What good do you see in it all?

I suppose this might be considered a corollary to SM's question on "good" people doing "bad" things. I remember reading the Diary of Anne Frank years and years ago when I was just a kid, and I remember her writing something to the effect that she believed that all people had some good in their hearts. I have always wanted to agree with her, but, sometimes, its hard, you know? I came across some writing from Adolf Eichmann where he was going on about "good" Germans (then 80 million in number) who had one exceptional or "pet" Jew on whose behalf they were writing a letter asking for clemency. Eichmann went on to say that if each individual "good" German was to believed, well then the entire Jewish race would have to be saved and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

Obviously, Eichmann won the argument against 80 million of his countrymen, but why? Why would 80 million bits of bright light be defeated by the few dozen black holes which constituted the Nazi leadership? Why would a Christian turn the other way in the face of outrages committed by other so-called Christians as George Jr. appears to have done in the face of various atrocities committed by OUR side in the Middle East? I am in no way condoning 9/11 or any other outrage committed by "them" against "us", but do we in our turn need to do things that are inhumane and will only fuel hatred for the Americans as a people by the international community? OK, so wrongs were committed by us in the past, so "they" have committed wrongs in the present; are we going to establish a reign of humanity by the commission of inhumane acts?

Is this the burden that humanity will always bear, to treat one another in an inhumane fashion? Is that bit of good in us all enough to give one hope or is it only an imaginary attribute that only children believe in before they are brought to their ends in whatever death camp is currently in vogue?

[smoothmoniker]

[pithy comment]

It's almost enough to make you believe in original sin ...

[/pithy comment, back later for serious thought]

[lookout123]

mari - how do you propose that we stop the cycle of we did A, they did B, so now we have to...?

after someone attacks us (i.e, 9/11, kidnappings in Iraq resulting in beheadings) should we seek them out and get a giant group hug going in hope that they will reciprocate? because that was carter's method for dealing with the USSR, and it didn't work.
or should we seek them out and wipe them from the face of the planet? i know it won't bring back our loved ones, but at least they won't be able to harm us any more.

at the root of it all, it is important to understand that groups of people will take action that is logical and rational from their perspective. we have conflict because what group A sees as best for them, group B sees as harmful and will act to discourage. and so the cycle begins.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

mari - how do you propose that we stop the cycle of we did A, they did B, so now we have to...?

after someone attacks us (i.e, 9/11, kidnappings in Iraq resulting in beheadings) should we seek them out and get a giant group hug going in hope that they will reciprocate? because that was carter's method for dealing with the USSR, and it didn't work.

Maybe Carter's methods didn't work with the USSR, but they did work with the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel. Besides, the USSR actually had the ability to destroy us, so tangling with them would have been very dangerous.

I don't see Bush's methods bringing peace anywhere. Do you?

Originally Posted by lookout123

mari - how do you propose that we stop the cycle of we did A, they did B, so now we have to...?

after someone attacks us (i.e, 9/11, kidnappings in Iraq resulting in beheadings) should we seek them out and get a giant group hug going in hope that they will reciprocate? because that was carter's method for dealing with the USSR, and it didn't work.
or should we seek them out and wipe them from the face of the planet? i know it won't bring back our loved ones, but at least they won't be able to harm us any more.

at the root of it all, it is important to understand that groups of people will take action that is logical and rational from their perspective. we have conflict because what group A sees as best for them, group B sees as harmful and will act to discourage. and so the cycle begins.

I have no idea how we would stop that cycle, but wiping a group of people off the face of the planet does not seem like a great step forward for humanity. It sounds to me like you are advocating getting rid of the Muslim people in just the same way Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jewish ones. Will George Jr. one day write a memo about all the "good" Americans who have a single "pet" Muslim on whose behalf they are asking for clemency? Will a little Muslim boy one day write the Diary of Abdul Mohammed just before our troops hit his town in our frenzy of making the world "safe for democracy"?

Hatred only begets hatred. I understand that we can't just lie down and allow ourselves to be killed without protest, but do we have to kill innocent civilians by way of retaliation? Many, many innocent people have been killed in the Middle East, just as our innocent American people were killed in 9/11. Is there not enough good in your own heart, Lookout, that you wouldn't hesitate to personally put a round of bullets into the head of a little Muslim girl?

[Pie]

I am in no way condoning 9/11 or any other outrage committed by "them" against "us", but do we in our turn need to do things that are inhumane and will only fuel hatred for the Americans as a people by the international community?

:thumpsup:
The best thing to do with terrorists is --
refuse to be terrorized.

Sure, tighten the obvious holes in national security, work with international partners to do the same... But heck, Osama's agenda is largely being carried out by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld these days. Who's pumping out toxic amounts of fear and hatred? Polarizing the world into Us and Them? Our leadership.

In the wake of Sept. 11th, the whole world stood with us. Today, 90% of it is understandably disgusted with us. How does that help?

When I became a citizen of "the Greatest Country in the World" this was not the standard of behavior I had expected.

- Pie

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by marichiko

It sounds to me like you are advocating getting rid of the Muslim people in just the same way Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jewish ones.

absolutely not. "Muslim people" didn't attack the WTC, "Muslim people" aren't the ones strapping bombs to themselves and their children, "Muslim people" aren't cutting the heads off of contractors.
a group of terrorists who are bound together by their deranged faith in an offshoot of Islam are. these are not individuals who are following the teachings of muhammed to spread peace and understanding. (keep in mind that muhammed espoused protection of the jews, because they are "people of the book") these are people that want the entire world to believe in their god, or die.

FTR, yes, they should be wiped from the face of the planet. that is not genocide - that is an acknowledgement of who the enemy is and a willingness to deal with them.

also FTR - do i take joy in the death of the innocent? no, not at all. but if at some point their parents had stood up to the evil that is around them, we wouldn't have to be in the first place.
as far as putting a bullet through a little girl? i haven't heard a single credible story about a US soldier popping arab kids for fun. i have spoken with individuals who have shot children to death though - i find no fault in them, what doesn't get reported is that it isn't uncommon for their "soldier" to send out kids to collect weapons during a battle. if there is battle under way and someone picks up a weapon, the only rational thing to do is drop them, regardless of age.

Well, I take some solace in your statement that you are not against ALL Muslim people, just the terrorist faction. When you wrote of wiping people off the face of the earth that would include children as well, hence my question about shooting them. Up until your post, I'd never heard of our guys shooting children over there. I can understand why a soldier might feel the need out of self defence to shoot a 12 year old boy who has a weapon that he refuses to surrender. Hatred begins young which only makes it all the more tragic.

[lookout123]

people who are talking about the innocent civilians killed in a war zone are ususally referring to women and children. i can tell you that fighting in an islamic region is just plain different. the numbers may show a higher than expected body count for women and children, some of which may be attributed to the tactic of sending the family out because they know americans typically get squeamish about popping anybody but an adult man holding a weapon.
that is not to say that there have been 0 legitimate civilian casualties, because there have, but i think the number gets inflated because people don't get to hear about some of the ploys used by our enemies.

[jane_says]

Amen, Pie.

What amazes me recently is outrage over the beheadings. I AM NOT ADVOCATING SUCH A THING. However, turn the situation around a little and look at it from a different perspective. Think of another country deciding to "liberate" the US from the "oppression" of the Bushco "regime". Tanks, planes, helicopters, and thousands of soldiers invade the land, searching for weapons of mass destruction. This time, though, WMD are certainly going to be found here because hey, we actually HAVE them.

Think about a fireworks display for the Fourth of July. Silly tradition, or at least it would be, if we were in the midst of of an enemy occupation. I'd say that's comparable to the wedding party US troops blew up due to the "silly tradition" of shooting guns into the air near the tent set up for the reception. Men, women and children were killed - by US forces.

Think about the prisoners US soldiers tortured, sexually assaulted and killed. I bet we (me included) would be shooting or beheading any invaders we could find if they came inside US borders to lend us this kind of "liberation". Think also of the thousands of prisoners we are currently holding in Guantanamo Bay, without charge or legal counsel.

I don't advocate killing contractors - after all, they're not fighting and not likely to be armed - certainly not the fairest of game. But perhaps in the midst of things they're still seen as a part of the whole, and profiting from the takeover of Iraqui soil. I don't advocate killing anyone, but if I felt as threatened as the Iraqis must (and yeah, I'm sure they're glad Saddam is out of power, but that doesn't negate the heinous crimes the "good guys" have committed there) I'd do whatever I could to get them the hell out of my country too. YMMV.

I was thinking more of civilians being killed by bombs and in air raids, just to clarify.

[smoothmoniker]

Jane, let’s say the American apocalypse happens: Bush remains in office come January 2005. Not only that, let’s say that he signs an executive order granting himself martial authority, and it stays in effect for the duration of his term … which doesn’t end in 2008 because he refuses to hold election for “security reasons”. He disbands the legislature, assumes control of all three branches, and enforces his edicts with military power. The press is federalized, guns are seized, and every human baby is stamped with a V-chip at birth.

It’s 2020. 10 different attempts a revolution have been quelled because the technological dominance of the Homeland Security office allows them to isolated and eradicate anyone who gains a significant following in dissent. The country is beaten down by terror, the people unable to regain control of their own government.

At what point would you welcome the intervention of another country? Would you be content to wait it out until Bush 41 dies, and power passes to whoever marries one of the twins? Would you be content to suffer under the yoke of oppression, hoping that somehow something would change?

Say the Brits invaded for the purpose of reasserting democratic controls on the country. Say they’re successful. Surely there would be some citizens who would rebel against them, some Fundamentalists who believed that the Bush America was the amillennial Kingdom of God. Surely they would take up arms.

Would they be right to do so? If they were your neighbors and friends, would you hide them, aid and abet them? Or would you recognize the great gain to be had by aiding the invading Brits, letting them peaceably rebuild the country, and then insisting that they leave when they promised?

Not all rebellions have moral equivalency. Not all uprisings are noble. Not all “Freedom Fighters” work for the best interest of the people.

-sm

[lookout123]

and that is called story selling. good job SM.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Would they be right to do so? If they were your neighbors and friends, would you hide them, aid and abet them? Or would you recognize the great gain to be had by aiding the invading Brits, letting them peaceably rebuild the country, and then insisting that they leave when they promised?

All of the people rising against them wouldn't be Bush loyalists. There are plenty of people who would resent foreign occupation regardless of motive. Such people would, in my estimation, be misguided (assuming the Brits are as pure-hearted as described), but not deserving of being wiped out.

[jane_says]

Whew! Straw man much, smooth? None of the things in your first paragraph are possible according to existing US law. As for V-chips, I thought they were for TVs, but for the sake of argument I'll assume you mean an ID or tracking device. If that's not the case, please correct me. I think that even if the slightest hints if your scenario should come to pass, the Right Wing, Bushies themselves, would have him put out as the Antichrist.

The events you describe are so far-fetched as to be unanswerable. Someone, somewhere, is going to have quite a stockpile of weapons. Somewhere, that someone would have enough sense to use them against the president in this case, or the vice president, and whomever comes behind them, until the "regime" is ended. it's also my (admittedly unpopular) opinion that if the Iraqi people had truly wanted out from under Saddam and his ilk, they'd have staged coup after coup until sanity prevailed. But they didn't. My belief is that horror, if it's an already known, predictable horror, is preferable to the unknown in many cases. People are scared of change - think, on a smaller scale, of battered spouses afraid to leave.

The Brits are our allies. We are not allies to the Iraqis. I don't recall us sending ballots out to Joe and Mary Muslim asking if they wanted our help. I recall dancing in the streets when the statue of Saddam was overturned, but I don't recall them singing our praises much since then. Maybe that's because we aren't asking?

I have to believe that even while making this argument, you see the folly in it. I understand using hyperbole to make a point, but I'm sure you recognize that what you are suggesting *might* happen is a distinct impossibility, so there's no merit in saying what I might or might not feel. The sky *might* fall, and I *might* wish for someone to prop it back up, but as rational thought prevents me from worrying about it, I cannot speculate what my reaction might be.

Our unwarranted invasion of Iraq is not a hypothetic, it has already occured. As I said before, I do not condone killing. But I have to wonder why that now, since we have the dictator in hand, we continue to occupy a nation which has every bit as much right to sovreignty as we do, and to terrorize, imprison and abuse its citizens.