This is harsh, but deservedly so and well written. The use of the word "opportunity" is more than sad in the three examples below.
This excerpt sums it up perfectly, the whole article is farther below if you wish to read it.
For normal people, it's an unmitigated tragedy when their fellow citizens are killed in terrorist attacks or wars. Normal people cry, become afraid, and think of children who now have no parents and parents who now have no children.
For our would-be "leaders," however – in every country – the situation is different. Of course, they pretend to feel the same as normal people. They give teary-eyed speeches about sorrow and suffering.
And yet, behind their tears, there seems to be something else. When they think no one is looking, you glimpse another expression flitting across their face. You think it couldn't be. But – yes, incredibly enough, they're smiling. Because before the bodies are cold, before the mothers have stopped shrieking, our leaders are thinking:
This is really a FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY.
It's an opportunity for them to do whatever they wanted to do before, but couldn't get away with. It's an opportunity for them to smear anyone who criticizes them as disloyal. It's an opportunity for them to become much more powerful than they ever could be in peacetime. Leaders love war. That's why there's so much of it.
Today Is the Eleventh Anniversary of an Enormous Opportunity September 11th, 2012 7:07 PM
By Jon Schwarz
Today, September 11, 2012, is a good time for a short quiz.
Here are the questions:
1. What is this?
What did you answer? Did you say "That's the last moments of the lives of thousands of people"? Or "That's a hideous act of mass murder"? Or "That's the beginning of a lifetime of suffering for everyone who loved someone who died at the World Trade Center"?
Wrong! The right answer is: that is an OPPORTUNITY, an ENORMOUS OPPORTUNITY:
"Through my tears I see opportunity." – George Bush, September 20, 2001
"If the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 bookend a major shift in international politics, then this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity. Before the clay is dry again, America and our friends and our allies must move decisively to take advantage of these new opportunities." – Condoleezza Rice, April 29, 2002
2. What is this?
This question is a little harder. Some people might answer, "That's the brutal Al Qaeda bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya on November 28, 2002 aimed at Israeli tourists." Others might say, "It's the place where terrorists murdered 13 people, including ten Kenyans and Israeli brothers Noy and Dvir Anter, ages 12 and 13." Or, "That's the place where, CNN reported, 'screaming children covered in blood searched desperately for their parents amid the wreckage.'"
They would also be wrong. The correct answer is, that is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY:
"Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meeting with ministry staff in the aftermath of the Kenya attacks, said that the incidents had presented Israel with a 'golden opportunity' to strengthen its strategic ties with the United States and other Western countries."
3. What is this?
Some might guess, "That's a young Iraqi girl covered in the blood of her parents, who'd just been killed by U.S. soldiers terrified of car bombers." Or, "Something that every American should be atoning for until the day we die."
But again, that would be wrong. The right answer is, that's a picture of yet another GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY:
"Targeting America in Iraq in terms of economy and losses in life is a golden and unique opportunity. Do not waste it only to regret it later." – Osama bin Laden, December, 2004
• • • • •
Probably the point here is clear. But I'll go ahead and spell it out.
For normal people, it's an unmitigated tragedy when their fellow citizens are killed in terrorist attacks or wars. Normal people cry, become afraid, and think of children who now have no parents and parents who now have no children.
For our would-be "leaders," however – in every country – the situation is different. Of course, they pretend to feel the same as normal people. They give teary-eyed speeches about sorrow and suffering.
And yet, behind their tears, there seems to be something else. When they think no one is looking, you glimpse another expression flitting across their face. You think it couldn't be. But – yes, incredibly enough, they're smiling. Because before the bodies are cold, before the mothers have stopped shrieking, our leaders are thinking:
This is really a FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY.
And for them it is. It's an opportunity for them to do whatever they wanted to do before, but couldn't get away with. It's an opportunity for them to smear anyone who criticizes them as disloyal. It's an opportunity for them to become much more powerful than they ever could be in peacetime. Leaders love war. That's why there's so much of it.
It's understandably hard for normal people to come to terms with this. It's scary to believe your leaders may secretly be, uh, not so sad if you die. But all you have to do is listen to them, and they'll tell you.
Can we change this? Maybe. But the first step in changing reality is facing it, no matter how ugly and frightening it is.
Ahtman wrote: So much for one day of quiet introspection and unity. Couldn't wait till tomorrow to pour gasoline on the fire?
This.
Thirded...
I don't disagree with the article, wartime can make or break a leader and how people view them. Look at how everyone was right after Sept. 11th, we were gung-ho and ready and willing to go and take care of whoever caused these attacks, years later, the view has changed. Bush, who was popular at the outset of our military actions was 'popular' enough during the time it took us to go into Afganistan, Iraq, etc... but now he's remembered as a man that dragged us into an unpopular war that we're still trying to figure out 10+ years later.
I disagree with the OP's posting history, and the date at which this article is posted.
Polonius wrote: At this point, this is the one day we even think about the effects of the War of Terror, and our role in it.
I don't know about all that, unless you mean nationally, then I would probably agree.
Polonius wrote: Introspection isn't really useful if it's just thinking about what you're comfortable with.
I agree with that as well, but my point was more about making a purposefully incendiary post on a day that many, even if it is just the one day of the year they do so, think about the loss of life on that day and all the following shenanigan that followed. I think we hold on to it a little to tightly and planned on avoiding on commenting on any 9/11 but this was just a bridge to far I suppose.
A few days ago someone said that liberals like it when there are mass shootings, and now we have someone saying that, essentially, conservatives like it when planes are flown into buildings. I'm just a bit fed up with the bs from both sides at the moment I suppose.
BrassScorpion wrote: This is harsh, but deservedly so and well written. The use of the word "opportunity" is more than sad in the three examples below.
This excerpt sums it up perfectly, the whole article is farther below if you wish to read it.
For normal people, it's an unmitigated tragedy when their fellow citizens are killed in terrorist attacks or wars. Normal people cry, become afraid, and think of children who now have no parents and parents who now have no children.
For our would-be "leaders," however – in every country – the situation is different. Of course, they pretend to feel the same as normal people. They give teary-eyed speeches about sorrow and suffering.
And yet, behind their tears, there seems to be something else. When they think no one is looking, you glimpse another expression flitting across their face. You think it couldn't be. But – yes, incredibly enough, they're smiling. Because before the bodies are cold, before the mothers have stopped shrieking, our leaders are thinking:
This is really a FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY.
It's an opportunity for them to do whatever they wanted to do before, but couldn't get away with. It's an opportunity for them to smear anyone who criticizes them as disloyal. It's an opportunity for them to become much more powerful than they ever could be in peacetime. Leaders love war. That's why there's so much of it.
You quote an article lambasting world leaders taking opportunity in times of tragedy, yet you yourself use the anniversary of a tragedy to push your own agenda and turn a day of quiet remembrance into political point scoring. Absolutely disgusting.
Ahtman wrote: A few days ago someone said that liberals like it when there are mass shootings, and now we have someone saying that, essentially, conservatives like it when planes are flown into buildings. I'm just a bit fed up with the bs from both sides at the moment I suppose.
But it's Brass Scorpion. Who gives a gak? Let the dude ramble and spout badly-written articles from the latest whackadoo moon unit sites, I say.
Manchu wrote: What's all this about "quiet remembering"? I'm very suspicious about what is meant by "quiet" here. If anything, it should be a day of discussion.
Seeing as you asked - Quiet as in remembering all those who lost their lives. Not erecting a platform for cackhanded political discussion on an anniversary by a community member notorious for posting incendiary topics that he rarely contributes anything to in a meaningful way.
The problem with the article is not that it's incendiary. The problem is that it was written with someone who has the insight (and smug self-congratulatory righteousness) of a moody teenager reading too much Nietzsche.
Seaward wrote: But it's Brass Scorpion. Who gives a gak? Let the dude ramble and spout badly-written articles from the latest whackadoo moon unit sites, I say.
You mean quoting from articles posted last year on tinyrevolution.com, and michaelmoore.com might be suspicious?
Manchu wrote: The problem with the article is not that it's incendiary. The problem is that it was written with someone who has the insight (and smug self-congratulatory righteousness) of a moody teenager reading too much Nietzsche.
The problem is that the article was posted last year, and someone left it appropriate to repost it here a year later on the anniversary of a horrible crime for a reaction which is plain to see above.
Manchu wrote: What's all this about "quiet remembering"? I'm very suspicious about what is meant by "quiet" here. If anything, it should be a day of discussion.
That was badly worded on my part, and it should be discussed, but OP got under my skin.
Not really. To the extent that it was relevant last year, and I'm not saying it was, it's just as relevant this year. This message doesn't really have an expiration date.
Polonius wrote: At this point, this is the one day we even think about the effects of the War of Terror, and our role in it.
I don't know about all that, unless you mean nationally, then I would probably agree.
Polonius wrote: Introspection isn't really useful if it's just thinking about what you're comfortable with.
I agree with that as well, but my point was more about making a purposefully incendiary post on a day that many, even if it is just the one day of the year they do so, think about the loss of life on that day and all the following shenanigan that followed. I think we hold on to it a little to tightly and planned on avoiding on commenting on any 9/11 but this was just a bridge to far I suppose.
A few days ago someone said that liberals like it when there are mass shootings, and now we have someone saying that, essentially, conservatives like it when planes are flown into buildings. I'm just a bit fed up with the bs from both sides at the moment I suppose.
I dunno, maybe I didn't see the partisan aspect of it. I remember Bubba bombing kosovo and enforcing the No-fly zone, and I think of Obama and Libya/Syria, and I see leaders using tragedy to move an agenda in general.
It's been 12 years, and at this point the aftermath has been more destructive and damaing than the attacks. We've spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of american and god knows how many iraqi and afghani lives, and we've seen our notions of privacy and peace of mind become warped out of all persective.
Maybe it's because I didn't know anybody that died on 9/11, but I think most people didn't. I don't see the need to all sit quietly and think about a specific group of victims.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Quiet as in remembering all those who lost their lives.
You don't require "quiet" to remember anyone. No one was quiet the day it happened or in the following weeks. That's worth remembering.
I remember watching the events in another country thousands of miles away as it unfolded. Yeah, people were quiet. Very quiet. Especially when we seen footage of people throwing themselves from the buildings because they were trapped. Then the towers fell.
Manchu wrote: The problem is that it was written with someone who has the insight (and smug self-congratulatory righteousness) of a moody teenager reading too much Nietzsche.
Ok, we've disagreed many times in the past but that sentence there is sterling, pure sterling!
No it didn't. What actually happened is that everyone was constantly talking about it with weeks if not months of round-the-clock news coverage. Everywhere you went, everyone you met, there was talking about what this meant and what we would do and who you knew who lost someone, etc, etc, etc. It was very, very loud. And it's been loud ever since.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Quiet as in remembering all those who lost their lives.
You don't require "quiet" to remember anyone. No one was quiet the day it happened or in the following weeks. That's worth remembering.
I remember watching the events in another country thousands of miles away as it unfolded. Yeah, people were quiet. Very quiet. Especially when we seen footage of people throwing themselves from the buildings because they were trapped. Then the towers fell.
Yeah, it got real quiet then.
It was quiet, and then the discussion among my friends almost immediately went to "who is getting bombed for this."
Yeah, we were cynical college kids, but even at the time we were worried about the over reaction. And that was at a time when we though the death toll was in the 10,000 range.
The only thing quiet about the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was the lack of protest as we started to saber rattle ourselves and the rest of the world into a frenzy from which, as Polonius correctly described, we are still reeling.
I was waking up in Spanish class, and looked at the TV, wondering who the feth flies an plane close enough to buildings to smash into one, while everyone else in the class was dead silent.
...I eventually found out later after school let out.
Still remember the massive lines of people filling up their cars with gas at the stations who had jacked up the prices to about $5.00/gallon. I still don't understand that part.
Article is 100% accurate though, if tasteless, though I suppose for it to have meaningful effect, it would have to be presented today to evoke the emotional counterresponse toward the emotional response people may already be feeling. That doesn't change the fact that almost any tragedy, accident, or difficulty is always an opportunity for someone, somewhere.
I think it's well documented that people react more to a single, large event than to many small ones, which is why we are scared senselss of terrorism, but not, say, diabetes.
It's also a known phenomenon that people tend to wait until there is a concreate problem before fixing a system. History is replete with examples of leaders using tragedies to spur action. FDR wanted to enter WWII badly, but it took Pearl Harbor to really trigger the support needed.
So, the point of the article is only of use to those with no real sense of history.
However, it does remind us of the harsh truth: that no matter how fondly we remmeber the victims of 9/11, we must also remember actions carried out in their name, with our expressed or implied consent.
No it didn't. What actually happened is that everyone was constantly talking about it with weeks if not months of round-the-clock news coverage. Everywhere you went, everyone you met, there was talking about what this meant and what we would do and who you knew who lost someone, etc, etc, etc. It was very, very loud. And it's been loud ever since.
When the towers fell it got quiet. But when anger and outrage replaced shock it changed.
No it didn't. What actually happened is that everyone was constantly talking about it with weeks if not months of round-the-clock news coverage. Everywhere you went, everyone you met, there was talking about what this meant and what we would do and who you knew who lost someone, etc, etc, etc. It was very, very loud. And it's been loud ever since.
When the towers fell it got quiet. But when anger and outrage replaced shock it changed.
That was my read... we were all glued to the TV screen for a couple of days.
When the towers fell it got quiet. But when anger and outrage replaced shock it changed.
...
Let me start off by saying that, like quite a few other people, I didn't need a TV to watch it.
Dread, I might simply state this: I don't like Brass any more than I like you. But at least he's consistent. I'm amazed you could write that post without your computer bursting into flames at your hypocrisy. After all, when crimes against humanity happen to someone else, it's not your concern if it doesn't advance your national interests, remember?
When it happens to you, however... 'anger and outrage'.
How is that inconsistent? If he is an American citizen, and it happens to Americans, it is human nature to care more. Our policies impact that more as well.
Or do you weep for every child on the planet? If you say yes, unless you're Jesus, the Budha, or the Great Wiener, you're lying.
BaronIveagh wrote: Let me start off by saying that, like quite a few other people, I didn't need a TV to watch it.
Dread, I might simply state this: I don't like Brass any more than I like you. But at least he's consistent. I'm amazed you could write that post without your computer bursting into flames at your hypocrisy. After all, when crimes against humanity happen to someone else, it's not your concern if it doesn't advance your national interests, remember?
When it happens to you, however... 'anger and outrage'.
More personal attacks then Baron?
Tell you what, I'll do you a favour. Rather than worry about you mis-reading and misinterpret my words and having to explain myself at every turn I'll make sure you don't see them
Sad that not even a figure was quoted here (thats not an attack on the writer of this comment by the way). Just sums things up for me.
9/11 was a horrific act of mass murder but what followed in Iraq and Afghanistan (and is continuing to this very day) cannot be allowed to be forgotten either nor boiled down into one liners as above.
Frazzled wrote: Leaving Iraq aside not seeing the bad part about Afghanistan.
While nation building turned out to be stupid for that region, it was an inherent attempt at good.
That's actually a pretty valid point, and one that gets left out of a lot of the discussion. I wouldn't presume that our overall goal in Afghanistan was benevolent, but we invested heavily into trying to build something non-crappy there.
although, again, it's hard to tell what our purpose was there. I don't mean that in a hindsight sense, but did we have concrete goals aside from "take down the Taliban"?
Alas, it seems to be a lesson we have to relearn every generation or so. We simply can't accept that sometimes countries are hellholes, and we can't stop it. (I'm looking at you, Syria).
Frazzled wrote: Leaving Iraq aside not seeing the bad part about Afghanistan.
While nation building turned out to be stupid for that region, it was an inherent attempt at good.
That's actually a pretty valid point, and one that gets left out of a lot of the discussion. I wouldn't presume that our overall goal in Afghanistan was benevolent, but we invested heavily into trying to build something non-crappy there.
although, again, it's hard to tell what our purpose was there. I don't mean that in a hindsight sense, but did we have concrete goals aside from "take down the Taliban"?
Alas, it seems to be a lesson we have to relearn every generation or so. We simply can't accept that sometimes countries are hellholes, and we can't stop it. (I'm looking at you, Syria).
Sure. Afghanistan was a major base of operations for al-Qaeda. Our goal was to deny them that. It's hard to coordinate 9/11-scale attacks if you've got snake eaters kicking in your doors and MQ-9s Hellfiring anything related to you.
It's actually something I've been toying with, in that we are so obsessed with democracy that we forget that democracy is just a way to implement a deeper good: self determination of the people.
I think democracy is great. Ours has a few quirks I could do without (gerrymandering and wildly uneven access to voting), but it works really well for the US. But... the US had a long, long tradition of representative democracy, from early in the colonial period.
We took a lot of flack in the cold war for backing hated strongmen and dictators that opposed the communists. Now, we are worreid about elections in countries with strong islamist factions. Still, despite this, we thought that suddenly Afghanistan could bloom into a representative democracy overnight. The Taliban were terrible people, but like all regimes they had at least the silent consent of much of the population.
I think there's a bona fide ethical debate about what's more important: politcal self determination, or the idea of universal human rights, especially that self determination is not a right, but a force.
There are really only a handul of peoples held against their will. Chinese Tibet is one, and I guess Chechnya is n longer defacto independent. I'm sure there are others in Afica and Asia, but the problem we've learned is that it's really, really hard to hold a hostile population for too long. The French lost Viet nam and Algeria, Rhodesians lost Zimbabwe, and those were people that fought hard to keep the land.
So self determination isn't a flowery ideal: it's a force, like gravity or globalization. You can hold it back for a while, but like the tide any conqueror will be washed away.
This is why any debate about human rights has to be weighed against not only the right of a people to self determination, but also the practical matters involved. We'd all like to stop, say, female circumcision in Africa. But can we?
Moving into murkier area, whenyou look at a place like Syria, with a madman dictator fighting islamic populists, the question isn't if we should violate Syria's sovriengty to help. the question is if there is any way we can actually help.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Seeing as you asked - Quiet as in remembering all those who lost their lives. Not erecting a platform for cackhanded political discussion on an anniversary by a community member notorious for posting incendiary topics that he rarely contributes anything to in a meaningful way.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
More personal attacks then Baron?
Dread, you are the utter last person in this thread who should complain about 'personal attacks'.
I supported going into Afghanistan, but I am not sure that we had a valid plan after "kick the Taliban in the nuts". At times it feels like the whole "well, we removed the leadership of the country...I guess we need to put something better in place so that they won't just come back...". I do think we had a valid reason and good intentions when we started OEF, but between implementation of a valid plan and the reality of the situation there it has become a cluster.
I have never been a fan of OIF to begin with though.
Self Determination and Nation Building has rarely ever worked out for everybody (I want to say never, but there might be some situations that worked), and I do think that our checkered past in that regard doesn't give us credibility.
We (the nation as a whole on the international stage) like to act like the guardians and giver of democracy. But our history of supporting dictators (that were on our side) and our recent comments by many politicians who are scared of democracy in the Middle East (they might elect somebody that isn't on our side) doesn't give us much weight in that discussion.
Ahtman wrote: So much for one day of quiet introspection and unity. Couldn't wait till tomorrow to pour gasoline on the fire?
This. Seriously, just plain poor form.
I do think it's a good day for discussion.
But there is a difference between going "How had it affected us, what decisions did we make, did we make the right ones, etc" and going "wake up sheeple! It was an inside job! The government is using everybody! SHEEPLE! <insert sheeple XKCD comic> Bush and Obama are lying to everybody"
We (the nation as a whole on the international stage) like to act like the guardians and giver of democracy. But our history of supporting dictators (that were on our side) and our recent comments by many politicians who are scared of democracy in the Middle East (they might elect somebody that isn't on our side) doesn't give us much weight in that discussion.
There's nothing wrong with Realpoltick. If a dictator is a good ally, he's a good ally. OTOH, there have been very, very few instances of wars between true democracies.
Generally, what happens is that a country elects a leader, who then becomes a dictator in all but name. One of the big things we forget in the US is that we are a liberal democracy, with the understanding that there are things the government cannot do, no matter how much int he public interest it may be.
Even those that realize that don't relize that other nations aren't like that. Russia elects a prime minister, but he's basically a Czar, with broad and virtually unchecked powers. there is minimal freedom of the press or due process of law. The government has few checks and balances.
Bascially, our system of government is insantely complex, with a delicate balance of central and local power, complicated power struggles among and even within the branches of government, and legitimized by transparancy and due process.
Asking people that have known politcs other than "might makes right" to step into such a system is like teaching a person to drive by taking a manual transmission car into rush hour.
Typical swoop and poop from the OP. Don't know why anyone bothers with this guy. He will not respond. Especially when you threaten his worldview of the BFEE.
djones520 wrote: Typical swoop and poop from the OP. Don't know why anyone bothers with this guy. He will not respond. Especially when you threaten his worldview of the BFEE.
Do you think he'd respond to me by saying this?
Hey, regarding the "Your leaders are not sad if you die" title... it's true! Christopher Stevens died in Benghazi because Obama & Co. didn't care enough! Let's fight the powah! o.O
djones520 wrote: Typical swoop and poop from the OP. Don't know why anyone bothers with this guy. He will not respond. Especially when you threaten his worldview of the BFEE.
Do you think he'd respond to me by saying this?
Hey, regarding the "Your leaders are not sad if you die" title... it's true! Christophen Stevens died in Benghazi because Obama & Co. didn't care enough! Let's fight the powah! o.O
"Even those that realize that don't relize that other nations aren't like that. Russia elects a prime minister, but he's basically a Czar, with broad and virtually unchecked powers. there is minimal freedom of the press or due process of law. The government has few checks and balances."
"Elects" might be a strong word for what happens in Russia.
Point #1 isn't something I can lol over. In fact a lot of that was a little depressing.
What, that terrorism works? That's because the US has been trying to fight it like a conventional foe. It's not another nation state that can be battled. You can attack nations that support it, but then the terrorists just move someplace else in a never ending game of whackamole. To actually win the war on terror, you have to deal with the root causes and motives of terrorists. And that has been the one thing that the US has been singularly unwilling to do.
d-usa wrote: Sometimes it sounds better than our 18 month long elections though...
18 months? I wish they were that short. Another 2 elections, I guarantee they'll be full 4 year affairs. At that point I'll just find a dark corner in the woods where cable and internet cannot yet reach.
The amount of time that goes into elections, wouldn't you guys be better off eliminating the second term and making it a 6 year stay or something, as opposed to 4 years which is really 2 because of reelections?
Having just watched a rather good drama about some British wartime-newspaper publicists set during the first world war... Yes it is fair to say that this is indeed the case.
The Somme - 60,000 British casualties in a single day. Absolutely. fething. insane.
Point #1 isn't something I can lol over. In fact a lot of that was a little depressing.
What, that terrorism works? That's because the US has been trying to fight it like a conventional foe. It's not another nation state that can be battled. You can attack nations that support it, but then the terrorists just move someplace else in a never ending game of whackamole. To actually win the war on terror, you have to deal with the root causes and motives of terrorists. And that has been the one thing that the US has been singularly unwilling to do.
Well, I blame that on a few books.
But no, that is point #6. Point #1 was the privacy one.
Ahtman wrote: So much for one day of quiet introspection and unity. Couldn't wait till tomorrow to pour gasoline on the fire?
Since when is browsing Dakka Dakka quiet introspection?
What the OP said was correct and this is the only day when people are likely to pay real attention to what was posted.
Using 911 as an opportunity to point out fallacies in government dialogue is not the same as using tradgedy to effect war or percuniary gain.
Given that 12 years on the world is not a safer place, but sure is a less free one, the actions of governments since that day have not even resulted in the defeat of those responsible. 12 years, that's twice as long as WWII and no measurable success. For us at least. The opportunities that various governments were given as a result of that day have no doubt helped some very rich and powerful people, but the rest of us, the people in Iraq and elsewhere, none whatsoever.
d-usa wrote: What color thread level are we on? I miss that constant graphic on every news station...
I'm tired of not knowing how scared I should be
"A yellow coded curfew is in effect, this is for your protection."
When I volunteered for the Fire Department we would get our daily notice so that we could act accordingly. As first responders we were considered targets and if the level was high enough (always) we should leave the garage doors closed and the station secure.
The thread level was constantly ignored, the doors left open, the trucks pulled out on the pad. Letting the community know that the station was staffed and their equipment taken care off and that they could visit us was more important to our chief.
Manchu wrote: What's all this about "quiet remembering"? I'm very suspicious about what is meant by "quiet" here. If anything, it should be a day of discussion.
That was badly worded on my part, and it should be discussed, but OP got under my skin.
Perhaps "dignified" would have been better than "quiet".
Either way, the article is trash and the OP is... well... that guy.
daedalus wrote: Article is 100% accurate though, if tasteless, though I suppose for it to have meaningful effect, it would have to be presented today to evoke the emotional counterresponse toward the emotional response people may already be feeling. That doesn't change the fact that almost any tragedy, accident, or difficulty is always an opportunity for someone, somewhere.
There is perhaps, a point in the article, about how people in positions of leadership might end up behaving differently to the rest of us. But it loses that point in failing to understand that leaders are people like the rest us, but in a different circumstance. Instead it wanders off in to weirdo territory and does everything but call them lizard people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: How is that inconsistent? If he is an American citizen, and it happens to Americans, it is human nature to care more. Our policies impact that more as well.
Or do you weep for every child on the planet? If you say yes, unless you're Jesus, the Budha, or the Great Wiener, you're lying.
And if you claim you weep for every American, you're also lying. Polonius made the very good point earlier in the thread, that no-one weeps for every death to diabetes.
sebster wrote: And if you claim you weep for every American, you're also lying. Polonius made the very good point earlier in the thread, that no-one weeps for every death to diabetes.
Well, there is only so much room in the Monkeysphere.
Polonius wrote: It's actually something I've been toying with, in that we are so obsessed with democracy that we forget that democracy is just a way to implement a deeper good: self determination of the people.
I think democracy is great. Ours has a few quirks I could do without (gerrymandering and wildly uneven access to voting), but it works really well for the US. But... the US had a long, long tradition of representative democracy, from early in the colonial period.
We took a lot of flack in the cold war for backing hated strongmen and dictators that opposed the communists. Now, we are worreid about elections in countries with strong islamist factions. Still, despite this, we thought that suddenly Afghanistan could bloom into a representative democracy overnight. The Taliban were terrible people, but like all regimes they had at least the silent consent of much of the population.
I agree with where your post starts but I really disagree with how your post ends.
Because I don't think its at all right to conclude that just because attempts at democracy have floundered, or seen governments espousing horrible ideas put in to power, that the answer is to just quietly accept that if a tyrant is in power then the people must be, on some level, okay with that. I mean, 'silent consent of the people' is a really weird way to describe the rule of the Taliban, who's rule was based entirely on military dominance maintained through Pakistani arms, was sustained only through increasing oppression of the general population, and lasted just 5 years, when it was overthrown by an afghani coalition force backed by US equipment.
Instead, I think what we need to do is realise that most of our attempts to install democracy showed a great deal of naivety in our own systems. We seemed to think that you can just give people a vote and expect liberal democracy to just appear. We need to realise that voting is something that only works once the basic ground rules are in play. Egypt showed that as long a there remain massive divisions on where government's right to impose religious morality ends and religious freedom begins, then just leaving that decision up to a vote isn't good enough. You need to have issues like that settled, and absolutely guaranteed one way or another, or else the losing side won't simply accept the result of a vote not going their way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Even those that realize that don't relize that other nations aren't like that. Russia elects a prime minister, but he's basically a Czar, with broad and virtually unchecked powers. there is minimal freedom of the press or due process of law. The government has few checks and balances.
Russia is a really interesting case. It is, I think, the classic example for showing the importance of local culture in controlling how systems work. I'm extrapolating my economics reading on the issue politics, as I only really know about this issue through reading about the IMF plans to install a new economic wonderland, and how those dreams tanked horrifically when they came up against the systemic corruption and graft of a society that had spent generations as a one party communist state, but I think many of the economic lessons learned in how culture is as important as the systems put in place could equally apply to politics.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that I agree that the incredible power of the President* is a major issue, but it's far from the only issue. I think instead the major factor in Russian politics is that there is simply no meaningful regard for basic law, and changing the law to restrict the powers of the president wouldn't actually do anything at this point. Putin has broken the law plenty of times, afterall.
*You said Prime Minister, and while that is a role Putin did serve as for a time to meet constitutional requirements in a purely legalistic sense, it isn't where power rests in the Russian system. The Prime Minister basically manages the civil service. In fact, thqat's kind of a good demonstration of why it's culture and not law that ultimately matters - in the US, if Obama were to say 'I can't stand for a third term, but vote for this random dill weed and I'll tell him what to do' then I really doubt Americans would go for it. But that worked in Russia.
daedalus wrote: Article is 100% accurate though, if tasteless, though I suppose for it to have meaningful effect, it would have to be presented today to evoke the emotional counterresponse toward the emotional response people may already be feeling. That doesn't change the fact that almost any tragedy, accident, or difficulty is always an opportunity for someone, somewhere.
There is perhaps, a point in the article, about how people in positions of leadership might end up behaving differently to the rest of us. But it loses that point in failing to understand that leaders are people like the rest us, but in a different circumstance. Instead it wanders off in to weirdo territory and does everything but call them lizard people.
A year ago, if you'd have said they were spying on our every email and phone call and sharing that information with other countries, a lot of people would have called that weirdo territory. At the end of the day, while they are likely entirely human, and just as horrified by the news, there's an element of opportunism there that you can't deny has been grasped.
I don't actually think Obama is a lizard man from Xenu.
Ouze wrote: Well, there is only so much room in the Monkeysphere.
Yeah, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Well, not so much that there's nothing wrong with it, more that there's nothing we can do about it. We are as we are.
It's just that we should be honest about who it is that we do and don't care about, and not think it's as simple as caring about the people our own political borders. Because thousands die every day in our own countries, and we don't give a gak. But if they'd died in a way that gets put on the tv, like in a terrorist attack, well then we care a hell of a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: A year ago, if you'd have said they were spying on our every email and phone call and sharing that information with other countries, a lot of people would have called that weirdo territory. At the end of the day, while they are likely entirely human, and just as horrified by the news, there's an element of opportunism there that you can't deny has been grasped.
I don't actually think Obama is a lizard man from Xenu.
Yeah, there's opportunism. But the importance is to understand that that opportunism exists because of the situations our leaders are in. Not to empathise or accept it or any bs like that, but to understand how power actually works and why simply replacing the apparent lizardman leader with one of us regular human people won't change a damn thing.
And if you claim you weep for every American, you're also lying. Polonius made the very good point earlier in the thread, that no-one weeps for every death to diabetes.
What if you're just depressed to the point of numbness at the realization of all the suffering in the world? Would that count?
What if you're just depressed to the point of numbness at the realization of all the suffering in the world? Would that count?
Some of us at least make a game effort to make the world a better place. Even if it's just removing undesirables from it. What I find truly frustrating is the apathy that pervades so much of the world these days. I swear you couldn't get people outraged if you set up a Puppy and Grandma fueled bonfire in the middle of town even. If fills me with revulsion and makes me want to start cleansing this world of such vermin.
What if you're just depressed to the point of numbness at the realization of all the suffering in the world? Would that count?
Some of us at least make a game effort to make the world a better place. Even if it's just removing undesirables from it. What I find truly frustrating is the apathy that pervades so much of the world these days. I swear you couldn't get people outraged if you set up a Puppy and Grandma fueled bonfire in the middle of town even. If fills me with revulsion and makes me want to start cleansing this world of such vermin.
Undesirable? To whom? You?
Ahtman wrote:
xole wrote: What if you're just depressed to the point of numbness at the realization of all the suffering in the world? Would that count?
If you are going to do that you should also realize there is a lot joy in the world as well.
Well, sure...but is there enough? Or, more importantly, do we need pain? Is not the majority of life some form of struggle? Is that not where all of our growth comes from, much like the drug resistant bacteria and viruses that will soon threaten us? Not that I mind this at all. A theoretical situation was declared impossible, so I decided to posit a similar theoretical situation that may or may not be more possible. It's not my personal position.
Your working with your imagination on the broad spectrum of "Joy" to "suffering". I've seen some serious suffering of day to day living to the other side of "joy" that we take for granted.
I'd like to think that the guy who had a taste for fried human ears was at least undesirable to most people, though he and Mike Tyson might have gotten along great, I dunno.
There is a lot of joy in this world. From the more mundane 'Nice scenery' to the more esoteric joy you get from crushing cars and bajaing around in 14 tonnes of French steel.
Well, yes. But that's not something I've personally witnessed. The only sadist in my life I haven't seen during a session, and is within acceptable norms, so I can't speak with personal experience.
I was thinking more along the lines of bipolar in the manic phase, buy a hundred blank t shirts to start a t shirt company and decide you need to replace all of your dishes so you throw them all against the wall. They're incredibly happy. Inconceivably so. But incredibly disturbing, and, ultimately, harmful.
xole wrote: What if you're just depressed to the point of numbness at the realization of all the suffering in the world? Would that count?
Well, if its true then fair enough. I'm not really sure what that's got to do with my point though, that it's very unlikely that a person would weep for all of their own countrymen, and not one foreignor.
Ahtman wrote: So much for one day of quiet introspection and unity. Couldn't wait till tomorrow to pour gasoline on the fire?
Since when is browsing Dakka Dakka quiet introspection?
Did you just read the first post, the second, and then skip everything else?
Why not, the post I responded to came before the rest. If the thoughts contained therein were erroneous then that post should have been amended. It wasn't. I responded to it given the information it contained.
Frazzled wrote: Leaving Iraq aside not seeing the bad part about Afghanistan.
While nation building turned out to be stupid for that region, it was an inherent attempt at good.
After Q effectively hit us with WMDs. We could have, maybe should have, responded in kind.
I think that was the problem with Afghanistan. After we ousted the Taliban and did lasting and significant damage to AQ we had no idea what we were doing there, other than some vague concept of nation building.
My own view is that we should have rolled in, dealt with our enemies in Afghanistan with overwhelming force. Then leave with a warning that any further aggression will be met with a much more ferocious response. Any follow up against AQ could then be done by proper support and funding of our intelligence and SpecOp community
Frazzled wrote: Leaving Iraq aside not seeing the bad part about Afghanistan.
While nation building turned out to be stupid for that region, it was an inherent attempt at good.
After Q effectively hit us with WMDs. We could have, maybe should have, responded in kind.
I think that was the problem with Afghanistan. After we ousted the Taliban and did lasting and significant damage to AQ we had no idea what we were doing there, other than some vague concept of nation building.
My own view is that we should have rolled in, dealt with our enemies in Afghanistan with overwhelming force. Then leave with a warning that any further aggression will be met with a much more ferocious response. Any follow up against AQ could then be done by proper support and funding of our intelligence and SpecOp community
Then leave with a warning that any further aggression will be met with a much more ferocious response. Any follow up against AQ could then be done by proper support and funding of our intelligence and SpecOp community
Not that I wouldn't mind making yet more money, but I think I need to point out that plan you have failed spectacularly every time the US tried it up to the present, and only led to further escalation by terrorists, in addition to giving them a steady influx of motivated recruits. And, frankly, reading over the leaked budget, how much more money do you think the intelligence community really needs?
cadbren wrote: Why not, the post I responded to came before the rest. If the thoughts contained therein were erroneous then that post should have been amended. It wasn't. I responded to it given the information it contained.
Are you this new to how discussions work? People don't talk about things retroactively, but in a linear fashion. Going back later and editing a post to make it appear as if nothing wrong was ever said would be dishonest and disingenuous. No need to whitewash history in an effort to appear perfect.
You also didn't respond to the information it contained, as the discussion contained lots of information, much of it that you ignored. You responded to partial information, and now want are trying to appear witty while also admitting to responding to incomplete information; it shows poor form to comment on a discussion without actually reading the discussion. You are commenting on a subject that had already been gone over and answered, and if you had read the comments, you would have known the answer to your question before posting. To perhaps better illustrate the problem, a comic. You are Internet Explorer.
Well, the first thing I would have done would be to approach both Shia and Sunni scholars and have a fatwa decreed against AQ and Osama Bin Laden, declaring their actions forbidden. For the Sunni it's an informal thing, but for Shia it carries the weight of law. This first move would have silenced a lot of Islamic critics (even if just in the context of showing respect for Islamic law and custom) and reduced the overall support for both AQ and Taliban. The Taliban might (and I emphasis this is a long shot, but a remote possibility) have simply handed him over at that point to save face, but if an invasion of Afghanistan was inevitable, do it with a plan and funds ready to go for post war reconstruction. I also would have put a squad on every damn street corner if I had the manpower until the place was pacified and the Afghans fully able to defend themselves and maintain order. Cut them some favorable trade agreements to help boost their economy and THEN slowly draw down.
I definitely would also have put Iraq on hold until finished with Afghanistan. Bringing Saddam to justice was important, but dividing your forces before the enemy is always a bad idea.
At the same time, I'd have opened a dialogue with the more secular terrorist groups and done some image building in the region if nothing else. Secular terrorists have motives that the US can examine, and potentially deal with the underlying reason for their existence, whether it's occupation, perceived injustice, economic, or whatever. They have real world political and or economic goals that might be brought into line with American interests. And make a point of being seen doing it.
The other thing I would have done is made a point to try captured terrorist leaders in the open, and make a point to prove that they had not only violated US and international law, but violated sharia as well, preferably in a manner that left no doubt in anyone's minds that the primary issue at hand was justice for the victims.
