It would seem to follow that by citing the largest most volatile weapons you are ultimately promoting that we have some sort of body-count option available in exterminating ideologies anathema to our own.
As a military option, the american soldier is probably the optimal in fighting terror. Not only does he/she have greater power of deciding who poses a threat to liberty and not killing people indiscriminately, he/she when acting properly provides a greater role model to the people, positive reinforcement of the discipline and wealth of America’s beliefs.
The bomb on the other hand, tells the random bystander, “look what we can destroy” which can quite easily lead to staunch resistance as well as the incredibly dangerous thought "look what I , islamic fundamentalist X, can destroy, cheaply and efficiently, and look at what the west uses its new-fangled ideas for, bigger explosions.
War if carried to it’s logical conclusion (genocide) can destroy an ideaology. The Romans proved this over 1900 years ago.
I am by no means suggesting this.
It would seem to follow that by citing the largest most volatile weapons you are ultimately promoting that we have some sort of body-count option available in exterminating ideologies anathema to our own.
Richard said this "You forget, however, that we have many powerfull non-nuclear bombs which would serve us very well in such a place. ".
I simply posted a picture of one of these bombs.
The bomb on the other hand, tells the random bystander, “look what we can destroy” which can quite easily lead to staunch resistance as well as the incredibly dangerous thought "look what I, islamic fundamentalist X, can destroy, cheaply and efficiently, and look at what the west uses its new-fangled ideas for, bigger explosions.
Are you suggesting we don’t use bombs or any other form of indirect fire for that matter?
If you were cut off and sorounded by thoose fundamentalist you would be singing a different tone.
My point exactly is that there is no place for worship of the bomb, the aerial bomb is the saddest development in all of history because its effects are nearly unknown to you and it would be much more proficient, in the ideal, if pinpointing threats could be accomplished on a personal level. By destroying on a large scale, you violate individual rights, and were it not for the loss of american life involved in manned deployments, the bomb would rightfully be regarded as barbaric.
From an opposing point of view, a bystander could much more reasonably converted to understand that ideals were proper IF they were not besieged by irrationality, such as "my sister (non-terrorist) was just nuked because al quaeda is in saudia arabia.
What logic are you going by, over 75% historicaly of all battlfield casulties including civilians were caused by artillery. Hence the fact it is known as “King of the Battlefield”.
A weapon can not be barbaric, only the person using it can.
The bomb has saved thousands of lives–you know, lives of those fighting for good–over the years. The A-Bomb, for instance saved our men from an otherwise unavoidable ground invasion in Japan. Bombs allow us to complete objectives without any danger to our own men… hardly the saddest development in history.
Oh, and by the way, people living under dictatorship already have no rights, it is impossible for us to violate them.
It was predicted that over 500,000 American soldiers would die and millions more Japanese would have been killed. Not to mention thoose injured, maimed, etc…
During the first Gulf War over half of the Iraqi armored force was destroyed by the US Airforce. Who knows how many American lives it saved.
If you would like answers that are not thought out, take a look at the posting with a picture of bombs!? In no way was I intending to agrue with you specifically, but to state some facts and arguements for those who have been writing as though “the US knows best” and will show Islam that through military action… It is sad…
Richard Halley… As a Canadian, viewing this situation from another perspective than you, the vast majority does not like what Bush is doing in Iraq… Our Prime Minister even failed to agree with Bush’s intervention in Iraq. We are not alone with our dislike of the Bush’s military action.
The opinion of the Canadian Prime Minister–or anyone else, for that matter–is irrelevant to this discussion. There are people in the Middle East right now who want every American dead, and some of them have demonstrated an ability to convert on that wish. Nobody here is saying that “America knows best,” just that America has a right to prevent itself from being blown up.
Perhaps you don’t realize that you are in an Objectivist forum here, Jessie, I bet the Canadian Prime Minister would disagree with just about everything said here.
People of a dictatorship implicitly have rights if they are to be considered rational beings. One cannot simply say that because you are being held captive by a tyrant that you are not rational or of no value. What is implicitly considered is that someone who does violate another’s rights is of less worth than someone who does not violate another’s rights.
I misspoke in declaring an inanimate object barbaric, a moral value, but nonetheless I was trying to impress that beside the awesome destructive powers of a bomb, which are often uncontrollable, it as a display of force has more negative effects, ie rallying supporters for terrorism, than do many other means of military intervention.
We cannot simply pretend that we are only fighting a physical battle, in which we only have to consider the cost of good lives, but also the struggles in ideology which the physical is representing: If we are viewed as barbaric, we will inspire resistance and in the end we will pay with many more good lives. We must always consider the long term effects of our intervention.
Their ideaology is anti-thetical to ours, they support mysticism, we support reason, they support fascist dictatorships and theocracys while we support Constitutional Republics.
Because America is productive, and production is the Anti-Christ (or Anti-Allah as the case may be).
What is implicitly considered is that someone who does violate another’s rights is of less worth than someone who does not violate another’s rights.
Someone who violates anothers rights, is not only of less worth than someone who does not, they are also in rejection of the very concept of rights. As a result, they have none.
Note that worth is not the soruce of rights, but look at your logic anyway. Your claim may be translated like so: “Someone who negates mans life is of equal value to someone who lives it.” Value to whom? Not me; Not any Objectivist, I promise you that.
Young, ask yourself where rights come from… and follow the logic through.
I was making the assertion that violating another’s rights denigrates the abuser, and putting it into the context of carpet bombing people who are under a tyrannical rule, some of whom would every bit like to not violate anyone’s rights.
Also the reasons they hate us are much more complex than that we’re productive, you would have to see it from their perspective to know that.
To them we are a potentially Wasteful society, Exclusion in many ways from the religious freedoms in our judeo-christian nation, Violation of their religious mores as they see them, what they see as unwarranted American Imperialism, the power of the dollar over their unit of money, anger at their country’s own inefficiency misplaced towards us because of our overwhelming successes, jealousy over freedoms we have that they don’t, historical traditions of hating the west and grievances passed down through the centuries…
As many people see it we are the “uglyamerican”, ignorant of their culture yet awesomely powerful, to say that they hate us because we produce more than they do is not entirely true, they produce terrorists and drill for oil much better than we are willing/capable of doing
Why all this guess work about “why they hate us”??? The terrorists that have attacked Americans directly have always been clear about the policies they dont like:
Yes, quite so, restriction of one’s freedom can ultimately result in the most vile of hatreds for anyone who is not under similar restrictions, a person who is kept from the fruits of their labor (a slave) will have the deepest of emotions towards their oppressor or those who are not oppressed (blind religious hatred)
I hope to God such a person as Richard halley, with such degrading and one sided thoughts never has the opportunity to become president… haha, then America would have more enemies than they ALREADY have