288 thoughts on “Killing in the name of…”

1. Mad-Rid –
   I’d take my next-door neighbor’s cat’s plan on how to implement world peace over yours. At least the cat’s an equal-opportunist in his hatred of people, and isn’t a racist like you.

2. Why is it that reading some right-wing gross generalizations about the enemy, I can’t help but hear the same rhetoric and hate coming from the mouths of the terrorists? (I’ve commented on this phenomenon before in the lost September posts, I’m sure.)
   Shining example:
   “They kill our civilians in the thousands. And only now do we fight back. We gave them ample time and warning to reform themselves and tyhier [sic] government and they failed, so we are doing it for them. Only now that we are doing what needs to be done…”
   That could have been a direct quote from one of bin Laden’s terrorists, explaining why they wanted to kill American civilians for America’s actions against their people.
   While some “right-wing” posts were thought-provoking and well reasoned (thank you for making me think, Bob Roth), the majority of them tend to be full of anger, hate and name-calling. They too often come across as ignorant and willfully blind no matter how many history lessons are cut-and-pasted into them.
   I am all for debate and listening to opposing points of view. Unfortunately, the opposing point of view here too often gets lost in idiocy and anger at “bleeding heart liberals”. For a group of people that frequently complain about the emotionality of liberals, you sure inject a ton of emotion (anger, hate) into your arguments.
   I hope this isn’t interpreted as a flame or attack against personalities instead of ideas. If it is, I apologize. Just think of it as a plea for more Bob Roth’s and less Andrews/Mad-Rid’s. I want to hear more right-wing arguments and ideas, I just want less of the scary people. 🙂
   Now where did I put that flame-retardant suit…

3. Oh, and Mad-Rid?
   That little bit I just wrote probably went over your head. I will attempt to explain.
   This country you so vehemently support (that is to say, the USA) was founded on principles of equality and freedom. Freedom of choice, speech, religion, you get the idea.
   When someone starts bitching about “towel-heads” and “false gods”, it gets me to thinking.
   1. This person is not espousing basic American ideals.
   2. This person really needs to read up on things like “The Holocaust”, “Religious Persecution”, and “How Not to be a Fuckhead – For Dummies”.
   I’m going to assume you’re a Christian. You’re certainly not a Jew or a Muslim, and neither is it likely you’re a Buddhist or pretty much any other religion I can think of off the top of my head.
   (This is not to say Christians are the only ones who speak like this. Every religion has had someone who has said this – Law of Averages, if nothing else.)
   Now, there’s this saying in the Bible; well, two, actually. I’d like to point them out.
   “Eye for an eye”
   “Love thy neighbor”
   What can we learn from this, kids? People are seriously messed up. Here are two lines, both used by one religion, that are both bandied about like nobody’s business.
   Let’s not forget that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are tied together whether they like it or not; it’s called a common origin, kids, and if you don’t believe me, you might want to check your facts, because this is nothing new.
   I can handle emotional reasons for retaliation.
   I can handle practical reasons for retaliation.
   I can even handle political reasons for retaliation.
   I REFUSE to handle religious and racial biases for retaliation.
   And neither should anyone else.
   Thank you.

4. I wasn’t speaking out of hate. Flamer KJB. I was speaking out of fact. Their basis for attacking us is religion based! I didn’t kill a thousand people, because i believe my god thinks that the jews and their allies need to die. They did. Furthermore, I am neither right wing, nor republican. I am a moderate and a democrat. I didn’t outright shoot down anyones appraisal of a situation based on my own personal beliefs, did I? No, I merely stated my opinion in this FORUM. You Flamer-KJB, are the one who obviously doesn’t share in the idea of basic freedoms, for two reasons: You stand in defense of those who want nothing more than to take the freedom of LIVING away from you and secondly, Because you say that because my idea isn’t popular it is wrong! I hold NO prehudice against the Islamic religion, though i do believe its based on a cultic climate, Whereas there are severe physical and emotional reprecussions from disobeying tradional doctrine of the church, inflicted by the church. I am not a racist, its very difficult for me to speak in any kind manner about people who have terrorized MY people as a jew, and as an american for centuries. So forgive me for being a bit spiteful towards them, As i see them through a minds eye of pain and discord caused by the many years they have plagued my Iraelite brethren. As for my plan for wold peace i wasn’t aware i laid one out, i merely stated that i thought (and still do) that a far more logical way of ending this conflict would be with a campaign of either thermite plasma carpet bombing of the countryiside, or a nuclear assault. I espoused my disagreement with Mr. Wheaton for his viewpoint that the Afghani’s (Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc etc) civilian population are innocent in this war. I strongly believe that had they the conviction and proposed love for the united states as many are arguing that they would have ousted a government that persecutes them, or at the very least not allied themselves with a group that has in the past and still today continues to commit acts of terrorism against the united states, of which they are supposed to care. I firmly believe they are no more innocent than the ones who flew the planes directly into the the towers as they (the government at leats, if not the people) had for knowledge of the events that would and did occur and did absolutely NOTHING to stop it, and in fact celebrated at first when the attack was commited. I will not stick up for nor defend, nor proclaim innocence or ignorance for the same group of people that did in documented fact celebrate and encourage the terrorist actions brought forth against our country. If you do it is your opinion and belief to do so and i respect that, But because i don’t share that belief of tolerance and good-hearted idealism towards them, that is not an excuse to flame me. Thank you!

5. concepts that involve ambiguity, like this one, are always going to cause trouble. dealing with complex issues with intelligence requires us to be able to hold two seemingly opposite ideas in our heads and realise that they need not cancel one another out, since two or more conflicting positions can be utterly ‘true’ at the same time; doing so may provide an insight into other solutions to the problem. polarity is comfortable, but not the most useful approach, and certainly doesn’t allow access to other people’s experiences of ‘truth.’
   can it be bad to kill innocent american civilians, and also bad to kill innocent Afghani civilians? are these two moral judgements necessarily in competition?
   can someone receive the benefits of one’s country’s military and at the same time criticise the manner in which one is defended?
   (insert jack nicholson tirade here)
   is it possible to be patriotic, yet not demand that your countrymen feel the same way?
   is it possible to separate the thoughts and feelings one has for a loved one serving a dangerous task in the military from the thoughts and feelings one has regarding politics, and the military campaign in general?
   and ultimately…
   can one feel passionately about an issue, with absolute certainty that one is right, and at the same time acknowledge that one’s experience is not the only version of events?
   discuss.

6. Hmmmm…this debate could go on forever. Just one point I think worth mentioning (especially to Mad Rid).
   Here in Britain – through the 70’s, 80’s and some of the 90’s we were DAILY terrorised by a group from Ireland called the IRA. Thousands of innocent civilians died during these attacks, and the nation lived in fear for decades.
   Should we have gone a bombed the F%$& out of Ireland ? Pres Bush says that they are enemies of any nation who harbours or funds terrorism. Why aren’t the US bombing Ireland ? Or any other of the multitude of countries who harbour groups that plan terrorist attacks every day.
   Perhaps it is because most of the funding for the IRA came from….was it Bin Laden….no, how about the PLO…no…. hey guess what, it was the good old USA. So how many of you would complain if we (Britain) starting bombing your military installations… or perhaps we should dispense with the formalities, and just nuke you ! Wouldn’t be happy ? Retaliate ? Argue that you had no involvement with the funding of the IRA ?
   Well just read US citizen as Afghan citizen, and the IRA as Al Quaeda, get my point. The only difference – Afghanistan is powerless to retaliate.
   Shame on your government for being so hypocritical. ALL of us have blood on our hands in one way or another. Bush should take his head out of his arse, and stop spouting about how wonderful and hard done by the US is.
   I know you don’t want to hear this, and that contributors to this commentpage will probably flame me horribly… but this was going to happen sooner or later, it could have been someone from Vietnam, or maybe El Salvador. Wake up and smell the coffee America. The rest of the world has suffered terrorism for decades. We don’t try and start WW3 in response.

7. My questions: Why did 9/11 take us by total surprise? Why didn’t Bush and the CIA know in advance and try to stop it? How did that John Walker Lindh kid manage to meet Bin laden when the CIA were clueless? How come we didn’t give a shit about terrorism until 9/11? How come we have to drop so many bombs instead of hunting down the enemy? Why do enough people hate us to want to kill us.
   Just raining bombs on a nation not isn’t the answer and it cost too much. Will we ever be safe? Other than free or kill Afgahs, that may or may want me dead, as well as show the world what happends to nations that hold those nasty terrorists, has America won anything? Where’s Bin Laden? Are we any safer?
   Our government should be able to hunt down its enemies, without killing too many others, and I believe that will possible once Bush and the rest of our government figures how 9/11 occur in the first place.
   If there’s going to be all these men and women with kids risking their lives so I watch “Star Trek” comfortably, then I should be supporting them. That means doing anything I can to make sure their children live in a better world and ask questions to prevent 9/11 for happening ever again. At least Wil has the guts to care enough to question. Do you?

8. I made my comments directly to Wil via email. He asked that I post it here.
   Thanks for the edit on your front page.
   You scared me there for a min…
   😀
   Hey,
   You make a really good point. I hope you’ll post it in the comments at the website.
   Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. 🙂
   Wil
   At 03:44 PM 2/9/2002, you wrote:
   >When the military hit the innocent people in
   >Afghanistan, they thought they were hitting Al-Quida.
   >They were wrong. VERY wrong. …and I also hate the
   >term “collateral damage”…
   >
   >The terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were NOT
   >aiming for the leadership or the military of the
   >United States. They were aiming for “mothers, sons,
   >infants, fathers, daughters, husbands and wives”.
   >
   >”…the people who died on 9/11: the mothers, sons,
   >infants, fathers, daughters, husbands and wives, were
   >just “collateral damage”, right?”
   >
   >Wrong. Dead Wrong. They were the very targets that the
   >terrorist’s attacks were designed to hit.
   >
   >Your point I agree with.
   >
   >How you tried to make your point made the hair on the
   >back of my neck stand straight on end.

9. War was never “officially” declared for two reasons:
   1) Osama and his cronies did not officially represent the Country of Afganistan, nor were they the Afghan Military, or a part of the Afghan government. We (the United States) gave Afghanistan the opportunity to “round” up Osama et al and hand them over. Additionally, the Taliban turned down our offers of help and instead blatently refused to track down and round up Osama/Al Queda and bring them to justice. That whole process took some time, hence no “immediate” “official” declaration of war. Eventualy, the Taliban showed their true colors in support of Osama and Al Queda, making their position very clear, forcing us to move in to seek justice.
   2)Whether or not to “officially” declare war (an act that can only be done by the Congress), was very widely debated. If this act didn’t deserve a declaration, then what would? The cold reality is…..it boiled down to money….Had the United States declared war on Afghanistan or Al Queda or anyone/anything for the acts of Sept 11, then the innocent people killed would have lost their insurance benefits…life insurance, property insurance etc. Now you may say WHAT!!!, that’s obsurd!!, however I implore you, look at your insurance policies….there are exclusions, one of which, 90%+ of the time, is….this policy does not cover “Acts of WAR”.
   Many thousands of people suffered personal losses and were horrifically victemized by the events of Sept 11. It would have only served to further harm these people by “officially” declaring war.
   Lastly, GWB didn’t go out on his own and send in troops. Everything that has been done with the war effort, has been done together in unity between the White House and Congress. You may remember the first spending resolution for the “War” was proposed by GWB and less than 36 hours later passed both the House and the Senate with only 1 NO vote. Everything so far has been done in Concert, as if an official declaration had been issued.

10. Ugh seeing the same arguments again and again is just tiring. We had the right to go after the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban had them in their country but would not give them up willingly. So they deserved to be thrown out of power.
    It is terrible that innocent civilians have died. Most of these people though were in villages, not in cities. It is hard to gather intelligence about desolate villages and the people that occupy them. It would be ridiculous to expect no civilian casualties in a war. Stop misinterpreting a calm answer about civilian casualties as a casual attitude towards death.
    No matter what you hear about what caused the attacks, it was not Palestine. That might have played a small part, but they hate America for the same reason alot of countries hate America. We are the wealthiest and most diverse nation, so we are easy to hate. Bombing the WTC is like throwing sand in the popular kid’s eyes. You hate them, but if they will be your friend you would be honored. (Because ahelluva lot of people from aroudn teh world want to come to America) Just like any act of terrorism, it was done mostly for ego. Ego for the ones who did it and for the ones it was done for.
    It was obviously done for this reason since anyone with half a brain realizes terrorism does nothing to help a cause, it only helps strengthen your enemy’s resolve and gives them a reason to hate you more. Apparently the only one who saw this was gahndi and martin luther king.
    This public service announcement brought to you by common sense and a healthy distaste for spin.

11. >>i wonder if this will be enough for people to finally turn to more feminist/socialist politics.

12. >>Here in Britain – through the 70’s, 80’s and some of the 90’s we were DAILY terrorised by a group from Ireland called the IRA. Thousands of innocent civilians died during these attacks, and the nation lived in fear for decades.
    Should we have gone a bombed the F%$& out of Ireland ?

13. Couple questions though… how do you declare war on something that’s not a governent. Isn’t there some law that provents us from declaring war on a PERSON, we can only declare it on a nation? If we did declare war, it would have had to be on Afghanastan… would the civilian deaths be okay then? No, not really. They suck no matter what happens.
    The bigger gripe I have though, is the way that the media handles all this. Any opinion given out is just that, an opinion. THEIR opinion, which is biased in order to get viewers, or generate comments… ratings… it’s a show for the public to get them fired up. Nowhere do we see a list of how many civilians were SAVED because someone realized there was a miscalculation and called a bombing run off at the last minute. Nowhere do we see any detail about how many people are alive because they’re no longer being mistreated by the Taliban.
    The fact that civilian deaths are being relegated to the status of ‘Collateral Damage’ is sad and disgusting, but it’s also disgusting that we don’t get the whole picture, only the onesided media view.

14. I have been farily fortunate in my life. I grew up, and continue to live to this day, in Canada. I have never been the victim of a home invasion or a car jacking. However, I have seen the aftermath of a terrorist attack first hand, with my own eyes. It happened back in 1989, when I was travelling to London, England. A mere few hours before the Boeing 747 carrying me, comfortably reclining in my business-class seat, landed at Heathrow, the IRA set off a bomb in the Commercial Union (CU) tower in the east end of London.

    It was very odd, strolling the streats of London early on a Saturday morning, wasting time until my hotel room was ready, to view this 40+ storey building with nearly all the windows blown out. Curtains flapped in the breeze, but on the outside of the building. And sheafs of paper fluttered down to earth like big confetti. It was a very odd experience, to say the least. And as far as I know, as the attack took place in the early hours of the morning, there were no human casualties of this attack.

    There is no way that I will even attempt to compare my personal experience over 10 years ago to those experienced by the victims of September 11th.

    Even though I am not an American, I fully support, 100%, the actions taken by the US Government in fighting the al Queda/Taliban in Afganistan, and the resulting treatment of detainees at Camp X-Ray. And although it may be sad, I realize that the loss of innocent lives in Afganistan is a necessary aspect to the “war on terror”.

    Pundits say “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”. But I do not view this as “an eye for an eye”. I think of it more as “a life for an eye”.

    Yes, I agree that this sounds harsh, but I beleive it necessary. As John Travolta stated in the movie “Swordfish”, it is the responsibility of the “west” to make the punishment for terrorism so great that terrorism ceases to be an option. The message must be sent loud and clear that any terrorist actions taken on western soil will be answered ten-fold. This is the only way that countries such as Afganistan, or Lybia, or Iraq, will cease harbouring these cowardly criminals. If this message is not sent, then attacks on “our” soil will continue.

    The root issue is not one of peace. It is one of ideology, and religion. Just pick up any history text, and look at the driving force between any great conflict: They all boil down to ideology and/or religion. And as much as I would love to see an end to armed conflict, it is just not practical in this situation. Words do not work. As unseemly as it may be,

    violence is the supreme force.

    Just ask the Roman Empire. Ask Japan at the end of WWII. Ask Saddam Hussien after his withdrawl from Kuwait. Hell, ask the US government after the US withdrew from Vietnam. The use of force, including violent force, is the only sure way ensure that ANY value and belief system survives. It is just a question of which side has the dedication, the preserverance, and the balls to make sure it’s theirs.

15. Bah, I hate it when I ‘get my politics on’ cause I just can’t seem to shut up:
    Seconds after I heard the news of the attacks on the towers I said, “Oh no, the wrong people are going to die because of this.”
    Posted by ToddOne at February 9, 2002 03:10 PM
    — Ummmm, didn’t all the wrong people die IN the attacks, too?
    It very much bothers me that this action against ‘terrorism’is being called a war yet no war has been declared by congress. It makes me suspicious of the administrations motives.
    Posted by fenaray at February 9, 2002 03:24 PM
    — But there’s no one to declare war ON. You can’t do it. Who did we declare war on in the War on Drugs, or the War on Crime or the War on Poverty? It’s become more of a phrase anymore than anything real. Although yes, in this instance, deadly force is most CERTAINLY being used.
    And the other thing is, the terrorists dropped two bombs on the US. That was a terrible, terrible, tragedy. Multiply the rage you feel and the patriotic commitment that spawned by a thousand, and you’ll start to get a picture of why so many nations have a grievance with the US to start with.
    Posted by zorya at February 9, 2002 03:53 PM
    — I did, and I don’t get it. I still don’t understand who we purposefully bombed and why they hate us. What one thing has the US *EVER* done unprovoked that would cause patriotism and hatred one thousand times worse than the 9/11 fanatacism?
    I mean if we want to show Bin Laden something, I want him to see kids from all races, creeds and nationalities playing with each other (at the age of 5) by that age kids don’t care about the color of their skin…they are SO innocent!
    Posted by Shayne in Houston, TX at February 9, 2002 04:00 PM
    — And what do you tell their parents when they get Anthrax poisoning or look up to see another plane dropping on them. Having children play together (while a BEAUTIFUL image, don’t get me wrong) rather than taking action to stop the instigators of terrorism is unrealistic because it just leaves another target. Osama BinLaden isn’t going to wake up, see an image of kids on TV and decide that the US is okay. He’s going to look at that image, then take it and make a poster that says “See! In America they are rich and decadent! Their children are spoiled! They all should die!” And the cycle starts again. Somehow, the cycle must be broken, and it makes me miserable that innocents die in the process (on either side), but ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.
    Innocent people do not deserve to die because of a conflict between nations,
    Posted by MrsVeteran at February 9, 2002 04:07 PM
    — I had a big long sarcastic post about this one, but have deleted it because this is all getting me too worked up. Suffice it to say that they were dying before we were their BECAUSE of their nation, too.
    I’m stopping here, cause I could go on for days….

16. Artisticspirit, go back to the past way of thinking? You are living in a world that doesn’t exist. Not all people will be nice to you if you are nice to them. That just isn’t the way things work. There is evil, and always will be. People like you would have us repressed by that evil.
    Smart people learn from the past, people like you just ignore it because it doesn’t make you *feel* good.

17. Wil, you are so right on with this one. It’s nice to know that someone besides me realizes that this isn’t a war. The news calls it a war. The papers call it a war, but in reality they mostly do it for support. Military action doesn’t sound as cool i guess. In fact there hasn’t been a real “war” since WWII. It’s a sad but true fact that our Congress is to afraid durring an election year to do what’s right. Either give it the proper title or pull our people out.

18. I realize this isn’t precisely on topic, but if anyone here wants to look up past and up-and-coming legislation about september 11 that isn’t distilled by newspapers you can go to
    http://www.thomas.loc.gov.
    If you’re willing to wade through legalese, it’s a good way to find out exactly what the government is trying to do.
    Saff

19. Mandy, I saw no argument that my history lesson was in any way factually unsound. Bob Roth had a great post, and I can see how his would to appear to have a more mild-mannered tone.
    Unfortunately this is text-based chat. There is no way to really guage my “anger”. I can assure you that I’m not “angry” as you describe it. I am not mindlessly yelling “bomb them” over and over. I am debating the issue, and the issue is war.
    The fact is that in trying to “be nice” you are simply causing more suffering. That suffering effects me, and more importantly will effect my future kids. Shouldn’t I be passionate about something that serious?
    I find it to be very humorus that in complaining about the so-called right-wing intollerace for emotion you expressed your own intollerance for what you *think* my emotion is.
    I’ve also noticed that most of the anti-war, defend Wil, talk seems to be coming from Women, right Mandy?
    Debate the argument, not the person. If you can’t debate my argument then I must be right?
    All you have done is yell “hate mongour”. That sure is intelligent. As you mentioned a lot of the right-wing arguments are well thought out, so why isn’t yours?
    Try again.

20. Well, seen from my flat on the other side of the Atlantic, that’s about how it looks. Without painting it all black, one of the dominant impressions is that the US don’t care much about “collateral damage”.
    There was concern here about the hundreds of thousands of afghan refugees fleeing to the border on the mere announcement that the US were “going to war”. We didn’t really hear the US worrying about them. (Maybe they did, but we didn’t hear them. All we were hearing was “we’ll get those bastards!”)
    Of course what happened was horrible. But that doesn’t justify just /any/ reaction to it.

21. The rest of the world hates us because we don’t do what they tell us to do. That simple.

22. (shrugging flame-retardant suit on)
    Ok, Andrew, here we go.
    First off, thank you for the history lesson. (Actually that isn’t meant to be sarcastic, I am genuinely grateful for any increase in my knowledge about the situation). I admit that I jumped to conclusions about the exact nature of the Taliban’s political power.
    REGARDLESS it is typically the case in environments of extreme religiosity coupled with poverty that your average Joe Schmo is going to believe what his government tells him, regardless of whether it is oppressing him. The Christian West (typified by the US) has been the banner enemy of the right-wing Islamic Middle East for a long time. And fine, we may not have caused any single one catastrophic incident in the region that would serve as a corollary to 9/11, but our continued actions of supporting those who will facilitate our continued economic success – regardless of how they treat their own people – is of course going to nurture hatred of us. We are richer and more powerful than they are. We have blankets instead of newspapers and COUNTLESS other “necessities” that poverty-stricken countries lack. And Religion (to whomever brought this out) is just as likely to be used as a pretext for war as it is as the primary reason.
    And I’m not saying we should just sit back and do nothing to protect ourselves. I’m saying that it can’t stop there. And nuking the country is OF COURSE not the answer. The people there may not be innocent, but that isn’t necessarily their fault (does that make sense?) If you grow up being taught one thing and that’s all you ever knew, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, you don’t have a whole lot of choice in that matter. We have the history channel. We have a reasonably free media. They have neither. And there’s a hell of a lot more that they don’t have.
    Of course we should defend ourselves, but owning up to the ramifications of our actions; past, present, and future; is the only way we can judge which actions are best. Not right, not perfect, but best.
    And of course most of the pacifist arguments are coming from women, but just because most are expressed from feeling without enumerated rational reasoning does not mean that there is no underlying reasoning. If women ran the world, there would be A LOT LESS conflict than there is, because there wouldn’t be testosterone-fueled decision-making. NOT that I want to turn this into a gender-debate.

23. war is war…everyone suffers…better them than me

24. I love how everybody has gotten into this. I think we may end up setting the record for most comments on Wil’s news page.
    This is in response to KJB (which should be ‘KGB’) in defense of Mad-Rid.
    You: That little bit I just wrote probably went over your head. I will attempt to explain.
    Me: Was it just me or did that sound intolerant? You’re complaining about words such as “Towel Head” from one side of your mouth, while calling him “stupid” from the other. LOL.
    You: This country you so vehemently support (that is to say, the USA) was founded on principles of equality and freedom. Freedom of choice, speech, religion, you get the idea.
    You: When someone starts bitching about “towel-heads” and “false gods”, it gets me to thinking.
    You: 1. This person is not espousing basic American ideals.
    Me: Uh, didn’t you say freedom? He is simply exercising his freedom, and that means he can say whatever the hell he likes. You don’t like what he’s saying so you call him intolerant. Why isn’t it the other way around? You’re the one being intolerant.
    You: 2. This person really needs to read up on things like “The Holocaust”, “Religious Persecution”, and “How Not to be a Fuckhead – For Dummies”.
    Me: You are comparing our defending ourselves to the holocaust? LOL. You know what they say about opening your mouth.
    You: I’m going to assume you’re a Christian. You’re certainly not a Jew or a Muslim, and neither is it likely you’re a Buddhist or pretty much any other religion I can think of off the top of my head.
    Me: Uh oh, I feel anti-Christian / anti-Religion intolerance coming on.
    You: (This is not to say Christians are the only ones who speak like this. Every religion has had someone who has said this – Law of Averages, if nothing else.)
    Me: In this statement you just rounded up all Christians and called them hate mongers. Weren’t you just talking about how the U.S.A. was about religious freedom? Can you say hypocrite?
    You: Now, there’s this saying in the Bible; well, two, actually. I’d like to point them out.
    You: “Eye for an eye”
    You: “Love thy neighbor”
    Me: Correction here. First of all Jews and Christians get along for the most part religiously. Don’t get me wrong, there are a LOT of disagreements… but we support each other. The Jews follow the Old Testament, which teaches “and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. The Christians follow the Old Testament, but also the New Testament, which is what separates them. The New Testament is where Jesus comes into play, and instead of teaching “an eye for an eye” he says “I have a better way”.
    You: What can we learn from this, kids? People are seriously messed up. Here are two lines, both used by one religion, that are both bandied about like nobody’s business.
    Me: What we can learn from this is how liberals are complete hypocrites. If this isn’t an intolerant tirade then I’ve never seen one.
    Me: We can also learn how shallow anti-Christian folks such as yourself are. What does an “eye for an eye” have to do with “love they neighbor”. I love my neighbor until he keys my car, then it’s time for him to be punished.
    You: Let’s not forget that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are tied together whether they like it or not; it’s called a common origin, kids, and if you don’t believe me, you might want to check your facts, because this is nothing new.
    Me: Uh yeah, everything is tied together if you go back far enough. We’re all tied to Adam and Eve, so I guess everything came from the same place. So what?
    Me: Folks, notice how he is trying to call Christians terrorists, saying we’re all the same bunch of people. And you’re doing a very bad job… try again.
    You: I can handle emotional reasons for retaliation. I can handle practical reasons for retaliation. I can even handle political reasons for retaliation. I REFUSE to handle religious and racial biases for retaliation.
    You: And neither should anyone else.
    You: Thank you.
    Me: Wow, talk about a mind-numb anti-religion tirade. But though you won’t admit it, you are more religious than anybody here. You belong to the Church of Liberalism.
    Me: Not once during your tirade did you establish a link between Christianity and our providing AID to the Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban. It’s the dumbest thing anybody here has said so far.
    Me: Regarding words such as “Towel Head”. How good of a job do you think we would have done at defeating the Germans during WW2 if we were buddy-buddy with them. To look someone in the face and cut their throat requires a slightly different mentality. Utter stupidity.

25. Do you really think that all Afghan civilians killed were killed because of stray bombs? If so, then I ask “you”: where’s your mind??? Do you think american forces held back bombing strategic points because there were civilians close by? Come on! The few stray bombs that did kill innocents, those are shameful. But I’d wager that those bombs only reprensent a tiny portions of all bombs responsible for civilian deaths.
    On the other side of the ocean, the 9/11 planes wanted to kill people, I give you this. But most of all they wanted to strike at places, or icons of America. If you simply want to kill people, you strike at the Twin Towers, indeed, but not at the Pentagon. You simply choose the biggest skyscrapers. It just so happens that the biggest skyscrapers were the nervous center of America’s economy. A symbol! Just as is the Pentagon.
    So the terrorists attacked nervous centers and killed people by doing so. And the world went crazy with horror and cries of inhumanity.
    Now tell me one thing: what are we doing differently now? If not attacking nervous centers and killing people at the same time?
    Why aren’t we monsters ourselves, inhuman weavers of Horror?
    This war is bringing the worst in everyone, especially stupidity, egotism and intellectual and value near-sightedness…
    Enjoy!

26. War does not just simply mean combat. War is a status between two nations or states. Al Quida and the Taliban are NOT a legitimate government, but were terrorists, thugs or gangs. War raises our defcon, appropriates funds, activates the different parts of the Geneva convention and TONS of other stupid bureuacratic bullshit. The Taliban & Bin Laden meet the conditions for a declaration of war, nor would they follow international law and such acts as the Geneva Convention. Don’t blindly think that war just means combat, because if you look at the US Constitution, International Law mandated by the UN, then you would understand all the background stuff going on that happens when there is a state of war between warring nations. The president & the administration is using the word war in another context than the state of war when describing this conflict. Know the difference between the STATE OF WAR and what goes into it and the dictionary’s defination of WAR.

27. Jeezis.
    Its 15 people. A minor, insignificant amount.
    You don’t need to have an offical declaration of war to know its a war. The WTC / Pentagon attacks? Acts Of War. No need to go through the paperwork when the conclusion is right out there for non-malcontent eyes to see.

28. Chris,
    You’re right they’re poor and brainwashed in Afghanistan, and that is a result of the onging Civil War. Which is not our fault.
    Our responsibility is to ourselves. However as humans I think we have a responsibility to do right and help our neighbors when we can. But in helping we should truly help, and not pull a Bill Clinton and do something in an attempt to raise poll numbers.
    The Taliban’s reason for hating the U.S. really doesn’t matter at all. It is largely because of our support of Israel, and also because we allow free will. We are the infadels.
    But regardless the reason the fact is that they do. They would have us enslaved if they had the power to do so. Obviously going over there, shooting things up, and then leaving would be a really dumb thing to do. But the first step of shooting things up cann’t be avoided, and that’s the current discussion in play. And remember, we’re aiding the Northern Alliance. We can discuss what else needs to be done after that stage is complete.
    As is usually the case the evils we’re fighing over there are the fault of but a few men. They hide behind the brainwashed pawns. But to get to them we have to knock over the pawns.
    We did what we could to salvage life. We gave them plenty of time to completely avoid any kind of military action at all. But they made the choice.
    You were sounding pretty intelligent until you made the remark about women. As you pointed out women look at everything using emotions. This is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING you want in a leader. A classic example is spanking children. I have a feeling this is going to start another discussion, oh well. Women don’t like to do this, it doesn’t sit with them well. Yet look at a family that instilled discipline into their kids vs. one that didn’t. The emotional element that the mother presents is essential in raising a kid, but that’s not what you want in a leader. And as we know from women such as Hillary Clinton, they can be just as evil.
    The war is nescessary. Any group that hates the U.S. as a result is another problem will most likely have to be dealt with in the same way. However I am hopeful that this problem will be dealt with in the right way, and that won’t be nescessary.
    Evil exists, fight it head on, or be crushed by it.

29. Let me just put my flame retardant undies on..
    Ok, now I’m ready. The American decision makers know, that for every “terrorist” killed (I use the term terrorist loosely, as I’m not too sure that all of the targets are terrorists), there will be some percentage of innocents killed. Lets say every time they try to kill terrorists, there is a ten percent chance that innocents will die.
    Are the still accidental deaths? You can argue that they weren’t targetted, but they were. When the US drops as many bombs as it does, it knows that innocents will die. By saying each bomb has a 10% chance of hitting the wrong people, and dropping them anyway, then you are choosing to kill civilians. That is murder.
    It is murder to decide to perform an action that you know will kill civilians. The American decision makers know that they will kill civilians. That is murder.
    They even say it on television. They talk of reducing collateral damage. They acknowledge that they will kill innocent people, and yet they do it anyways, it is murder.
    The decision to kill civilians ten percent of the time, and do it often enough to ensure civilian casualities is no different in my mind from doing something with a 100% chance of civilian casualities. They are both murder.
    I can’t support retaliation against Afghanistan, because it involves murdering innocent civilians. I also don’t support slamming planes into buildings.
    Responding to an action with violence will simply beget more violence, and if you don’t believe that, if you believe in the idea of peace through murder, or superior firepower, then you are wrong, but in the majority. Until people learnotherwise we will continue a cycle of violence that has been ongoing for thousands of years.

30. Loa, our military technology is such that we can level a building while doing little more damage than breaking windows to the one next door. We did not go through there bombing residential areas. We hit military targets, and in the instances were we needed to go into a residential area we sent Special Operations teams. A SEAL or Delta Force team would take care of the problem on the ground. There are tens of thousands of Taliban soldiers, and they’re very often mixed in with everybody else. Often because the civilians gladly hide them. With a setup like this people will always get hit in the crossfire.
    There were even instances of the Taliban trying to trick us into hitting civilian targets for P.R. reasons.
    And then you also have anti-american groups that want to make us look bad by inflating civilian casulty numbers. These numbers are coming from Taliban sympathetic news medias inside Afghanistan, so I’d really question those numbers.

31. Thousands of innocent mothers, children, and elderly died in the firestorm that was Dresden. Should I be worried that history might have the history wrong, and that books should be rewritten accordingly?
    Being Jewish, I can rest easy not having to worry about “innocent” Nazis.

32. Yeah Hearns, don’t worry about the flames, I’ve got the fire extuingisher and I’m right next to ya. Continuing the cycle of violence is called “Big Business” because Kalishnikov’s and Stinger missles (spelling?) bring more profits that bottled water, rice and education.
    Kman

33. Ah well, despite the best laid plans of rats and men…
    Andrew, I can probably agree with most of what you said up top. As for:
    “You were sounding pretty intelligent until you made the remark about women. As you pointed out women look at everything using emotions. This is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING you want in a leader.”
    Not sure how to take the first statement, so I’ll ignore it.
    As for the second one, I NEVER said that women look at everything using emotions. I don’t believe that that forms the basis for decision-making. Sure, it informs the way women look at situations, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes for a fuller grasp of the big picture. A more humanitarian view, if you will. What’s wrong with that.
    Not to bring up the physical discipline topic too much, but just a point: my mother never hit myself or my brother and we both turned out FINE. “Yet look at a family that instilled discipline into their kids vs. one that didn’t.” Spanking a child is not the only (or even best) way of discipline, and there are PLENTY of families for which spanking is a regular thing, but where discipline is SORELY lacking. Discipline is not just about hitting a child when it has done something wrong. It’s about instilling respect for a parent’s authority. And that can be engendered in many other ways which will not later show children that the best way that THEY can gain respect is through physicality. And by the way, from your earlier post. If you punched me in the face, I wouldn’t punch you back, I’d sue you for assault and get money from you. Because that in the long run would get me more than the satisfaction of the one moment when I hit you. And if that isn’t rational, non-emotion based thinking, I don’t know what is. Women aren’t necessarily the only ones who make decisions based on emotions.

34. Oy… just a question for everyone who seems so hellbent on saying that the US is acting like terrorists and murderers by doing what they’re doing.
    Do you *REALLY* think that the whole problem would have just gone away if we’d not done anything? Do you *TRULY BELIEVE* that Osama BinLaden would have done nothing else after that if we’d just shrugged it off?
    This action might not be the best idea in the world, but it seems that no one wants to offer any other viable options. It’s easy to point the finger and say “You’re bad for doing that!” while not offering any alternatives. But what other way is there to solve the problem?
    Don’t get me wrong, loss of life in ANY situation is HORRIBLE. But should we really stop an attack because there’s a chance that there are civillians there? If we start doing that, all the bad guys will do is round up a bunch of their own women and children and start using them as shields. What then?

35. Wil, you are just being a little niave. In a perfect world we press some button and magically we wipe out the terrorists, bring Osama Bin Laden to justice and free all those being repressed from that repression. Sounds great right? It can’t happen, the world is a dirty place where bad things happen, and nothing is perfect.
    We as a nation have every right to protect our very lives from those who seek to snuff them out and part of that means that we have to sometimes do very tough things to ensure our safety and freedom. In World War I and II there we millions and millions of civilian deaths directly from our war efforts but they were necessary in an unfortunte way to make sure you and I could live in the very freedom we choose, you as an actor, myself as an airline pilot, both we beautiful families in a fair and decent country.
    Now ask yourself this… we as a nation have very powerful weapons, huge bombs, weapons of mass destruction. But in Afganistan we spent BILLIONS of our tax payer dollars, something I SUPPORT, to use million dollar smart bombs… why? To produce the least possible civilian deaths, to protect the innocent from the evil. Are we perfect, no. As a nation, as individuals we are flawed and always will be.
    But… we try… and for someone as smart as you to try to shame our nation and its leaders for doing their best to protect the very life you lead is in itself an utter travesty.

36. Don, please compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. If you really are so concerned about ensuring A holocaust never happens again, then you’d be serving in places like Kosovo, and certain former Russian Republics right now. You’d be serving in certain countries in Africa doing what you can to prevent holocaust like conditions from ever happening again. You’d volunteer your time right now to mind the family of an innocent Persian/middle eastern unfortunate enough to have immigrated here during this period of time. That is how you keep a memory alive and prevent repitition of A holocaust. If you do these things already or did them in the past as a young man, then, my hat is off to you.
    K

37. To christopher hearns:
    You: Responding to an action with violence will simply beget more violence, and if you don’t believe that, if you believe in the idea of peace through murder, or superior firepower, then you are wrong, but in the majority. Until people learnotherwise we will continue a cycle of violence that has been ongoing for thousands of years.
    Me: That statement is absolutely 100% false. You have a very naive and narrow view of the world. Do you not understand that people like Hitler and Stalon really exist? They’re right here in our own country. You’ve probably gone to school with some of them. Anybody can drag anybody else into a fight. The question is who’s going to win. You’d have us enslaved by these people, well they’re not going to enslave me. Either they or I will die fighting, but I will not be pushed around.
    Me: Religion tells us to turn the other cheek, but that’s when it comes to me/myself. I have a responsibility to protect and defend my family with whatever means nescessary.
    Me: Go read up on Sergeant York.

38. To Chris:
    You: Andrew, I can probably agree with most of what you said up top.
    Me: We have reached an agreement, yay 🙂
    You As for:
    “You were sounding pretty intelligent until you made the remark about women. As you pointed out women look at everything using emotions. This is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING you want in a leader.”
    Not sure how to take the first statement, so I’ll ignore it.
    Me: Yeah, just ignore it. Bad wording, didn’t mean to insult.
    You: As for the second one, I NEVER said that women look at everything using emotions. I don’t believe that that forms the basis for decision-making. Sure, it informs the way women look at situations, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes for a fuller grasp of the big picture. A more humanitarian view, if you will. What’s wrong with that.
    Me: I disagree. Now first let me say that I have nothing against women, not at all… so nobody take this as me being a bigot. There are plenty of women that make great leaders, and I’d be happy to name several dozen off. My position is that women think differently and as a result go about solving problems in a completely different way. And it is for this reason that women have never played a significant role in leadership throughout the history of the world, and the reason I disagree with the statement that “We’d be better of if Women ran everything”.
    Me: In your comments you just said that women don’t thing with emotions, but then said that they do to a large extent, and “What’s wrong with that”.
    Me: What’s wrong it that thinking with emotion does not give you a look at the “bigger picture”, it gives you a very narrow view of the here and now.
    Me: If an alcoholic is begging, pleading, screaming in agony for more booze to take the pain away, do you respond emotionally and hand him the bottle? No, you have a little backbone, and force him off the stuff. The initial suffering may seem bad, but the end result of him being freed from that slavery is well worth it.
    Me: Emotion is bad in leadership simply because you need someone that’s capable of making the hard decisions and carrying them out.
    Me: When going into Special Operations you are given lots of psychological tests. I know because I’m preparing for service in the SEALs. One of the questions that you’re asked is if so ordered would you be willing to kill a child. Men typically respond 70% yes, 30% no. Women respond 5-10% yes, about 90% no. That’s quite a difference.
    Me: If you’re in the middle of an operation to prevent the launch of a nuclear missle, which will kill millions, and you run across a kid en-route you have to make a decision.
    1) Ignore the kid and risk having him blow your mission.
    2) Try and subdue the kid, again risking your mission.
    3) Kill the kid and proceed with the mission.
    There can be no hesitation, the soldier must choose option 3. The life of that kid pales in comparision to the importance of the mission.
    While most people in leadership positions do not have to look a person in the face and cut their throat they too have to make decisions just as hard. As they put it in Sniper, “Giving orders from behind a desk, and being the guy to carry them out, it’s the same damn thing” If anything the burden of true guilt lies in the hands of the person behind the desk.
    Regarding physical discipline, not all kids are the same. With some kids it’s the only way, and with others, like my brother, just a threat or scolding is enough. And doing nothing more than hitting a kid is of course the wrong answer. But that is very often a nescessary step in properly disciplining a child. Kids should not be taught to answer everything with violence, but they should be taught when and at what level it’s appropriate. They should be taught to defend themselves. Anything else is not preparing a child for the world we live in.

39. Wil and co. – Sorry it took me so long to comment here – was offline for a day and boy did I miss a lot! I agree with Wil and this whole “collateral damage” bullshit. I don’t have any big answers, though, wish I did. Wil, have you considered going into politics – even though maybe you can’t stand mainstream political parties. Your views would serve us well. I think that Wil has voiced what many of us think, but are too afraid to say. Bravo.

40. Clay, GREAT point! Being typical the liberals aren’t proving a better answer, they’re simply complaining about what’s being done.

41. Wil and Co. Bear with me, this is going to be a bit of a rant with tangents left and right.
    Let me open by saying i’m a former Air Force member.
    Wil, i agree whole heartedly. Its sickening to see so many innocent brushed aside as “oops, looks like our 20 million dollar bomb missed by 10 feet” accidents. War is war, and people will die, innocent or otherwise, we all know this. But how much of this “war” is the fault of who?
    One thing people might want to pay attention to is the sudden swing in policy when GWB took office. Everything from the enviornment to foreign policy. The past year has seen US intrests turn from outside to within. EVERY policy decision made since Bush took office has directly supported AMERICAN BUISNESS intrests, not peace, or justice. Just look at the Kyoto treaty. The US, the “leader” in world policy, turns its back on ground breaking enviornmental legistation– to the shock of just about every country on the planet.
    Next, (you’ll note i’m not even bringing up the FARC-ed up election of 2000) we’ve got the ON GOING tail that the economy is pulling back up… a line that the establishment has been shoving down our throats the past year, and where are we? Bush wants to blame it on 9-11, but go back and look at how far OUR economy had fallen BEFORE the attack. We were already in a recession! Bush pushing every bit of legistation he can to buff up our buisnesses and then outta no where come 9-11 (or was it 911… what ever). Bush and Co. have cut off an ungodly number of international ties in order to keep the US out of a recession. — ok, ofcourse keeping the US out of recession is good, BUT not at the expsense of the rest of the world, which is exactly what Bush has done.
    Next, Star Wars. The ballistic missile definse shield that GWB has been all up in arms about, trashing a 20 year old treaty with Russia, which also affects China. Let me tell you first hand. I worked in Space Command for 4 years. For those who dont know, Space Command in the Air Force is the very organization that controls ballistic missile activity along with ballistic missle detection (both ground station and satellite based) along with satellite launching and command control.
    So… heres the thing about this missle shield. ITS WORTHLESS!!! AND BUSH KNOWS THIS!!! (i’ll grant that the technology is sound.)
    Here are the reasons i say its worthless:
    1) Every country in the world knows our policy concerning Nukes. Total annhilation. You nuke us, we wipe you out. Period. (remember, i worked in this field for 4 years.) An attack from Russia or China would not happen for this reason alone.
    2) The “rogue nations” Bush is talking about could not hit us directly (lack of range on thier missiles) and dispersing such a definse shield would also break numerous other treaties currently in place. And to attack our allies would invoke the same response as above, turning a small country into glass.
    So why get rid of this treaty?? Oh, and the idea about space based definses like a space based missile shield or even lasers. To even put such a satellite in orbit would be considered an ACT OF WAR by over half the countries of the world!
    I’ll grant we need some kind of definse against this possibilty, but a more likely attack comes from the potential that exists for terrorists to buld a nuke STATESIDE and detonate it in a city. Hell, you can get directions for building a nuke off the internet!! And getting ahold of the nuclear material for the bomb is not as hard as the Gov would make one think.
    Next topic, remember those worries CNN was spewing forth about small pox? Guess what… the USA and RUSSIA are the ONLY countries to have the small pox virus! So, what does it mean when the government says they are worried about a small pox outbreak? Are we going to poison ourselves? Or have we possibly annoyed our “allies” to the point that they are trying to get the attention of the Administration? Just where is this attack going to come from??
    You’ll notice that American policy over the past year has been focused on supporting the established conglomorate of buisnesses with whom Bush has allied himself, just look at his Cabinet, and how many of the people that make it up have had BUISNESS dealings with GWB before he was pres or even Gov of Texas. Bush was literally strong arming the world, and then out of no where comes 9-11. Suddenly the US seems pretty humble, setting up a “coalition” as quickly as it can, pulling allies that we havent talked to in 20 years. And now, we have our “first step victory” in Afganistan. Now, once again, Bush is strong arming the world.. Watch out Iraq, Korea, and where ever else Amreican policy is challenged. You just might be next on Bush’s To Do list.
    I welcome any rebuttle, for or against.

42. Attacking Afghanistan was the only way to take away Al-Queada’s ability to attack America. At least temporarily.
    It is the president’s job to prevent attacks on American people. If bombing Afghanistan to disrupt the terrorist’s plans to continue to attack our country killed a few innocents, well that can’t be helped.
    What happened on 9/11 was only a taster. Did you not see their training camps? They have thousands of terrorists in training to launch similar and much worse attacks. Maps of U.S. nuclear power plants and water reservoirs were found in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers. That gives us an indication of what kind of condition the U.S. would be in now if Bush had not sent in the military.
    The terrorists could and would and maybe someday will crash a plane into a nuclear power plant. Millions would die.
    Wil, ask yourself how many Nuclear power stations are in California.
    Ask yourself how safe your dronking water will be tomorrow. There are countless ways the terrorists can attack us.
    Bush has to do everything in his power to stop that. He was elected to protect the American people and even though all lives are equal, his priorties have to lie with the protection of us.
    Don’t underestimate the dangers we are in.
    I’m glad he doesn’t.
    No-one (except Al-Queda) likes to see innocent people killed anywhere but given the choice, I’d rather not see terrorists having a field day crashing our planes into New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, my house, your house, childrens’ schools, packed sports stadium, power stations etc….

43. Andrew,
    Ok, let me clarify myself better; I realize that my argument was a tad bit muddled above. I do believe that most women are more emotion-oriented than men in terms of the way they VIEW situations. That does not mean that that VIEW necessarily impedes the ability to make a rational decision. Sure, with some it does, then again the same is true for men who think emotionally.
    You: My position is that women think differently and as a result go about solving problems in a completely different way. And it is for this reason that women have never played a significant role in leadership throughout the history of the world, and the reason I disagree with the statement that “We’d be better of if Women ran
    everything”.
    No argument with women thinking differently and problem-solving differently than men. No problem with the assertion that that is why women have been marginalized when it comes to politics and leadership in the past. I don’t think that it necessarily follows, however, that
    A. Things would not have been better had the past decisions been made by women
    B. Now, when technology and the after effects of said technology are RADICALLY DIFFERENT than they have ever been before, that decisionmaking should not be more humane in nature.
    You:What’s wrong it that thinking with emotion does not give you a look at the “bigger picture”, it gives you a very narrow view of the here and now.
    Me: That depends on which here and now we’re talking about. A policy (devised and pursued by men) which unequivocably demands total nuclear retaliation and global destruction seems rather short-sighted to me, personally. Well, the same goes for nuclear weaponry PERIOD.
    You: Men typically respond 70% yes, 30% no. Women respond 5-10% yes, about 90% no. That’s quite a difference.
    Sure is. But you’re reasoning is a bit off on the main issue methinks. The reason being that to be a “world leader” one necessarily SHOULD be more fit for the job than 95% of the people out there. Those women OR MEN who could not stomach making tough decisions should already be disqualified from the job. The example you give is, I think, a bit simplistic. (No offense meant!) But just because 70% of men are more able to handle blowing children apart IF THEY ARE ORDERED to do so, does not mean that they are more capable of MAKING TOUGH DECISIONS. It may just mean they are more easily able to write off their own consciences.

44. BTW, I didn’t mean any disrespect to servicepeople and meant no implication of amorality as such. What I mean is that you want a drone mentality in the trenches. Not necessarily in the one calling the shots.

45. To Mike:
    You haven’t the slightest clue as to what you’re talking about. I’m going to slam you on the very first thing you mentioned in your tirade, The Kyoto Treaty (or ‘Protocol’). The rest of you can apply the silliness of his position on this argument with everything else he had to say.
    Now for those of you that don’t know what The Kyoto Treaty is:
    “The Kyoto Protocol, adopted by negotiators representing 160 nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, marked the culmination of a five-year United Nations campaign to persuade the nations of the world to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If ratified by enough countries, the treaty would commit the developed countries, including the United States, to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases an average of five percent below 1990 levels during a five-year period beginning 2008. The U.S. share would be seven percent below 1990 levels. That would mean 30 percent below currently projected emissions for the U.S. in 2010.”
    Even before the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to the Senate passed Resolution 98 with a 95-0 vote with the statement “In the face of scientific developments, it is clear that no rational justification can be presented to the Congress or the American people for rushing into a binding agreement that unilaterally will cut our energy usage.” We voted against it before the U.N. clowns did their thing and cut it off at the pass.
    Yet even after this you have slimy democrat politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, demanding that we do something about it in the news, when she herself was one of the senators who voted against it. Typical. Clinton never even submitted the Kyoto Protocol. It’s a treaty. He never sent it for ratification because he knew he didn’t have the votes. And the protocol was Gore-negotiated.
    There will be no American ratification until there is participation by the developing nations and evidence is presented that the Protocol will not harm the U.S. economy. More than 18,000 scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) have said there is no human-induced global warming, the United States has withdrawn from the Protocol, and Japan has announced that it will not enforce emissions reductions required to meet its targets.
    Clinton and Gore’s own boys said that Kyoto was a bad thing. In fact, to date, NONE of the nations that ratified the treaty are enforcing it.
    The Kyoto Protocol on global warming, has nothing to do with global warming. It never did. It’s aimed at killing our access to energy, as well as destroying our private property rights, which are the very foundation of our liberty. I pretty good article can be found here, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26209
    Bush, in his wisdom, understands this and as such stayed away from Kyoto.

46. To Chris:
    You: I do believe that most women are more emotion-oriented than men in terms of the way they VIEW situations. That does not mean that that VIEW necessarily impedes the ability to make a rational decision. Sure, with some it does, then again the same is true for men who think emotionally.
    Me: That’s a nice thought, but it’s just not reality. It does impede the ability to make a rational decision. And it’s much more complex than that. Women flat out think differently. They don’t think like Men, but also have more emotions as an ‘added plus’, they are just completely different.
    Me: Look at our education system. The decline of our education system can be traced back to women gaining control over it. The NEA should merge with NOW.
    Me: Instead of taking a hard-nosed approach and working the crap out of everyone, and setting the bar to a point were nobody can reach it, we have a system with the goal of making people feel good. That attitude is what’s wrong with our education, along with the indoctrination, but that’s a separate discussion.
    Me: Our public education has almost the worst academics in the world. However our students have the highest self-esteem and confidence rate. So we’re the dumbest and feel great about it! lol 🙂
    Me: The goal should be to push everybody to the limit of their abilities, not hold everybody back to the ability of the dumbest so they don’t feel bad. That is an example of an emotion-based policy created by women.
    You: No argument with women thinking differently and problem-solving differently than men. No problem with the assertion that that is why women have been marginalized when it comes to politics and leadership in the past. I don’t think that it necessarily follows, however, that
    A. Things would not have been better had the past decisions been made by women
    B. Now, when technology and the after effects of said technology are RADICALLY DIFFERENT than they have ever been before, that decisionmaking should not be more humane in nature.
    Me: I am a little confused by this past section. You didn’t provide any reason for why #A would be the case. I don’t understand #B. I think you are trying to say that the world is different because of our technology. If so that is 100% false. People are what they are… the technology improvement simply means that we’ll be enslaved by guys with laser guns instead of muskets. I love Star Trek, but its socialistic ideals are a bunch of crap.
    You: That depends on which here and now we’re talking about. A policy (devised and pursued by men) which unequivocably demands total nuclear retaliation and global destruction seems rather short-sighted to me, personally. Well, the same goes for nuclear weaponry PERIOD.
    Me: What would be a better solution? Give me a better answer that you think the superior woman would have come up with?
    You: Sure is. But you’re reasoning is a bit off on the main issue methinks. The reason being that to be a “world leader” one necessarily SHOULD be more fit for the job than 95% of the people out there. Those women OR MEN who could not stomach making tough decisions should already be disqualified from the job. The example you give is, I think, a bit simplistic. (No offense meant!) But just because 70% of men are more able to handle blowing children apart IF THEY ARE ORDERED to do so, does not mean that they are more capable of MAKING TOUGH DECISIONS. It may just mean they are more easily able to write off their own consciences.
    Me: I suppose a world leader should be above the 95% marker, but we all know that isn’t the case. I think you’re getting really desparate to support a weak statement. So we should get the best 1% of women and put them in charge? Or are you looking for women that act more like men? I mean come on. The point is, what causes those 95% to make the wrong decision? Whatever that is, it’s in all women.
    Me: The fact is that if women did make great leaders we would have had one. In the time that we’ve been alive I think we would have caught on to them making better decisions. It just isn’t so. We’ve all heard about the Mars vs. Venus books, heard the comments guys make about their wives, experienced the reactions our mother has to certain behavior. We are the way we are.
    The roles have been selected, changing them will just cause more problems. I know I pissed of some women with that one 🙂

47. Wil, I’m with you all the way on this. I know that there was really no other solution that the majority of people in this country would accept, however I firmly believe that even targeted bombing of Afganistan is wrong. I think as a world power, the US could have gotten a great deal more world sympathy and support if they had gone the route of civil prosecution and had declared terrorist acts those of barbaric countries. If the U.S. had taken the moral high-road of not furthering violence, it would be far less likely for terrorist activities to retain significant support.
    Unfortunately the majority of this country is far more into direct and visible signs of revenge for the tragedies that occured on 9/11 rather than creating a place in the world where terrorism is not a viable political option.

48. Andrew,
    Maybe I should have been more clear as to my intent with my earlier post. I was not entering the debate on whether the War on Terrorism is a good or bad thing. I was simply making observations on a completely peripheral matter (i.e. how moderates vs. wingnuts argue differently, and how effective that makes their respective arguments).
    Was it a groundbreaking post? No.
    Did it add anything to the debate? No.
    Looking back, should I have bothered to post it? Probably not.
    I was just inserting a personal observation gleaned from reading the multitude of comments.
    I originally decided NOT to try and argue specific points and join the debate, because I think it is pointless to try and change people’s minds in a forum like this. I am standing by that decision.
    Suffice it to say that while I appreciate your overall point of view, I disagree with you on some of your conclusions and leaps of logic. You’ve even included some examples in your response to me. E.g. “The fact is that in trying to “be nice” you are simply causing more suffering” is just laughable and totally out of left field. I mean, where did that even come from? I haven’t even stated my opinion on the military action. For all you know I could be wholeheartedly for it. Just because I lean left doesn’t mean I can’t be bloodthirsty. 🙂
    But I never said that your “history” lesson was factually unsound. I was just amused by its inclusion, since it was so obviously cut-and-paste, which is why I cheekily mentioned it. It is actually accurate from what I can tell, organized, and well-written. It was a breath of fresh air compared to your other posts, since it only had to be read once to figure out what you were trying to say. (Poor writing skills, grammar and multiple typos are personal pet peeves of mine and usually make me skip over such comments).
    As for “anti-war, defend Wil, talk” coming from women, what does that have to do with me? Remember, I still haven’t entered the debate. And attributing a “hate mongour [sic]” quote to me is also interesting, let alone calling it “All [I] have done”. “Debate the argument, not the person” indeed.
    I’ll concede your point about the irony of my own intolerance for other people expressing intolerance. I’ve been called on that kind of logic before (Bluesman?) and rightly so. It is humourous, and I am likely guilty of it again in this post. My bad.
    So Andrew, how about we agree to disagree, call a truce and let it go? Continue to be passionate about your ideas, work on your arguments, and maybe one day you’ll convince me of something, or at least get me to enter into the debate. 🙂

49. Since you seem so sure of the facts concerning Kyoto, we’ll skip that issue.
    On to the rest…
    Sillyness Andy?
    Hardly. In fact, i’ll sum it up in one word, ENRON.
    Tell me, how much time have you spent in the miltary? Specifically how much time in Space Command (in any branch.)
    I can garantee, if a nuclear attack were to occur in the US, it would be in the fashion that they’ve been sporting on the news recently. The “dirty bomb” which is to say, a “regular” bomb, but with nuclear material mixed in. Or, of course, the good ol, home grown, full fleged nuke built right here in the good ol US of A with materials you get fresh off the Home Depot/Radio Shack shelf. I delt with nukes and the methods to detect their launch/ progression and detonation for years. This shield is a gag by the administration and a reflection of thier lack of concern about thier actions. Example. It takes a sub launched missle SIX minutes, from launch, to detonation. SIX MINUTES!! Thats enough time to call the president from Norad in Colorado and tell him to place his head between his legs … Right after he gets in his plane and flys off to Florida to read to some kids that is.
    Who was in the white house by the way when all this went down on 9-11? Oh,.. darn… thats right, Wise ol Bush was in Florida. Reading to kids.
    And, darn it… we gotta keep this guy safe from a jumbo jet liner flying into Air Force One, WITH MILITARY ESCORT, so lets send him to Nebraska for a few hours till the dust settles. But wait… wasn’t there a threat on Air Force One… umm well we got a call in… but nothing specificall mentioned AF1. But just 2 days ago you said you did.
    Go back and review events since Bush came into office Andy. The big wigs in Texas, sitting on their oil fields, and oh, lets not forget the ones moved from the oild fields to the White House Cabinet. Oh, and didn’t we mention how many of those Execs/Cabinet members are also Execs (past and present) of Pharmicuitcal compaies also??
    Oops, did someone here Small Pox?? DOH!!

50. To Andrew:
    I agree that women think completely differently from men (as a generalization), nor did I mean to imply differently above.
    I also agree that the public education system in this country is in shambles, and if you say that’s because of women, then ok. I don’t know whether it is or not, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Being a graduate of public education, I must say it was a joke, if not as much of a joke as the Born-Again Christian school (completely male dominated in decision-making, btw) that I had earlier attended.
    You:I am a little confused by this past section. …. I think you are trying to say that the world is different because of our technology. If so that is 100% false. People are what they are… the technology improvement simply means that we’ll be enslaved by guys with laser guns instead of muskets.
    Me: You’re misunderstanding me. The world is 100% different now because of the electronic revolution. Of course it is. That does NOT mean that human nature has changed, merely that the ramifications of men’s actions have changed. 200 years ago, if you decided you hated your neighboring country, you could gather up your army with their muskets and kill a bunch of people. Fine. Now, if you decided you hated your neighboring country, you could train nuclear weapons on each other and play a game of mass-destructive chicken. Read: India/Pakistan. THAT is why a change in basic politics may become necessary.
    A good example: women have recently been courted (no pun intended) into the legal profession because women are by nature more likely to pursue mediation/arbitration rather than litigation because women are by nature less confrontational. What I’m trying (perhaps badly..) to say is that now that the stakes of confrontation have been driven so high by the sophistication of our technology, perhaps the reins of the beast should be given to those people (REGARDLESS OF GENDER) less likely to gallop out of control. And I’m not talking about just the U.S., OBVIOUSLY. To put an arbitrator on the throne (so to speak) in a time of open confrontation with a non-negotiating opponent is not a good mood, but by educating our enemies… oh nevermind, this is turning into one big muddle.
    You: What would be a better solution? Give me a better answer that you think the superior woman would have come up with?
    Me: Well for one thing, a world-wide nuclear disarmament (provided it could be enforced) would be a start. However, since we have the big guns, we’re the last to offer to put them away.
    You:So we should get the best 1% of women and put them in charge? Or are you looking for women that act more like men? I mean come on. The point is, what causes those 95% to make the wrong decision? Whatever that is, it’s in all women.
    So if it’s in all women, then what is it that make the 5-10% make the “right” decision? And come on, of course I didn’t mean that we should get the top 1% of women and put them in charge, but there is certainly something to be said for political meritocracy. And by the way, “acting rational” does not equal “acting like a man.”
    You: The fact is that if women did make great leaders we would have had one.
    That’s drivel. Therefore, no African Americans (regardless of gender), Asian American or Hispanics are fit for presidency either! And there have been plenty of women leaders, and great ones at that, just not in this country. Remember, women only got the vote in this country AN EYEBLINK ago. What’s your explanation of that other than male dominated western society based on aggression and elitism?

Comments are closed.