TERRORISM

[emballantine]

I hate to pick...but if you're going to make an argument about something, maybe you should apply logic to your own arguments.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
E,

You said: "He [Bush] declared war on Afghanistan and then on Iraq." This is not true: Bush declared war on the Taliban, Al Queda, and the Hussein Regime. He made this clear on a repeated basis.

You cannot declare war on a countries government without it being a war on the country. What is a country? It's government and it's people. But war against a country is rarely (although more common in today than in history) about the people, it is for control of the government. If you tried to call the revolution a war against King George, while maintaining it was not a war against Britain you would be laughed at.

War was a "last resort." Civilians were "avoided." Food rations were dropped from planes for the citizens there. They are still there, helping to rebuild those countries.

This is all true if you believe everything that is spoon fed to you by the US government. But then how many times in your life alone can you count where the government gave you misinformation about something? I can count quite a few. Starting with what has become a metaphor to me. The "incredible edible egg." If you don't get the metaphor let me know. And...following bombs with food drops does not make war okay. That is simply a shoot first ask questions later type of reaction. Drop a bomb...feed the few people left standing. Oh what a humanitarian he is.

[HollyElise]

Yes, i see what you mean about reality, embalantine, and i agree.

It seems that as a person get's closer to "truth"... trying harder and harder to state positively only that which can be proven or reasoned with certainty... they enter into a realm of relativity where the less can be said with any confidence or proof at all.

Hegel was about my favorite philosopher, as far as making the most sense, and he put forth almost nothing at all as he found there was nothing he could prove and only lots and lots he could disprove... like "i think therefore i am."

i enjoy abstract thinking, but i'm also a pragmatist. That your "blue" and my "blue" may be entirely different realities may be very true, but does that mean there is no basis for communication? Why do we do it then? If you tell me the sky is very blue today where you are, it may not be provable, but it still holds meaning, for you and me both. Absolute "truths" offer little practical value to describe our daily realities.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by emballantine
You cannot declare war on a countries government without it being a war on the country. What is a country? It's government and it's people.

Actually, no. This only applies if the governement has the popular support of the people it rules over. Before America attacked Afghanistan, the people were already engaged in active resistance against their government. They didn't want those ******* Taliban in power. Therefore it was possible for the West to declare war on the Taliban but not on the Afghan people. And the people didn't seem very vehemently opposed. Hell, a lot of them helped us to fight the Taliban.

[HollyElise]

Yeah, and a few Americans helped the Taliban fight the Americans.

NO country has people with homogenous beliefs!

I do believe that in the case of Afghanistan interference to overthrow the Taliban's rule was the humane and right thing to do, however i disagree strongly that you can wage war against a government and not be waging war (or declaring war) against the people of that country, whether or not they want that government to be overthrown, because their reality is:

bombs sometimes miss and kill or maim the innocent and even children... chaos reigns for a while... life becomes dangerous... sometimes women are raped in the chaos... horrors are seen and experienced... air relief food packages are inadequate to feed the hungry... people lose their homes and businesses, hospitals, clean water, power supplies and telephone communication... etc., and this is whether or not they agree with their government.

[HollyElise]

Hi Tom,

I'm sorry i haven't posted a reply yet to your comments. I actually wrote something long for you a couple days ago but my computer shut off when i went to post it... argh! (Small town power and we get these mini-brown outs that are so irritating!)

I've been meaning to recompose it but i've just been having a hard couple of days and i've needed to relax.

I do remember though that i was going to ask you if you want to give me a couple links to the strings you're referring to. If you are I'd be glad to look at them. Unfortunately i think it would take me too long to look for them without knowing the date or name of posts, and i couldn't be sure they were the posts you are referring to anyway unless you said, so you will need to guide me.

okay i'm off to bed now. sleep well. *half-asleep myself.*

[HollyElise]

Originally posted by TomSawyer
When I talk about the gang mentality of Scotland. com, I am referring, specifically, to instances where one person is disagreeing with me, and then another three or four unknowns 'jump in' and call me names. This has happened several times and can be read by all. Therefore there is no paranoia. I am speaking factually. All you have to do is read. Can you do that for me? Is that too hard? And why do I have conflict? Because people disagree with me, and I disagree with them. Look at western philosophy: it's the same thing. You don't live in a world where intellectuals 'agree' with each other. I do not apologize for having ideas: if someone doesn't like them, so be it. No one 'liked' Voltaire, many were uncomfortable with Crhist, and the stiff upper class hated Socrates. It seems to me that, in a previous life, you were among the voters who had Socrates killed: 'he causes too much conflict.'

(Personally, I prefer Kierkegaard to Hegel. Kierkegaard's 'either/or' is arguably more true to life than Hegel's 'mediation.' C.S. Lewis said that Hegel has been rejected: I wonder who rejected him.)

Most of the time people don't get into conflict simply because they disagree.

I think it has a lot to do with respect. "Agreeing to disagree" may sound a little cliche, but people do not in every instance get bent out of shape over disagreements, and are able to maintain respect for other people who have differing opinions.

[HollyElise]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

Blah blah blah.

I don't understand your reaction. I was sincere.