It's an Issue of Sanity

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I guess I should clarify about my Saudi comments. I wasn't referring to a regime change a la Iraq in this case, but more as you described, NStarun. We desperately need an alternate source of fuel, and I think if we could achieve that end, it would free us up to crack down on oppressive regimes like those in Saudi Arabia. And I think if the common man of the Middle East saw us cracking down on those oppressing them, on their behalf, I think they would find it much harder to sustain their rampant hatred for America. Clearly the first step is getting that alternate source of energy...that and universal heath care. Those would be my two top priorities if I were a US politician.

I read a good book a few weeks back, called Fear's Empire, and I'll be damned if I can remember who it's by, but it made some good points on the topic of interdependence. I think maybe the interdependence is more related to the "War" on Terror. The bottom line is we can't go it alone and stomp out terrorism, simply because terrorism is an idea, not a nation. We can invade all the terrorist-harboring countries, but in actuality this does nothing to stop terror itself. All the terrorists have to do is go somewhere else. And if we keep pissing other nations off, they'll always have somewhere else to go. The only way we can win the "war," which by the way I hate calling it because it shouldn't inspire images of soldiers on a battlefield, is to cooperate with other countries, and work together to stamp out the origins of terror, which is the desperation of many people throughout the world, a desperation they blame on America, whether it is perceived or real is not even an issue.

[Jesus The Inane]

You guyst talk about changing the government of Saudi Arabia, but who is the USA to go to another country and change the government there? The People will only feel that their new government is a puppet government control by the "evil" Americans. When will America understand that that is the thing the countries in the middle East don't want? They do not want America getting involve in their "business"...

EDIT;

Yeah, terrorist are not crazy. Their tactics are actually quite smart. In a war, there are many moments for compassion and tender action; there are also many moments for ruthless action, what might be consider ruthless might often only be clarity; seeing what theres need to be done, and doing it. Its a war, and you have to do whatever it takes to win it.

What would be insane would be to fight the USA in a conventional way.

[Manningham]

You guyst talk about changing the government of Saudi Arabia, but who is the USA to go to another country and change the government there? The People will only feel that their new government is a puppet government control by the "evil" Americans. When will America understand that that is the thing the countries in the middle East don't want? They do not want America getting involve in their "business"...

EDIT;

Yeah, terrorist are not crazy. Their tactics are actually quite smart. In a war, there are many moments for compassion and tender action; there are also many moments for ruthless action, what might be consider ruthless might often only be clarity; seeing what theres need to be done, and doing it. Its a war, and you have to do whatever it takes to win it.

What would be insane would be to fight the USA in a conventional way.

Well, about the Saudi Arabia thing, here's what I posted

I totally agree with the first section here, but I'd like to point out a difficulty in dealing with the Saudi government. I'm not sure how we could replace the Saudi regime without angering Islamic communities worldwide. While the Saudi royal family is no government of the people or for the people, we're talking about directly intervening in the governance of the Muslim holy land, and the backlash would be horrific.

I think the best way to weaken that regime would have to be the development of effective alternate energy sources. We need to invest tax-dollars to this end as it will serve us environmentally, politically, and in terms of national security in that our ended reliance upon oil and fossil fuels would alleviate any need to cooperate with states such as Saudi Arabia.

and Valeria more or less agreed. I think our main difference would be over "cracking down" on the Saudi government, because the way I read it, this infers American interdictionary efforts when I would think that the best way to defeat the royal family would be through supporting (not creating) popular dissent. That's just the way I read it.

The Saudi royal family isn't very friendly to the people under its jurisdiction, we could have a whole thread about that but I don't really want to spend the time on yet another in depth discussion right now. I think the people of that country would be happy to have a different kind of government, but our point was that we don't want to "go to another country".

That being said, change could be fostered through non-violent means, and I think that would be beneficial to the potential for a popular revolt and a restructuring of the government in Saudi Arabia.

[Jesus The Inane]

and Valeria more or less agreed. I think our main difference would be over "cracking down" on the Saudi government, because the way I read it, this infers American interdictionary efforts when I would think that the best way to defeat the royal family would be through supporting (not creating) popular dissent. That's just the way I read it.

The Saudi royal family isn't very friendly to the people under its jurisdiction, we could have a whole thread about that but I don't really want to spend the time on yet another in depth discussion right now. I think the people of that country would be happy to have a different kind of government, but our point was that we don't want to "go to another country".

That being said, change could be fostered through non-violent means, and I think that would be beneficial to the potential for a popular revolt and a restructuring of the government in Saudi Arabia.

I see that you do not want to invade the country but you do want to change the government, but not through invasion or perhaps direct USA involvement. Are you saying that the USA government should, first, get other sources of oil etc etc, and secondly, to fund or support revolt groups?

I see any intervention from the USA in Saudi Arabia as unethical; let the people of Arabia sort their own problems, if they are letting themselves be oppressed by their rulers, let them. Letting oneself be oppressed is a coward-like act and being a poltroon makes one unworthy not only to be helped, but also to exist. Being a coward only makes you worthy to be oppressed.

If the Saudi Arabia people reallly would want a change in power, they would revolt and be "moral" enough to fight for what they belief in. Not only fight, but also die for their beliefs -- so don't tell me just because revolt means death one shouldn't revolt and rather be oppressed because that is un-ethical.

[Manningham]

I see that you do not want to invade the country but you do want to change the government, but not through invasion or perhaps direct USA involvement. Are you saying that the USA government should, first, get other sources of oil etc etc, and secondly, to fund or support revolt groups?

I see any intervention from the USA in Saudi Arabia as unethical; let the people of Arabia sort their own problems, if they are letting themselves be oppressed by their rulers, let them. Letting oneself be oppressed is a coward-like act and being a poltroon makes one unworthy not only to be helped, but also to exist. Being a coward only makes you worthy to be oppressed.

If the Saudi Arabia people reallly would want a change in power, they would revolt and be "moral" enough to fight for what they belief in. Not only fight, but also die for their beliefs -- so don't tell me just because revolt means death one shouldn't revolt and rather be oppressed because that is un-ethical.

Finding other sources of oil is no easy task, we'd do it if we could. I think we need to make a government funded move towards alternative energy sources - a lot of research still needs to be done before this is a realistic transition.

Certainly though, I think we should make an effort to support resistance groups within Saudi Arabia - however we have to be very very careful about this. Support the wrong people and you'll get bit in the long run (Bin Laden), and support them too much and you'll be seen as setting up a puppet government.

I have to disagree with it being ethically wrong to support resistance in another country. People living under oppressive regimes can't just up and change their government, its no simple task. They need supplies, funding, organization, etc.

Beyond that, its a pretty ridiculous position to blame oppressed people for their hardships. Would you blame the Africans for having been enslaved in the colonial era? Would you blame the Jewish people in Europe for having their rights steadily revoked, culminating with the loss of the right to life? Oppressed people often have to be helped.

EDIT: Look at Iraq, our objective was not to free the people from Baath rule so much as free ourselves from some perceived threat, but the people there were very happy to see the Baath go. Now, they're not happy about the way we're running things either, but a populist rebellion was far from realization in that country thanks to the oppressive policies of its ruler.

I would point to the failed popular uprising following Desert Storm, but the blame for its failure falls more on us than the Iraqi people. We didn't give them the support we had promised, and the rebellion was quelled with little effort resulting in the most active resisters being killed or imprisoned.

[Zuwxiv]

"The more hysterical our society and media and politicians become, the more Patriot Acts, the more color-coded warning levels we create as a result of that fear, the more we let them win." -Legio XX Valeria Victrix

Exactly. What the current administration is doing is horribly wrong. It is just like Ben Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice liberties for personal security deserve neither." (or something along those lines... you get what I'm saying.) The Patriot Act? A victory for terrorists. Our freedom was strictly limited, and all because a bounch of idiots in Washington put a pretty name on an act and got it through. Despicable. So to the terrorists, they have won. They have changed our country.

I was talking to my mother the other day, and I asked her what she thought the terrorists goals were. "Killing people," was her responce. I wanted to slap her. I couldn't believe that she had believed that hook, line, and sinker. The terrorists have a goal... they aren't just insane people that kill for fun. What do they want? Maybe the elimination of America and all infadels. Now that isn't likely in a conventional war, but with suicide bombers... Sure. You could fly plenty of planes into buildings until the US economy crumbles. Terrorists aren't insane or stupid... quite to the contrary, they are exact in their planning and genius in their strategy.

Now the individual people who blow thmeselves up... are they insane? Probably some are. Most of them are just the poor part of society who think that that is the only way they can make a difference. They are devoted to a cause, and that is admirable. That doens't mean that I think blowing up a bus full of kids is a good thing, I think its horrible. But the people who do it are completely devoted and have qualities that I would like to see in more people.

Now you want to know what insane is? Insane is invading an innocent country and taking it over, using excuses to justify it, finding those excuses are invalid, and still somehow convincing 51% of America to vote for you.

[Jesus The Inane]

Beyond that, its a pretty ridiculous position to blame oppressed people for their hardships. Would you blame the Africans for having been enslaved in the colonial era? Would you blame the Jewish people in Europe for having their rights steadily revoked, culminating with the loss of the right to life? Oppressed people often have to be helped.

Yup. It was their faul. If the Jews would have fought for their freedom they might have died atleast in an honorable way -- instead then being killed in concentration camps. They let themselves be put in that situation and so they deserve it... they acted like cowards. Ergo; cowards do not deserve help. Do you now understand my logic behind it?

Behold; Spartacus revolted. Sure, he died and his army was slaughtern. But if you look at the bigger picture you'll see that if they didn't revolt they wouldn't have had atleast the honor to die fighting. And remember, in the bigger picture; if they don't revolt and live for another 40 years, they would have still died, but this time without honor.

And as for helping a revel group, it is un-ethical to do that because that is involving oneself in the business of other people. The country is like a person, and having a non-benevolent government is like having a personal problem; you do not involve yourself into personal problems because that is not your business.

[Nihil]

Good discussion going on here.

As far as I'm concerned anybody who harbours genocidal fantasies and acts on them is just not all right in the head. Bear in mind that the traditional psychopath is often intelligent and socially capable, usually extremely manipulative and adept at deception. Most serial killers and similarly extreme sociopathic types blend in perfectly with society and usually only get caught when they effectively turn themselves in through giving the authorities enough information to get them. Their relatives and neighbours are usually stunned. "He seemed like such a nice, normal guy."

So, the idea that criminally insane people are inept or unintelligent is just not correct.

The other side of the story is an endless supply of angry youths who feel like they have been wronged and oppressed by the geopolitical machinations of the world's big players. In general, although not exclusively, where there is human misery there is a breeding ground for political extremism, because there you will find people who are desperate, angry, and have nothing to lose.

For some reason, we humans can't get over our fetish for being told what to do, and people just love "causes" and ideologies that give them a reason to kill themselves and everybody else. Is this insane? I certainly think so, but it is also human nature, and we are far from being rational animals.

Smack:

I can't stoop low enough to say that anyone really believes in the war on terror, but I guess they must.

I think people really do. I didn't used to believe it, but I'm realising that some people really do think that shooting things and blowing stuff up is the answer to everything.

[Kanaric]

I do agree larger areas should get more money, but think of this.

What if there was a terrorist attack on a small town where for example the water supply was poisoned or something else cathostropic happen? Also as a result of this the ENTIRE TOWN is wiped out. Can you imagine what that would do for morale? Idk why terrorists go after high-value targets. I would go after small towns and scare the **** out of people. If you can wipe an entire town off the map causing massive death that will do far more than destroying a rebuildable structure that does the same.

[Manningham]

I do agree larger areas should get more money, but think of this.

What if there was a terrorist attack on a small town where for example the water supply was poisoned or something else cathostropic happen? Also as a result of this the ENTIRE TOWN is wiped out. Can you imagine what that would do for morale? Idk why terrorists go after high-value targets. I would go after small towns and scare the **** out of people. If you can wipe an entire town off the map causing massive death that will do far more than destroying a rebuildable structure that does the same.

That's certainly true. I don't want to suggest that low-population areas don't get enough money for adequate first response and security services - that's essential and the thought of an entire community succumbing to terrorist activity is chilling at best.

But while we're thinking along this path, what if they wiped a major city right off the map? If I'm not mistaken, more than a few nuclear warheads of the former Soviet Union are still unacounted for, so this is not as unrealistic a possibility as it might seem. Hell, its happened before even though most don't consider it terrorism.

The United States government knew in 1945 that we had to strike a heavily populated area (or did we?) to achieve the compliance of Japan, even as it stood on the brink of ruin with the impending homeland invasion.

[Jesus The Inane]

Wouldn't it had been smarter for terrorist to hijack four planes and crash them in four different nuclear power plants? or is there some kind of security, like if the airplane gets too close to the power plant it gets shut down... ?

[Wicked]

I'm not going to go into specifics, but there is about 0% chance of setting off a nuclear meltdown in a US plant via terrorist attack, even if they made it far enough inside the perimeter to actually damage something other than a security bunker, which is highly unlikely.

-Wicked

[Zuwxiv]

Nuclear power plants at worst melt down and contaminate the surrounding area. Radioactive and deadly? Yes, but not an atomic bomb. An atomic bomb causes lots of radiation, blows it into the sky where the wind carries it long distances, and by the way, blasts a city to the ground.

A power plant meltdown or sabotague would be harmful, but nothing like an atomic explosion.

[TheBagelmeister]

I think the post-9/11 environment, people would be a little more vigilant if someone hijacked a plane. Prior to that, a hijacking would just make you hostage, but you could come home alive. Now, there would probably be a possibility in the people's minds that they'd be used as part of a bomb, so would be likely stop any terrorists.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Yup. It was their faul. If the Jews would have fought for their freedom they might have died atleast in an honorable way -- instead then being killed in concentration camps. They let themselves be put in that situation and so they deserve it... they acted like cowards. Ergo; cowards do not deserve help. Do you now understand my logic behind it?

Behold; Spartacus revolted. Sure, he died and his army was slaughtern. But if you look at the bigger picture you'll see that if they didn't revolt they wouldn't have had atleast the honor to die fighting. And remember, in the bigger picture; if they don't revolt and live for another 40 years, they would have still died, but this time without honor.

And as for helping a revel group, it is un-ethical to do that because that is involving oneself in the business of other people. The country is like a person, and having a non-benevolent government is like having a personal problem; you do not involve yourself into personal problems because that is not your business.

This is a little strange to me. You seem to be putting a little bit too much stock in honor. Plus, if I were a Jew, I might be a little miffed at this post, but I'm not so that's that. There really wasn't much these people could have done. With Spartacus, you have a ready-made group of society who are hardened killers already, and have battle experience. The Jews in Europe, firstly, could not have predicted that ultimately Hitler would throw them in concentration camps and kill masses of them, and by the time they did, it was too late. They lacked battle experience, military knowledge, and unity, most important of all. Plus, I think you place too much importance on the idea of honor. It is something to strive for, to be sure, but when you are facing death, death is death, you will still be dead with or without honor. It is only the living who decide whether someone's death was honorable or not, and that matters not a damn to the person(s) who died...as they're already dead. Besides, where is the honor in getting slaughtered wholesale as they probably would have been had they resisted peicemeal and without unity?

[Jesus The Inane]

Besides, where is the honor in getting slaughtered wholesale as they probably would have been had they resisted peicemeal and without unity?

Look at this way; either way they were gonna get killed by this time. So might aswell fight and take some nazies down with you -- so that future Jews can actually have something to be proud of. Plus, what else is there to do? just wait for your turn in the gas chamber and die in such manner, like a cow? What do you leave/teach other humans by doing this? I think about humanity and not myself. When I say, die with honor it is so that other people will do the same and hence we would be an honorable species, not one to slaved... one worthy to be proud of, one worthy to deserve to live.

The Jews had the fault for not protecting themselves. For failing to prevent things. Makes me think about the Cold War.... I think the USA managed to prevent a worst case scenario. I guess what I am saying is that you don't act when you have to (like fighting when you finaly realize you gonna get killed), but when you can prevent it, like in the Cold War or how the Jews should have united etc etc in order to prevent their people from being killed in such a dishonorable manner. Again, they were gonna die someday; what mattered was what they would teach/show/inspired the other generations of humans. In this case they did nothing to improve human culture.

I'm not going to go into specifics, but there is about 0% chance of setting off a nuclear meltdown in a US plant via terrorist attack, even if they made it far enough inside the perimeter to actually damage something other than a security bunker, which is highly unlikely.

I see, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I just think you're simplifying the situation too much, JtI. I think you're failing to realize that in 1933, when Hitler came to power and began the anti-Jewish legislation, no one could really forsee that the Nazis would one day want to wipe out all European Jews. It was clear that Jews would be oppressed while the Nazis were in power, but the Jews felt at the time as though they could ride it out. By the time the Jews were herded into concentration camps, they were taken somewhat by surprise. Some resisted, to say that none ever resisted is simply false. There is an example of Jewish revolt even once they were inside the ghetto. I forget which ghetto this was, but I know it was a Polish one. They ended up being slaughtered, and no real change occurred as far as the Jewish Question was concerned. Then, once labor camps turned to death camps by 1944, there wasn't anything most Jews could do. They were already interned, away from all weapons, forced to do back-breaking labor day in and day out, and any proud or charismatic Jews were probably killed or cowed by torture. No, to blame the Jews for their predicament sets an ugly standard, and I hope you don't feel this way about other periods in history. I would find it very odd if you blamed the Soviet peasants who died in the gulags, or the innocent Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot, or African Americans for being enslaved for 300 years, or...most recently, if you blamed the victims of September 11th for not fighting back against the hijackers. You seem to be forgetting entirely about the perpetrators, without whom no one of these victims would have had to make a decision of whether to fight and die, or just die.

[Manningham]

Look at this way; either way they were gonna get killed by this time. So might aswell fight and take some nazies down with you -- so that future Jews can actually have something to be proud of. Plus, what else is there to do? just wait for your turn in the gas chamber and die in such manner, like a cow? What do you leave/teach other humans by doing this? I think about humanity and not myself. When I say, die with honor it is so that other people will do the same and hence we would be an honorable species, not one to slaved... one worthy to be proud of, one worthy to deserve to live.

The Jews had the fault for not protecting themselves. For failing to prevent things. Makes me think about the Cold War.... I think the USA managed to prevent a worst case scenario. I guess what I am saying is that you don't act when you have to (like fighting when you finaly realize you gonna get killed), but when you can prevent it, like in the Cold War or how the Jews should have united etc etc in order to prevent their people from being killed in such a dishonorable manner. Again, they were gonna die someday; what mattered was what they would teach/show/inspired the other generations of humans. In this case they did nothing to improve human culture.

Who are you to judge these people? Did you go through their experiences? Would you know when all was lost? How does one know, not have a good idea but know, when they are going to be killed ... and then can that person be expected to overcome the emotional trauma which comes along with this knowledge in order to perform such a calculated act as assaulting those who have dominated him/her and everyone around him/her?

Here's a good way of looking at it - since we're talking about a population of people, none exempt, put your mother in this situation. put your grandmother in this situation. These were ordinary people subjected to the worst side of humanity.

Yours is a simplistic view of the situation.

EDIT: Ok, that was a bit harsh. But then so is your opinion. I'll just settle to say that I see where you're coming from, but you're not considering the whole picture. You've logically thought through the situation and that's commendable, but neither the situation we're talking about nor human beings are at all logical things.

Have you heard of the mental phases people go through when they are told that they are going to die? There are several broad steps that most follow, and it takes a great deal of time for this process to find its way to acceptance. Bear in mind that these people are told by an expert that there is no chance of their survival, or that that chance is so small as to be disregarded.

Don't make the mistake of separating events in human history from humanity.

[SovietInsurgent]

Is the suicide bomber who crashes his car into a U.S. convoy giving sweets to children insane? Is the U.S. soldier who puts a bullet into the head of an injured Iraqi on the floor of a Fallujah mosque insane? War and politics drives people completely insane!

[Gonzalve]

Do not say " War on terror ", say " War IS terror ".