Lil: They started this war for unjust reasons and nothing that has happened since they did so has changed my view that they did that. And I don't know about your definition of murder but unjust killing certainly comes within my definition.
CJ: I think the point is that many of us don't think this is a unjust war.
Ah, but if we want to get terrorists, the people behind September 11, why don't we go after Saudi Arabia or Egypt (which is where the hijackers tended to be from)? Ah, because it would be politically impossible to attack S.A., of course... and Egypt's a freaking mess (though supposedly an ally). I'm reading a fascinating book about Egypt right now, _A Passion for Islam: Shaping the Modern MIddle East: The Egyptian Experience_ by Caryle Murphy. It's very good background for why Egypt is breeding terrorists despte its attempts to prevent terrorism.
Consider a situation that has a guy running around waving a gun on the street next to you. He has all ready shot members of his own family with the gun and knifed the next door neighbor. How many people are going to argue with whoever shoots him if they spend say a decade telling him to put down the gun?
Hmm. Read about Egypt, the Islamic Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, violent attacks on tourists, governmental use of torture (and how that radicalizes the fanatic elements even more), etc. ... and ask why we don't go after Egypt, if war on terrorism is what we're doing.
consider how those "wonderful" protestors behaved in San Francisco.
Most of them didn't even come from San Francisco, and I still think most of them were anarchists, not actually people working for peace. Point taken -- everyone has the freedom to behave like a moron...
People do regularly abuse their freedoms to the detriment of society. That is part of the risk of having a free society and I think myself it is outweighed by the advantages.
Agreed. However, "freedom is untidy"? Mass looting and carjacking and burning is "freedom"? Sorry, I remember tuning in to CNN just in time to see the start of those South Central Los Angeles riots years ago (post Rodney King verdict), and those people went berserk and destroyed their own neighborhoods. It seems much the same here. It started as an attack on the hated government institutions and became an assault on society, IMHO.
I wrote: Ah. One of those emotional manipulations along the lines of: if you don't support war, how many more skyscrapers have to fall, and how many more planes will be hijacked, and what will you say when North Korea nukes the West Coast?
DevF: That is not a fair charge.
Gee. I didn't think it was fair, either, when someone threw a tantrum on a mailing list against anyone who dared be against war, and said exactly those words to us. So if I'm using that unfairly, I think it's unfair to have that used against me in the first place. Considering I'm not even a New Yorker, I was hit very hard by 9/11/01, and to have it used against me -- if you don't support war, then how many skyscrapers need to fall, etc. -- was *exceedingly* unfair.
And if it's inappropriate for me to use that example, well, I never said I was perfect. I'm just a bit fed up, though.
Why is not going to war "inaction"? There are other ways to work on problems. Though, of course, Saddam Hussein wouldn't have been impressed by any of them. So, yeah, I acknowledge that war was the only way he'd be unseated. That doesn't mean I enjoy it.
The problem I have with the cease fire argument (and again this is my opinion) is that I never acknowledged the validity of the conflict that led to the cease fire
Well, same here... it's pretty funny to talk about "freeing" Kuwait if one knew anything about that society, or Saudi Arabia...
The question I've had from day one of this whole thing is "why now". If, as you point out, these violations have been ongoing then why now?
Yeah. Why wait 12 years, because the job wasn't finished in the first place?
Some people believe the fact that some good may come of it is enough to overcome the motive behind it.
Well, "the end justifies the means" and all that? Here's something that means more to me the more I think of it, something William Penn said: "A good end cannot sanctify evil means; nor must we ever do evil that good may come of it." Perhaps I need to add this to my .sig...
so now it is the "right" or the "duty" of the United States to engage in War against any regime that does not pass its smell test on human rights?
Saudi Arabia and Egypt really need to have their cesspits cleaned out sometime...
And while you're at it, make sure you ask the people who were cheering American soldiers and dancing in the streets if it's worth it to them. Or ask some kids who've been freed from prison.
It works both ways, doesn't it?
Fine. Some were cheering and dancing in the streets. I won't deny that.
The regime was raping and murdering people. Holding families hostage to make people obey their will. Torturing prisoners with electricity as a matter of procedure, and locking innocent children in jails. This is not a matter of some culturally relative difference of opinion. This is horrifically evil.
I'm not denying that, but why don't you read about what goes on in Egypt, for example? Egyptian government cracks down violently upon those it believes are Islamic revolutionaries. Unfortunately, their methods (including terrible torture) help to radicalize the very attitudes they're trying to prevent. Kind of like using war to fight terrorism can radicalize the attitudes we're trying to prevent...
Oh well, just my views. Of course they won't convince anyone, but I have a right to 'em.