...with the media attention it's hard to believe that there
is anyone who needs reminding what tomorrow is. Please,
if you can, take a moment to give thanks for what we have
and to remember what we have lost and what there is to come.

I hope no one here takes this the wrong way, but.... I wonder if the ammount of attention that has been placed on 9-11 in the recent weeks has, to some extent, validated the attack in the eyes of those that committed it. In some ways it is like the kid that acts up to get attention, or the bully that picks on other children - if everyone ignores their actions, then they will stop doing it.

Having said that, obviously we must spend a moment to remember those that where lost and those that lost loved ones. I just hope that the media hype surrounding events does not encourage others to take similar action in the future.

peace

Those who committed this act didn't need any validation from us. They were already convinced they were doing right, no matter how sick and twisted that may be. In any case, I don't see how memorializing the victims would provide any "validation" for the terrorists. JMHO

I don't think this particular act of terrorism was a political gesture meant to attract attention and possibly sympathizers (if such a thing is possible). This was an unmitigated act of hatred and aggression. I agree that terrorists should not be negotiated with, and I do agree that the media (as is typical) is squeezing every ounce of life out of this thing. However, terrorists do need to be dealt with in the most decisive way possible and eliminated. Ignoring them in the hopes that they will go away sadly is not an option.

I totally agree that we should deal with terrorists promptly and decisively, what I meant is that their actions should be minimally reported in the media. This way it is much harder for them to gain sympathy/support from other people.

I didn't mean to suggest that we dont memorialize the victims, rather that we (ie the media) focus on the victims, rather than the event.

It's impossible to not report on something tht affected the lives of so many. This isn't some teenager streaking across a baseball field trying to gain attention. This is an event where thousands of lives, of many nationalities, were lost. To just ignore it would be a greater injustice. The damamge is already done. We're not going to create greater damage by focusing on those who gave their lives.

These were not cowards.
 

In order to understand our enemy or the things that are against our country or way of life, I think we need to take the words "cowardly" out of it. What happen a year ago was not cowardly, it was just evil. Cowards do not blow themselves up for causes anytime. These people believed strongly in what they did and will do in the future. In order to fight that kind of evil, to call these individuals cowards might be understating the fight we have in front of us. If we think we are dealing with just fanatics or cowards, we might thing this "war" might be a bit easier then what we think. I am all for going after the people that perpretrated this action on the United States and I am all for fighting to the end, but let us understand that this fight is much more about religion or economic policy. This is more about a philosophy of worlds and how the colide. If we do not understand the enemy, we might not be able to ever defeat it.

Peace

Personally, I don't believe that too much media attention can be placed on this event. 3,000 lives were lost on that day. Not since the Civil War have so many died in one day on American soil. Not since Pearl Harbor has such an evil, unprovoked attack taken place against America. The difference is that these Americans did not go to war or to their post that day. They went to work.

Perhaps we have seen the plane fly into the building, the Towers fall, the Pentagon on fire, and the crater left by the heroic acts of those on Flight 93 so often that we have become desensitized to it. Today has been a day of reflection and in many ways, at least for myself, a day to remember that for which we are fighting. It has been a day to remember why we must be vigilant to stand against those who would use senseless acts of terrorism such as these to strike against freedom.

Please forgive my rant, but it has been cathartic.

Sorry, but you are obviously missing my point.

Firstly, I'm not saying don't report what has happened - I am saying carefully consider the way it is being reported. Make sure that the media doesn't sensationalise it.

Secondly, I am concerned that the media frenzy surround Sept 11 may encourage others to try something similar in the future - it may plant the seeds of the idea in them.

Finally Mike (and others) - I agree we should remember the innocent people that died, but what about remembering the thousands that have died in the past. What of the civilians that died in the bombings in WWII (both Allied & Axis), what about the thousands that have died in flooding in China this year, or the thousands dieing of AIDS every year in Africa?

Oh and Rut - you're right, they aren't cowards - they are fanatics and their belief structure is unfathomable (sp?) and abhorrent to many people (including myself). To be able to fight these people it must be remembered that for them, dieing does not mean losing.

Anyway, this is all I have to say about this. It was a horrific event - sincerely I hope that it is never repeated and my heart goes out to anyone that lost a friend or loved one.

I can't let the comments concerning courage go by unchallenged.

By all measures through history the premeditated killing
of unarmed, uninvolved civilians has never been anything
short of murder. Period. This goes for uniformed
combatants and double for non-uniformed. It is only
recently that some have taken to calling these acts
couragous. This might be due to the wave of moral relativism that has swept us up recently - one mans
terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, it all depends on
what the meaning of "is" is, etc. It was not so long ago
that the attack on Pearl Harbor was described as "cowardly"
for very obvious reasons, as was our atrocities at Mai Lai.
How low have we fallen when people can say with a straight
face that using a commercial airliner as a guided missile to
attack office buildings is an act of courage.

I have nothing left to say on this, maybe it's time this thread was closed.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Sep 12th, 2002 at 08:10 AM]

This is, of course, what got Bill Mahr fired by ABC. Oh, they didn't do it right away. Heaven forbid it should look like a network is hindering free speech. But anyone with any sense knew he was simply wrong.

The fact that the hijackers did not show fear does not make them courageous, nor any less cowardly. It just makes them cold-blooded, vicious murderers.

Chuck

Just an opinion.
 

I think you guys missed the point.

If we think we are dealing with cowards, then we might be completely underestimate the enemy. No one said anything about them having courage, but they surely are not cowards. Cowards back down from confrontation, not give their lives for things they believe in.

Bill like me do not call these individuals or any individual that gives their lives for anything cause a coward. They died too. So did the suicide bombers in Israel or the ones that hit many targets all over the world. Just because we do not agree with the actions does not mean it is cowardly. I do not consider what the Japanesse government as cowardly. No more cowardly than what we did in the Gulf war or bombings of Iraq that we did. Japan just like us bombed a country with their interests in mind. In both cases both seemed to fail becuase neither attempt dismantled the governments they were trying to destroy. Actually Pearl Harbor strenghtend our resolve and turned up the heat, and our actions against Iraq under Bush Sr and Clinton have strengthend the resolve of Iraq and Suddam Hussian is still there.


If they are cowards then to me they would lay down when we attack or confront them. All our actions have done is raise their resolve. If we think they will lay down because we threaten them or confront them, we might be in over our heads. We must understand that they are playing for keeps. Are we willing to do all of this when our children come back home in body bags and we are all not sure why we are doing what we have set out? It seems like they will take several casualties and not blink. I am sorry, I cannot call that cowardly by any definition.

Either way we are in for an enourmous fight. Calling them cowards we might be doing our side the biggest deserves.

Just one opinion.

Peace

Lets not limit the definition of cowardly to just yours.
It is also considered cowardly to shoot someone in the back or to sucker punch someone when they are not looking(maybe good metaphors for what happened at Pearl or 911). As for your comparison of Pearl and the Gulf War what a load of crap! Japan bombed us with no prior declaration of war or warning of war. In both the Gulf and Afaghanastan the Governments were given far warning of our intentions and given an opportunity to go another way. Todays Americans
have truly forgotten or are unwilling to pay the price of the freedom, and that is blood. You cannot reason or negotiate with your enemies you must kill them(that is war)
The casulties of the last 2 wars would not even rate a headline in the wars of the past. If we were fighting WWII
today the concern over body bags would lead to half of us learning to say heil Hitler and the other half heading for the ovens.

To PaulK1
 

If I learned anything from my degree in Political Science, is that is that in political discussions are based on theory and ideals sometimes more than fact. This conversation is no different. It is just how you look at the situation. ;)

Peace

let me paraphrase others:

Our fighters are willing to die for our country and beliefs
Taliban spokesman


I never saw anybody win a war by dying for their country,
you win a war by making the other ******* die for his.
George Patton

Re: To PaulK1
 

Maybe you should have gotten a degree in ethics instead, since what we are discussing has nothing to do with
politics. The concept of courage has a strong component of
moral intent. Immoral acts are never couragous. Morality
is never relative.

Suurrreeee it is
 

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Maybe you should have gotten a degree in ethics instead, since what we are discussing has nothing to do with politics. The concept of courage has a strong component of moral intent. Immoral acts are never couragous. Morality is never relative.

Sure, this has absolutely nothing to do with politics. ;) ;) ;)

Tell that to the President and the Congress and I will believe what you say.

Peace

Re: Suurrreeee it is
 

In fact this has nothing to do with politics or any form of
government. Sadly you are incapable of understanding such basic human ideas as morality or ethics, or for that matter
anything outside of your immediate experience. Your focus
is on the mundane, your ideas are trivial.

It is all about politics. Everything that happen on September 11th and before and after is about politics. Not because I say it is, because it is.

When President Bush speaks, it is about politics. When President Clinton Spoke on Letterman, it was about Politics. When Israel goes after the Palestinians, it is about politics. If we go to war, it will be about politics.

People from 84 countries died in the World Trade Center. They did not hit the Statue of Liberty. They did not attack the Sears Tower. The World Trade Center Bombing years before was not because it was just in the United States, it was hit then and on September 11th because it was a symbol. It was the <b>WORLD TRADE CENTER!!!</b> This attack was symbolic of a way of life, not just about people that were in a building. We are infidels to these people not because of our religious affliction, we are infidels because of our economic policy. We are because of out political system. We are infidels because of our freedom. Sorry my friend, it is all about politics to them and us. You are right it is not simple, nothing in life worth understanding is. But it sure is not just about courage or cowardly behavior.

You ask our President and our representatives if that is trival. We are not talking about going to war with Iraq over trival issues.

You will learn soon enough. ;)

Peace

When Israel goes after the Palestinians - it is about security and safety for their people and their lives...if we go after Saddam, it will be for the same reason...read the Preamble to the Constitution - "provide for the common defense"...if that is your definition of "politics" and the political game, so be it...I happen to think it is common sense. We know they are planning something again...let's get them before they can pull off another 9-11...and please don't call them "suicide bombers" because that glorifies what they are doing - murdering innocent women and children who have never done anything to harm them...that is not courage by any definition...good grief!

I'll throw my two cents in!

Whether this is about politics, religion, what was the worst war ever discussion. Plain and simple this was a devastating act against mainly innocent people!

I am in the military and have been for twenty years, Desert Storm and now this, to me it is no different, I do what the President tells me to do (or my superiors).

Whatever words are being used in this thread, have at it complain about who's opinion is better or more right. The people that are doing that are spending way to much energy instead of doing something productive about it. Like telling a cop or a firemen or a Armed forces person that you stand behind them. I lost a friend on 9-11.
So whatever ya call it. It was a horrific event that i would not want repeated.

If you want to debate with me on this don't!!! Spend your time thanking people who are trying to make the Country we live safe.

Enough Said!

AK ref SE

Courage??
 

I see people are just as uptight about this discussion as any other.

The reality about this discussion is it is just that, a discussion. We are talking about political issues, moral issues and deep rooted values.

I think people need to go back and read the words that I said about this to begin with (rocky) and see I never said a thing about courage of people that took plane into a building. Just because you are not a coward does not make you courageous. It might mean you are just evil and murderous. It could even mean that you are just cold hearted and spinless.

Many of us lost people that we knew or associated with in the World Trade Center. My Mother had a childhood friend and collegue lost her sister in the building in New York. They never found her body or any remains to identify. Just just vanashed from the building like she was never there. Now you tell me what I think of the actions in New York. :(

But that is why I love these discussions and we need to have further discussions about this on this board and in many other places. Because when we go to fight this war and more bodies come back to this country for this war, I sure hope this country knows why. Better yet, I hope this country is on the same page of what we are fighting for and what we are dying for. Rocky you are correct we should and can protect ourselves from hostile enemies, but I do not see how Saddam Hussian is going to help what happen in NY, Washington or Pennsylvania. But either way we better understand what type of enemy we are fighting, because when more and more bodies come home to the United States, that we do not wavier like Vietnam (which I have relatives that served). This is not like the Gulf War, things might be more messy if we go all the way to Baghdad (sp?).

Peace

Isn't this a basketball officals board? I love the political discussion and all, but what if A is dribbling down the court, and as he his going out of bounds he is flashed by a cheerleader. He passes the ball to a teammate before landing on the coach's grandmother, sitting in her wheel chair and enjoying a Beam and Coke in a public school gym. The teammate is the process of shooting when the electricity goes out, and when the lights come back on someone has stolen the mascots head and put it on the shooters left foot, who is lying on the floor after being hit in the head with a large salmon and the shot went in because you could hear the swish of the net in the dark......

Seriously, though, topics can be debated without the emotion. Is this about politics, YES. There are two societies who have diametrically opposed reasons for existance. One believes in freedom and liberty, the other does not. It this a moral issues, YES. The politics of the situation led to a morally reprehensible decision by the terrorists. Should we bomb Iraq and their buddies into the stone age, YES. I think we bomb a big enough crater that we can fill it with water and have a small inland sea or really big bass lake, which ever comes first.

Rut, I do have to disagree with you on one point. Sometimes, as the country we are, we have to stand up for what is right. Not because it is politically expedient, but because the world is a better place because we do. Politics or not, the world is NOT a better place with people like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Sadam Hussein and Yassir Arafat in it. They all have show a blatant disregard for human life. If they are so high on the status of martyrdom, then the only neighborly thing to do is arrange the meeting for them.

[Edited by Sleeper on Sep 13th, 2002 at 12:00 PM]

And what, exactly, does all that have to do with wether or not B3 was being closely guarded by A4???

True, true, true.
 

The only thing you and I disagree about, is that we disagree. Of course we have to do something. Well maybe we do disagree about how it should happen but I never have said do nothing. And even with the world without all those leaders you state, we do not know who is behind them or their beliefs. Considering the history of that region and those groups, we might be in bigger trouble if they leave. But then again, that is another opinion that many hold.

God Bless us all. :D

Peace

I have always held that people like you should have their opinions listened to very closely because they are putting their life on the line for me and my family. I have a brother-in-law in the military so I don't make this comment lightly...I hope he tells you to go kick their ***!

Also, as far as I'm concerned we are at the point that why they did it is irrelevant.

THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO!!!!

Re: Dan_fef
 

What the? Morality is <b>always</b> relative. The definition of morality according to HyperDic (http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/m/morality.htm) is:
<i>Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong. Right or good conduct.</i>

What defines good and evil or right and wrong? Culture, religion, age, race, gender, all determine an individuals concept of right and wrong, and therefore morals.

Is it immoral/wrong to eat pork - I say no, a Jew would say yes. Is drinking alcohol immoral - again I say no, a Muslim would say yes. How about corporal punishment of children (ie smacking) - some people consider this immoral - others support it. Eating meat? Vegans would definitely say this is immoral. Is slavery immoral? The average American in the 1800's would have said no.

I agree that for an action to be corageous it must be moral justifiable, however an act that is immoral is not neccessarily cowardly. It is dolphins and porpoises. All dolphins are porpoises, not all porpoises are dolphins.

fianl thoughts
 

Two final thoughts on this discussion -

The war with Iraq - is it fair to kill thousands of innocent civilans for the actions of their government/military. I wholeheartedly support action against terrorists and the governments that support terrorism.

Finally, the question from many people in Australia (an other nations outside of the US) is "Who made the US the policeman for the world?" Why does the US constantly preach the wonders of democracy, yet at the same time refuse to listen to the decisions handed down by the UN?

This comment is not meant as an attack on any American, it is simply intended to highlight the hypocrisy of governments in general (truth be told, Australia is not much better - but being smaller, we get less focus).

Re: fianl thoughts
 

Quite frankly, yes.

First off, the only reason there would be immense civilian casualty is because Hussein is known to use his own citizens as shields - any ethical responsibility is on him in that case.

Second, any loss of life is far outweighed by the death toll were Iraq to actually use a WMD. If we do not act and then get attacked by Iraq, everyone will be complaining that the U.S. should have done something.

Everyone else in the world did by sitting back and refusing to act on things. To paraphrase Madeline Albright, we seem to be the only ones in the world with any cojones left.



To put it simply, what the United Nations says means diddly-squat. They have no authority over the United States (a soverign nation) unless we concede authority to them. It's like the student government at my school - the students (UN) can suggest and critique all they want, but the administration (US) doesn't have to listen to an ounce of it.


That's it for me on this subject - I prefer basketball so much more :D

BTW, if I ever start discussing the relativity of morality, STOP ME!!!

Re: Re: Dan_fef
 

Most of the examples you give here are not morality. They
are dogma:

1.A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an
authoritative manner by a church.

Morality encompasses those behaviors which we can agree
upon as good or evil simply because they uphold or violate
basic rights we all have as humans. Murder (not killing),
rape, and yes, slavery. Can we say that eating pork
violates some basic human right and is evil? No. Can we
agree that premeditated murder, rape or slavery is evil?
Of course we can. Maybe by these simple examples you can see
what I mean.

BTW, it's not so clear that the average American in the
1800's would have agreed with you. Most Americans living
in "the North" would disagree. Most Americans living in
"the South" were not well off enough to own slaves. Anyway,
there was a huge war fought to settle this and other related
matters. Mnay people died simply because they did not
agree with your assertion.

OZ
 

You have to understand that Americans are very arrogant. We think we do no wrong and the world is so evil. We spend more time talking about the injustices all over the world and cannot see that the world questions our decisions or policies. We see Israel as competely clean, but look at the Arabs as completely evil. If I am not mistaken, Israel has killed many innocent people over the region, but we do not call that terroism. We have an American flag wavied on the same truck with a Confedrate flag (representing a Confederacy that we defeated in war mind you), but question the loyalty of an Arab that wears clothes or looks like a "terrorist" all based on their religion.

Understand that not all people in America look at the Stars and Stripes the same way. I can tell show you an association that when 9-11 happen, almost entirely did not support Officials wearing the American Flag on our arm like the other associations.

Trust me, not all in America agrees with what happen, why it happen and what to do about it. Better yet, not everyone is in support of this President. If this country has greatness, that is the part that makes it great.

Peace

Re: fianl thoughts
 

Being a policeman has nothing to do with it. Iraq poses a threat to the US and our allies. We will defend what ourselves and our allies against such a nemesis. Are you telling us that Australia doesn't wish to be an ally of the US?

For thousands of years, civilians have a been a casuality of war. You make it sound like we go out of our way to kill anyone in our way. What a uninformed and uneducated state of mind. Your posts betray you. You're obviously very anti-American. Yet, I wonder.

I wonder who Australia would come running to for help if they were attacked by Iraq, or any other terrorist nation? And I wonder if your feelings would change if they ran to US?

Good night.

Give us all a break.
 

This is the most intellegent thing you have ever said. Anyone that questions the "Mighty United States of America" is anti-American and uneducated. Great post Tony.

Peace

Re: Re: fianl thoughts
 

Explain to me exactly how Iraq is a direct threat to the USA. Will America be invaded by the Iraqi army? Will Iraq launch a military strike on Iraq? Some cynics would argue that America is more concerned with a threat to the supply of petroleum.

Yes I would like Australia to remain an ally of America.

Does America go out of its way to kill civilians during wars? Do the words Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything to you? Look at Vietnam - invading a country to fight on "behalf" of a people that didn't want you.

Uneducated and uniformed? Why? Because my views differ to yours? I'm sorry I didn't realise that your opinion was the only correct one.

Am I anti-American? No. Do I think that America gets carried away by their own importance? Yes. Do I object to politicans (especially those of other nations) telling me how to act, think and feel? Yes.

How would I feel if Iraq attacked Australia? Well besides suprised, I would expect Australia's allies to come to our defence. However, thus far, I have not seen any indication that Iraq has committed an act of war against another nation - correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you will :))

The fact remains - the government of America is always the first to jump up and complain about other countries - whether it be their human rights record, trade agreements or lack of democracy. But as soon as another country (or the UN) criticises the USA all hell breaks loose. Again, the word hypocritical springs to mind.

Re: OZ
 

Rut,

It's not often on this board that I have said this - but I agree with you completely.

The other thing I have found is that the majority of Americans have difficulty differentiating between critisicm of the American Government and of America.

I love America - any nation that can create such great sports (gridiron, basketball), music (jazz, hip-hop), art, educational facilities, that can give birth to such fantastic personalities - Edison, Washinton, Martin Luther King Jnr, to name a few, is pretty good in my opinion. I simply strongly object to some of the political decisions that have been made in the past by American politicians.

And since the decisions made by American politicans affect me more than the decisions made by, say French politicians, then these are the ones that I get upset by.

OZ, I felt compelled to answer some of your questions:

Explain to me exactly how Iraq is a direct threat to the USA. Will America be invaded by the Iraqi army? Will Iraq launch a military strike on Iraq? Some cynics would argue that America is more concerned with a threat to the supply of petroleum.

**No, Iraq doesn't have the military capability to invade the US (few countries do). What Iraq does have the capability to do is supply terrorist organization with capital, from the sale of oil, and weapons, both conventional and catastrophic. Iraq has also shown the willingness to use chemical weapons, such as nerve gas, on it's own citizens. Finally, oil IS a big part of it. Iraq invaded Kuwait for oil and would have continued to other countries if not for the actions of a US-led coalition. Iraq is in continued violation of multiple UNITED NATIONS resolutions and has ignored the international community and their mandates. The fact is, without the US, the UN has no teeth. That is why time and again US troops are put in harms way to enforce UN directives.

Yes I would like Australia to remain an ally of America.

Does America go out of its way to kill civilians during wars? Do the words Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything to you? Look at Vietnam - invading a country to fight on "behalf" of a people that didn't want you.

**If you want to bring up either WWII or Vietnam, you should probably present a little more balanced view. The US, while supporting the Allied cause in Europe, stayed out of WWII. It was an unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that brought us into the war. The two atomic weapons that were dropped kept the US from having to invade the Japanese mainland, which saved tens of thousands of US lives. War is neither pretty or fair, with the goal being to save as many of your lives as possible while driving your enemy into submission. Historically, the US has yet to be an agressor in any war. Once provoked, we play to win. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is how war exists.

Vietnam was not an invasion, either. We originally went in to assist, invited, by the French and the South Vietnamese government to combat communist invasions funded largely by the Soviet Union and China (much like in Korea) and got sucked in to a police action (war) that we had no business being in. There are very few people in the US that will defend either the decision to go into Vietnam or how the war was run.

Uneducated and uniformed? Why? Because my views differ to yours? I'm sorry I didn't realise that your opinion was the only correct one.

Am I anti-American? No. Do I think that America gets carried away by their own importance? Yes. Do I object to politicans (especially those of other nations) telling me how to act, think and feel? Yes.

**Yes, you are uneducated and uninformed and I have no idea why. I don't care if you are anti-American or if you support the US, but at least get your facts straight about our role in recent conflicts. If you are going to argue a point, do so rationally and not with the same, tired emotional arguements that continue to be used.

How would I feel if Iraq attacked Australia? Well besides suprised, I would expect Australia's allies to come to our defence. However, thus far, I have not seen any indication that Iraq has committed an act of war against another nation - correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you will )

**The US would come to your aid just as quickly as we do for everyone else. Iraq has committed acts of war, against its own people in the northern part of the country, against Kuwait, Israel and Iran in recent memory. Iraq has actively funded terrorist groups that bombed the World Trade Centers (twice), several of our embassies, the hotel housing US troops in Saudi Arabia, and thousands of innocents in Israel. In addition, they continue their pursuit of atomic weapons, for which they are only a couple of years away, according to a scientist who defected (can't remember his name off hand)

The fact remains - the government of America is always the first to jump up and complain about other countries - whether it be their human rights record, trade agreements or lack of democracy. But as soon as another country (or the UN) criticises the USA all hell breaks loose. Again, the word hypocritical springs to mind.

**The FACTS are that the US has supported the UN at every step of the way, providing the millitary power that the UN needs to be legitimate. No country takes criticism particularly well, but the US bears the brunt of it internationally, mainly from Europe, who we have assisted in two major wars, rebuilding and supplying capital and support. Yes, the US doesn't take criticism well, but when all hell breaks loose, we are the first place leaders of the world come running to for help.

I don't care if you like the US, I don't care if you are anti-US. In fact, I defend your right to disagree, because that is a part of the country in which I live. However, get your information straight before you level arguements that are factually incorrect.

Re: Re: Re: fianl thoughts
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oz Referee

Quote:

... Does America go out of its way to kill civilians during wars? Do the words Hiroshima and Nagasaki mean anything to you? Look at Vietnam - invading a country to fight on "behalf" of a people that didn't want you. ...

Yeah, Hiroshma & Nagasaki mean a lot to me. In 1944/45 my
father chased the Germans across Europe, dragged along by
Patton. When his war ended he, and a lot of other men,
(and I suspect men in your family) were getting ready to go
invade Japan. It took 2 bombs to convince the emperor that
he should put down his weapons. So it's easy to believe
the estimates of millions of casualties, mostly Japanese
civilians, if the allies would have had to invade Japan.

You are obviously a bright young guy. You should invest
some time looking closely at world events in the 1930's.
Much of what went on in Europe at that time applies to
today's world picture. In 1934 Germany left the League of
Nations and began re-arming in violation of treaties from
WW1, by mid 1940 Germany had invaded and defeated Poland,
Norway, Belguim, Denmark, the Netherlands and France. You
might also want to spend some time looking into the cold
war and in particular the Vietnam war. It's completely
untrue to say the people of S Vietnam did not want support
from the non-communist block of nations, which included
proud Australian forces.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/ww2.htm
http://users.mildura.net.au/users/ma.../austinvol.htm

added this link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...417076,00.html

[Edited by Dan_ref on Sep 16th, 2002 at 10:10 AM]

Meet the Press
 

This attitude always erks me if for no other reason. We always call someone uneducated or uniformed when we do not agree with that person. Actually his views are not uneducated or uniformed at all. They are just different from your's and that is all.

If you watched "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, there was a quest that clearly stated that Iraq and the Taliban are not fighting for the same things and that the Taliban would be more of an enemy to Iraq than an allie. For one Suddam Hussian is an secular leader, not an Islamic leader. The Taliban is a political/religious organization. According to one of the guests (sorry I did not catch his name) he claimed that Iraq would be very hard pressed to give the Taliban weapons to benefit them, especially when their interests are not the same. Now this came from an individual that worked in government and in the White House and knows or understand what is going on much more than most. Would you call him uneducated or uniformed? Not everyone agrees the threat Iraq poses or it's role in terroism. Terroism is a world wide problem, not just something Iraq is responsible for. If that is the case, let us attack Saudi Arabia. Most of the highjackers came from there. But that would not fall in line with our inconsitent foreign policy.

Views that are not yours does not make someone uniformed nor uneducated, it makes them simply different. Espeically considering that we are all different races, religions, nationalities, ethnicity or political value system.

Peace

Re: Meet the Press
 

[/B][/QUOTE]

This attitude always erks me if for no other reason. We always call someone uneducated or uniformed when we do not agree with that person. Actually his views are not uneducated or uniformed at all. They are just different from your's and that is all.

If we are going to talk about attitudes which irk us, then yours would have to rate right up there...Oz used some situations and examples to try to prove his point, but -as was pointed out - he either used them badly or used them without understanding what he was talking about. Either way, he was corrected...that's not arrogant, and it certainly has nothing to do with differing opinions...he was wrong and he was corrected...he, and everyone else, is certainly entitled to their opinion about current world events - but be ready to be disagreed with if they start spouting things off the top of their heads...

I am sorry, but I disagree. To present half a story or to ignore facts is either someone deliberately purveying something as false or that person is uneducated and/or uniformed. I have no reason to believe OZ was pushing an agenda, so I assume he was uninformed. To be ignorant is not a crime, to be stupid should be.

I never mentioned religion in my post, because, while a contributing factor, it is not a definitive reason. There are many Muslims in the US and many Muslim countries we count as allies, pricipally Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I also didn't mention the Taliban as either an ally of Iraq or a terrorist organization. They were a government that used tribal and strict Islamic law to rule their country. They did, however, harbor the organization responsible for 9/11. Therefore, they were destroyed after having ample opportunity to turn over the perpetrators. The hijackers were from Saudi, but were not acting or a part of the governing body there. Foreign policy by nature is both consistent and inconsistent at the same time, consistent because our national interest are always the driving force and inconsistent because we deal with the same situations different ways because of that.

I responded to some specific assertions leveled by the poster (line by line). Please do not attribute thoughts that were not there. The poster was incorrect on a number of items, of which all can be verified. He tried to take very complex situations out of context and provide broad general conclusions. This is intellectually and academically dishonest. In addition, please don't attribute statements or thoughts to me that I didn't use. I appreciate diverse thoughts and don't mind someone who disagrees. What I don't care for is emotion and sarcasm that people try to pass for coherent thought. Believe what you want, but back it up with a rational arguement.

Finally, I am entitled to my opinion and its defense. I love my country, warts and all, and take great displeasure to its mischaracterization by persons who fail to educate themselves as to its history. That irritation is magnified when those persons originate from within our borders, especially those who whine and complain without making suggestions for improvement. Our country, as of this moment, is the global policeman. Not because we wanted the role, but because we carry the biggest stick on the block and are the only ones who can make a difference.

I guess.
 

Great attitude. I guess when they do not agree with your point, they need to be corrected. Like you are a teacher and OZ is a student. I did not realize the view of the world about America was a True or False answer. I think some of us have only been reading rulebooks and not read newspapers or read magazine articles or watching CNN or Fox News Channel if we think your view is the only one around.

I guess I will irk you some more.

Peace

Like I said - but you failed to read carefully - it has nothing to do with points of view or opinion...Oz - and you - are fully entitled to your opinion. But as Sleeper has so carefully pointed out, don't try to substantiate those points of view by inaccurately quoting facts or examples...that is NOT a matter of opinion...and actually I am a teacher - and while Oz may not be one of my students, he did need to be corrected and was...again, it is not a matter of my opinion being right or his wrong - as I said before - and you failed to read - he is entitled to his opinion...just don't use misrepresentations to support it...

Sleeper it is called a viewpoint.
 

Just because a viewpoint does not go along with what you think is right or wrong, does not make it right or wrong. Oz or anyone is not at all wrong, or nor do they need to be corrected. The world does not look at September 11, 2001 and what lead up to it the same. How we even handle it is not viewed the same either. I think we need to all keep these things in mind when we disagree with someone's values about this issue.

Peace

History is very subjective.
 

True Rocky, everyone agrees what happen in history and how this history was developed. But then again, most here might think Thomas Jefferson and George Washinton were great men. I guess that means that all of us agree with the greatness of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. I am very sure we will have not disagreement on these men's history.

Peace

Founding fathers
 

I don't know that we can all agree that Jefferson and Washington were great men. I think that all would agree that they were men that, while flawed, did great things. They shaped a constitution that is still unique in the world that protects many freedoms we enjoy. I don't think history will be kind to President Clinton, as the information from his administration has yet to show any meaningful accomplishments. The jury should still be out on Bush, as he still has two years in his first term and much more history yet to write. He will probably go down as a middle of the road president, neither great nor bad, which is where most presidents fit.

I think you confuse the rebuttal of facts to the offering of opinion. I am of the opinion that we messed up the Vietnam war. The fact is that we were invited. I am of the opinion that the loss of life at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were monumentally sad. The fact is that the bombs dropped saved tens of thousands of US lives and brought WWII to the end. I am of the opinion that your posts tend to be caustic, arguementative, sarcastic and contrarian. The fact is you have every right to have those opinions and I defend that right vehemently.

Rut, you have a lot to share, both sports and otherwise. But much of it is lost in the way you present your information and defend your ideas and points. You have an ivory tower mentality that really makes it difficult to sift out the information. I do feel sorry for you.

By the way, my reading list is more than just the rulebook, even at this time of year. It includes the Economist, Time of London, WSJ (at times), CNN, local newspapers, Yahoo news, Drudge Report, NewsMax, WorldNet Daily and other alterative sources to give me as balanced a view of the world as possible. I have an MBA in Global Management and did my thesis on the French Influence on the EU. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am hardly the mental midget you try to portray. There are two things that I know. The first is to base what I believe on fact versus emotion and the second is that I understand that I can always learn more. I am open to other views and opinions, but there has to be more to them than just feel good and fluff. I don't believe what I do because it is convenient, I believe because I have the information that backs it up.

While this may be technically true because the US did not exist at the time, we did kinda play the agressor in one that happened in the late 1700's

And we kick their red-coated rear-ends :D

By the way, while all this has been interesting reading...what the hell do this have to do with wether that was a block or a charge?

It isinteresting to see the responses that my posts have had. I am not going to try and go through them one by one and respond - the time difference means that by the time I get back on line, I have got over 20 posts in this thread alone to catch up with.

However, a few points.

I should study the events surrounding WWII? I have a degree in Modern European History - specialising in Germany betwee 1920 and 1950 - but thanks for the tip.

Iraq is in violation to the conditions set down by the UN. This does not change the fact that the USA jumps the gun. The UN has not yet supported military action in Iraq, yet the USA has already committed to it.

The USA is the first country to support the UN when it suits them - but when the rest of the world supported Kyoto (sadly with the exception of Australia) America was didn't want to know about it.

I agree that the atomic weapons used on Japan prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of americans - they also caused the death of millions of Japanese.


I am not pushing any agenda, nor do I consider myself anti-American. I do strongly disagree with nations (or individuals) forcing (or attempting to force) their cutural, religious and economic belief structures on another person or nation. Unfortunately America seems to be one of the main offenders for doing this (have a look at Cuba).

Certainly I glossed over some points (or even failed to mention them) but that is human nature - especially when debating a hot topic. My point in all this conversation has been to try and show that America is not always on the side of the mighty, and that its opponents are not always wrong. Obviously some people here have mistaken this for an attack on America.

One suggestion for all of you is to not just base your view of the world on the American press. One of the great advantages of living in Australia is that we draw on a large multicultural base, and our media gets input from various international sources. Rather than just looking at CNN, NBC or Fox, why not watch the BBC Word Service, or Deutsche Welle. Believe me, the way that these news services broadcast events is very different to the slant put on it from American broadcasters.


Finally - as a couple of people here have already said - <b>history is subjective</B>. My father was born in Germany in 1943, and the history that he learnt in high school was radically different to the history that I was taught (and that many of you would have learnt). However, this does not mean that it is wrong - simply different.

Oh and by the way - call the travel - that way niether team is happy - but neither is overly upset :)

Re: Founding fathers
 

I think you need to look in the mirror, look at your family and look at the people around you and value their opinion. You have no clue what kind of metality that I have, because what I say here has nothing to do with real life. I do not live my life thru a computer screen. I feel sorry for people liked yourself that cannot realize that. I am pretty much like by the people around me and my family. That is what is important in life, not what anyone says here. But since we are talking about politics and values, I have every right as well as the millions of other people in this country that does not buy into your way of thinking. I am glad you think this country does no wrong, has never done any wrong and should be viewed around the world as the "Great Moral Leader." But many of us do not trust everything this government has stood for and stands for. Does not mean we hate this country, just means we do not always agree with it. And for those that want to rip me apart about that, I do not want to hear a single bad comment about our past President. Lord knows that many (I know I have heard that voiced here) are not Clinton lovers on this board. So just like those that question the morals of Clinton, I will and have questioned the morals of our current President and the decisions he might make.

I guess it is just un-American to have a different view point. Maybe someone needs to feel sorry for their own short comings.

Peace

If you want to see a more fun reaction of a team, call more charges. I love to hear them BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

Lets face it - the charge is the best/most fun call to make in basketball. Especially when the offensive player scores, and you then wave off the basket.

I can clearly remember a game I did about 10 years ago - Under 18 men's representative game (sort of Junior High equivalent).

A4 got called for a charge while shooting a lay-up, at the time his team was up by 1 and there was less than a minute to play. It was a clear cut call (IMHO), and it was also his 5th foul. He followed up by refusing to leave the court, and spiked the ball at my feet - resulting in a technical (on the bench). The assistant coach (A4's father) ran onto the court hurling abuse at me - resulting in a 2nd bench technical - and the coach being thrown out. The assistant coach became the head coach - and immediately got his 2nd T and got tossed as well.

Team B got 6 free throws and the ball back - made 5 of the six and then hit a wide open three pointer. Ended up winning the game by 5 (Team A scored once before the buzzer).

After the game, Coach A approached me - and thanked me for tossing A4 and his father (assistant) apparently he had had probs with this guy all year - but since he was the father of the star player had problems dealing with him. He was sorry that they lost, but hoped that it taught A4 a lesson. :)

1 - The comparisons between Iraq today & 1930's Germany is startling, I'm disappointed you didn't take this into
account in your criticism of US policy towards Iraq.
Here's a tip: I suggest that if your degree is in Modern European history you might want to get a refund.

2. Kyoto is a red herring. No country ratified and
implemented Kyoto in its original form. Only recently, after many changes, is it just being accepted.

3. My mother was born in London in 1930 and due to her
father's Italian citizenship they were forced to leave
England & go to northern Italy from 1940 until 1946, during
the time of the Nazi occupation. As I already mentioned my
father served in WW2. I was born and raised in NYC and count
many jewish families as friends, I personally know people
with serial numbers tatooed on their arms. There is nothing
subjective in the first person accounts of European history told to me by any of the many people I know who
lived there during this period. I also know people who
sadly claim the atrocities of WW2 never happened (they
of course do not have first hand knowledge). Are you
saying they are not wrong, but simply "different"?

Finally, when you awake you'll learn that due to the pressure put on Iraq by the US the Iraqi government has
capitulated and announced they will finally allow
weapons inspectors in, per UN resolutions. Now, use your education and imagine how different modern European
history might have been if Neville Chamberlain would have
had the guts to "jump the gun" in 1936.

I love those calls.
 

I had one that was really easy but was precieved as the game decider.

It was the easiest charge of my life. One of the big centers (home team) had a little drive to the basket and tried to go thru the other big center who was just standing there. The ball went in and I had to waive off the basket. The home side first thought I a foul on the visiting team and you could see their side go crazy. They I waive off the basket and show a charge signal and the other side went crazy. If I did not realize how powerful that call was at that point of my career, I knew after that particular one. The home coach even came to me and said, "you blew that one." I just said to him "OK" and gave my table mechanics.

One of the most fun games of my career.

Peace

Oh please...history is never , never, never subjective... yours - or mine - interpretation of history may be different, but the facts don't change...

Since when??
 

Facts according to who? I bet if we all answered why the World Trade Center was bombed, I think we would come up with several answers. The only facts are when it happen and maybe how many people died. But why and who was responsible is up for debate. Everything after that is very subjective. I guess everything they taught you in History Class was always about facts? Don't complain when the next "made for TV" movie comes about some historical event.

Peace

WHY the World Trade Center destruction happened is open to interpretation...the FACT that it happened is not subjective...the FACT that we were asked to help in Vietnam (as was stated earlier and was one of the things which got this discussion started) is not subjective...WHY we agreed to get involved there or WHY we stayed so long is open to interpretation...the facts are the facts...

While history is fact (what happened, happened and you can't change it), the representation of those facts (the spin put on it) is ALWAYS subjective. Remember, history is written by the winners and criticized by the whinners.

Re: Since when??
 

On the contrary, facts are facts.

We may not know why (and we may disagree as to why we think) these attacks happened, but the true reason(s) cannot change post facto.

Similarly, 25 people may all see a bank robbery differently and may even testify to different points of views, but what actually happened is an unchangable fact.

The only truism about history is that some never learn from it and we end up repeating the mistakes from the past.

Last century we were dragged into 2 world conflicts when we decided it was no direct threat to us and it cost us many more lives on both sides.

Now we have some of these same countries and attitudes that cost us before....maybe it time we set the conditions instead of waiting for them to be set for us.

Let's just adopt "Let's Roll" prior to the start of each game (between officials) to honor our fellow Americans. I haven't seen anywhere if any of the ones that perished that day were fellow officials.