I always felt like it was important to have compassion for everyone, enemies and friends. I feel subhuman without it.
<B>Honestly, Shanna, I though of you when I added 'liberals like her'. </B> I apologize on that remark -- somehow, I totally missed the "like her" part when reading it. <B>Regardless of our semantics, am I mistaken that liberals, in general, are considered softer on crime? </B> Depends on how you define soft on crime. In general, liberals tend to favor rehab over imprisonment, and life-sentences over the death penalty. However, neither of these say that a liberal has any less interest in eliminating crime, and in no way do these traits indicate that they are "softer" on crime. Some people feel locking people up deters criminals the most. Others feel that rehabbing people helps try to reduce the number of crepeat-criminals in society. Both are different ways of dealing with it, but the goals are the same: to reduce or eliminate crime. Beyond that, the "New Democrats" (1990's and 2000's) tend to have similar views on crime as do Republicans. Notice that Clinton was the one who pushed tougher laws (3-strikes) and more police. The "soft on crime" label is a Republican-pushed label to make Democrats look bad, just as the intolerance label is one by Democrats to make Republicans look bad. <B>What alternative implication then, makes sense when you have both a criminal and a victim?</B> You can have both. Dealing with crime is not an either-or proposition if you believe you can rehab the criminal into a normal citizen (given that, except for some murderers, the criminal is going to reenter entire society at some point regardless)
Well, I'm one who does believe that we need retaliation, but I'm not convinced yet that means full-out war or a 'gutting' of the entire Middle East. I don't think many of you understand the enormity of that. But I also don't give a flying f*ck about 'liberal' or any other outdated label that still resides in those clinging to politics for a definition of everything in the world. So if that's what I am, whatever. I don't give my support through labels, only to people and causes that I feel are just. That being said, if we are going to rush into retaliation soon, I'd want to see precise, surgical, ruthless strikes against terrorist leaders, organizations and 'camps'. We keep hearing about a 'New War' - let's see if that's true. This, obviously, means more than just Afghanistan - this is around the world. We don't need to simply blow up countries, because let's face it many types of terrorists aren't afraid to die, we need to take the kind of step that sets the mere existence of terrorism back to where they can't recover. Like I said, this means more than just targeting one group in one country. It's time to see just how willing our allies are to back up their talk of a 'war against terrorism', and see us unite to try and end it once and for all. Because, guess what folks - you go in, blow up Afghanistan, maybe even kill someone like Bin Laden, and it means two things: jack and sh*t. You can pack it in and call it a day if you like; but all you've done is buy time. For our children, or grandchildren, will be the ones to see the next event - which would probably be even more heinous then this. Terrorism is bigger than that. You have to react bigger than that. Guess what? War sucks, particularly when it really accomplishes little. I'm surprised some of you have to learn that. We're supposed to be the most advanced nation in the world, and in the beginning of a new millenium; let's see if we can act like it. Let's do something that will TRULY impact the good of this world. Because otherwise, politics aside, <b>I</b> at least will know that all we've seen is something to ease the tide and quell the outcry of the general American public. Nothing more.
Nolen, yes, it was my post. I liked your ideas. To not only call yourself a liberal, but a "peace loving one probably caused some on this board to almost stroke out.
12) Stop the irrational backing of Israel. If they want to continually fight their neighbors over a few square miles of Jerusalem and additonal West Bank settlements, they have to do it on their dime. No more UN vetoes for them, which just generate hatred toward us and allow them to feel less isolated in their intransigience. So stop backing our ONE solid ally in the middle east? That's not exactly wise Timing, Ally or not it has been Isreals own aggresion (with the full backing ofthe American government) that has caused much of the problems that they are going through now. And by the way, did you know they took military secrets that we gave them and sold them to China? Great ally huh?
Okay Timing, Lynus, at least a few people have responded. Where did you go? Waiting for your response to the topic you started.
Timing, you took a lot of time to fundamentally disagree with almost everything in glynch's post- your thoroughness suggests you didn't find something to deconstruct/complain about in his first few points, which addressed the question that you started this thread with. Care to comment on it, or (gasp) agree with it? Furthermore, If I were to respond as much as I'd like, I would spend most of my time responding to the ridiculous hateful snippets that come out of people's mouths. I found Dadakota's title thread 'carve up the Middle East!' disgusting. And Timing, your comment in that same thread about turning a nation that harbors terrorists into a 'parking lot' churns my stomach. If the tragedy of 9/11 can't teach you respect for innocent life, what will? And as for Israel: "So stop backing our ONE solid ally in the middle east? That's not exactly wise." Uh, I imagine they like being allies with us due to the billions of dollars we give them. I think any friggin' country in the world that got that kind of $$ from us would be a 'solid ally.' They should play nice and stop treating their neighbors like sub-humans. Holding back some of the absolutely ridiculous amount of cash we give them is not out of the question. Okay first off, the parking lot quote you've attributed to me is not factual in any way. I didn't even read that thread until I just read your accusation. I frankly didn't like the title of that thread and stayed away from it because of that. You will not find one quote anywhere where I am saying things of that nature. Shame on you for making stuff up. Secondly, I took a break from all this stuff because it's been driving me nuts. Everywhere you turn it's about this bombing so I took a little break there. I'm not ducking any questions. I didn't address some of Glynch's propositions because they were frankly completely obvious or not relevant to the question but I'll address them now. #1 Find out who did this. Do I need to respond to that? LOL #2 Basically develop a plan to bring them to justice in a way that won't make them martyrs or win further converts for the terrorist cause. This is tactically wise. Again does this need a response? It's simply common sense no? #3 Get international support as Bush is doing. Again quite obvious and not really addressing the question that I posed. #5 If taken alive, put the terrorists on trial at the Hague along with Milosevic. It is more appropriate to treat them as criminals against humnity . It doesn't glorify them. This is simply completely bogus and unrealistic. A crime committed on American soil is going to be tried at the Hague? I don't think so. American outrage would reach a boil like never before and politicians do like to be re-elected. There was no #7 on his list so I can't respond to that! There was no #11 either so ditto. Maybe he smokes the funny stuff? #14 Cease all development of the Star Wars boondoggle that bullies the rest of the world. It bankrupts us when we need the money for international development and oil independence etc. It makes us feel like we dont have to negotiate diferences. I didn't respond to this because it has nothing to do with a solution to terrorism. There are no Muslims outraged that we're contemplating a missile defense system. Certainly not to the point that terrorism has been threatened. This has and probably will never be a reason for terrorism. Actually this is simply part of a liberal agenda and I think Glynch just wanted to sneak that in there to create wiggle room to pay for taking care of the world. I so await your response now...
After thinking about the whole Hague thing a little bit I might be able to see that happening in a certain situation. If bin Laden is captured alive, which I doubt will happen, I could see him being brought here for trial/sentencing and THEN sent to the Hague for an additional trial for crimes against humanity. I think that's something that could work and still give Americans some feeling that justice was served for his crimes here. Again though, I don't think this dude will ever allow himself to be taken alive.
He won't be taken alive. I was watching an interview with a Bin Laden biographer who said that his men have been ordered to shoot him rather than have him captured alive. He basically sees himself as dead already, and every day he lives is like borrowed time. In this sense, I think it would be a coup if we were to capture him alive, give him a trial in which we would show the entire world his involvement and leadership in so many atrocities, and then execute him him in a civilized, unemotional, non-revenge-based manner. But if not? Eh.
Timing- I must apologize for attributing that quote to you. "We are at war, and if Afghanistan and other states end up as parking lots, then fu*k 'em - they started it." was stated by Treeman in the carve up the middle east thread, not you. Again, sorry about that. Look, you were the one who created this thread pointing fingers and making categorical statements about 'Liberals.' You issued a challenge, it was answered, and it annoys me you would still ignore points you agree with, likely because they were stated by liberals. So glynch or myself made some obvious points? What the hell do you expect? Very precious few on this board, regardless of political alignment, are going to have full understanding of tactical deployment in this area. To this day I'm still learning more, and you bet I'm doing hours of reading every day to educate myself on many areas of the topic. Dude, it's pretty clear your first post to open this thread was the typical right-wing accusation that peace-loving liberals would rather sit and talk and deconstruct rather than make a plan of action for a present problem. I think that accusation has been answered. Fact is, most liberal slanted posts have stated that they want something done, want the perpetrator apprehended. As you've stated, that's pretty obvious. We all want that. So what the hell else do you expect us to say? The liberal slant on this often discusses prevention, action in other political arenas in other countries which could have a direct, long-term bearing on this. You know, a chance for peace, lame s*** like that. Of course we want the mother****ers who did this brought to justice! What else is there to say? I agree, Bin Laden will almost never be taken alive. My point about him going to a world court is a best-case scenario. And I still stand by my point that it's a waste of money sending billions of dollars to an ally that commits human rights atrocities.
I'm liberal except on the death penalty issue and I am a bit hawkish in areas that conservatives tend to ignore. I find the fault in this with Bush Sr. he had the chance to finish of Saddam and didn't. At that point Saudi Arabia needed our protection from Saddam and our troops had to stick around. Bin Laden is most angry at the presence of what he considers crusaders in the land of Mecca. Also Bush Jr. let the Israeli thing just happen he didn't criticize any of the bad things Sharon was doing to cause the escalation to its current state of crisis. I don't think it's been realistic that we would stop being allies with Israel but our responsibility as a "moral leader" of the world is to make sure that we do not become an abedder of this type of hedgemony. Let's get Bin Ladin and then Saddam and then lets try to make friends of the people who resent us reasonably by trying to do better by them. There will always be extremists and we have to be watchfull but our example as a nation has to be in line with our ideals. And the Star Wars idea is just going to get us into real dangerous territory. We need to spend the money on equipment to monitor nuclear packages leaving the former Soviet Union and coming here as well as chemical and biological threats. i have more but i gotta go.
I don't think I pointed any fingers. There were a few people, self-described liberals, who were sharing their views on pacifism and the like. I simply asked for their solution to the problem. I don't think that was wrong or anything. I didn't address some of the points because I don't think anyone would disagree with them. We have to find out who, find where they are, try not to inflame the situation, and capture or kill him with as little loss of life as possible. That's all just common sense man. I don't know what you wanted me to say about that stuff. Your stance on Israel only being a solid ally because of our aid, I don't really agree with. Egypt is #2 on our foreign aid list, they're not exactly a solid ally. Israel is a unique American interest because of the Jewish question. We fought a war to free their people and we're not just going to up and run off and let the entire Middle East gang up on them as they would inevitably do. Having said that, I have been vocal on these boards before about the human rights violations they have committed against the Palestinians. I think we should exert more pressure to stop that stuff. The UN should have peacekeepers in the area immediately. I think we also have to understand that Israel is incredibly vulnerable and they feel they need that buffer zone much like Russia used satellite countries.
Nolen, if you want I'll give my ideas later on how to handle this stuff without the regular find out who, find them, and catch them. Then you can disagree with all of my ideas if you want!
From other postst of yours I've seen, it seems you have a depth of knowledge on the subject- I would really like to read it. Of course I'm gone for a day and there are 50 new threads. Actually, I do think we're in agreement on Israel. We need to exert pressure on them. All I've seen is categorical agreement, which is ridiculous. Cutting off all aid would of course also be ridiculous; their neighbors would gladly eat them alive if abandoned. I don't mean cut all support, but at least save some of our cash for a better cause.