American Hiroshima: yes to if, no to when

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 11080
PAGE 3 of 10

Personally, I like to think that most Americans (and most Brits, and Canadians, etc., etc. - hell probably even the French) are morally superior to the terrorists. In fact, I'm pretty darned confident of it. But, the problem with invoking moral superiority (and there can be no doubt that nearly all of us on these boards have invoked it at one time or another) is that in order to avoid being a hypocrite, you have to actually act morally superior. Doing the same things they do (or worse) just doesn't cut it. Killing all the terrorists (even though they may richly deserve it, and I confess that I personally find that it's a very tempting idea) just makes us as bad as they are. Ain't no place I want to be......

And then, of course, since you really can't kill 'em all, you succeed in breeding more terrorists at the same time that you give up any claim to moral superiority.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

orginally posted by inevitablebetrayal

Quote:

---

My argument is simply this: 1) They will attack if we do nothing, 2) They will attack if we do something. 3) Doing something is better than doing nothing.

---

I have to disagree with this for the sake of sanity. If someone nukes us..in your opinion we should nuke them back ..thats just madness, because then everyone will be bombing eachother.

unfortunetly I hate to say this, but sometimes I think we Americans really need a bomb dropped on us so that we can experience the true horror of such actions I think if we did we wouldn't hear opinions like these. Its easy to talk about these things its easy to say bomb someone take out a few cities..but its certainly not easy to live through something like that.

Violence on brings on more violence. I don't doubt that someone at some point is going to drop a bomb on us maybe a few bombs...but bombing them back is only going to spread more radiation around the world..its crazy...and its not the answer.

the facts are we are bringing the wrath of these terrorist and countries on us..maybe not you and me personally although alot of Americans attitudes don't help..but our government policies are , why don't we try correcting that..it seems alot saner!!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Edited to avoid a screaming match.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Killing all the terrorists (even though they may richly deserve it, and I confess that I personally find that it's a very tempting idea) just makes us as bad as they are.

---

Actually, I have to disagree on this point. The reason that you claim the moral high ground over terrorists is all in who you're visiting violence upon.

Terrorism, by its very nature, inflicts violence on the innocent (e.g. people on the underground, market-goers, people at work in an office building). These people are not a threat to the terrorists or their way of life. In military parlance, they are "non-combatants" and cannot be specifically targeted.

On the other hand, an individual who would visit violence upon your nation, its people or its military forces (e.g. terrorists) is fair game, because they are a threat. We enter into the "kill-or-be-killed" economy of combat.

Regardless of the propaganda that spins around the RWED, the U.S. military does not specifically target non-combatants. As a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq I can assure you of that fact. And that is why we have the moral high ground on terrorists. Killing terrorists and killing civilians can't be considered as ethically equivalent. One is self-defense, one is murder.

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

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
IB, IB, no, that's exactly what it does mean. Your "old college try" only exasorbates the problem you're trying to fix. Killing terrorist will never stop terrorism. Ever. Terrorism feeds on what you advocate. Much as you may prefer a straight fight, a straight fight is not possible. You gotta wrap your head around this, we all do. There's an old Chinese saying: if we do not change direction, we will end up where we're headed.

HKCavalier

---

I'm going to ride right on past the part where I get pissed off at your condescension and just get on with the thing...

---

InevitableB, I sincerely apologize. I was talking to you the way I talk to people who I think are getting a little carried away. It is really tough not to sound a little condescending when you're trying to calm a body down, you know? Again, I apologize, lets just say it was the internet talking.

Quote:

---

My argument is simply this: 1) They will attack if we do nothing, 2) They will attack if we do something. 3) Doing something is better than doing nothing.

Your counter argument (for brevity's sake) is that the point isn't doing /nothing/ it's doing nothing that will provoke them, i.e. military action. So let's review the strategies that have been employed thus far.

---

I'm going to ride right on past the part where I get pissed off at your--sorry, I couldn't resist. Just kidding

Quote:

---

...What we have not yet tried is talking the threat away. This is sort of in the left-wing vein that "this war represents a failure to communicate" or some such, or "if we could only talk with them we'd find we have more in common than not". That's ridiculous. The terrorists have no interest in getting to know us better. They simply want to exterminate us. Again, there's no reasoning with that.

...BTW, HK, you keep saying I don't get it. Please enlighten me on your 5-point plan for eliminating terrorism. It's easy to say, "That's broke" but it's another matter to fix it.

---

I think you're right on the money except the "they" is not the terrorists, it's the much maligned Islamic world. As Signy said, many Islamic nations turn a blind eye to the terrorists in their midst, because they certainly have a profoundly serious beef with us, and to get back to my original post, so did the USSR. Couldn't we learn from the first cold war and start negotiating with opposing nations before they have the power to destroy us?

We need to seriously rethink our Middle East policies because the people who live and govern over there seriously want us to leave them alone. Iran has no dream of taking over the United States as the USSR surely did (I'm talking about the people and the real government, not fifty crazed fools hiding in a cave). Lets do everything we can so that the Islamic people reject whole-heartedly the purposes and methods of the terrorist extremists.

We go to Iran (for instance), we say, "Look, what will it take for you to sit down and talk seriously with us about ending terrorism on this planet. The world is getting too small for us to continue business as usual." They say, what? I don't know, "Get your bases out of Saudi Arabia" or something and so we say, "Okay, let's talk about that." And then we do something. We reduce our presence in the Middle East in a meaningful way. I'm not saying a unilateral withdrawl of all military force in the area, this isn't some pie in the sky liberal "let's give the terrorists therapy" canard, just a real and meaningful reduction that Iran (or whoever) can appreciate. Then we say, "Well, now, we've started a process in good faith, now here's what we ask of you, etc."

We need to change our image in the world. C'mon all you capitalists, we need to start selling something the market actually wants!


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.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
My argument is simply this: 1) They will attack if we do nothing, 2) They will attack if we do something. 3) Doing something is better than doing nothing.

---

Your argument is broken. (Doesn't make sense)

Niether 1 nor 2 is acceptable as a factual premise, and 3 depends entirely on what something means.

The something we're doing now is making the problem much worse, so in relation to that, doing nothing is preferable. If we'd done nothing in the first place,(for example, let's that say we didn't build permanent military bases the middle east, and we didn't invade countries at the drop of a hat there and we didn't attempt to force our values and ideals on their culture) I doubt we'd be in this situation.

The notion that Islam is driving the hatred of the United States is nonsense. The leaders of Fundamentalist Islam (which is a very small minority in the whole of the religion) use religion in the same way unscrupulous leaders do anywhere. They use it as an excuse for people to act irrationally on existing frustration and anger. But the root of it all is the frustration and anger that comes from more mundane sources - namely unwelcome western interference.



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

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
IB, IB, no, that's exactly what it does mean. Your "old college try" only exasorbates the problem you're trying to fix. Killing terrorist will never stop terrorism. Ever. Terrorism feeds on what you advocate. Much as you may prefer a straight fight, a straight fight is not possible. You gotta wrap your head around this, we all do. There's an old Chinese saying: if we do not change direction, we will end up where we're headed.

HKCavalier

---

I'm going to ride right on past the part where I get pissed off at your condescension and just get on with the thing...

---

InevitableB, I sincerely apologize. I was talking to you the way I talk to people who I think are getting a little carried away. It is really tough not to sound a little condescending when you're trying to calm a body down, you know? Again, I apologize, lets just say it was the internet talking.

Quote:

---

My argument is simply this: 1) They will attack if we do nothing, 2) They will attack if we do something. 3) Doing something is better than doing nothing.

Your counter argument (for brevity's sake) is that the point isn't doing /nothing/ it's doing nothing that will provoke them, i.e. military action. So let's review the strategies that have been employed thus far.

---

I'm going to ride right on past the part where I get pissed off at your--sorry, I couldn't resist. Just kidding

Quote:

---

...What we have not yet tried is talking the threat away. This is sort of in the left-wing vein that "this war represents a failure to communicate" or some such, or "if we could only talk with them we'd find we have more in common than not". That's ridiculous. The terrorists have no interest in getting to know us better. They simply want to exterminate us. Again, there's no reasoning with that.

...BTW, HK, you keep saying I don't get it. Please enlighten me on your 5-point plan for eliminating terrorism. It's easy to say, "That's broke" but it's another matter to fix it.

---

I think you're right on the money except the "they" is not the terrorists, it's the much maligned Islamic world. As Signy said, many Islamic nations turn a blind eye to the terrorists in their midst, because they certainly have a profoundly serious beef with us, and to get back to my original post, so did the USSR. Couldn't we learn from the first cold war and start negotiating with opposing nations before they have the power to destroy us?

We need to seriously rethink our Middle East policies because the people who live and govern over there seriously want us to leave them alone. Iran has no dream of taking over the United States as the USSR surely did (I'm talking about the people and the real government, not fifty crazy guys hiding in a cave). Lets do everything we can so that the Islamic people reject whole-heartedly the purposes and methods of the terrorist extremists.

We go to Iran (for instance), we say, "Look, what will it take for you to sit down and talk seriously with us about ending terrorism on this planet. The world is getting too small for us to continue business as usual." They say, what? I don't know, "Get your bases out of Saudi Arabia" or something and so we say, "Okay, let's talk about that." And then we do something. We reduce our presence in the Middle East in a meaningful way. I'm not saying a unilateral withdrawl of all military force in the area, this isn't some pie in the sky liberal "let's give the terrorists therapy" canard, just a real and meaningful reduction that Iran (or whoever) can appreciate. Then we say, "Well, now, we've started a process in good faith, now here's what we ask of you, etc."

We need to change our image in the world. C'mon all you capitalists, we need to start selling something the market actually wants!


HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no m

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME