March 5, 2002

12:05 PM

"Let us pray that our country will stop this war."From a recent speech by U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio: "We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases. We did not authorize war without end. We did not authorize a permanent war economy. We did not authorize an eye for an eye. Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on Sept. 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan." Amen.
posted by fold_and_mutilate (76 comments total)

Alternative link...

Let us pray for our children. Our children deserve a world without end. Not a war without end. Our children deserve a world free of the terror of hunger, free of the terror of poor health care, free of the terror of homelessness, free of the terror of ignorance, free of the terror of hopelessness, free of the terror of policies which are committed to a world view which is not appropriate for the survival of a free people, not appropriate for
the survival of democratic values, not appropriate for the survival of our nation, and not appropriate for the survival of the world.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:13 PM on March 5, 2002

Sounds less like a speech and more like a sermon. Speeches that start out every section with 'Let us pray' should be left for church. Religion is the cause of almost every major war in history. Religion has brought more suffering into the world then it has relief. Its obvious the sooner we shed ourselves of it, the sooner we can all live in peace...though I know that could never happen. sigh.
posted by uftheory at 12:18 PM on March 5, 2002

Thats a pretty amazingly strongly-opinioned speech from a congressional rep... guess cleveland has a pretty liberal voting population.

I'm hoping that speeches like this one, and the first inklings of dissent in the senate (daschle for last couple weeks), are a sign that our representatives are willing to be a little more then yes-men again.
posted by malphigian at 12:18 PM on March 5, 2002

And, without destruction of terrorists, without lifing up countries to reasonable health levels through use of engineered food products, without lifing up countries to reasonable economic levels by providing industry like salt plants, we cannot hope to remove the class differences that provoke people to acts of terror.

But, we have too many people in this country that think the solution is to give them fish, without teaching them to fish. To reinforce the ideology of America as the saviour of the world, instead of America as the friend of those willing to work towards the common goals you list.

There will always be war, so long as Americans seek to interfere in the lives of the citizens of other countries, not by bombing, but by economic warfare.
posted by dwivian at 12:21 PM on March 5, 2002

Too little too late. Little more thanyes-men malphigian? Hardly. Why wasn't this published when this "war" began? I've been saying this from the beginning. If you cannot assure me that innocent people will not die (something that cannot be assured in combat), you become just as evil as they are.
posted by banished at 12:25 PM on March 5, 2002

Too little too late. Little more than yes-men malphigian? Hardly. Why wasn't this published when this "war" began? I've been saying this from the beginning. If you cannot assure me that innocent people will not die (something that cannot be assured in combat), you become just as evil as they are.
posted by banished at 12:25 PM on March 5, 2002

I apologize for the double-post, there was a loading problem with my browser.
posted by banished at 12:26 PM on March 5, 2002

Rep. Kucinich is also the one who introduced a bill to congress banning orbital mind control lasers.
posted by straight at 12:38 PM on March 5, 2002

Thanks for that post, fold_and_mutilate. To be fair to Kucinich, he does make his points by referring to the Constitution. I wonder if he was influenced by Ronald Dworkin's formidable article in the New York Review of Books. It certainly seems so. As the linked article is necessarily brief, Dworkin's closely(and expertly)argued points should perhaps be read before leaping to judgement.

Although I'm definitely on the side of the Bush Administration - I even believe there is an Evil Axis - I have to defend the American tradition of openly discussing your fine, active Constitution. Kucinith's comparison to Civil Rights rings true. Sometimes conservatives take longer to understand progress, I guess.

On a polemical note, f_and_m, your radical position - I remember you saying forcibly, only yesterday, you "mourn any loss of life" and for this I respect you entirely - does bring up the whole pacifism/just violence debate; forbidding agreement of any kind.

It's still healthy - and does have a slow effect on both sides, I think - to know how opposition is expressed. in any case, fake and enforced consensus should always be denounced, challenged and decried. Bravery, of any type, if it means sticking up for the underdog - is always admirable; whether it comes from the Left or the Right.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:45 PM on March 5, 2002

"Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." -- The Dude

I don't know, I always tune out arguments that purport to be about one thing (the war on terror), then try to turn it into an argument about everything (i.e., health care, hunger, homelessness, ignorance, hopelessness ...)

banished: "If you cannot assure me that innocent people will not die (something that cannot be assured in combat), you become just as evil as they are."

(1) Killing by mistake is not as evil as intentional mass murder. (2) Does your argument always hold true? Should the US have refrained from intervening against Hitler, thus allowing him to take over all of Europe (and eventually the US) and continue slaughtering millions of innocent Jews, all because we couldn't provide any "assurance" that we wouldn't kill an innocent person? If so, you've got a screw loose. If not, I fail to see a meaningful distinction.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:46 PM on March 5, 2002

uftheory: Religion is the cause of almost every major war in history.

what nonsense. WWI? WWII?

economics, control of resources is the cause of almost every war (major and minor) in history. leaders may dress aggression up in religious clothing, but--for the people who have the power to actually begin and end wars--religion is rarely, if ever, the cause.
posted by rebeccablood at 12:52 PM on March 5, 2002

pardonyou?: (1) Killing by mistake is not as evil as intentional mass murder.

Stop the Kabulsh*t
What to do about rumors of Afghan civilian deaths.

...But now—because the United States has backpedaled some on its original firm denials that two of its lethal attacks were mistaken and is also looking into charges that in a third our Special Ops raiders killed some innocent Afghan villagers and beat others thinking they were Taliban or al-Qaida—all that's changed...

The administration's reflex thus far has been to ramp up its counterspin. As the Washington Post put it, it's "almost as if the administration fears that any admission of fallibility will cause overwhelming public support for the war at home to collapse—and for key partners abroad to withdraw their backing. Well, sure, running a war in which the lives of civilians (civilians you are supposed to be helping) appear to be heavily discounted is indeed a PR problem, but it's also something much deeper. This is, after all, a war against terrorism, and since the essence of terrorism is the wanton lack of concern for the lives of noncombatants, displaying that lack of concern yourself means the whole effort doesn't just appear flawed but is flawed.

(emphasis mine)
posted by rebeccablood at 1:00 PM on March 5, 2002

Oh blah blah blah. The 'Oh the poor innocent children' defense is the same one Jerry Falwell is so fond of when smearing gay people or liberals or feminists: 'Imagine what this gay/liberal/feminist agenda is doing to the innocent children of America'. It just drips with sanctimony, and if I want sanctimony I would be a religious man.

I wish anyone with opposition to the war would paint their opposition in rational, practical arguments rather than the blinkered moral language so fondly used by mindless anti-war propaganda. Instead of appealing to abstractions like 'killing innocents is unjustifiable', give me the real basis of that kind of argument without being holier than thou. What moral system is opposition to war based upon? Why do people who think 'we deserved 9/11' so often cite our 'killing of innocents' as a reason to oppose war? How can you support real human death in favor of some half-assed political or economic abstraction (like 'the US got its just desserts'), yet be against a measured retaliation for the same reasons? It does not compute.

And I never expected fold_and_mutilate to use a religious expression like 'Amen', given the oppressive and colonial history of the Christian Church, not to mention the patriarchal connotations of both the Church and monotheism in general. But then, foldy is rather fond of a strict political orthodoxy, so I suppose a strict religious one would be equally appealing.
posted by evanizer at 1:05 PM on March 5, 2002

pardonyou?:
I think your first point is also the Rep.s point. Just because you want to fight the people who took down the World Trade Center doesn't mean that you also get to attack everyone else you don't like (Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, none of whom were even remotely involved). You also don't get to repeatedly ram unwanted legislation down people's throats as a part of the "war effort." Bush has connected it all in his agenda, and so one must do the same when countering him.
posted by Ptrin at 1:06 PM on March 5, 2002

evanizer : ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, personal attack.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:08 PM on March 5, 2002

rebeccablood: doesn't look like an ad hominem to me. But, that is an often misused phrase. Personal observation, not personal attack. Reasoned response, actually. Which is unexpected from a pancake-loving atkins dieter....
posted by dwivian at 1:13 PM on March 5, 2002

And I never expected fold_and_mutilate to use a religious expression like 'Amen', given the oppressive and colonial history of the Christian Church

Umm, Evan - Amen is Jewish. We just pronounce it differently in synagogue. With the accent on the "E". F_and_m used it well, in the original sense of "I agree", "I say the same." The same goes for Hallelujah to rcb's criticism. You can do better than this! F_and_m is standing up for life, the sacredness of which, whether you're religious or not, should be evident. Specially if you're a lapsed Jew like me. Honestly, boy, I'm disappointed in you! ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:15 PM on March 5, 2002

rebeccablood, I disagree that the article proves your point. Nor, in any event, do I think the US has demonstrated anything close to a "wanton lack of concern for the lives of noncombatants..." There has been some delay in admitting that we caused some deaths, which may or may not be attributable to the fact that getting reliable information is notoriously difficult in Afghanistan. But that does not suggest anything close to "wanton lack of concern" for whether or not we caused those deaths. Indeed, I suspect that from a P.R. standpoint, if nothing else, the military is very concerned about minimizing civilian deaths. But, like banished said, you can never assure that there won't be innocent deaths.

You're never going to convince me that causing accidental civilian deaths in combat is just as evil as intentionally killing thousands of people.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:16 PM on March 5, 2002

dwivian: you're absolutely right, I typed too quickly. my apologies to evanizer. I meant to say:

straw man, straw man, straw man, personal attack.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:19 PM on March 5, 2002

Ptrin, actually, I agree with you. I don't think Bush should take support for the "war on terrorism" as a blank check to advance all of his pet policies. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not a Bush supporter. But I am a rarity on this board -- a Democrat who fully supports military efforts to eliminate those that attacked us without provocation, and who would gladly slaughter me, my family, or any other American if given the chance.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:20 PM on March 5, 2002

evanizer: What moral system is opposition to war based upon?

Well, apart from the ad hominem nonsense that opposition to the war is the same as supporting the terrorists, what moral system is support for killing innocent civilians based on? What is "retaliation" based on? Certainly no normal ethical system. Not utilitarianism, not the Golden Rule, not Judaeo-Christian ethics, not Buddhist ethics, and not Islamic ethics either (I'm sure that cheap shot was coming).

It is not a defence of killing civilians that you don't mean too. If you know that civilians will die as a result of your actions, it doesn't matter ethically whether you glory in their deaths or whether you regret it - it's what you do that counts. If you want to give an ethical defence of the continued war you need to show:
1. That the war will save lives overall (actually I think it probably will).
2. That the civilian deaths are necessary to achieve the objectives (which nobody even bothers to argue for).

It seems a bit strange to go attacking the ethics of people whose concern is the avoidance of the innocent loss of life. Do you reckon that American self-interest is the highest ethical goal?
posted by Gaz at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2002

i've been wonder when someone was going to ask - why are these guys pissed at the US anyway? - and is'nt it worth Washington DC and/or NYC all the inhabitants therein plus 30 or 40 billion a year to take a look at talking to moderates in the arab world about peaceful resolution to the complaints with the US - i for one am ready to start riding my bike more, put the porsche away for good... and bring the boys home from the sands of saudia arabia -... and the palestinian thing..... ahem! i'd say like the former government of south africa - its time to cut the ties.
posted by specialk420 at 1:26 PM on March 5, 2002

Religion is the cause of almost every major war in history.

it's also a source of great moral strength for some of the most influential social movements in human history. (e.g., the civil rights movement in the united states, gandhi's nonviolent revolution in india.) like all tools, religion can be used well or irresponsibly.

in the current conflict, the antiwar movement is largely being led by religious groups--the american friends service committee, for one, the dalai lama, for another, the us conference of catholic bishops for another.

evanizer, you may want to follow those links. most of us in the antiwar movement aren't in the "america got what it deserved" camp. most of us would just rather find a permanent solution that minimizes the further loss of life and leads us closer to a sustainable peace.
posted by shylock at 1:30 PM on March 5, 2002

Religion is the cause of almost every major war in history.

it's also a source of great moral strength for some of the most influential social movements in human history. (e.g., the civil rights movement in the united states, gandhi's nonviolent revolution in india.) like all tools, religion can be used well or irresponsibly.

in the current conflict, the antiwar movement is largely being led by religious groups--the american friends service committee, for one, the dalai lama, for another, the us conference of catholic bishops for another.

evanizer, you may want to follow those links. most of us in the antiwar movement aren't in the "america got what it deserved" camp. most of us would just rather find a permanent solution that minimizes the further loss of life and leads us closer to a sustainable peace.
posted by shylock at 1:36 PM on March 5, 2002

gaz: "If you know that civilians will die as a result of your actions, it doesn't matter ethically whether you glory in their deaths or whether you regret it - it's what you do that counts."

See, I just disagree. Obviously there's no "laws of ethics" like the "laws of physics" to help guide us.

Hypothetical 1: I am a depraved lunatic. I kill 5 women just because I like to watch them suffer.

Hypothetical 2: I am a police officer. There is a man driving a bus with 5 innocent women in it towards a crowd of 20 people at high speed. I shoot the driver, knowing that the bus might go out of control and the 5 women might die, but also knowing that I have saved 20 people from dying.

The person in hypothetical 2 is far, far, far, far less evil, and much more "ethical" than the person in hypothetical 1, even though he knew that he would probably kill the same number of innocent people.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:38 PM on March 5, 2002

rebeccablood :
Any cause of war you can point to, economics, control of resources, whatever, can all be traced back to religion.
Religion makes me people think they are hereos for crashing a plane into a building.
Religion makes people think it is ok to treat women like animals.
Religion makes people think there should only be white people on the planet.
Only a few times in my life have I seen religion have any kind of positive effect. It is the worst plague to ever effect mankind. It will most certainly be the end of all of us.

Sorry about slipping off-topic.
posted by uftheory at 1:40 PM on March 5, 2002

Not at all. As so eloquently stated here by MiguelCardoso, morals are the difference between right and wrong, while ethics are the difference between bad and less bad.

The ethical argument for the current war in Afghanistan can be summarized as "It's better for the Americans to kill 1000 innocent people and than for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to kill 2000." The moral argument against the war doesn't seem to get past "It's bad for the Americans to kill 1000 innocent people," which while true is not very useful in determining the ethical course of action.

No one argues that civilian deaths are necessary to achieve the objectives because it's blindingly obvious.
posted by jaek at 1:47 PM on March 5, 2002

Apologies if I offended anyone, rebecca. I just get kinda worked up when politicians use this tactic, and when posters do the same, rather than fostering a slightly less emotional discussion of an important issue.

But the core of my question was hardly an ad hominem attack. I think it is legitimate to question the moral framework that political arguments are based upon, whether Mr. Bush's or Mr. Kuchinic's. What is the moral basis for Kuchinic's opposition? Why would people applaud concern for the death of civilians based on a moral philosophy that all killing is wrong, yet scoff when anti abortion activists make the same claim. Is it specific religious affiliation vs. more general ethics that is the key?It warrants discussion.

And I do contend that fold does have a fairly orthodox far left political view, based on her/his posting history here. I think a well parsed barb is not the same as a personal attack.

Defense is utilitarian, highly utilitarian. The killing of civilians is not. I should make a clear distinction between the two. The death of civilians in a military operations is a terrible thing. But it is very difficult when mounting a defense against 'non state combatants' to decide what qualifies someone as a civilian, since many of the al Quaeda terrorists/combatants rely on their anonymity within various countries.

and Miguel, I should have added the [sarcasm] tags to my 'amen' comment. I'm aware of the broader connotations and uses of 'amen'. I was just using the 'evil by association' argument that many people on the fare left and right use to discredit ideologies. Just a bit of hyperbole. Apologies.
posted by evanizer at 1:48 PM on March 5, 2002

pardonyou?:

Someone on the other side of the argument would say that it's more like this:

A man has killed several people. He is hiding in a compound with many innocent people. To kill him, we will have to also kill everyone else in the compound. All added up, that's more people than he killed in the first place.

I understand your point, but I know you understand mine, too.
posted by Ptrin at 1:49 PM on March 5, 2002

pardonyou?: of course, I don't disagree with your example, but it doesn't demonstrate anything. Here's another example.

1. I am a cannibal. I kill 5 women because I want to eat their hearts. I very much regret that they have to die, but I'm really hungry...

2. I am a police officer. There is a man driving a bus with 5 innocent women in it towards a crowd of 20 people at high speed. I shoot the driver, knowing that the bus will go out of control and the 5 women will die, but also knowing that I have saved 20 people from dying. I really hate those 5 women, and secretly hope that they die - it's only the fact that they're on the bus that convinces me to shoot the driver.
Forget for a moment how bad the people are (they're both pretty bad). The point is that the action in the first case is clearly wrong, but the action in the second is right (after all, it's basically the same action as in your case, but chosen for wrong reasons). Yet it's the second case that involves deliberate killing. So if your example shows that it's better not to intend to kill, then mine shows that it's better to intend to kill. Of course, neither example shows anything significant at all...
posted by Gaz at 1:51 PM on March 5, 2002

And I do reckon that American self-interest is very high on my list of ethical goals. I am an American and I live here and work here. I expect that everyone, no matter where they live, has this same concern for their country and its citizens.
posted by evanizer at 1:52 PM on March 5, 2002

i've been wonder when someone was going to ask - why are these guys pissed at the US anyway?

America = Most powerful country on earth
Arab world = Either under the opressive arm of oil dictators or running around in caves, used to have magnificent empires

I don't really know how one can fight the green eyed monster with an irrational opposition.
posted by owillis at 1:52 PM on March 5, 2002

uftheory: Any cause of war you can point to, economics, control of resources, whatever, can all be traced back to religion.

please trace the following wars back to their religious roots:
World War I
World War II
Vietnam

I have more, if you want, when you're done with those.

leaders use religious trappings to sell their wars, but religion is rarely, if ever, the reason for a war, especially in the modern world.

just because you hate religion doesn't mean it's the cause of everything evil that has ever existed.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:53 PM on March 5, 2002

rebeccablood:just because you hate religion doesn't mean it's the cause of everything evil that has ever existed.

It is in my world....
posted by uftheory at 2:03 PM on March 5, 2002

rebeccablood: leaders use religious trappings to sell their wars, but religion is rarely, if ever, the reason for a war, especially in the modern world.

Of course you're right, but this argument doesn't show that religion is less culpable. You could say that even the Crusades were begun for economic or territorial reasons, but nobody would have fought but for religion. If leaders are only able to get people to fight by religious indoctrination, then that's a big deal. Still, what you say is true as far as it goes.
posted by Gaz at 2:04 PM on March 5, 2002

It [Religion] will most certainly be the end of all of us.

Erm... over the top much, uftheory?
posted by ratbastard at 2:09 PM on March 5, 2002

Thanks gaz and ptrin, I do understand your point, even though we obviously will just have to agree to disagree.

And because I think it might be relevant here, I thought I would include something I posted in another thread a few weeks ago:

And these numbers can't really be debated in a vacuum -- the intent of the U.S. campaign is to avoid the number of deaths that would result if we did nothing. While those numbers would be admittedly hard to calculate, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of the equation (unless, of course, you believe that Al Qaeda was "done" with their terrorism and was going to pack up their bags and go home). Pure hypothetical:

- Option 1 (America does nothing): 3,000 WTC/Pentagon deaths + 12,000 future deaths from Al Qaeda terrorism + 0 Afghan deaths=15,000 total deaths

- Option 2 (course chosen): 3,000 WTC/Pentagon deaths + 0 future deaths from Al Qaeda terrorism + 1,000 Afghan deaths=4,000 total deaths

Which is morally preferable? (of course, the numbers are just made up for the purpose of illustration).
posted by pardonyou? at 2:10 PM on March 5, 2002

gaz: If leaders are only able to get people to fight by religious indoctrination, then that's a big deal.

well, religion can be used to get people to give lots of money to con artists, too, but that doesn't make religion a bad thing, either. it shows that it can be compelling and easily misused, but that's not the same thing.

pardonyou: Which is morally preferable?

but you can't use made up numbers to prove any significant point. if you have numbers that you believe are reasonable based on some sort of evidence or informed projection, that's one thing.

if this was a compelling argument, the antiwar movement could have prevented the entire war in afghanistan by showing that it would lead to many more deaths than every other action would have.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:14 PM on March 5, 2002

pardonyou?: I'm sure you realize that most of the anti-war people would argue that there is a third option. America could do something other than what it is currently doing, rather than nothing.
posted by Gaz at 2:15 PM on March 5, 2002

rebeccablood:just because you hate religion doesn't mean it's the cause of everything evil that has ever existed.

It is in my world.... -uftheory

In my world, any belief seriously held by anyone, is religious in some way. Why don't you start by reading up on a definition of religion. Read the 4th definition:
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
This idea of yours (that all wars are caused by religion) is ironic, since you religiously hold to your view, as demonstrated in this discussion.

So maybe all war is caused by religion. People who hold to any idea religiously, and are willing to kill for it, cause war. Ideas have consequences, and any idea can be a religion.

We had a civil war not necessarily because of an institutional religion, but perhaps because Americans were taught to believe that the Union was sacred (read George Washington's Farewell Address), and that it was to be defended at all costs. That idea became religious, but I have a feeling the only reason you are attacking religion so vehemently is because you have a bone to pick with traditional religious institutions. Define your terms more carefully.
posted by insomnyuk at 2:20 PM on March 5, 2002

I'm sure you realize that most of the anti-war people would argue that there is a third option

But so far they haven't from all I've seen. The argument is almost always "war is bad" - ok, sure - it is. But it's not like they've saud "we should do this instead". The only difference I've seen is Nader's Monday Morning Quarterbacking of endorsing some sort of "International criminal court tribunal" monstrosity which really doesn't do much to stop nutjobs from slamming airplanes into buildings.
posted by owillis at 2:20 PM on March 5, 2002

I am a pacifist but I (reluctantly) support this war. If we didn't retaliate when and how we did, we'd be seen as a defenseless country. Like a woman whose drawn the gun from her purse on the rapist in the alley after he accosted her, but the look on her face and the shakiness in her hands hints to the rapist that he can subdue her with little risk to actually getting shot.

We have no choice. We have to retaliate as we have. Bin Laden called Shrub out after school. If the bully's not taken down, every little wimp on the playground would fear recess for the rest of the year. Someone must take the bully down - lest we see another building fall, another few thousand lives taken from us. Make no mistake though: murder is wrong. Even when it's in self-defense, it's still wrong. There may be no ramifications. Perhaps it's fully justified and understanable - still it is murder. And murder is wrong.

Actually there are many "laws of ethics." At least one for every major religion in the history of mankind. Often there are many similarities between them. For example, most religions agree that murder is a bad thing. They don't say, "murder is bad except for when you can justify it and rationalize it to yourself, your peers, or a judge." Murder is murder is murder.

The only relevant cause of every war in history is humanity. Human beings do it to themselves. The use of religious involvement of any war is a smokescreen. There's almost always other motivations involved, but the people running the war use religious fervor as a tool to reinforce the support of their followers or constituents.

Divinity is pure and untouchable. Mankind's interpretation of divinity is what we call "religion" and it's dirtier than a pile of junk yard dogs. Yes there are a number of good things done in the name of religion, but a lot of shit's been stormed in the name of God too, and we can't just dismiss the one without acknowledging the other. Religion isn't evil or perfectly devine. It's a tool that human beings use in order to attempt to understand the supreme force of the universe. OR a tool some use in order to subvert that understanding for personal gain and manipulation.

To those who believe or don't believe: don't hate God. Hate the crap people perpetuate in the name of God.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:22 PM on March 5, 2002

insomnyuk: If your gonna quote me a definition.. don't use the fourth, rarely used definition. Check out the first two..

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Those two things have killed more people throughout history than anything else.
posted by uftheory at 2:27 PM on March 5, 2002

pardonyou?: your hypothetical is as silly now as it was two weeks ago, and not just because you make up numbers.

Option 1: Not bombing Afghanistan does not equal "doing nothing."

Option 2: Bombing Afghanistan does not equal an elimination of "future deaths from Al Qaeda terrorism."
posted by dack at 2:31 PM on March 5, 2002

uftheory - Sounds less like a speech and more like a sermon. Speeches that start out every section with 'Let us pray' should be left for church. Religion is the cause of almost every major war in history. Religion has brought more suffering into the world then it has relief.

It's interesting that during your tirade you missed the entire point of the speech...Here's a guy using religion to argue against a war, rather than taking the heavy-handed Christian high ground that Bush and Ashcroft are offering.

So which would you rather have? Kucinich's religion, or our president's 'secular' crusade?
posted by dogmatic at 2:37 PM on March 5, 2002

rebeccablood - You highlighted exactly the part of the material that is most egregiously wrong. Terrorism is not found in the disregard of the lives of noncombatants, it is found in the deliberate targeting of noncombatants. These two things are very different.

Forgive me if my scan of the comments missed a similar point being made, but it's far to much of the same shit on a day that is not nearly different enough.
posted by NortonDC at 2:40 PM on March 5, 2002

dack and rebeccablood, it was a hypothetical. It's a device used to frame a debate based on assumptions that may or may not come true, but that can better illustrate the arguments.

dack, to me, not bombing the Taliban and Al Qaeda is the equivalent of "doing nothing." Nothing else would be effective in reducing their capacity to commit terror (if you're suggesting we could have been effective by pursuing this through "trial" in the criminal system, you're naivete is glaring). And how do you know bombing Afghanistan does not equal an elimination of "future deaths from Al Qaeda terrorism." Again it was a hypothetical, but it will still hold true even if there's a net reduction. I absolutely believe we've already achieved net reduction in the number of deaths that would have happened had we not taken military action.

(on preview, thanks NortonDC -- I finally got some support. I've been going this one alone).
posted by pardonyou? at 2:46 PM on March 5, 2002

owillis: But it's not like they've saud "we should do this instead".

Okay, here's one. Or you could try this article, which at least partly takes your point. (Note: they're both slightly out of date)
posted by Gaz at 2:54 PM on March 5, 2002

The third option is:

1. Make America truly secure. Identify all individual threats, and take the necessary precautions necessary to make sure there is a virtually no chance of any major successful terrorist operation in America. Invest heavily in real 'homeland security' including reforming the INS and other government agencies that allow corruption and slack.

2. Enter Afghanistan and arrest all leadership of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist leaders. If met with resistance, take necessary action.

3. Reform America's overseas policies, enforce democracy and justice in all parts of the world, not just the 'quick fix' of stability (past rulers supported in the name of stability: Saddam Huessein, Pinochet, Shah of Iran). Make sure that all US policies overseas are effective, just, and, above all, consistent.

4. Rebuild and expand American intelligence operations all over the world, including more collusion with local anti-terror forces.

5. Build coalition through established world bodies that allows all nations who value freedom and are against violence to join and become an active part in stamping out violent movements all over the world. Enrich and expand democracy in those countries and areas that lack even basic rights. Stand up for the rights of all people, not just a chosen few, to live in peace under rulers of their own choosing. Use broad-based international coalition to put pressure on those states who encourage, finance, or endgender terrorism through their actions or lack of action.

6. Expand America's disaster relief campaign to help the poorest countries deal with natural disasters. Invent or expand programs that enhance America's image abroad without relying on cheap PR junkets or other such nonsense. Build goodwill by good acts, not good speech. Showcase American immigrant success stories, and let them bring the message of America's success and freedom to their home countries. Bring a consistent message to the rest of the world that is in line with a just and consistent foreign policy.


I'm sure this contains lots of potentially bad ideas, I just wrote it off the top of my head. But my main concern is that we are doing a quick fix by making our primary focus retaliation. In the past, I don't think this has ever proven to thwart terrorism. While I personally support the military action in Afghanistan, and think the President probably has our best interests at heart, I also believe there is a potential for a 'third way' to be even more successful if implemented with the best intentions and with solid follow-through. To me the main problem is inconsistency in foreign policy, which gives rise to jealousy, misperception, and hatred. In short make the US a harder target.
posted by cell divide at 2:57 PM on March 5, 2002

dogmatic : So which would you rather have? Kucinich's religion, or our president's 'secular' crusade?

Neither thank you.

The one thing that makes religion so dangerous is that it requires in the least the belief that people who dont think the same way or believe in the same things are somehow doing something WRONG... that they need to be saved, stopped, killed, or otherwise changed.
posted by uftheory at 3:08 PM on March 5, 2002

What cost a civilian life? 500,000 Iraqi kids dead through sanctions backed by the US only (hell, the UN wants to get rid of them), about 2-4,000 dying a month now, I believe (UN figures, go check the UN site). Whats needed in the War against terrorism is not only the punishing of those guilty of terrorism, but the stamping out of those little things that cause the terrorists to pop up in the first place..

From this, bombing Afghanistan = the creation of lots more proto-terrorists pissed at the US = more civilian deaths in the US a few years from now.. Again, another hypothesis - its always tricky to tell the future for some reason.. So what else could they have done?

Mossy's opinion: Present a whole load of evidence to all the countries of the world, get the International community to pressurise the Taleban into handing bin Laden over (offer to have him tried in Saudi Arabia under Shariah law if needs be), then, when he appeared in public, come down with a whole heap of commandos and arrest him under US law - far more subtle. The problem with killing him, is that killing = martyr, always a prob (if not viewed as a problem, Israeli style 'targetted killing' the moment he showed his beard in public.

Hmm, actually, there are some flaws in that, aren't there? To be a statesman..

uftheory - Those two things have killed more people throughout history than anything else.

Bad hygiene and diet have killed more people that religion over the years.. Funny thing is, quite a few religions contain guidelines to good hygiene and diet (certainly in Islam, probably in many others).
posted by Mossy at 3:10 PM on March 5, 2002

dogmatic : So which would you rather have? Kucinich's religion, or our president's 'secular' crusade?

Neither thank you.

Ok, but your original point was that religion inherently leads to war, which is at its base more or less disproven by the religion-themed speech asking for a stop to the war.

While I'm neither a huge fan of religion or war, I think you'd have to be quite stupid, or at the very least downright nonsensical, to draw a line directly from religion to war. Especially in a thread where one is being pretty blatently used to argue against the other.

The one thing that makes religion so dangerous is that it requires in the least the belief that people who dont think the same way or believe in the same things are somehow doing something WRONG... that they need to be saved, stopped, killed, or otherwise changed.

And how is this different than, say, politics?
posted by dogmatic at 3:20 PM on March 5, 2002

I remember those pre- 9-11 days when we constantly posted links and comments expressing concern for Afghani deaths and daily suffering without all these war politics getting in the way...hmmm...search function must not be working too well...
posted by quercus at 3:21 PM on March 5, 2002

500,000 Iraqi kids dead ...
The Politics of Dead Children
posted by owillis at 3:21 PM on March 5, 2002

Owillis, great article. It seems the author concludes that the most effective study done on Iraq shows that there were 350,000 excess child deaths, not 500,000 or 1.5 million as others have reported.

How many children dead by US-UN sanctions is too many? According to the same study that the article lends its credence to:

"The humanitarian disaster which has occurred in Iraq far exceeds what may be any reasonable level of acceptable damages according to the principles of discrimination and proportionality used in warfare"

It seems the main point of that article (very well written, and seemingly very well researched) is that getting hung up on a number (500,000! 1 million!) is bad for both sides of the sanctions debate, as there is a true humanitarian crisis going on in Iraq, and the sanctions play a large rule in that crisis.
posted by cell divide at 3:35 PM on March 5, 2002

"Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism."

-Isaac Asimov
posted by uftheory at 3:35 PM on March 5, 2002

More than a just-so "religion causes wars. Always has. Always will." It's probably more constructive to explore rigid belief strictures and mass-movements therein. How can an orthodoxy of hate be defused before it grips society at large? For instance this Kuro5hin topic and subsequent disappointing MeFi thread comes to mind attesting that not all religious experience must be mired in true belief.
posted by crasspastor at 3:45 PM on March 5, 2002

Gaz: What is "retaliation" based on? Certainly no normal ethical system. Not utilitarianism, not the Golden Rule, not Judaeo-Christian ethics...

Actually, Judaic ethics say "an eye for an eye" (which I think originally comes from Hammurabi).

That being said, this retaliation might feel good to the western world, but fear of death is obviously not a motivator for suicidal terrorists. You don't have to be a pacifist (I'm not) to think that violence is not the only solution this situation calls for.
posted by bingo at 3:46 PM on March 5, 2002

utf - Don't you formulate your own ideas on religion? Or do you have to fall back on the words of the famous?
posted by catatonic at 3:50 PM on March 5, 2002

I'll take cell divide's third option, please.
posted by 4midori at 3:51 PM on March 5, 2002

insomnyuk: In my world, any belief seriously held by anyone, is religious in some way. And when a belief defines itself as being the ONLY way, or THE TRUTH, and it runs headlong into an equal and opposite TRUTH, the believer feels attacked and reacts in defense. This tendency can easily be manipulated by anyone with an agenda, as many have said on this thread. Perhaps the 'real' maturity here is when you are convicted to your own beliefs, even as you understand them AS beliefs, thus allowing others to differ without feeling their mere existence is an attack. (Whether beliefs are religious, scientific, political, etc.) And when you understand your beliefs are your conscious choice, well, you've given yourself a freedom there that also makes it difficult to manipulate you. (current theory - subject to change)
posted by thunder at 3:56 PM on March 5, 2002

OK, let's accept that we should never have supported Saddam Hussein in the first place, and that the sanctions in place now are bad.

What should we do instead?

Depose him through military action and install a government more to our liking? Throw up our hands, admit defeat, and let him do whatever he wants? Exchange the sanctions for unspecified "diplomatic pressure", knowing that at least for the short term this is likely to be roughly equivalent to letting him do whatever he wants?
posted by jaek at 4:06 PM on March 5, 2002

10,000 child deaths would be too many.. Emotive, isn't it? In the Guardian today they had a list of all the under 18 deaths in the Israeli-Palestine intifada (the article associated with the list was the shelling of a car containing a Hamas leaders wife and kids, and some other kids in a car with their mom next to it, and the suicide bombing of Israeli children on sat) - more saddening than reports of policemen blown up (on either side) for some reason.. so much suffering we could help out with - I'm pretty sure the stats for people starving to death are pretty horrendous at the mo for example..

The war will provide the US Defence industry with an extra $40 billion or so to keep them happy - wasn't the stat that US spending is currently more than the next 15 biggest spenders put together? This is good for the economy, and I doubt Bush wants to deflate that.. Just idle thinking, but is capitalism a religion? If so, then it must be the worlds most popular one, and has caused some problems in its time..
posted by Mossy at 4:13 PM on March 5, 2002

-Isaac Asimov
posted by uftheory at 3:35 PM PST on March 5

Bravo!

What a perfectly ridiculous way to back out of a perfectly asinine argument!
posted by dogmatic at 4:58 PM on March 5, 2002

<epiphenomenon>

The disgraced Boy Mayor, Dennis Kucinich, is the best the anti-war movement can muster?

My god, Bush is more powerful than I realized. He holds carte blanche.

</epiphenomenon>
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 6:02 PM on March 5, 2002

Religions cause most wars? Not really. Cause many and contribute in smaller ways to many more, but hardly even a majority, unless you're willing to count broad cultural divisions as being solely about religion or the arbitrary religious justifications given to blatant wars of conquest or economic conflict.

In any event, there was an interesting perspective on Douglas Turnbull's blog:

I was surprised how dated [Camus's The Rebel] was. Reading it made me realize what an epochal event the ending of the Cold War was. Even with a narrow historical perspective, it was clearly a fundamental event, signaling the end of a 50 year struggle. But after reading The Rebel it’s clear that the Cold War was not a completely self-contained conflict. Rather, the Russian revolution and the Western fight against it were really the culmination of European history since the French revolution. And with the fall of Communism, the period of 200 years of secular revolution really seems to have ended. The Islamicists, he concludes, are different.

In any case, I find the constant refrain that our military actions in Afghanistan constitute "retaliation" or "revenge" to be grossly insulting propaganda. This is a preventive war, and by dumb luck, it is able to coincide with a war for independence by the people of Afghanistan against foreign interlopers who constituted a vile theo-fascist regime. If they'd never hit New York, foldy and the other morally blinkered haranguers would be begging us to "do something" about the horrible crimes they perpetrate against the Afghan people -- unless, of course, they could find some other way to blame it all on us after all.

I'm sure they'll keep trying.
posted by dhartung at 6:24 PM on March 5, 2002

dhartung: In any case, I find the constant refrain that our military actions in Afghanistan constitute "retaliation" or "revenge" to be grossly insulting propaganda.

Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure that the term 'retaliation' was first used in this thread by evanizer, in support of the war. Those commie propagandists sure are insidious. ;)

And yes indeed, I (along with many on the left) did argue for military intervention in Afghanistan before 11/9, but it could have been by the UN, and without significant civilian loss of life. You'll notice that the bombing continues when the Taliban are already gone.
posted by Gaz at 6:40 PM on March 5, 2002

And yes indeed, I (along with many on the left) did argue for military intervention in Afghanistan before 11/9, but it could have been by the UN, and without significant civilian loss of life.

How, exactly, would this have worked?
posted by jaek at 6:48 PM on March 5, 2002

What cell divide said. Even if the war in Afghanistan (and the continuing war to come) can be justified in terms like ZachsMind used - 'the schoolyard bully defense' - the ways in which the American government is dealing with the problems (that to a great extent America itself has created) is just more business as usual, and will lead to more of the same.

A third way indeed.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:05 PM on March 5, 2002

insomnyuk: If your gonna quote me a definition.. don't use the fourth, rarely used definition. Check out the first two.. -uftheory

Does this make the 4th definition somehow less valid? Or maybe you don't like this definition, because, according to it, you are a religious zealot?
posted by insomnyuk at 7:38 PM on March 5, 2002

Pacifist poop.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:41 PM on March 5, 2002

Communist crap.
posted by gd779 at 7:49 PM on March 5, 2002

Deviationist doo-doo.
posted by rodii at 7:55 PM on March 5, 2002

Erectile dysfunction.


(whoops, wrong thread)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:02 PM on March 5, 2002

I should clarify to Dhartung and the rest of those still reading this thread that when I wrote 'retaliation,' I meant it in the sense that you hit us, now we hit you, and thus make sure you can't hit us again. I didn't mean it in a pejorative way that apparently some war-opposers have. Actually, I think just, swift, and effective retaliation was necessary for a variety of reasons.
posted by cell divide at 10:22 PM on March 5, 2002

dhartung - foldy and the other morally blinkered haranguers would be begging us to "do something" about the horrible crimes they perpetrate against the Afghan people

i would imagine that you were aware of the situation in afghanistan before the 911, given your reading on the subject seems to have been quite extensive.
you would also have been aware that was always concern about the taleban, and their behaviour. 'doing something' about situations like that is the concern of all people dedicated to the freedom of the human race from oppression.
what is not considered a valid option is military intervention, as this cannot produce the stable outcome we all want. humanitarian intervention, political and economic measures, and as a last resort a passive force of international 'peace keepers' might have been considered. unfortunately, the suffering of the people of afghanistan was not fashionable as a cause. the reasons for this can be argued untill the cows come home, but the fact remains that nothing was done.

here is another thought experiment:

someone comes into your house and starts ordering you around, they have some superior quality (strength, weapon or whatever) that means you feel intimidated by them and do what they say. if you did not, you believe they would take your house anyway and kill you. do you respect them? are you always looking for a way to get rid of them as soon as possible? if you can't get rid of them soon, do you hope that your kin will take up the fight and one day in the future you'll be revenged?

it matters not what motivates the incursive individual claiming you and your home, the response will always be the same.
posted by asok at 7:42 AM on March 6, 2002