Violence is always wrong. Retribution is absolutely, always, unjustifiable.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest." Diderot.
A judiciary is an arm of a government, and to have legitimacy, and secure the support of its people, a government has to give those people a stake they are comfortable with. We looked at the ICC, thought about it and us, and said, "no."
We have that right, as does every nation, if representative government is an important thing. Someday, with some court, it will probably go differently. History is long, a first try is a first try, and the world does desperately need good institutions to stabilize international relations.
Oh, give me a break. France, butcher of Algeria? Slaughtering colonial power for 300 years? France has been exploiting and murdering helpless tribespeople around the world for longer than the US has existed.
There's a productive way to look at injustices. You can point at an injustice and say, "that thing is bad." Then you can gather support for your cause and try to eradicate the bad thing.
But there's also an unproductive way, and that's where it's just used as a tool, one of many, to get at some enemy - a fact filled in behind to make the point of "you, my enemy, are bad." Those who make such use don't care about the actual injustice, except in that it gives them a handle on someone - and once that handle is useless, they'll just fall silent. Frequently such a user lives in a glass house of his own. And I assert that you, my friend, are one.
Third-world countries spend so many money to repay their debt that they cannot build infrastructure and develop themselves.
Yeah, this seems true, and it's a scandal.
It breaks my heart to see this great country functioning as an international version of those paycheck loan people.
So you learned the same lesson as I did in college, which is that the future contains clear, rational, and responsible thinkers, and that it also contains dangerous, blind slogan shouters - and that you can find the latter in some unexpected places.
I'm not going to forget the lesson - including the first half.
What did happen when US bombed Irak? Innocent people were killed.
Actually, my understanding is that most of the deaths date from the following decade, where we cordoned off Iraq and prevented it from rebuilding.
I guess we have a reason for that. I certainly hope we do, because the human cost is terrible. Even if you're utterly cynical, that still counts as a PR disaster.
I guess our other options were to 1) sweep on into Iraq proper and depose the Baath government, or 2) let the regime rebuild its power and ability to threaten the region.
I'm guessing that 1) was too scary (remember that this was the first major war the US had fought since Vietnam), and that 2) couldn't be countenanced (we learned that lesson with Hitler).
Maybe, in retrospect, 1) was the way to go. But it's hard to know.
There's also the big question - what next? (Some will push now to invade again and resolve the standoff.)
Okay, look,
the Taliban aren't going to harm bin Laden
and his gang of thugs for anything.
They're half the Taliban power base!
They can't afford to drop him,
and we can't afford to leave either alone.
It's sad, it's bad,
but this is how nation states do business.
Maybe someone can fix that someday.
But it ain't fixed yet,
and if we don't play by today's rules,
we're going to be dead.
Okay, look, the war of words was just words. On both sides.
The US is never going to be satisfied with less than breaking up Al Kida and bringing down the Taliban regime that supported them.
It couldn't afford to settle for less - all the other millions of potential attackers need to see that the price is too high.
If this were a crime trial, sure it wouldn't be enough evidence; but it's not a trial - it's war.
A democratic one would be better. We tried the "friendly regime" way already, and see what happened?
Of course, how do you make a democracy from nothing in Afghanistan? It sounds like a herculean task.
No, the "looking for a peaceful solution" was a blind. The Taliban, who supported these attacks, have to go, and everyone knows this; anything less, and everyone and his uncle will start picking buildings and work their way down. The apparent war of words is just a popularity chess game.
This isn't to praise your slogan-parroting campus socialists, who just see this tragic carnage as an opportunity.
Meaning, both sides will keep on killing bystanders, to achieve what?
As I understand it, we attack Afghanistan, keep the pressure on. Eventually the Taliban falls. We dig out Osama's organization and ship its members to the US for trial. Then we work to install a government which can run a stabler country. (Maybe this is not possible in that region; I don't know.)
The lesson: nations of the world, don't let this happen to you. Control your bomb-building lunatics or we will do it for you, and to you.
And the US is again safe from attack. That's what we're after here.
I can't believe that, with the death toll from this entire incident climbing into five figures, we're sitting here arguing about someone's tone of voice.
Same problem with routing vs. addressing - which dns solves. Could fix this with the phone system by designating a space of "portable numbers" behind a prefix, each number mapping to one (or several, at once) user-defined non-portable number(s). (Course, this clashes with phones, unlike network traffic, billing by distance.)
Slashdot Mirror
preferably the innocent afghanistans would have left the country already.
There are 27 million Afghans. Do you think they all can leave?
Violence is always wrong. Retribution is absolutely, always, unjustifiable.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest." Diderot.
Do you see just the slightest conflict here?
So those police wouldn't use force in the arrest, of course... er, would they?
Of course, a form of pacifism which implicitly depends on the existence of non-pacifist aggressors to do all the dirty work is pretty badly broken.
or is the real fear of being rightly accused?
A judiciary is an arm of a government, and to have legitimacy, and secure the support of its people, a government has to give those people a stake they are comfortable with. We looked at the ICC, thought about it and us, and said, "no."
We have that right, as does every nation, if representative government is an important thing. Someday, with some court, it will probably go differently. History is long, a first try is a first try, and the world does desperately need good institutions to stabilize international relations.
Oh, give me a break. France, butcher of Algeria? Slaughtering colonial power for 300 years? France has been exploiting and murdering helpless tribespeople around the world for longer than the US has existed.
There's a productive way to look at injustices. You can point at an injustice and say, "that thing is bad." Then you can gather support for your cause and try to eradicate the bad thing.
But there's also an unproductive way, and that's where it's just used as a tool, one of many, to get at some enemy - a fact filled in behind to make the point of "you, my enemy, are bad." Those who make such use don't care about the actual injustice, except in that it gives them a handle on someone - and once that handle is useless, they'll just fall silent. Frequently such a user lives in a glass house of his own. And I assert that you, my friend, are one.
Third-world countries spend so many money to repay their debt that they cannot build infrastructure and develop themselves.
Yeah, this seems true, and it's a scandal.
It breaks my heart to see this great country functioning as an international version of those paycheck loan people.
they would all boo and hiss
So you learned the same lesson as I did in college, which is that the future contains clear, rational, and responsible thinkers, and that it also contains dangerous, blind slogan shouters - and that you can find the latter in some unexpected places.
I'm not going to forget the lesson - including the first half.
What did happen when US bombed Irak? Innocent people were killed.
Actually, my understanding is that most of the deaths date from the following decade, where we cordoned off Iraq and prevented it from rebuilding.
I guess we have a reason for that. I certainly hope we do, because the human cost is terrible. Even if you're utterly cynical, that still counts as a PR disaster.
I guess our other options were to 1) sweep on into Iraq proper and depose the Baath government, or 2) let the regime rebuild its power and ability to threaten the region.
I'm guessing that 1) was too scary (remember that this was the first major war the US had fought since Vietnam), and that 2) couldn't be countenanced (we learned that lesson with Hitler).
Maybe, in retrospect, 1) was the way to go. But it's hard to know.
There's also the big question - what next? (Some will push now to invade again and resolve the standoff.)
the dramatisation and... well... cheesyness (sorry) of CNN sometimes turns my stomach....
You're not the only one, brother.
Exciting music and photos of explosions, feh.
Rah, team, rah.
This is not a game.
-Like-minded American
Okay, look,
the Taliban aren't going to harm bin Laden
and his gang of thugs for anything.
They're half the Taliban power base!
They can't afford to drop him,
and we can't afford to leave either alone.
It's sad, it's bad,
but this is how nation states do business.
Maybe someone can fix that someday.
But it ain't fixed yet,
and if we don't play by today's rules,
we're going to be dead.
Okay, look, the war of words was just words. On both sides.
The US is never going to be satisfied with less than breaking up Al Kida and bringing down the Taliban regime that supported them.
It couldn't afford to settle for less - all the other millions of potential attackers need to see that the price is too high.
If this were a crime trial, sure it wouldn't be enough evidence; but it's not a trial - it's war.
Amen. Our purpose is security at minimum cost to everyone. Let us not lose sight of it.
A democratic one would be better. We tried the "friendly regime" way already, and see what happened?
Of course, how do you make a democracy from nothing in Afghanistan? It sounds like a herculean task.
What exactly does "fair trial" mean when the purported "crime" is religious outreach?
Regardless of whether it's Christian, Muslim, or Twig Worshiper.
Well, these attacks were so big that they weren't just a crime - they were an act of war.
I'd say the line lies between three and four figures of victims.
There are international laws of war, but they are rather looser than the ones about crime.
No, the "looking for a peaceful solution" was a blind. The Taliban, who supported these attacks, have to go, and everyone knows this; anything less, and everyone and his uncle will start picking buildings and work their way down. The apparent war of words is just a popularity chess game.
This isn't to praise your slogan-parroting campus socialists, who just see this tragic carnage as an opportunity.
Unfortunately, all that this will result in, is civilian casulties and a major retaliation on US soil
Are you asserting that, if the US took no military action, there would be no such strike?
Meaning, both sides will keep on killing bystanders, to achieve what?
As I understand it, we attack Afghanistan, keep the pressure on. Eventually the Taliban falls. We dig out Osama's organization and ship its members to the US for trial. Then we work to install a government which can run a stabler country. (Maybe this is not possible in that region; I don't know.)
The lesson: nations of the world, don't let this happen to you. Control your bomb-building lunatics or we will do it for you, and to you.
And the US is again safe from attack. That's what we're after here.
I can't believe that, with the death toll from this entire incident climbing into five figures, we're sitting here arguing about someone's tone of voice.
The people who say things like "sand nigger" are like the people who blew up the trade center.
Except more dangerous, because they have a vote.
Remember this:
Rage is bad because it makes us not think; and when we do not think, we fail.
Dude, get real. You can't fight city hall.
Same problem with routing vs. addressing - which dns solves. Could fix this with the phone system by designating a space of "portable numbers" behind a prefix, each number mapping to one (or several, at once) user-defined non-portable number(s). (Course, this clashes with phones, unlike network traffic, billing by distance.)
a new operating system for computer servers that was developed by Intel and Hewlett-Packard
Which one?