Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran?

JB wrote:
JC Martin wrote:

<snip>


Telling someone that they're justifying the the attacks on 9/11 is a personal attack IMO.


In all intellectual honesty, I do not consider that to be a personal attack (and I hope you don't take my question below to a be a personal attack on you). When I read statements that seem to be looking for, or providing, rationale for terrorist attacks on civilians, I think that it is very fair to point out when these heinous acts are being given undue justification and I have to ask questions.

I did not call anyone names, and did I attack you or Richard (nor will I).

Who would actually want to justify such madness?


So then, please tell me this: how can your statements below *not* be construed as a form of justification for those attacks? After all, you're basically saying "they have no other alternative"


I didn't say they had any alternative.


and "we should have handled the situation differently in the first place."


Well, our own actions over time only we can take responsibility for, wouldn't you agree? Would you say we have a record of consistency and fairness when it comes to Middle East foreign policy?



The point is that desperate people do commit desperate acts. That's reality. You can't solve an equation without identifying all the variables. A group of poor people or a poor nation doesn't have modern military might. Terrorism is their only weapon. It's old-school warfare I'm talking about. The difference is that technology has advanced to the point that they can do far more damage than before.


"Terrorism is their only weapon". "Old school warfare". That's your justification. How can it not be??


It's not. I'm pointing out a fact. Why do you dispute a historical reality and then translate that to some sort of justification? I don't justify acts of war. They are what they are. One side against another. If it's kill or be-killed, I'm gonna kill. But that's going to stop more people from wanting to get at me. That's the fundamental challenge.



The solution to this mess was to take out Al Qaeda in the hills of Afghanistan, rather than the asking the Northern Alliance to do the work for us, and working more closely with our allies in terms of changing the way we've been doing business in the Middle East. I believe the western world has the intellectual capacity to figure this sort of stuff out. But war or occupation doesn't promote goodwill (it's a fairly loose band-aid really), and make no mistake, Arabs aren't nearly as passive as the Europeans or the Japanese. Muslims have a strong faith in which they will sacrifice their lives for. Sound familiar?


I can agree with all of the above, but will add that our temporary occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq may very well accomplish the necessary changes in the Middle East. Isn't that just as possible?


To be honest, with what knowledge I have on hand, though admittedly I'm far from an expert, I would say no. But then again, that depends on what changes you're talking about. An Iraqi government? Perhaps. But it won't be stable. Beyond that, the real problem which faces us is the advancement of WMD technology and its accessibility on the black market. When the middle east runs out of oil, what's their next export? Time will tell.

But if we're going to promote democracy in the Middle East, we might as well start with Saudi Arabia. You had a country like Iran who was steering in the right direction, but fear of the Bush administration and what's perceived as an enforced globalism is getting a lot of fascists (some disguised as populist do-gooders) elected in democratic nations around the world. Overall, it seems to me, Bush's foreign policy has been a grand failure. I certainly see a lot more isolationism than in the Clinton years. I sincerely hope that a future administration, Republican or Democrat, can commit to a more sober and unifying foreign policy. Cause I think we're more hated today around the world than ever before in our history. Some justify that behavior as simple jealousy on the part of smaller nations rather than any action we engage in. Maybe. But I wonder if China gets to play the same card when they become the next superpower. I hope not.


-JC
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran?
    ... I do not consider that to be a personal attack. ... When I read statements that seem to be looking for, or providing, rationale for terrorist attacks on civilians, I think that it is very fair to point out when these heinous acts are being given undue justification and I have to ask questions. ... Afghanistan, rather than the asking the Northern Alliance to do the work for us, and working more closely with our allies in terms of changing the way we've been doing business in the Middle East. ... Today, and especially now that I am a parent, I am thankful that my parents were strict with me when they needed to be. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran?
    ... In all intellectual honesty, I do not consider that to be a personal attack. ... When I read statements that seem to be looking for, or providing, rationale for terrorist attacks on civilians, I think that it is very fair to point out when these heinous acts are being given undue justification and I have to ask questions. ... I can agree with all of the above, but will add that our temporary occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq may very well accomplish the necessary changes in the Middle East. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran?
    ... He didn't have to come right out and say "the attacks of 9/11 were justified" but, when rationalizing the attacks of 9/11 in correlation to our military actions, then he did, in essence, justifying those acts. ... Why could the be construed as a personal attack? ... construed as a form of justification for those attacks? ... hope the analogy here is clear. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • still your head, ah, yes, do the personal attack, minimize and mock...stupid shithead, you really do
    ... potato headed piece of shit. ... yes, but you come back with the personal attack, and I make you think ... it's why you lost the wars in the middle east. ...
    (talk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Bush planning nuke attack on Iran?
    ... personal attack IMO. ... In all intellectual honesty, I do not consider that to be a personal attack. ... When I read statements that seem to be looking for, or providing, rationale for terrorist attacks on civilians, I think that it is very fair to point out when these heinous acts are being given undue justification and I have to ask questions. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
Loading