to have lost all hope in the entire process.

NO! Do NOT go to the other side, it's not an ideal location, either.
We have to believe that the process works on SOME level, there are more alive than dying, more fed than starving...it's not ALL bad!
Maybe it ALL needs to be scrutinized, but this world could be a WHOLE lot worse.

Pep talkin' Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:58 PM

Quote:
Just like any other war. The guilty are those who give the orders, in this case, the mullahs, islamifascists, and money men who command our enemies.... Our enemies are those who take the field in armed conflict against us and those who support them either directly or indirectly.

Does this mean take the field in armed conflict in Iraq... or anywhere? So basically you think we should be able to invade any nation on any pretext and everyone should just lay down their arms and accept our military occupation or be declared an enemy?

EDITED TO ADD: Let me rephrase and narrow that question. If our enemies are those who take the field in armed conflict, how did that make Saddam our enemy? As I recall, he didn't attack us or any of our interests in the Mideast or even any of his neighbors. But if you insist that Saddam was an enemy, then your criteria has nothing to do with armed conflict and you need to clarify what makes someone an enemy.

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

NO! Do NOT go to the other side, it's not an ideal location, either.
We have to believe that the process works on SOME level, there are more alive than dying, more fed than starving...it's not ALL bad!
Maybe it ALL needs to be scrutinized, but this world could be a WHOLE lot worse.

Pep talkin' Chrisisall

Yeah...the thing is, though, I can't see how going dem or GOP is going to solve anything. It feels like half the problem is the whole two-party system. We all take sides on issues and holler 'til our vocal chords bleed, meanwhile bombs are exploding in London. obviously something is wrong if they're bombing us, but golly--even "what's wrong" is a politicized issue on which we must take sides. So what's left to do?

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:50 PM

Vote for the guy who shares your view of the problem no matter what 'side' he's on.
Hope public opinion forces whoever's in power to do the right thing.
See Serenity as many times as you need to to make you feel better.

That's what I'm doin' Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Yeah...the thing is, though, I can't see how going dem or GOP is going to solve anything. It feels like half the problem is the whole two-party system. We all take sides on issues and holler 'til our vocal chords bleed, meanwhile bombs are exploding in London. obviously something is wrong if they're bombing us, but golly--even "what's wrong" is a politicized issue on which we must take sides. So what's left to do?

Now you're singing my song. This is the thinking that's brought me down to the nitty-gritty of changing our voting system. It really does favor a polarized electorate and diminishes incentives for sane consensus building, not to mention pretty thoroughly shuts out parties willing to look beyond the same-old same-old.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

PERFESSERGEE

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

This is a late response, but I just caught up on this thread, and a fair bit of what I've seen tonight has appalled me, especially the quote above. And I have to say:

WHAT??????

In what 'verse do you reside where decent people who believe in democracy would ever suspend a discussion of what is right and what is wrong, no matter what their objectives?

And I'm not talking about when someone is dodging bullets - that's an obvious case of imminent emergency where nobody is discussing anything. I'm talking about a society's (hopefully rational) deliberation about what matters and what is ethical. The "war on terror" is not an imminent emergency for our society at large, at least not most of the time, and if we fail to debate what is right and what is wrong in its conduct, then we give up any claim to belief in the importance of democracy or ethics or morality. In my 'verse, we think those three little concepts are pretty important.

perfessergee

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE