c.i., I understand, but that is their moral imperative. That is the reason that in a democracy we do not fall blindly in line of the leader for our moral imperative. It is also a valid argue that Allah is the moral imperative for terrorists.
I guess I am staying with the same argument.
I was just trying to say that any revalations after you're dead doesn't matter one way or the other. Their thinking at the time is what matters to 'them.' c.i.
c.i., I understand. I wasn't discussing the moral imperative of the pilots, I was referring to moral imperative of the country. That could be very confusing, thanks!
cicerone imposter wrote:BillW, But, the kamikaze pilots themselves were not aware of any moral imperative except dying for the emperor and country was an honor. c.i.
The Kamikaze Pilots were victims of their society, duped by their warlords to regard their cause as sacred, not unlike some other young zealots of today. I suspect the motivations and emotions driving a Palestinian Belt-Bomb wearer, or, by no great stretch, even a Knife-Wielding Hijacker, are not terribly different from those who futilely gave their lives to inconvenience the Western Armada over half a century ago. They merely do as their culture, as it may be imparted to them, dictates they must. The individual suicide combatant is relatively blameless, convinced beyond doubt of the justice of "The Cause" and the Selfless Nobility of "The Action". The real enemy would be those who endeavor to inculcate such values into a culture. Fantatic Despotism, regardless of creed or ideology, is The True Enemy of Civilization.
timber
timber, I very much agree except with "culture". It is for their leaders. In my understanding, suicide is not defensible in either the preWar Japanese or current Islamic cultures. I have read a number of times that it is against Muslim edict, just that some are using stretched beliefs to make it required. As stretched beliefs in the Christian religion from stretched reasoning (I did not say suicide here).
BillW, in the immediate sense, a culture is pretty much what its leaders say it is, particularly if those leaders are given time to raise a generation or two of young. A culture which condones and encourages terrorism is evil and requires a "Regime Change". If this can be effected appropriately, within a couple of generations things should begin to settle down. If not, the prognosis calls for a more lengthy and rather more uncomfortable period of difficulty.
timber
Really great discussion, and I need to reread it once more to finish absorbing....for now then, just lurking.
Timber says
Quote:BillW, in the immediate sense, a culture is pretty much what its leaders say it is, particularly if those leaders are given time to raise a generation or two of young. A culture which condones and encourages terrorism is evil and requires a "Regime Change". If this can be effected appropriately, within a couple of generations things should begin to settle down. If not, the prognosis calls for a more lengthy and rather more uncomfortable period of difficulty.
A minor quibble: some cultural inheritances tend to run deeply, as in the continuation of religious beliefs/practices in Russia (or here, for that matter) and aren't susceptible to much alteration by a political regime (post Taliban Afghanistan seems relevant, too).
Tantor
Thank you. A careful post.
"No one would dare intervene if Sadaam had a nuke". I don't think so. We engaged the Soviets, and they us (given that no home land was involved) but risk always there. Further, his power to use one is so limited and consequences so severe and one-sided, that he remains constrained for all the reasons I gave above.
"Sadaam could, probably would, take Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and US likely wouldn't intervene...then he'd use their oil revenues to build." Again, because of above, I disagree. He's so limited in capability to use, and would likely have not one ally anywhere in such a strategy. More likely here, I think, is that operatives from every Arab state (such as Syria) would be only too helpful in passing on which car Sadaam was driving in. That no state wants Sadaam the power center in the mid-east seems probable.
Thus, the Israel scenario you suggest seems to me not the one we ought to think far more likely...a final, about to die in some bunker, desperation revenge rocket to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. This one scares me. But Sadaam isn't there (surely) on the warhead capability, and we can (surely) keep him from that until he dies of syphillis or a bullet.
The container delivery argument, as timber, ci, and I discussed above, seems the more likely option for any bad guys. But as discussed there, nukes seem far down on the list of weapons likely - they are just really scary to think of, so get offered up rather too often as emotion-inducing rationale for the war project.
Sadaam with nukes isn't a happy thought, of course. If Iraq was the only problem, I'd be much more willing to follow you here. But this situation is totally unlike Japan where we had a single nation-state to fight and then rebuild. Our problem now, I contend, is not merely or even mainly Iraq. It is the far more amorphous (in geography and command) radical element within the Muslim community. They are (and I'm not a paranoid) everywhere. They are hidden. They are disciplined. And their numbers will surely grow if we don't handle Palestine and if we kill a lot of Iraquis, a certainty with war. And the Muslim world will see it on TV.
According to a recent Washingtonn Post-ABC News poll, Americans favor a nuclear response to Iraq. However, the majority of Americans want GWBush to present evidence why the US should use military force to topple Saddam. 54 percent fear that Bush will act too quickly. c.i.
Just a personal opinion based on recent observations of actions taken by the UN inspectors. I can see NO reason not to wait for another year before deciding to invade Iraq. With the inspectors swarming all over Iraq on a daily basis and with American and UK aircraft destroying targets in both no fly zones nealy daily what is the rush?
What's another year of suicide bombings in Israel?
What's another year of American soldiers being away from their families?
What's another year of American military reservists not being able to go back to their jobs?
What's another year of building up our stockpile of "smart" weapons?
What's another year for Saddams nuclear scientists buried somewhere under a mountain of sand to put the finishing touches on Saddam's ace in the hole---his nuke.
What's another year of financial drain on our economy by buying more bases around the world to operate from because of Saudi Arabian lack of support and cooperation.
I draw no conclusions here---just present a few factors the administration must continue to grapple with
perception
I admire your logical and wellthought response.
It's miles away from my intellectual possibilties.
Somehow, c.i., these polls never seem to represent anyone I know. I'm way to the right of you on most issues, but have yet to meet anyone who favors a nuclear response to anything in Iraq - at least up to the present.
roger, It's the same with me! I never seem to agree with many of the polls taken by these media people, as if I'm living in another country or som'tn. c.i.
I found the poll information in the San Jose Mercury News, but here's a link with the same info.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/iraqwar_poll020812.html
c.i.
I extracted this quote from your link.
"The prospect of casualties is not always so daunting: Last fall two-thirds of Americans expressed a willingness to sustain high casualties in U.S. military action against groups or nations responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. The critical factor is a sense of threat, and on this the administration is halfway there: Seventy-nine percent of Americans do see Iraq as a threat. But clearly, fewer see it as a big enough threat to justify a high-casualty invasion."
They present this as if it contradicted current support mostly being dependent on the likelyhood of low allied casualties. I suspect it means there is support for an invasion of Iraq, with high casualties being acceptable if there were strong links to Iraqi involvement in the attacks, which don't seem to be forthcoming.
There are plain lies, damn lies, and statistics/polls. I paraphrased that from a military expression involving volunteers.
Walter
Thanks----I expect that's exactly the way Dr. Rice, our national security advisor feels also.
Re polls...The Vancouver Sun today carried an AP item from the LA Times...72% of respondents felt that (without new evidence from UN inspectors) the case for war has not been made (60% of Republicans polled agreed)...22% agreed with the administration position that omission in Iraq's declaration justifies war.
perception
Boy, you sure made it known these were opinions! Very funny.
Re Israel...well, yes, the suicide bombing have to cease, but they haven't even with all of Israel's forceful actions. I confess it is not an easy question, but it seems to me that with every house demolished and with every Palestinian killed, a new crop of Israel haters is being created.
Soldiers and reservists not able to get home to their families surely doesn't justify going to war. Nor does US dollars flowing out to build new bases and runways. Just because something gets started, doesn't mean it ought to get finished just so it gets finished.
And on the nuke thing...I'll wait for evidence coming out of the UN people there, or something else credible. Given that is found, my position will change.
Ah, yes, but given the near impossibility of proving a negative, how is everyone going to feel if the inspection report comes back negative? Was there nothing to hide, or has the UN team been outsmarted? I'm truly not expecting an unequivocal postive report - just suspicions that can almost be explained away.
c.i.
