There was a clause in there for any airline accepting the aid that the executives whose pay is above $300,000 are barred from raises for two years.
What about bonuses?
From what I hear, Delta is doing everything they can to keep as many people on and get through this as best as possible for both the company and the employees.
I would hope that all airlines would be doing this, and other industries as well. The more people they lay off, the worse this recession will become, and fewer people will be flying. It's a downward spiral that won't be easy to get out of.
It's gotta be the craziest scam I've ever seen. The only thing is that when you're dealing with lawyers, they can often make things that we know are fucking nuts seem quite reasonable. I'd really love to see this thing put to the test in court. Of course, once we have the capability to live relatively comfortably on the moon, we should have plenty of potential sources of real estate. I hear Mars is lovely this time of year.
If such actions became commonplace among average Americans, then reps would probably give it some consideration. As it stands, however, the average American isn't even likely to know who his/her reps are, let alone bother to contribute to any of them.
I wish I could be convinced that all this is being done in the name of freedom and democracy. But I just can't buy it. We, as a country, via our government, have perpetrated a lot of crimes of our own over the years, and we conveniently gloss over these when something like this happens. We've probably done even more that we don't know about, and probably won't know about for a long time, if ever. We're just now finding out about crap we did 40 years ago in some cases.
If someone creates a web site with objectionable material - say, praising last week's terrorist actions - and plasters those Microsoft web controls all over the page, people who read that page will see Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft everywhere they look. Someone will call the news media, and the next thing you know, there are reports that Microsoft supports terrorism.
If you read it, I could do exactly that without violating the license. They're only concerned with me using their controls in conjunction with disparaging Microsoft itself, not using them in conjunction with unpopular speech.
Yes I have, and as others have pointed out, there are programs to detect most popular methods of steganography. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not supporting the idea of banning encryption, I'm very much against it. I just think it might accomplish what they're wanting to some extent. I'm just not willing to lose my privacy to give them that ability. The terrorist groups would have to write their own software easy enough for their members to use if they wanted to make any real use of steganography.
Ok, you got my attention. Can you explain a bit further about the USPS. How do you know? Why doesn't anyone else seem to know, or if they do, why haven't they made the connection? Is there really a connection, or is it some kind of coincidence? Any info or links would be appreciated.
When things get bad enough, the military may not side with the government. Remember, they're people too. They have families just like us. Some may side with the government. Others may side with the populace. It's called a civil war. Happens quite often around the world. It could happen again here too. You generally don't nuke your own country. You're trying to get control of the country, not a radioactive wasteland. F-16s are only good if you have people willing and able to fly them and kill their countrymen. The idea of a civil war is not so far-fetched.
They aren't claiming that it can be broken. Just that if it can't, we can bomb whoever wrote it, or at least kidnap them. Maybe torture them a bit to get them to decrypt it for us. Stuff like that. You never really believed we were above that sort of thing did you?
But note that I don't necessarily feel it wasn't a necessary or even a justified evil.
I can't say that it wasn't justified either. In fact, I believe it was. What I'm getting at is that we don't live in the Middle East. We don't live every day over there with the consequences of the actions of the US. We don't have our homes destroyed. We don't get forced off our land. We don't have loved ones being shot by enemy military. Many people over there obviously believe that this attack was justified. Many of them believe that since the US funds much of the conflict over there, that we're directly responsible for it. I can't disagree with that. It is impossible for us to send money and military hardware over there, knowing exactly how it will be used, and then pretend we aren't responsible for what happens. We do a lot of pretty screwed up things because it's in our best interest, usually financially. Americans conveniently, and consistently turn a blind eye to the actions of our government and the consequences. Well this is one consequence that they can't turn a blind eye to. For once the war has been brought to our country instead of taking place halfway around the world.
I know there are a lot of gray areas and that you can't just label everything good or evil, but while we instantly label this attack as evil and our actions over there as good (at least that's what you hear in the media), remember that that's only one perspective. We aren't the ones over there living with the consequences. Even though there are only a minority that hate the US with such passion as to cause them to take the kind of action we saw the other day, there is at least a majority that strongly disagree with what the US has done in the Middle East. When we retaliate, that disagreement could turn to hate if we're not cautious and precise with our retaliation.
Regardless of how this turns out, I don't think we've seen the end of such attacks. America is far too quick to take advantage of weaker countries. Only when they fall in line and comply with our desires do we tend to offer them any assistance. The rest of the time, we play them against each other, arming and training one side or another, whatever gives us the best advantage. If we continue with such policies, we will engenger more hatred and we will suffer for it. The saddest thing is that most Americans will never know or understand what their government is doing. We simply don't pay attention to anything other than what we're spoon-fed on the nightly news. And we generally accept even that with whatever spin they decide to put on it. Only since the freedom of information act was passed are we even able to get accurate (with a lot still blacked out) information on things that happened 30 or 40 years ago. You gotta wonder what kind of stuff we'll be finding out our government did in the last decade when we get the info on it in another 30 years.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I wonder if anyone else was reading it:) As always, feel free to respond, I'm not looking to get the last word either:) It's been interesting.
I am grateful that your views are those of a very small minority, otherwise, we would be living beneath the boot of the barbarians.
Or we simply wouldn't be hated enough for others to wish this kind of retribution on us. You've done absolutely nothing to rebutt my arguments. I'm sad and afraid that there are many like you in this country who will act irrationally and violently in response to what has happened. Who delude themselves into thinking that the acts committed by the US government are somehow justifiable while, yet when anyone else attacks us, they are terrorists and cowards. You obviously don't want to think about it, you simply want blood like so many other Americans. I suspect you'll get it too. And then I suspect we'll see a lot more American blood spilled. I hope you'll be happy with the consequences of our actions as a country.
The Allies island-hopping prelude to the expected invasion was convincing proof that obtaining a Japanese surrender, via invasion, would have been a protracted, costly affair for all sides.
Are you saying we nuked them because we were concerned about their losses?? I don't buy that for a second and I defy you to dig up some evidence of it. We were concerned about our own losses due to the invasion being "a protracted, costly affair" for our side.
First, you don't know who "these people" are, so how can you claim this?
True, I'm just assuming they are who our intelligence agencies and others believe them to be. It has yet to be proven.
Second, there has been no formal declaration of war, unless you know something no one else knows.
Was there a formal declaration of war when we invaded Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Anyone else we've bombed? Anybody at all since WWII? Wars exist whether we have nice little pieces of paper that say we're at war or not.
In fact, we did not use the bomb on a purely military target, and in that, we were wrong.
Just wrong? Not evil or cowardly? What about Nagasaki? Just wrong there too? Why? Because we had a piece of paper saying we're at war?
But to catagorize the decision to use nuclear weapons in a declared war as equivalent to the terrorists decision to ram civilian airliners into skyscrapers without warning is disingenuous at best.
I believe Bin Laden's group has been warning us of a large attack for the last several weeks. We send a couple planes over and destroy 2 of Japan's cities. Bin Laden's group takes a couple of our planes and destroys 2 of our largest buildings. I really don't believe that that's any different.
And what will you say when we are terrorized for not sending military aid to a particular group?
I don't know that it'll be a real problem. Switzerland doesn't seem to have a big terrorist problem. We can still have relations with the rest of the world. We just need to not take sides during wars. (before you jump out of your chair, hear me out) I know that neutrality isn't always possible. WWII is a good example. Switzerland didn't want to get involved, but it did anyway, even if only behind the scenes in order to keep the Nazis from invading. And if it hadn't been for the US, Russia, and Britain defeating the Nazis, Switzerland would have been occupied eventually anyway. The bottom line is that we HAVE chosen to take sides in many wars. Some with direct aid and some by funding or arming one of the sides in the conflict. With that choice comes a price. We WILL be attacked. Terrorism is what our government calls it and the people of this country are ignorant enough to believe that. It's really just plain old war. We're just not used to it taking place on our territory. War is something that happens over in Europe and the Middle East. It doesn't happen in the US. -- It does now.
The civilized world needs to demand an end to terror against noncombatants.
What exactly is the "civilized world"? Are we part of it? What are the qualifications? How many of those have we broken?
If we don't demand this, every disaffected group nursing a supposed wrong will feel justified in imposing their demands, right or wrong, upon the world by the cold-blooded, calculating slaughter of children and other innocents.
I suppose you're lamenting the fact that conventional wars can't really happen anymore. The US is too powerful. We can send our military in to kick the ass of practically anybody we have a problem with. We just whip up a convenient excuse and the people at home will cheer the war on. One day we just decide that we suddenly care about how some group or other is being treated. Now that's not really why we're there, otherwise we would've done something long ago. But it gives the people at home a warm fuzzy feeling about the good deed their country is doing. Why do we lie to ourselves though? Why do we think that we can take part in wars with impunity?
Why do we think we make make the rules for the world? We don't like drugs. It doesn't matter that nobody is forcing them on us. We're gonna tell other countries what they're allowed to grow and what they can't grow. We're going to arm and train people in other countries that will side with us so they can maim and massacre those that don't side with us. Is that evil and cowardly too? Nah. We just gave them the weapons and training. We're not responsible for them after that. We are one seriously deluded nation.
Only when we act decisively, will the violence decrease and eventually end.
You're assuming we have the knowledge and capability of killing or at least cowing everyone who has the desire and ability to strike at us. You're also assuming that when we commit such an act that it won't fuel hatred in even more people. It gets back to the idea of the only way to get rid of a foe is to kill him and everyone who cares about him, and everyone who cares about them, etc. We talking global genocide here, or what?
If your opponent uses terror-bombing (as the Axis did in World War II), do you do likewise?
I'd say we did do likewise. Hiroshima? Nagasaki? We killed thousands of people in order to demoralize them and scare them into surrender.
But if I'm a public official, I don't necessarily have that right. If I feel that indulging my personal moral qualms will lead to the deaths of people who trust me to make decisions for them, I don't know that I have that right.
I agree with you on this. That would be a very difficult position to be in. I think the problem is that we, as a nation, are not even being honest with ourselves about the nature of war and our own part in it. We like to see things as black and white. We're the good guys. They're the evil cowardly murderers. When we kill them, it's because it's necessary. When they kill us it's because they're evil. I can't stomach that kind of crap and it's one reason I can't even listen to the radio or tv now. That's about all you hear.
I just don't see how deluding ourselves as a nation can be a good thing.
As unfortunate as it is, people do not feel guilt until they appreciate the immediacy of the consequences of their actions.
Remember that when someone you love is killed in retaliation for our retaliation. Yesterday's attack was not the first stone to be thrown. It was just another step in the cycle that we will perpetuate. We won't be able to kill all the terrorists with our retaliation. In fact, even if we do manage to get a lot of them, they'll probably become martyrs and more will take their place. What it comes down to is that we're no better than they are when our security is threatened. We'll lash out and kill "innocents" as well. We've done it before and we'll do it again. The innocents we kill over there will be guilty of the same thing as the people killed yesterday. They were citizens of a country at war.
Look, we took sides in a war. We involved ourselves in a war. We've done it many times, against countries much weaker than we are. We helped to create Bin Laden thanks to our CIA. We've helped to create many people like him because it served our purposes at the time. When you involve yourself in a war, you make yourself a target. Simple as that. I don't happen to agree with our foreign policy. That may or may not be because I don't have enough information to make a better judgement call, but that is mainly because our government doesn't really give us the information we need. It remains locked up and classified for decades usually.
Regardless of why we did what we did, we are at war and have been for years. We just happen to have the luxury of being fairly well isolated from our enemies geographically, and a infinitely stronger militarily. How do we expect them to fight us? Are they going to parachute in and attack us? Storm our beaches? Hell no. They'll fight a guerilla war to destroy as much as they can to demoralize us and hurt us financially so that we will be less able and less willing to try to impose our will on the rest of the world. Just like people here say that we need to strike back hard and wipe out Afganistan and Pakistan, they're trying to do just that to us. When we bombed Japan, we killed thousands of civilians because it was in our own best interests. Why do we now condemn others for doing the same?
Grow up and get used to life in a dirty, bloody world.
Tell that to President Bush, Congress, and the American people who keep whining about how war came home to sit on our doorstep yesterday. They keep talking about how evil and cowardly it was. Why don't they just grow up and realize that this is what war is and for the first time in a long time, we're seeing it up close.
I understand what you're saying. I think a lot of people feel the same way. If the majority of this country gets behind this plan, then so be it. In any case though, I would like to see the "cowardly attack" and "innocent civilians" and "evil terrorists" rhetoric stop. We, as a country, through our government, have committed many atrocious acts. Some of these acts have come back to bite us. In the end, the world seems to work as you believe. The strong will dominate. Morality is the luxury of nations who have the financial and military strength to hold on to both morality and security at the same time. When our security is threatened, our morality is often set aside as well. Don't forget that, and don't be hypocritical by pandering to the US public with statements about the people attacking us being cowardly and evil. We could very well be considered cowardly and evil for many of the things we've done when we've felt threatened in the past.
Sure thing pal. Your path is one that could be followed. It'll turn into a global Vietnam for us probably, except that the death and destruction will be on our own soil instead of on the other side of the globe. I hope you're first in line to join the Army too if you want to kick these people's asses so bad. Let's see you put your life on the line over in the middle east.
Then there's the fact that if we go around randomly turning cities into rubble to get at a few terrorists we'll end up creating a lot more than we kill. People with nothing left to lose are hard to stop. Eventually they'll probably kill you or someone you care about. They'll probably kill me and others who don't want to take that route too, but in the end, we're all US citizens and in a war, that's all that matters.
And, unfortunately, this is a time of war. America did not choose to be a part of this war, it was sucked in.
I think you're wrong. I believe we are now seeing the effects of our actions in supporting other wars and funding and training groups to fight where we cannot due to polital ramifications (i.e. if Americans in general realized what was going on, they would probably be pissed). That doesn't mean that the people on the receiving end of the weapons and support we provide don't know who's behind it. They do, and I don't see any reason that they wouldn't be just as pissed off as Americans are now. Maybe you should look into the role that our CIA had in Bin Laden's past too.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a clause in there for any airline accepting the aid that the executives whose pay is above $300,000 are barred from raises for two years.
What about bonuses?
From what I hear, Delta is doing everything they can to keep as many people on and get through this as best as possible for both the company and the employees.
I would hope that all airlines would be doing this, and other industries as well. The more people they lay off, the worse this recession will become, and fewer people will be flying. It's a downward spiral that won't be easy to get out of.
Life in prison? Things are pretty screwed up when the punishment in cases like these will likely far outweigh the crime.
Just what we need to do... start a lunar landfill with all our junk.
It's gotta be the craziest scam I've ever seen. The only thing is that when you're dealing with lawyers, they can often make things that we know are fucking nuts seem quite reasonable. I'd really love to see this thing put to the test in court. Of course, once we have the capability to live relatively comfortably on the moon, we should have plenty of potential sources of real estate. I hear Mars is lovely this time of year.
If such actions became commonplace among average Americans, then reps would probably give it some consideration. As it stands, however, the average American isn't even likely to know who his/her reps are, let alone bother to contribute to any of them.
I wish I could be convinced that all this is being done in the name of freedom and democracy. But I just can't buy it. We, as a country, via our government, have perpetrated a lot of crimes of our own over the years, and we conveniently gloss over these when something like this happens. We've probably done even more that we don't know about, and probably won't know about for a long time, if ever. We're just now finding out about crap we did 40 years ago in some cases.
Richard Schmalensee. More info on him here if anyone is interested.
You are aware of what happened when people tried to return copies of Windows after rejecting the EULA, aren't you? (Hint: it didn't work)
Mind if I use your letter (possibly slightly modified) to send to my reps?
If someone creates a web site with objectionable material - say, praising last week's terrorist actions - and plasters those Microsoft web controls all over the page, people who read that page will see Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft everywhere they look. Someone will call the news media, and the next thing you know, there are reports that Microsoft supports terrorism.
If you read it, I could do exactly that without violating the license. They're only concerned with me using their controls in conjunction with disparaging Microsoft itself, not using them in conjunction with unpopular speech.
Yes I have, and as others have pointed out, there are programs to detect most popular methods of steganography. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not supporting the idea of banning encryption, I'm very much against it. I just think it might accomplish what they're wanting to some extent. I'm just not willing to lose my privacy to give them that ability. The terrorist groups would have to write their own software easy enough for their members to use if they wanted to make any real use of steganography.
Ok, you got my attention. Can you explain a bit further about the USPS. How do you know? Why doesn't anyone else seem to know, or if they do, why haven't they made the connection? Is there really a connection, or is it some kind of coincidence? Any info or links would be appreciated.
When things get bad enough, the military may not side with the government. Remember, they're people too. They have families just like us. Some may side with the government. Others may side with the populace. It's called a civil war. Happens quite often around the world. It could happen again here too. You generally don't nuke your own country. You're trying to get control of the country, not a radioactive wasteland. F-16s are only good if you have people willing and able to fly them and kill their countrymen. The idea of a civil war is not so far-fetched.
They aren't claiming that it can be broken. Just that if it can't, we can bomb whoever wrote it, or at least kidnap them. Maybe torture them a bit to get them to decrypt it for us. Stuff like that. You never really believed we were above that sort of thing did you?
But note that I don't necessarily feel it wasn't a necessary or even a justified evil.
I can't say that it wasn't justified either. In fact, I believe it was. What I'm getting at is that we don't live in the Middle East. We don't live every day over there with the consequences of the actions of the US. We don't have our homes destroyed. We don't get forced off our land. We don't have loved ones being shot by enemy military. Many people over there obviously believe that this attack was justified. Many of them believe that since the US funds much of the conflict over there, that we're directly responsible for it. I can't disagree with that. It is impossible for us to send money and military hardware over there, knowing exactly how it will be used, and then pretend we aren't responsible for what happens. We do a lot of pretty screwed up things because it's in our best interest, usually financially. Americans conveniently, and consistently turn a blind eye to the actions of our government and the consequences. Well this is one consequence that they can't turn a blind eye to. For once the war has been brought to our country instead of taking place halfway around the world.
I know there are a lot of gray areas and that you can't just label everything good or evil, but while we instantly label this attack as evil and our actions over there as good (at least that's what you hear in the media), remember that that's only one perspective. We aren't the ones over there living with the consequences. Even though there are only a minority that hate the US with such passion as to cause them to take the kind of action we saw the other day, there is at least a majority that strongly disagree with what the US has done in the Middle East. When we retaliate, that disagreement could turn to hate if we're not cautious and precise with our retaliation.
Regardless of how this turns out, I don't think we've seen the end of such attacks. America is far too quick to take advantage of weaker countries. Only when they fall in line and comply with our desires do we tend to offer them any assistance. The rest of the time, we play them against each other, arming and training one side or another, whatever gives us the best advantage. If we continue with such policies, we will engenger more hatred and we will suffer for it. The saddest thing is that most Americans will never know or understand what their government is doing. We simply don't pay attention to anything other than what we're spoon-fed on the nightly news. And we generally accept even that with whatever spin they decide to put on it. Only since the freedom of information act was passed are we even able to get accurate (with a lot still blacked out) information on things that happened 30 or 40 years ago. You gotta wonder what kind of stuff we'll be finding out our government did in the last decade when we get the info on it in another 30 years.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I wonder if anyone else was reading it :) As always, feel free to respond, I'm not looking to get the last word either :) It's been interesting.
I am grateful that your views are those of a very small minority, otherwise, we would be living beneath the boot of the barbarians.
Or we simply wouldn't be hated enough for others to wish this kind of retribution on us. You've done absolutely nothing to rebutt my arguments. I'm sad and afraid that there are many like you in this country who will act irrationally and violently in response to what has happened. Who delude themselves into thinking that the acts committed by the US government are somehow justifiable while, yet when anyone else attacks us, they are terrorists and cowards. You obviously don't want to think about it, you simply want blood like so many other Americans. I suspect you'll get it too. And then I suspect we'll see a lot more American blood spilled. I hope you'll be happy with the consequences of our actions as a country.
The Allies island-hopping prelude to the expected invasion was convincing proof that obtaining a Japanese surrender, via invasion, would have been a protracted, costly affair for all sides.
Are you saying we nuked them because we were concerned about their losses?? I don't buy that for a second and I defy you to dig up some evidence of it. We were concerned about our own losses due to the invasion being "a protracted, costly affair" for our side.
First, you don't know who "these people" are, so how can you claim this?
True, I'm just assuming they are who our intelligence agencies and others believe them to be. It has yet to be proven.
Second, there has been no formal declaration of war, unless you know something no one else knows.
Was there a formal declaration of war when we invaded Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Anyone else we've bombed? Anybody at all since WWII? Wars exist whether we have nice little pieces of paper that say we're at war or not.
In fact, we did not use the bomb on a purely military target, and in that, we were wrong.
Just wrong? Not evil or cowardly? What about Nagasaki? Just wrong there too? Why? Because we had a piece of paper saying we're at war?
But to catagorize the decision to use nuclear weapons in a declared war as equivalent to the terrorists decision to ram civilian airliners into skyscrapers without warning is disingenuous at best.
I believe Bin Laden's group has been warning us of a large attack for the last several weeks. We send a couple planes over and destroy 2 of Japan's cities. Bin Laden's group takes a couple of our planes and destroys 2 of our largest buildings. I really don't believe that that's any different.
And what will you say when we are terrorized for not sending military aid to a particular group?
I don't know that it'll be a real problem. Switzerland doesn't seem to have a big terrorist problem. We can still have relations with the rest of the world. We just need to not take sides during wars. (before you jump out of your chair, hear me out) I know that neutrality isn't always possible. WWII is a good example. Switzerland didn't want to get involved, but it did anyway, even if only behind the scenes in order to keep the Nazis from invading. And if it hadn't been for the US, Russia, and Britain defeating the Nazis, Switzerland would have been occupied eventually anyway. The bottom line is that we HAVE chosen to take sides in many wars. Some with direct aid and some by funding or arming one of the sides in the conflict. With that choice comes a price. We WILL be attacked. Terrorism is what our government calls it and the people of this country are ignorant enough to believe that. It's really just plain old war. We're just not used to it taking place on our territory. War is something that happens over in Europe and the Middle East. It doesn't happen in the US. -- It does now.
The civilized world needs to demand an end to terror against noncombatants.
What exactly is the "civilized world"? Are we part of it? What are the qualifications? How many of those have we broken?
If we don't demand this, every disaffected group nursing a supposed wrong will feel justified in imposing their demands, right or wrong, upon the world by the cold-blooded, calculating slaughter of children and other innocents.
I suppose you're lamenting the fact that conventional wars can't really happen anymore. The US is too powerful. We can send our military in to kick the ass of practically anybody we have a problem with. We just whip up a convenient excuse and the people at home will cheer the war on. One day we just decide that we suddenly care about how some group or other is being treated. Now that's not really why we're there, otherwise we would've done something long ago. But it gives the people at home a warm fuzzy feeling about the good deed their country is doing. Why do we lie to ourselves though? Why do we think that we can take part in wars with impunity?
Why do we think we make make the rules for the world? We don't like drugs. It doesn't matter that nobody is forcing them on us. We're gonna tell other countries what they're allowed to grow and what they can't grow. We're going to arm and train people in other countries that will side with us so they can maim and massacre those that don't side with us. Is that evil and cowardly too? Nah. We just gave them the weapons and training. We're not responsible for them after that. We are one seriously deluded nation.
Only when we act decisively, will the violence decrease and eventually end.
You're assuming we have the knowledge and capability of killing or at least cowing everyone who has the desire and ability to strike at us. You're also assuming that when we commit such an act that it won't fuel hatred in even more people. It gets back to the idea of the only way to get rid of a foe is to kill him and everyone who cares about him, and everyone who cares about them, etc. We talking global genocide here, or what?
If your opponent uses terror-bombing (as the Axis did in World War II), do you do likewise?
I'd say we did do likewise. Hiroshima? Nagasaki? We killed thousands of people in order to demoralize them and scare them into surrender.
But if I'm a public official, I don't necessarily have that right. If I feel that indulging my personal moral qualms will lead to the deaths of people who trust me to make decisions for them, I don't know that I have that right.
I agree with you on this. That would be a very difficult position to be in. I think the problem is that we, as a nation, are not even being honest with ourselves about the nature of war and our own part in it. We like to see things as black and white. We're the good guys. They're the evil cowardly murderers. When we kill them, it's because it's necessary. When they kill us it's because they're evil. I can't stomach that kind of crap and it's one reason I can't even listen to the radio or tv now. That's about all you hear.
I just don't see how deluding ourselves as a nation can be a good thing.
As unfortunate as it is, people do not feel guilt until they appreciate the immediacy of the consequences of their actions.
Remember that when someone you love is killed in retaliation for our retaliation. Yesterday's attack was not the first stone to be thrown. It was just another step in the cycle that we will perpetuate. We won't be able to kill all the terrorists with our retaliation. In fact, even if we do manage to get a lot of them, they'll probably become martyrs and more will take their place. What it comes down to is that we're no better than they are when our security is threatened. We'll lash out and kill "innocents" as well. We've done it before and we'll do it again. The innocents we kill over there will be guilty of the same thing as the people killed yesterday. They were citizens of a country at war.
Look, we took sides in a war. We involved ourselves in a war. We've done it many times, against countries much weaker than we are. We helped to create Bin Laden thanks to our CIA. We've helped to create many people like him because it served our purposes at the time. When you involve yourself in a war, you make yourself a target. Simple as that. I don't happen to agree with our foreign policy. That may or may not be because I don't have enough information to make a better judgement call, but that is mainly because our government doesn't really give us the information we need. It remains locked up and classified for decades usually.
Regardless of why we did what we did, we are at war and have been for years. We just happen to have the luxury of being fairly well isolated from our enemies geographically, and a infinitely stronger militarily. How do we expect them to fight us? Are they going to parachute in and attack us? Storm our beaches? Hell no. They'll fight a guerilla war to destroy as much as they can to demoralize us and hurt us financially so that we will be less able and less willing to try to impose our will on the rest of the world. Just like people here say that we need to strike back hard and wipe out Afganistan and Pakistan, they're trying to do just that to us. When we bombed Japan, we killed thousands of civilians because it was in our own best interests. Why do we now condemn others for doing the same?
Grow up and get used to life in a dirty, bloody world.
Tell that to President Bush, Congress, and the American people who keep whining about how war came home to sit on our doorstep yesterday. They keep talking about how evil and cowardly it was. Why don't they just grow up and realize that this is what war is and for the first time in a long time, we're seeing it up close.
I understand what you're saying. I think a lot of people feel the same way. If the majority of this country gets behind this plan, then so be it. In any case though, I would like to see the "cowardly attack" and "innocent civilians" and "evil terrorists" rhetoric stop. We, as a country, through our government, have committed many atrocious acts. Some of these acts have come back to bite us. In the end, the world seems to work as you believe. The strong will dominate. Morality is the luxury of nations who have the financial and military strength to hold on to both morality and security at the same time. When our security is threatened, our morality is often set aside as well. Don't forget that, and don't be hypocritical by pandering to the US public with statements about the people attacking us being cowardly and evil. We could very well be considered cowardly and evil for many of the things we've done when we've felt threatened in the past.
Sure thing pal. Your path is one that could be followed. It'll turn into a global Vietnam for us probably, except that the death and destruction will be on our own soil instead of on the other side of the globe. I hope you're first in line to join the Army too if you want to kick these people's asses so bad. Let's see you put your life on the line over in the middle east.
Then there's the fact that if we go around randomly turning cities into rubble to get at a few terrorists we'll end up creating a lot more than we kill. People with nothing left to lose are hard to stop. Eventually they'll probably kill you or someone you care about. They'll probably kill me and others who don't want to take that route too, but in the end, we're all US citizens and in a war, that's all that matters.
And, unfortunately, this is a time of war. America did not choose to be a part of this war, it was sucked in.
I think you're wrong. I believe we are now seeing the effects of our actions in supporting other wars and funding and training groups to fight where we cannot due to polital ramifications (i.e. if Americans in general realized what was going on, they would probably be pissed). That doesn't mean that the people on the receiving end of the weapons and support we provide don't know who's behind it. They do, and I don't see any reason that they wouldn't be just as pissed off as Americans are now. Maybe you should look into the role that our CIA had in Bin Laden's past too.