| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Heynow
Junior Member
374 Posts |
 Posted - 02 March 2003 : 21:23:57
|
quote:
Thats not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that we never declaired war on Afghanistan.
War was declared when we were attacked by the thugs running Afghanistan on 9/11.
quote:
You cannot have a war against and idea or a concept like 'terrorism,' that is not something you can 'war' with.
Then what is going on over in Afghanistan?
As for Iraq, that war never officially ended. |
Political Forums:::Stay n Chat
 |
 |
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2003 : 21:51:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by padawan
who are we to question the Office of the President of the U.S. (I'm talking about the institution, not the man)?
We are the american people, some, if not all. And we have that right.
But this isn't the issue. The issue is if the man arrested in Packistan deserves a trial or not. |
 Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
|
|
|
padawan
Junior Member
200 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2003 : 22:13:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
quote:
Originally posted by padawan
who are we to question the Office of the President of the U.S. (I'm talking about the institution, not the man)?
We are the american people, some, if not all. And we have that right.
But this isn't the issue. The issue is if the man arrested in Packistan deserves a trial or not.
Questioning the authority of the office and making a blanket statement what it can define and not define are two different things...
Going back to the issue...
Personally, I'd rather see the man (9/11 mastermind) be tortured in a few thousand ways so that he can live the hell here on earth before his soul be put to eternal d-amnation...
It's up to the government though if they want to showcase him to the world (through a civilian trial) or not. He is an illegitemate enemy combatant (undeclared war?). As such, the best he could get is a trial by a military tribunal.
|
"...be mindful of the SnitzForce..." |
Edited by - padawan on 02 March 2003 22:15:37 |
|
|
|
dayve
Forum Moderator
USA
5820 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2003 : 23:01:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
You cannot have a war against and idea or a concept like 'terrorism,' that is not something you can 'war' with.
The definition of WAR as an intransitive verb is defined as to be in active or vigorous conflict. As rediculous as it seems to war with an idea or concept, we have done it before. Some examples are The War On Drugs and an even more vague concept is The Cold War in which the United States has claimed victory over Russia. So in a sense if you can win a war of concepts like the Cold War, you can obviously war against concepts and ideas as well. |
 |
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2003 : 23:46:56
|
Yes, the word can be used in that since.
But I don't think that kind of war (the war on drugs or the cold war) strips prisoners of their right to a fair trial and console.
Drug trafficers and spys still get trials. |
Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
Edited by - Nathan on 02 March 2003 23:47:56 |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 00:07:00
|
hmmm, war against concepts. Like the Crusades, holy jihad against Christian infidels, etc?
I don't know if wars against ideas can be won with force of arms. Generally armed forces counter a weapon with a similar weapon. tanks against tanks, subs vs. subs, aircraft vs aircraft. Doesn't it stand to reason then that the best weapon in a war against an idea is an other better idea?
Weapons and vast armies may have kept up the stalemate between East and West during the Cold war, but I think what really defeated communism is the fact that captalist democratic ideology proved that they could provide their people with a better political, social, and economic quality of life.
I'm not against using force of arms against Al-Qeada terrorists. On the contrary, I'm all for it. I frimly believe that the idea of "war against western christian infidels" is just as, if not more bankrupt than communism. It has not solved Iran's social ills in the 20+ years following the fall of the Shah and is even less likely to result in the rise of an all wise and powerful Pan Arab Islamic Caliphate.
Victory via ideas is a very slow process. It took 50 years during the Cold War. Willing over similar understanding among Al-Qaeda's supporters may take even longer. However, I do firmly believe that if we are to win the greater ideological war with Al-Qaeda, we must seek to preserve the very ideas and institutions that make our way of life so attractive and win over our enemies. That means the right to a fair trial, etc. despite the inconveniences that it may bring along. |
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
dayve
Forum Moderator
USA
5820 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 00:44:19
|
| Out of curiousity, is it people that consider themselves extremely religious and God fearing people the ones more opposed to war? I mean speaking for the majority of anti-war persons. I know there are those that are not religious that are against the war, but I am finding that most of the people I discuss the subject with that are opposed to war are very religious people. |
|
|
|
|
Deleted
deleted
4116 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 01:02:57
|
Dayve, I think all religions give a considerable worth to life, especially human life. If somebody is religious enough, (s)he will think that (s)he has no right to kill a being created by God.
At the same time, there are non-religious people that pay considerable attention to human rights, right-to-live is one of them. I think they feel themselves on the correct side of the equation if they help those who suffer.
|
 Stop the WAR! |
|
|
|
VodkaFish
Average Member
USA
654 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 17:04:29
|
Dayve - I've also found this to be true about people supporting war (them being very religious in many cases). I think it's just the nature of the person making them very opinionated.
My opinion about this man is that he can be very useful and I have no problem with any government using such a man to learn as much as possible. After that, he should be locked away and given nothing but the essentials to live out whatever life he has left. This is all on the assumption that he is guilty (as he has confessed already). I see no reason to forgive a mass-killer, but I will not be the one calling for vengence. |
v ø d k â f ï § h |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
