9.22.2001
An ass. ;-)
posted by dyts @ 9:39:00 AM
9.19.2001
Okay, three things, numbered so i won't forget any of them.
1) On a lighter note, my b-day party is on October 20th. Emily and Joe, I'll give Deb invitations for Emily and for Emilyto give to Joe. Plotz, an invitation should reach you through lil. Email me anyone who still has questions.
2) I'm starting to agree with Plotz. Now that it becomes clear that this was bin Laden, and that the Taliband is going to keep him and by doing so are supporting his actions, the parallels drawn to WWII, which i earlier considered to be not quite accurate, are coming closer and closer to being accurate. Damn. But, if that's the case, i do think we were right to go to war in WWII, i hesitate to label that decision moral or immoral, but i think it was a good decision. Then i guess i think we should go to war. I don't want civilians to die, and i've never experienced war, so i shudder to think at the prospect of our nation at war, but its see to me that it is becoming neccessary. Not in the sense of just making the country a crater or anything like that, but in the sense of eliminating the terrorists, bin Laden particularly, and anyone who helps them, with as little loss of civilians as possible. I think at least some form of retaliation is neccessary, but i'm not quite sure what form it ought to take.
3) What was number 3 again? Damn
1) On a lighter note, my b-day party is on October 20th. Emily and Joe, I'll give Deb invitations for Emily and for Emilyto give to Joe. Plotz, an invitation should reach you through lil. Email me anyone who still has questions.
2) I'm starting to agree with Plotz. Now that it becomes clear that this was bin Laden, and that the Taliband is going to keep him and by doing so are supporting his actions, the parallels drawn to WWII, which i earlier considered to be not quite accurate, are coming closer and closer to being accurate. Damn. But, if that's the case, i do think we were right to go to war in WWII, i hesitate to label that decision moral or immoral, but i think it was a good decision. Then i guess i think we should go to war. I don't want civilians to die, and i've never experienced war, so i shudder to think at the prospect of our nation at war, but its see to me that it is becoming neccessary. Not in the sense of just making the country a crater or anything like that, but in the sense of eliminating the terrorists, bin Laden particularly, and anyone who helps them, with as little loss of civilians as possible. I think at least some form of retaliation is neccessary, but i'm not quite sure what form it ought to take.
3) What was number 3 again? Damn
posted by Jane @ 4:19:00 PM
9.18.2001
Last month i picked up a book at my local takoma park book store called A Guide to Conscientious (sp) OBjectors. While I read it, I thought, this is really funny, but kinda useless 'cause nobody will ever have to worry about avoiding the draft again. I actually thought it was humorous that the book had become (in my eyes) outdated. And I wondered if they would ever print another edition of it, or if they just wouldn't bother. I wish I could still laugh when I look at that book.
posted by Jane @ 8:22:00 PM
How does one change one's nickname for blogger, anyhow? I remember looking for the ol' button in the Team area and not finding it the first time Joe mentioned it.
posted by dyts @ 11:34:00 AM
I think all we can hope at this stage of things is that other people make the right choices given their alternatives, and that we make the right choices given ours.
I hope and believe things have changed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I mentioned weapons of massive destruction to illustrate what I saw as the ultimate extension of certain pro-war positions. I am glad that no one here would be in favor of using them.
I'm going to try not to post anything here on the subject of a potential war after this, since I don't think we've managed to change each other's minds much, despite all this discussion. I know I moved further over to the antiwar side, but that's pretty much it. Life continues, death continues, and no matter what may happen in the future, what you and I personally think has little to no influence on present governmental decisions regarding a possible war. I'm not trying to be defeatist or pessimistic, and one thing I really detest is people who really don't care about what's happening now and what may happen in the future. I tell you that we're all friends here and you know it. But I'm tired of arguing and thinking arguing and it's the truth.
I hope and believe things have changed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I mentioned weapons of massive destruction to illustrate what I saw as the ultimate extension of certain pro-war positions. I am glad that no one here would be in favor of using them.
I'm going to try not to post anything here on the subject of a potential war after this, since I don't think we've managed to change each other's minds much, despite all this discussion. I know I moved further over to the antiwar side, but that's pretty much it. Life continues, death continues, and no matter what may happen in the future, what you and I personally think has little to no influence on present governmental decisions regarding a possible war. I'm not trying to be defeatist or pessimistic, and one thing I really detest is people who really don't care about what's happening now and what may happen in the future. I tell you that we're all friends here and you know it. But I'm tired of arguing and thinking arguing and it's the truth.
posted by dyts @ 11:31:00 AM
9.17.2001
There's nothing like rereading All Quiet on the Western Front to bring home the horror of war. Knocks me flat every time.
posted by dyts @ 3:48:00 PM
And where is Dresden on that list? How many casualties there?
posted by dyts @ 3:40:00 PM
No one was trying to belittle the sacrifices made by those who lived through, by those who fought and suffered and killed and died, in WWII. But I do not think you can justify a war ahead of time by comparing it to other, past wars, Sims. If you believe a ground war and occupation of Afghanistan would be the best course of action given all alternatives, so be it. It is true that the US currently appears to have allies (rather hesitant ones in some cases, hedging on various important demands), but, as you remember from 5th-period history class, the future is iffy unless the realpolitik of the last couple of centuries really does take a turn for Wendell Wilkie-style One Worldism. And believe me, no one wants it more than I. Also from history class (no, I don't consider Mr. Hines the be-all and end-all source of knowledge, but he raised important questions that day): in my earlier post, I was trying to communicate the fact that it will make it that much harder for the US without fellow superpower allies. Remember (Mr. Hines again! my goodness!) that only when diplomacy doesn't work does one turn to war. Also, I don't quite understand your #4, Sims. Explain?
posted by dyts @ 3:38:00 PM
(sarcasm warning)
btw- knocking down leftist governments in Central America and trying to install pro-American governments was definitely not a success, and handily managed to knock stability silly for quite a while. Ask the Sandinistas. And, on the other side of the world, Laos. And Cambodia. Think of the Khmer Rouge. Laos and Cambodia are still down for the count. Oh, you say, but at least those countries are too poor and too drug-ridden for anyone 'round there to hijack our planes and kill thousands of civilians. Is that what people want for Afghanistan, too?
(end sarcasm)
Aaah. I must be more bitter than I thought. I know we all want the best for those who suffer, for the U.S., for the Afghans, for ourselves. But our opinions on how to obtain it differ so widely in some cases that, unfortunately, there's no way they can be reconciled.
btw- knocking down leftist governments in Central America and trying to install pro-American governments was definitely not a success, and handily managed to knock stability silly for quite a while. Ask the Sandinistas. And, on the other side of the world, Laos. And Cambodia. Think of the Khmer Rouge. Laos and Cambodia are still down for the count. Oh, you say, but at least those countries are too poor and too drug-ridden for anyone 'round there to hijack our planes and kill thousands of civilians. Is that what people want for Afghanistan, too?
(end sarcasm)
Aaah. I must be more bitter than I thought. I know we all want the best for those who suffer, for the U.S., for the Afghans, for ourselves. But our opinions on how to obtain it differ so widely in some cases that, unfortunately, there's no way they can be reconciled.
posted by dyts @ 12:26:00 AM
And yet, thinking back to what I said earlier about the rape of Nanjing, the US didn't enter the Pacific theater for that reason either. This is worth thinking about.
...
If you're implying that a war against Afghanistan would be easier for those reasons, why don't you suggest that we use the atom bomb to end the war, just as we did in Japan? Or better, why don't we "end the war" even before it begins? With a hydrogen bomb? With a neutron bomb? Eh?
I would remind all of you that (as I said earlier) Russia has already said it won't participate in a joint effort, and I would bet large amounts of money China won't either. Last time (ie. WWII), if you insist on making comparisons to "last time," the other two superpowers of the time did. That's not looking so great for the US.
Forgive the sarcasm above. This is the post-Vietnam world. This is the fratricidal Middle Eastern arena. Everything is a whole new basket of worms. Even if we do enter a war with Afghanistan and cause and suffer the terrible consequences, we need to go in with a wee bit less relish and wider eyes and a bit more compassion for everyone who will suffer. The word "war" comes from the same root as "worst."
...
If you're implying that a war against Afghanistan would be easier for those reasons, why don't you suggest that we use the atom bomb to end the war, just as we did in Japan? Or better, why don't we "end the war" even before it begins? With a hydrogen bomb? With a neutron bomb? Eh?
I would remind all of you that (as I said earlier) Russia has already said it won't participate in a joint effort, and I would bet large amounts of money China won't either. Last time (ie. WWII), if you insist on making comparisons to "last time," the other two superpowers of the time did. That's not looking so great for the US.
Forgive the sarcasm above. This is the post-Vietnam world. This is the fratricidal Middle Eastern arena. Everything is a whole new basket of worms. Even if we do enter a war with Afghanistan and cause and suffer the terrible consequences, we need to go in with a wee bit less relish and wider eyes and a bit more compassion for everyone who will suffer. The word "war" comes from the same root as "worst."
posted by dyts @ 12:10:00 AM
9.16.2001
That's just the problem, my dear dear. You can't get around the fact that a) most of the population of Afghanistan definitely does not support the Taliban and b) there are gonna be lots and lots of Afghan civilians (see a), who, as that very perceptive letter reposted at caterina.net noted, simply don't have the resources (unlike the Taliban) to run from bombs or just about anything else, and are thus going to bear the brunt of any assault, land or air, on Afghanistan. And so thousands upon thousands upon perhaps millions of Afghans will die, probably without even having the dubious consolation of believing what bin Ladin and friends (who will be laughing, having dodged the assault handily, due to the fact that they control any riches that are left in Afghanistan) believe. Is there a better solution? I don't know. Russia has refused to pledge military aid, and meanwhile Iran has closed its borders to terrified Afghan refugees (the latter considered a good sign for the US, but it sure doesn't help the Afghan civilians). But it doesn't lie in mocking those who suffer for the Afghans, as well as the American soldiers, who will die.
posted by dyts @ 11:52:00 PM
It definitely does bother me that commentators are already calling it a war when no shots have been fired. Then again, the attacks did result in more casualties on US soil than, well, anything you can shake a stick at. But the usage of the word makes it seem all the more, well, inevitable. Aaah.
posted by dyts @ 10:10:00 PM
One more thing that really angered me was the lads and lassies standing around with signs saying, "America Reaps What It Sows" with respect to the terrorist attacks. Apparently they were globalization protesters who saw the attacks, as, well, a just harvest. I did a study of globalization's effects on Zimbabwe for TOK, and I could rant on and on about the thousands our friends were essentially spitting on. Agh. But free speech lives, as it should.
posted by dyts @ 9:18:00 PM
I don't think anybody wanted this, Joe kiddo, not even, as you say, "our dear president."
What to do? What is right?
What to do? What is right?
posted by dyts @ 9:02:00 PM
The leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan died today of injuries from a suicide bombing.
posted by dyts @ 7:43:00 PM
I think the reason no one mentions trade bans or economic isolation is that Afghanistan is already close to isolation economically (think of all the people starving, that is to say just about everyone who isn't part of the Taliban). But your writing about all that, Amy, has made the horror of war slap me fresh in the face again. I don't want war. I don't want these attacks to continue. I don't know exactly what the correct connection is to be made between these two things. I didn't wear red, white and blue on Friday when just about everyone else did, including most or all the other bivalves, because I am appalled and frankly scared out of my mind, when I really think about it, to think of a war beginning. My mother doesn't believe there will be a war at all, can't conceive of a large portion of Americans actually wanting one, and she laughed when I said I was afraid for all the people who would die. I think the majority of America has the wrong idea about all this. This terrible momentum. I don't think I can support that. So on Friday I wore black instead, for the victims who died last Tuesday and the American soldiers and Afghans who will die if there is a war.
posted by dyts @ 7:38:00 PM
By the way, Amy, I get that weird stuff with Netscape 4.61 all the time, but Joe did say earlier, in happier days, that the page just "looks like ass" in Netscape and that he can't do a whole lot about it. He did suggest that a browser update would do the trick.
posted by dyts @ 7:33:00 PM
Of course prayer means something that can't actually be communicated to those who don't believe in God (or who don't believe in the efficacy of prayer, ie. certain pantheists and other folks who don't believe in a personal God who pays attention to individual concerns). However, I think focusing so much on the prayer aspect of what should be both prayer and remembrance does leave some people out who sincerely mourn those dead and missing and honor the rescue workers and who share the pain of the survivors, as if they wouldn't want to stop to remember those suffering as well. I guess it's hard in some ways to include folks in a ritual when they don't actually believe in the ritual, although I was thinking that it really wouldn't take much effort to address "All those who love America" or "All those who suffer with us in this time of tragedy" rather than "People of faith." It's hard. However, I do think public prayer has a place in times like this, even by public officials if they are so moved. I don't know, I just saw them as wearing their "individual" hats, so to speak, rather than their "official" hats. Separation of church and state is robust enough that it can withstand something like this, particularly since one can't deny that those who are praying for the suffering and the dead have the best of intentions.
posted by dyts @ 5:17:00 PM
Joe, in response to your point... It seems to me that, although there are many good counterpoints to the whole idea of retaliation, which have been earlier noted many times, retaliation might have at least a slight deterance value. Despite the fact that a suicide pilot has no interest in the saving of their own life, learning that their actions will, inevitably, cause the destruction of their entire nation, the death of their family, the people they love, the country and the faith they are fighting for. Its a weak arguement in some ways, and has some flaws, such as the death of so many innocents. However, as horrible as it sounds, it might, might, prevent future attacks. I don't know that i would agree with the idea of retaliation at all, and certainly not in such an unneccessarily violent and destructive manner, but i was just trying to present both sides of the issue. One important merit of the retaliation arguement is that it quenches the huge american thirst for revenge. The feelings of such an overwhelming percentage of americans, even if their do not include me in their numbers, will not go un noticed and will have an impact on how our country decides to act. That's all i meant.
By the way, for those of you noting the number of sentimental little ditties created around this tragedy, madonna has joined their numbers, with a sickening ( and, i would say, in poor taste ) tune. Whatever.
By the way, for those of you noting the number of sentimental little ditties created around this tragedy, madonna has joined their numbers, with a sickening ( and, i would say, in poor taste ) tune. Whatever.
posted by Jane @ 4:11:00 PM
I've been thinking for a while how painfully coincidental (there's a better word for it in another language, but a transliteration probably wouldn't help anyway) that my Extended Essay is, among other things, a study of a novel about perceived terrorists, justification for hatred of life, and the search for reasons behind evildoing.
posted by dyts @ 2:05:00 PM
I don't think anyone would disagree that WWII turned out to be a necessary war. In fact, I knew everyone would cite WWII as counterevidence. However, going into the war, the US turned a blind eye to the Nazi massacres of Jews (for example, a European businessman tried again and again to persuade the US to follow up on what he had found and presented them), and in fact, tested propaganda with content on the anti-Semitic aspect of Nazism on focus groups, who responded negatively. And so the government decided that anti-Semitism in the country was too strong for them to focus more on Nazi persecution of Jews and left it at that, until the war in Europe ended and the world saw the horror unveiled. It was not because the US wanted to save the millions being killed that it entered WWII.
I believe that people tend to neglect the Japanese aspect of WWII as well. I actually believe that WWII could have been justified just by the horror of the actions the Japanese were taking to obtain their "Co-Prosperity Sphere." Remember the rape of Nanjing.
...
I didn't actually see Mr. Hines' attitude as that, Joe. I believe that he said the killing of innocents wasn't okay (example of very iffy action: the bombing of Dresden in WWII) but that sometimes evils must be weighed against other evils. He believes that terrorist actions against the US will escalate unless war commerces. I am speaking here only for Mr. Hines.
I believe that people tend to neglect the Japanese aspect of WWII as well. I actually believe that WWII could have been justified just by the horror of the actions the Japanese were taking to obtain their "Co-Prosperity Sphere." Remember the rape of Nanjing.
...
I didn't actually see Mr. Hines' attitude as that, Joe. I believe that he said the killing of innocents wasn't okay (example of very iffy action: the bombing of Dresden in WWII) but that sometimes evils must be weighed against other evils. He believes that terrorist actions against the US will escalate unless war commerces. I am speaking here only for Mr. Hines.
posted by dyts @ 9:22:00 AM