I don't understand

[magenta321]

I missed Vietnam. I read Manufacturing Consent and ran to my parents every five minutes to understand the War I missed. I had never learned anything about the war except what I learned about hippies from pop culture. The more I learned, the more I realized the divide between the people who felt we had no business fighting the war, and the ones who felt we had to protect democracy (ok, and so much more, but I am not so interested in the conspiracy stuff). Anyway... I saw the arguement of "why are we in this war." I saw it again in Desert Storm. I even felt (at 11 years old) that we had no business in that war. I felt we were killing our own men, and innocent civilians for nothing.

And now I hear familar calls from people. They say the Afghani civilians are innocent. They don't want to see our men hurt. I don't want to hurt these people either. But I cannot see these attacks continuing. How can we sit back and do nothing? How can we let these "demons" continue to kill our citizens? How can we sit idle and ignore the fact that they are killing our innocent citizens (as well as innocent citizens from all over the globe).

Maybe there are some wars we should keep our nose out of. But, these "demons" have already blown our nose off of our face. How can we not be involved?

[AmyLEnsor]

According to Bush, we are at war, "make no mistake about it". I guess a formal declaration is pretty much all that is missing at this point. Well, and we have to have a state on which to actually declare war, and it looks like that will be Afghanistan (not without good reason). That doesn't stop me from feeling sorry for those Afghanis who are innocent in all of this. It doesn't stop me from questioning whether we are doing the right thing or not. It certainly doesn't make me feel any better for the young Americans who will pay for my freedom with their lives before they've barely had a chance to live them. Still, I was in favor of the Gulf war actually, and I do think it is time for action. Bin Laden has been reigning terror for far too long now. He wants war and will stop at nothing until he gets what he wants. He'll keep escalating the violence and more will die. So I agree with you, but I know there are always those who embrace pacifism even at the price of their own destruction; maybe they see their salvation hinging on that. There are others who may not be so sure this is the time for war and think maybe it is more prudent to try other things and wait and see what happens.

[pluckyduck]

Margaret -

I'm no expert. I feel old , but I was born in 1961 and was too young to really know "what was what" when Vietnam was going on. I sort of came alive at the time of Watergate (I can fill your ear on that, should we have a return episode.)

The biggest difference I can see, right off, is that we had no business letting our leaders drag us into a war halfway around the world that had nothing to do with us. (Or, as they say in the Princess Bride "never get drawn into a land war in Southeast Asia")

5000 American citizens woke up Tuesday morning, brushed their teeth and headed off to another day. Some of them kissed their kids before they left, some of them petted their dogs, and every single one of them planned on coming home. None of them did.

Should we seek revenge by taking the lives of another 5000 innocents? No. Do we have a responsibility to protect another 5000 of our friends and neighbors from facing the same fate next month or next year? Yes, we do.

Is that going to cost more innocent lives? I shudder. I wish I could just turn back the time on the clock and never have to sit at 3 o'clock in the morning contemplating that .... but my life has changed. I do have to think about that.

What are the other choices? These people who have done this to us are just getting warmed up. What are the other choices?

Andrea

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by pluckyduck
Margaret -

I'm no expert. I feel old , but I was born in 1961 and was too young to really know "what was what" when Vietnam was going on. I sort of came alive at the time of Watergate (I can fill your ear on that, should we have a return episode.)

The biggest difference I can see, right off, is that we had no business letting our leaders drag us into a war halfway around the world that had nothing to do with us. (Or, as they say in the Princess Bride "never get drawn into a land war in Southeast Asia")

5000 American citizens woke up Tuesday morning, brushed their teeth and headed off to another day. Some of them kissed their kids before they left, some of them petted their dogs, and every single one of them planned on coming home. None of them did.

Should we seek revenge by taking the lives of another 5000 innocents? No. Do we have a responsibility to protect another 5000 of our friends and neighbors from facing the same fate next month or next year? Yes, we do.

Is that going to cost more innocent lives? I shudder. I wish I could just turn back the time on the clock and never have to sit at 3 o'clock in the morning contemplating that .... but my life has changed. I do have to think about that.

What are the other choices? These people who have done this to us are just getting warmed up. What are the other choices?

Andrea

I agree. The fanatics want us all dead, not just 5000 but millions and millions until there are none of us left. If we don't stop it now, our Grandchildren will pay the price. They don't want us to negotiate, they simply want us to die. If they had nukes, chemical or biological weapons, I'm convinced they would use them.
BTW, you must have been very politically aware at a young age. I was born in 62 and to me Watergate was something that ruined my afterschool kid shows and took up way too much of my parents conversations.

[pluckyduck]

Originally posted by CeeJay62


BTW, you must have been very politically aware at a young age. I was born in 62 and to me Watergate was something that ruined my afterschool kid shows and took up way too much of my parents conversations.

Watched it gavel to gavel with my eyes glued to the set. Inspired my inherent distrust of Federal Government and the motivations of same. I think I had a poster of Woodward and Bernstein right next to David Cassidy, but I could be making that up.

I'm one of the last people who is going to fall in behind the Great Leader of the land "because he says so", especially if he's Republican just a little joke, but I'm as internally and cornily as red white and blue as any Bubba with Ol' Glory tattooed on his arm. We are a good and kind and caring people, and we are worth standing up for and fighting for.

I just pray that we act morally and honorably and ethically as we defend what we need to defend.

Andrea

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by pluckyduck
I just pray that we act morally and honorably and ethically as we defend what we need to defend.

I think we should also pray for clarity for our leaders then, because the morals, honor and ethics surrounding this issue aren't going to be black and white for a while to come. What if we have to kill 50,000 of them to save 1,000,000 over the next 50 years? I remember when they decided not to take a ground war into Baghdad and (ironically) Colin Powell said it was because there was no guarantee of success and also, that the American people would not be able to stomach the casualties, of both their civilians and our service people. We could have taken massive amounts of the Iraqi army at the end of the war, but we choose not to, mainly because we are a good and decent nation and couldn't bear to slaughter people who were in a state of surrender.
I know everything has changed, now that war has hit our soil. I just don't know what balance of them versus us we can stomach at this point. I don't know what I personally can stomach. All I know is we have to do something.
Am I the only one obsessing over the ethics of all this?

[hadassahchana[$]]

Am I the only one obsessing over the ethics of all this?

No.

I haven't been able to sleep at night since this happened.

At first, it was plain fear and grief keeping me awake.

Now, I am sick with worry over the notion of going to war against a bunch of innocent civilians. I understand the necessity of doing something to ensure our safety- trust me on this. I have many, many friends and family in Israel, and I am used to the debate of how much strength vs. how many civilians harmed. It is a horrible, sickening and agonizing question. I only pray that President Bush is thinking as deeply about both sides of the equation as I am.

Cindy

[AuntieEmma[$]]

A lot of Afghanis hate the Taliban as much as we do, and they are as innocent in the attack on us as the people working at their desks in the WTC were as innocent of whatever it is the Taliban is mad about. Killing civilians is just doing the same thing that was done to us.

Also, I really, really, really don't see how a conventional war is going to stop terrorism. If anything, I think it will increase it. If we kill a bunch of civilians, then we'll create, among the survivors, a whole new group of people who will passionately hate the United States, who will be much more inclined to support or even join in with the terrorists.

There are certainly no easy answers. I hope someone knows what they're doing.

[AmyLEnsor]

Arum Ghandi believes that we should respond in a non-violent manner. Click here to read his message.

[pluckyduck]

There are certainly no easy answers. I hope someone knows what they're doing.

That pretty much sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.

Andrea

[cristina1]

I have a lot of thoughts and mixed emotions on thsi subject, but just cant seem to find the right words to express them.

I'll try again later. Maybe I can get it all out then.

[realtraveller]

I obviously don't know what they're planning, but I doubt it is a conventional war. It's got to be aimed at the terrorists themselves and the Taliban government. Even so, there is likely to be a backlash from those who idolize Osama Bin Ladin, who hate America and all it stands for, who already think we are the "Great Satan". Remedying this will be even more difficult than winning the war on terrorism. It may require a sort of Marshall Plan to bring these people into the 21st century, to bring them the blessings of democracy, capitalism and human rights. We did it after killing innocent civilians in Germany and Japan after World War II. We will have to do it again.

[MrsNormanMaine[$]]

I, for one, am very wary of the turn the rhetoric has taken over the past few days. What's being sold is some rosy picture of all the nations of the civilized world skipping arm and arm down the yellow brick road as they march off to eliminate world terrorism.

Some thoughts:

It's not possible to eradicate terrorism by military means. Just ask Russia about its experiences in Afghanistan or Chechnya.

Afghanistan is known as 'the graveyard of armies' for good reason. Every great power for the last few thousand years that's gone to war there has lost badly. It's not possible to fight a conventional ground war in that terrain.

A lot of other countries are going to use this as a means of getting the US to go along with some other goal of theirs in order to secure their cooperation. Many of these goals will be incompatible. (e.g. both Pakistan and India are likely to ask that the US side with them in the Kashmir dispute).

Who are we going to war against? When could such a war be considered won? What effort and expense should be considered reasonable for what result? No one in a leadership position has discussed the monetary or human sacrifices we as a country should be asked to consider.

How do we prevent any violent operation from hurting the innocent? Can we? If it does, won't this just create the conditions that will create new pro-Taliban/anti-American sentiments that others will use to fan new terrorist acts?

There's a lot of talk about bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age. It's already been done. The Russians and then the civil war completely destroyed the country's infrastructure, physical and human. That's what allowed the Taliban to come to power in the first place - there was an enormous vacuum. What good would additional damage do?

MNM

[cristina1]

OK, I am going to try this again.

First off, in the article that AmyLEnsor posted that compared America to a playground bully. We arent the bully, but more like the strong friend of the kid constantly getting picked on by the bully that is more able to fight for him. We didnt start any of the messes we find ourselves in. We just get involved after the trouble starts. In the case of what happened this week, we had our backs turned and got smashed in the back of the head. Now we have two choices - fight back or walk away.

We took the non-violent approach. We went over the evidence, and found a prime suspect. He is being protected by the Taliban. We want him; they refuse to turn him over. I dont believe that we should just shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well." The ball is in their court now - all they need to do is turn him over. Why are they protecting this man? They know the consequences if they dont comply. They know that we will fight it out.

Now, negotiations are over. There is nothing left to negotiate.

Bin Laden is training people to hate us. Sure, there will always be people to hate us. There will always be terrorists. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist from our own land, as were many other people. But none of them have the resources that bin Laden does. He not only brings out the hate of Americans, but has the money and the means to get them flight training, combat training, etc. He can send them where they want to go. And obviously, he has the brains behind it to carry it all out. He is going around recruiting people to act out against us. Sure, maybe there is someone else to replace him. Which is why Bush wants to not only take down the terrorists themselves, but the countries that harbor them and work against us. If these people have no where to hide out, it helps.

I am not a violent person, and do not condone violence. But, there is a time and place where one must fight back. Although with war, innocent people get killed, we must face the reality of the situation. Innocent people ARE already getting killed. Every single day. All around the globe. A military friend of mine who was stationed in Germany said that she had to take training on terrorism (as a spouse, not active duty) because bin Laden wrecks havoc over there and has for awhile. Other countries are in a position where they have to fear for their lives every day. No trash bins on the sidewalks - too tempting for someone to stuff a bomb in. Searches entering public buildings. Not knowing if the restaurant you picked to dine in that night is going to be hit. Is this what we want our lives to turn into? Are we that against going to war that we are willing to give up these freedoms?

Do you really think it is over? The bombing of the WTC was linked back to bin Laden 8 years ago. We did nothing. He didnt go away, he didnt give up. He came back with a bigger plan. This one didnt fail. Do you honestly believe that we heard the last from him?

I really admire all of you who are so compassionate for fellow human beings. I dont want to sound unsympathetic, but as I look at the TV, I get chills down my spine. I have plans for my children. I want them to go to Disney, I want them to go to Sea World. I wanted them to go to the WTC, as I have many many times before in my life. I dont want to have to wonder the whole time if this is the day that it is going to get attacked.

Maybe I sound paranoid, but we have to get our heads out of the sand. We need to stop the teenage mentality that it wont happen to us again and just go on without doing anything to protect ourselves. Right now, the only way I can see this happening is by fighting. It wont be a conventional war, and wont be a short war. My husband just got out of the military and will probably get called back as he is inactive duty for the next three years. But, it is a risk that we all must take to ensure our freedom. I dont want to see anyone else die, but it is happening all over the world every single day. It finally happened on our soil. We thought we were invincible. We thought wrong.

[mshawpyle]

Originally posted by AmyLEnsor
Arum Ghandi believes that we should respond in a non-violent manner.

Oh yes. 'Germans of future generations will honour Herr Hitler as a genius, a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more.' Mohandas K. Gandhi, in the Indian newspaper Harijan, 22 June 1940 (the day of the French capitulation).

Spare me such utter tripe. I have a moral right to say, for myself, I will not resist. I have a moral duty to defend others by resisting to the utmost, including by the use of force, given that this brand (and similar brands) of 'nonviolence' has never, in the history of the world, accomplished any good against aggressors. Never. It can be utile if employed within a society, against elements of that society, so long as the core principles of that society are fundamentally liberal. At any other juncture, it is worse than useless, indeed pernicious: Theresienstadt comes to mind....

[frazzledspice]

I think that many ethicists and theologians have studied and written about what is and is not morally permissible during wartime.

And I think that the US has always tried to abide by those rules. During the Gulf War, for example, we took pains only to strike military targets, and in the one incident where there was, accidentally, some civilians struck, our nation was sorrowful.

My husband was in Vietnam, and one of the biggest problems there was that it was hard to differentiate between soldiers and civilians. Many civilians actively supported and participated with the Viet Cong, to the extent where many American soldiers were suspicious of everyone, even the people they were brought in to protect.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in terrible losses of life, but many people who lived during that era, including my Dad, an artillery lieutenant who was waiting in a Seattle airport to leave for Asia when the bombs hit, believe that many more lives would have been lost, civilian and soldier, American and Japanese, had the war not been ended so decisively.

I feel as if all I can do is to pray for our leaders, for their safety and that they be given the good judgment to do what is best for our country and the world.

[mshawpyle]

Originally posted by MrsNormanMaine

Afghanistan is known as 'the graveyard of armies' for good reason. Every great power for the last few thousand years that's gone to war there has lost badly. It's not possible to fight a conventional ground war in that terrain.

How do we prevent any violent operation from hurting the innocent? Can we? If it does, won't this just create the conditions that will create new pro-Taliban/anti-American sentiments that others will use to fan new terrorist acts?

1. I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Once first rank leadership was applied, under Lord Roberts, the British quite successfully executed operations in and imposed a permanent, though tetchy, political settlement upon, Afghanistan: one that stood through both World Wars, even when British and Imperial resources were stretched to the utmost. Previous failures were failures of generalship. The Afghans are traditionally tough, yes, but they've met their match before. (For example, the very prospect of facing Gurkhas causes them to flee.)

2. It is not possible of course to guarantee absolute civilian immunity in and from military operations. The use of one's best efforts is all that the ethics of a just war requires, if that is the concern. If the concern is purely prudential, one can only point out that operations that result,

first, in making the less fanatic (those still capable of a rational calculus, which is likely to include state supporters) find the price of support unbearable, and which thus degrades or asymptotically destroys the terrorist's capacity to project force, and

second, in decapitating the C3I structure of the fanatics,

is well worth doing and will, in fact, as it has historically, eliminate the power of the terrorists, regardless of their will. Frankly, if their power is destroyed, we need not concern ourselves - from a security perspective - with their will, which is then a matter to be addressed politically. (Note: pace von Clausewitz - as Keegan has pointed out - politics and war are discontinuous.)

[erik_kosberg]

in decapitating the C3I structure of the fanatics

A translation for those who may not have heard of it before: C3I stands for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence.

[Redlass]

Help me with my fuzzy memory here:

Did not the Mongols under Genghis Khan also defeat Afghanistan? Or am I mixing them up with their Rus neighbors to the north?

Here is the question that has kept me awake at night: Will the American people be able to stomach the use of non-conventional warfare? Bush keeps saying that no response has been ruled out yet. Yes, I recognize the need for that sort of rhetoric; you don't go into a war telling the enemies which options you have or have not ruled out.

Can we live with another nuclear attack on our consciences? Afghanistan is a mountainous land. We could probably do an attack without hurting their neighbors and our allies.

What about biological warfare? Would we engage in that?

[hadassahchana[$]]

What about biological warfare? Would we engage in that?

Isn't that covered under the Geneva Convention? Perhaps I'm being too naive, but I didn't think it was an option.

Cindy

[hadassahchana[$]]

Chemical and bacteriological weapons

On many occasions, the General Assembly has recommended that States which have not yet acceded to the 1925 Protocol on the prohibition in war of asphyxiating and poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare, should do so.

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction was commended by the Assembly in 1972, was opened for signature in 1972, and entered into force in 1975.

States which are Parties to the Convention undertake never to develop, produce, stockpile, acquire or retain "microbial or other biological agents or toxins . . . that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes" or "weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict". The Convention also provides for the destruction or conversion to peaceful purposes of such agents and weapons.

The conclusion of a convention prohibiting the development, production and stockpiling of all chemical weapons and their destruction, the Assembly decided in 1978, was one of the most urgent tasks of the international community.

I found this and other interesting information at the website of The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Cindy

[AmyLEnsor]

Originally posted by cristina1
I am not a violent person, and do not condone violence. But, there is a time and place where one must fight back. Although with war, innocent people get killed, we must face the reality of the situation. Innocent people ARE already getting killed. Every single day. All around the globe.

Tina, I agree with you. I think we have to do something and the non-violent approach would not work (in my opinion). The issues are complex and there are no easy answers.