Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (6490)	5/21/2007 8:38:43 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

If you want a better world for all of us then you have to rise above expediency and act with principle according to ethical and moral rules. It will cost you on rare occasions short term but in the long run it's the only way up. And the world is watching what we do. Ed Ed, I completely understand your concerns, and I consider them to be quite valid. Gem invited me to comment in order to get this discussion going, and I have to admit, I was a bit hesitant. But I think it's important that subject not be avoided, no matter how controversial. And yes.. the world is watching.. Our adversaries are watching as well, which is why they feel little compulsion to cease their terrorist acts against civilians. There are simply few repercussions/consequences for their continuing to act in the manner that they do. World opinion doesn't seem to care about the atrocities they commit. Few nations seem to rally in condemnation when innocent people are murdered in these deliberate acts of terrorism. It's as if world opinion just accepts that the enemy is brutal and possesses utter disregard for the values we are supposed to embody in the Geneva conventions. Yet, they feel that we can't "lower ourselves" to their level in retaliating in kind against these violations. We'll just accept, as you mention, the "cost" despite the reality that it only encourages our enemy to perceive us as weak and unwilling to match their levels of brutality. Thus, they are encouraged to be even more brutal because they sense that, by declining to retaliate in kind, we'll withdraw from the battlefied in order to preserve our sense of humanity. With no fear of suffering the same fate they inflict upon our own soldiers, and innocent civilians, they are encouraged to perpetuate their violent agenda because they know our will will weaken before their's does. But as you mention, the world is watching us.. They are watching when we uncover atrocities committed by our soldiers (as happens in any war), and express their outrage. However, do they pay attention when we punish those perpetrators and install better controls to prevent future violations by our soldiers? No. We're just expected to be more "civilized" than those we are fighting, even if it means a few thousand civilian "pawns" are sacrificed in order preserve our alleged humanity. But I guess I just have to ask how long it's going to take for the world to start applying the same standards of consistent outrage towards groups like Al Qai'da? How long until the world stops giving the militant Jihadists a "pass" and start unifying to not only condemn these attacks, but to treat the enemy in the same manner that they treat the rest of the world? And as I mentioned in my other post, I'm not so sure that resorting to reciprocal brutality towards our enemies is permanently dehumaizing. The example of how we fire-bombed civilian population centers in order to force our enemies to capitulate is a perfect example, IMO. Yet, few of our soldiers returned with the sense that they were less human. They just recognized that the enemy gave us little choice except to retaliate in kind, and that every bomb dropped (including the bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima) ultimately SAVED lives. In fact, based upon my personal experience drawn from 2 years in Iraq, the ultimate stress soldiers feel is the perception of helplessness they feel when confronting a very bad terrorist cell leader who they know has been involved in killing civilians, or executing their fellow soldiers, yet they have to treat him as a legitimate combatant. The frustrations in watching the enemy prosecute their cause with unbridled barbarity, while we have to remain "civilized" has a real spiritual cost that has not yet been acknowledged. A cost, IMO, that could potentially have more detrimental effects than the basic human "satisfaction" derived from knowing that a terrorist is not going to be coddled, or even worse, rewarded with only temporary incarceration. If there's any lesson we should have learned from previous wars/insurgencies, it is that we have a basic need, as human beings, to know that we can treat our enemy in the same manner as they are treating our people. It satisfies our basic human instinct of "eye for an eye", which often overrides the move civilize concept of "turn the other cheek". We need only place ourselves in the mindset of our soldiers, tasked with the mission of preserving order and protecting the lives of innocent civilians. We're dealing with an enemy who hides in plain sight, and who generally prefers to commit mass murder against civilians rather than fighting "mano a mano" with our soldiers as warriors are supposed to do. It plays upon our basic "protective instinct" as men.. We're supposed to protect our families and we project that obligation onto the civilian population.. They become our "families" and we'll do anything to protect them. It's a very powerful motivating force. But when we're prevented by the rules of "civilized" behavior from acting as protector, and in fact turn those "families" into pawns, and permit them to become statistical representations of "collateral damage" in preserving our humanity, I think it creates some serious cognitive dissonance that violates our basic human instincts. War is brutal.. and brutal as it might be to match the inhumanity of our enemies, it's a legitimate way to assist our soldiers in dealing with the psychological consequences of combat. And the satisfaction of knowing that our soldiers have certain permisssions to treat our enemies "in kind" helps in alleviating those feelings of helplessness and apathy that come from being required to show civilize "restraint". Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just speaking from a gut level, based upon my own experience and those soldiers I have known. And again, I admit that all of this is very controversial, and I fully acknowledge and accept that others hold a contrary opinion. Fortunately, I've never had to personally be in a position where I've had to put these feelings to the test. Unfortunately, many of our soldiers have to test their own feelings each and every day. Hawk