044252509
#2767By mysticsdream (203.10.231.228) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 6:08 am

Sometimes its hard to know who is right.

Australia experienced the reality kick of terrorism when a western night club was bombed in Bali, one of our popular holiday retreats.

We along with the world were horrified when Sept 11 occurred and so much innocent life was lost.

At a time when war is about to be waged with Iraq because it has weapons of mass destruction, and North Korea is now being put on notice.. what were we saying when the US used weapond of mass destuction to bring Japan to its knees.

Maybe the end justified the means.

But these days I find it hard to distinguish 'moral high ground' from political power.

Perhaps if the rhetoric was a little more honest. Perhaps when the US speaks as if it is 'the promised people' itting next to God, it was humble enough to say, yes we are against the use of weapons of mass destruction and we have more than most, there might be more truth in the debate.

Then it would be a debate about being licenced to manage destruction, or if you like play God

044309041
#2776By Carlan (152.163.201.51) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 9:50 pm

We know that the US is not the only country that has control of many atomic bombs and atomic warhead missiles and powerful biological and chemical weapons, not to mention enormous conventional types of war materials at her disposal. I think what all of these powerful countries have in common is that they believe that no one country will win if one of these countries, including the US, decides to use these kinds of weaponry upon one another. I think what all of these countries are trying to do is to control the “rogue” countries that seem to not care whether or not they live or die delivering up the kind of destruction that all other countries fear.

It seems that several countries have gained access to the secrets of atomic bombs over the last 5 to 10 years and have detonated atomic bombs on site in their own countries successfully. These countries too have decided to keep building these bombs, but have too decided to join in the civilized world pact not to use them to destroy people, even their hated enemies.

What keeps us all from using these atomic bombs on one another is the “retaliation factor”. But, rogue governments don’t care about that factor or any other factor as I can determine. So, if these rogue governments insist on not being safe stewards of weapons of mass destruction like the rest of us, well then to my mind they (the rogue government) must be stripped of these kinds of weaponry by whatever means it takes to do so, before those fanatics use them on some unsuspecting peoples.

I don’t believe that any of the world power countries are trying to play God. I think they are trying to do what they can to provide a relatively safe world for the planet on which they find themselves. I think that when the US set off those atomic bombs over on Japan was a horrendous mistake in judgment, but since that stupidity cannot be erased I think that what was learned from it was a tremendous respect for the terrible lost and destruction that was shown to the rest of humanity. Perhaps, every year those films of those Japanese cities being destroyed should be shown on television every year, so that we can all be reminded of the destruction of such devices of mass destruction cause.

044324769
#2781By mountainwoman (204.19.188.22) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 2:12 am

If we are not to use weapons of mass destruction, why build them in the first place? There is no such thing as safe stewardship of these things. I agree, Carlan: we are in Jurassic park and the forces now unleashed are as ruthless as Spielberg's creatures. Edna is not talking rhetoric. If another nation was killing American citizens as indiscriminately as Afghans and Palestinians are being killed, the world would not stand for it. Why the double standard? The reprisals against a whole People for acts committed by a few of their compatriots smacks of Herod's order to kill every first born son in order to get at the one he really wanted to reach. Issues are indeed unbelievably complex but only stopping will stop. Only stopping will stop.

044412669
#2797By Carlan (152.163.195.184) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 2:37 am

I think that the reason we keep building atomic bombs is because they exist. Since they exist we cannot stop either building them or trying to control who builds them.

I think that our country, as well as other countries that build them or have them built is doing a very good job of staying them where they are. I think that we all must try to keep them from being built in “rogue” countries as we all are doing today. There may be, as you say, no safe stewardship of such weaponry but I think that I would rather take my chances with the governments that are controlling them now as to take a chance with “rogue” governments controlling them.

I think that the enemies of the US would gladly kill all of us Americans and her allies, as well, if given the chance. I think that if we were not as powerful as we are that those countries that hate us would jump at the chance of killing us off. But, the reality is that the US and her allies are the principle militaries of this world and because of this enormous power we can and do protect our combined interest when those interests are threatened. Those countries that are not friendly to the US can expect swift and if needed deadly force to be immediately applied if they should take it into their heads to attack any of its interest.

I think if those countries that are unfriendly to the US and her allies want to join with us they should. They are welcome to come on board. I believe they would be quite happy with their relationship with us. I think that we would all gain something good for all concerned if this seemingly impossible scenario would occur. I think we could all better cooperate with each other if given the opportunity to begin, first, by being friends then, perhaps, world peace could be the next logical step.

In some governments that are solely controlled by one person and that one person does not have to report to anyone else and that person is a “rogue” the ignorant people under that kind of government must do the suffering and the dying. Those people must take it upon themselves to rid themselves of such dictators if they are to live in harmony with the majority of the world. If they can’t find a way to overthrow their leaders they must suffer now and into the future and so must their children and their children’s children, too.

044425747
#2798By mysticsdream (203.10.231.228) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 6:15 am

I don't buy the rhetoric that 'good' people are allowed to nuke or invade 'bad' others.

Let me tell you this story. When I was visiting Capetown I needed a taxi driver. I used the same fellow regularly ( and got a discount) and got to know his life.

He had served in the 'Rhodesian' army where as part of his counter terrorism his job was to rape pillage and destroy native villages with a small squad. They were after all 'the enemy'.

His mission was dangerous as he operated behind enemy lines, and was constantly evading superior forces that had tried to hunt him down.

Ultimately after the 'war' he left Zimbabwe afraid that he would be a wanted man by the Mugabe regime. He loved the country there, and saw himself as a patriot.

He now was taxi driving in Capetown. Estranged from his 'homeland'. He was complaining about his neighbourhood.

He had had a nice place on the outskirts of the city near the mountain. But blacks had moved into his area. They began congregating on the corner and drinking at night, outside his home.

They did not know his background.

As a resident he asked them to move on. The next morning when he picked me up he had been bashed.

He was as much upset that his neighbourhood was now ruined as feeling hurt by being beaten.

But if you stand back there is some sort of irony. Was his sense of patriotism right? Maybe he was a hero.. he thought he was..after all he was working for white supremists (and believed he served a higher cause)or was he more like a terrorist?

And if you were that citizen in another land you would feel your amenity deteriorated and not enjoy your neighbourhood being ruined. Its just the circle had turned some.

In Australia at present the number one headline is about bush fires, next the war, and next whether the Australian cricket team should play a cricket match in Zimbabwe. There are likely to be protests if they go. White farmers are being murdered by blacks and Mugabe wants to see more land given to black people.

Often conflict is so long standing its hard to tell who is innocent and who victim.

I guess Carlan its OK to have a balance of power. Its better to have a UN with a vision and a will to build a world of justice.

Its dangerous when one side enters a conflict claiming a moral high ground to wage war without a 'just cause'. But what is a just cause.

044483633
#2801By Carlan (205.188.200.41) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 10:20 pm

I’m not sure of the correlation that you are making in your story between what I was speaking of and what the taxicab driver in your story had done to what we are talking about here. I don’t consider patriotism with rape, crime and pillaging of people. Patriotism to me is standing up for one’s country by honorable and as close to moral grounds as a human being can. I realize that too many people involved in our own government’s involvements around the world are lunatics and involve themselves in these types of activities, and in some cases, too many of these people go by unpunished but I think the many upstanding leaders when they learn of these ‘bad’ people go after them and punish them for their heinous crimes against humanity.

I did not say “good” people were in charge of weaponry of mass destruction capabilities, either. I do not know whether or not the people in charge of your government or my government or the government leaders of the other major countries in the world are, in fact, good or evil or somewhere between. However, I think these leaders are committed to one another in trying to assure the world that mass destruction weapons shall not be used in any conflict. The rogue leaderships are not interested in maintaining this role with our governments. They are driven solely on hate and could care less about any one else.

I like the concept of the United Nations, however, I think that if we waited for the plethora of controlling interests to come to an agreement on almost any world subject, I am afraid nothing would ever be concluded. People of the world use the United Nations as a sounding board which is a good thing, but these same people use it to manipulate and dramatize their own causes and effects.

I don’t know what a just cause is or who has a set moral ground to stand to, but I believe in our own country’s values and concerns. I trust to our way of life and believe that our leaders (though not perfect by a long shot) are the best in the world. I’m not about to trust to people that are rogues and cannot be trusted even by their own people.

044500440
#2803By mountainwoman (204.19.188.87) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 3:00 am

I am reading with interest. Carlan, would you please describe to me what a rogue is? It would help me understand your position. If I understand you both correctly, Carlan is saying that sometimes violence is required (to serve and protect) and Mysticsdream is saying violence begets violence (and the tables can soon be turned on yesterday's "hero"). Is that about right?

044520071
#2810By mysticsdream (203.10.231.228) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 8:27 am

Thanks Carlan.

Somebody might do me a favour and link the various discussions here. I seem to be rambling from one to another.

Seems to be a link with the discussion "what does friendship mean" which seems to be talking about something else.

What was I saying.. maybe how we understand life depends upon what experiences we have. A person who cannot see equal rights for others can be a persecutor, and even think by doing so he is doing good... (see comments about war v Iraq). We really need to understand the other side of things eg why are Arabs upset with the west. We just don't have the luxury of believing myths and biases that justify killing others is OK.

If we take a longer view of some conflicts we often see there are two sides to a dispute. We sometimes need to hear the other side, and welcome it. To repress it is to limit our learning.

These views are in the context that we have much to be thankful for that there is a US, that a nation has fought for freedom, and is a protective ally. But it is not beyond criticism and sometimes its decisions need to be more accountable. We live in a global village with a potential for increased conflict between Islam and the chosen people .. a term used in the broadest sense to convey that for Arabs there is a wider discontent.

Is reconciliation workable? Can we resolve conflicts other than by use of power? Can we find principles and values that unite.

044577392
#2815By Carlan (152.163.188.199) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:23 am

A rogue is something that goes berserk. Once it goes berserk it will turn deadly on all that is around it even upon its own kind.

I think your view of our (Mystic/Mine) opinions is pretty accurate, Mountainwoman.

I think that violence does beget violence; however, I also think that violence is a necessity of any civilized society. I think that violence has a definite place and though most of us detest actual violence that in some cases, I think most of us can see its necessity if and when applied properly with discretion.

I think we cannot but “link” the way we do link with all of our discussions. I think we cannot help but crosslink occasionally because we are filled with a passion for whatever it is we discuss. I’ll try harder not to cross link so often but if I do, please, be patient with me.

I think that equal rights exist for everyone to enjoy, however, I think you must earn those rights and the way that you earn those rights is by conforming to all that is considered to be civilized in most civilized countries.

Any religion, will find itself always in conflict with any other religion as long as it insist on foisting its views on another religious group.

I think that there exist more than two sides to any conflict. I believe that there exist as many sides to any conflict as there are peoples and ideals and ideas that are involved in the process of what the results of the conflict might present to the parties involved. In other words, though many conflicts seem to be two sided there usually exist many sides that are not seen or heard but are as important as or more important than what is made known to the general public.

I think that it is possible for all of the countries of the world to coexist in a civilized manner, a manner that would provide respect and admiration for everyone; a manner that would allow all of us our own space and our own culture, too. I think it will take people with vision and much time to accomplish such a valued world, but, yes, it can be done!

044579450
#2816By mountainwoman (199.84.45.230) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 12:57 am

I will certainly sit with the thought that violence is necessary. At this time, I am less than comfortable with that. I agree that there are as many sides to the issues we are discussing here as there are participants in their origin and unfoldment. That is what I mean when I say the issues are complex. As for whether or not we can find resolution, Carlan's conviction elates me. I don't think we have many other options at this time. When the plane is crashing, one does all one can to reverse the situation or mitigate it. Our species often needs to be in crises before coming up with better solutions.