|
First of all, I never boo-hissed those policies. I don't know where you are getting this from. Read my posts.
Second, when you first made the maybe it will only serve as a BOO-HISS AMERICA moment both you and I were referring to the specific incident of the hostage situation and rescue mission undertaken by the SEALS. My point was that this SPECIFIC INCIDENT would hopefully call attention to the serious underlying problems of several incidents like this in the past few years. Not once did I indict America. I don't know where you are getting that from. I never said America was responsible for either the toxic waste or the over-fishing. Read my posts instead of reacting to perceived attacks on our mutual country.
I did read them. Until this one I saw no acknowledgement of anything positive in them, only condemnations of anyone who cheered the actions against the pirates.
Hedging your support inside a condemnation of "pretend-patriots" without any actual statement of how and why that legacy has been positive until challenged is hardly likely to engender a belief that you mean it positively.The legacy I was referring to was a positive one. You seek criticism where none exists, Sam. I wasn't naming America as a contributor to the toxic waste or over fishing. I was referring to our legacy as a force of good and positive change in the world. We have had a good deal of positive impact over the last 100 years (even if we have negative impacts as well). My point was this - why miss a chance to step up and help a people and nation who are floundering and starving to death. I don't know why you think I am attacking America, it's really confusing to me how you drew that from what I wrote.
Then why not say so in the first place?
If you want to call on people to step up and help, why not add a few more words to the effect of "as the U.S. has done in the past"?As for missing a chance to step up and help, stopping piracy is stepping up and helping, but you seem averse to it. Stopping people engaged in the violence that undermines the established government, even when as it happens the established government is currently rushing headlong down the path to horrific oppression and imposition of laws in outright violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is supposed to be a good . . . something.
Yes, that is the really ugly truth about Somalia that we are not supposed to talk about, that neither the government nor the rebels du jour are worth supporting these days, but oh well.
The problem with threads like these is no high-minded thoughtful debate ever occurs. They devolve into "YOU WRONG" "ME RIGHT". So much so, that you can't even see when I am agreeing with you.
"Pretend-patriots" is high-minded thoughtful debate Nick?
This is exactly what I was talking about when it comes to stonewalling. That's what you do Sam. I don't know why, because I would enjoy a lively and interesting debate on the topic instead of a lot of "he said, she said."
So would I Nick, but you started your participation in this thread with an indictment of anyone cheering the killing of pirates. Stonewalling indeed! That pretty much puts the entire thing on an adversarial basis right from the start.
I notice also a lack of response to my reply on your other question, as well as any statement as to what you would do. Stonewalling was it?
Now if you would like to start this over without making an issue of people cheering, feel free. I am always up for such discussions when people are willing to make the effort to develop them.
Now if you would like to start this over without making an issue of people cheering, feel free.
Dunno about Nick, but I personally still have an issue with the mindless cheering, as described above. Our servicemen did the right thing, honorably, in the line of duty. A bunch of gloating, posturing, and secondhand post-event blood-lust from vultures, ghouls, and other third-hand spectators does nothing to honor them in return for their service -- as if they were college football players sacking a quarterback instead of servicemen engaged in serious, but necessary, business.
The killing of men is often the lesser of two evils, as in this case, but it never calls for levity and raucous applause.
|
|
Cheering that the captain of the boat made it home safe to his family? Good deal. Cheering that our SEALS did their job well and suffered no casualties? Good deal. Cheering that they were forced by circumstance to take human lives? When I'm sure each one of those SEALS would have rather been able to make the rescue without bloodshed? Not so good deal.
Look, the Somalis have to right their own ship and somehow figure out how to make an orderly society, and if they need to file lawsuits in the International Court to sue for damages caused by their neighbors and Euros dumping off their coast, I'm all for it. But seizing ships in international waters is also against maritime law, taking hostages is against basic human law, so, while I'm not going to cheer the taking of lives, I'm not inclined to shed many tears either.
Nick, I may be strange, but if someone hands me a loaded gun, I'm more empowered to assert my will that I was prior. And if my will is committed to making a better life for my family and my people, I'm pointing that gun at the persons destabilizing my nation. Not some relatively innocent people going about their business in international waters. People died to make America what it is, people died to make France, Great Britain and Germany what they are, and all of them were committed (on some level) to making life better for their people. When the Somalis find their Patrick Henry, their RAF pilots, their resistance, call me. But if they continue to act like base criminals, I have no time for helping people who cannot or will not help themselves. Sorry.
|
|
Dunno about Nick, but I personally still have an issue with the mindless cheering, as described above. Our servicemen did the right thing, honorably, in the line of duty. A bunch of gloating, posturing, and secondhand post-event blood-lust from vultures, ghouls, and other third-hand spectators does nothing to honor them in return for their service -- as if they were college football players sacking a quarterback instead of servicemen engaged in serious, but necessary, business.
The killing of men is often the lesser of two evils, as in this case, but it never calls for levity and raucous applause.
But it does call for calling people vultures and ghouls?
And you expect any sort of non-adversarial discussion after that?Or do you at least accept it is nothing but an open invitation to sling charges laden with provocative language?
As for morality of killing pirates who have taken a hostage and are threatening his life, it is far from an evil, lesser, greater, or otherwise. Indeed, as it works to eliminating such a vile scourge as piracy, it is for the greater good, and thus various expressions of support and endorsement are quite reasonable.
As for morality of killing pirates who have taken a hostage and are threatening his life, it is far from an evil, lesser, greater, or otherwise. Indeed, as it works to eliminating such a vile scourge as piracy, it is for the greater good, and thus various expressions of support and endorsement are quite reasonable.
I begin to see why playing a paladin in some people's games is so frustrating. :D
|
|
Cheering that the captain of the boat made it home safe to his family? Good deal. Cheering that our SEALS did their job well and suffered no casualties? Good deal. Cheering that they were forced by circumstance to take human lives? When I'm sure each one of those SEALS would have rather been able to make the rescue without bloodshed? Not so good deal.
Actually . . .
Has anyone actually cheered that the piracy led to the SEALS taking action and killing?
People certainly cheered for the captain getting out safely.
And they cheered that the SEALS did their job and no U.S. servicemen were killed.
And there were a number of suggestions for t-shirts suggesting the downside of taking on the U.S. Navy and SEALS.
But has anyone actually come out with "OH YEAH! Blood and guts! Kill 'em all, then kill some more!"
Or has that merely been the interpretation of those t-shirt suggestions and the assertion that part of the wages of piracy is indeed death?
Actually . . .Has anyone actually cheered that the piracy led to the SEALS taking action and killing?
People certainly cheered for the captain getting out safely.
And they cheered that the SEALS did their job and no U.S. servicemen were killed.
And there were a number of suggestions for t-shirts suggesting the downside of taking on the U.S. Navy and SEALS.But has anyone actually come out with "OH YEAH! Blood and guts! Kill 'em all, then kill some more!"
Or has that merely been the interpretation of those t-shirt suggestions and the assertion that part of the wages of piracy is indeed death?
Some of those shirt suggestions made made out a lethal situation to be funny, which it wasn't. Awful circumstances forced a series of extremely unpleasant decisions. People died. That isn't funny, it isn't cool, and it doesn't make for a good T-Shirt.
Grow up.
No one said that it was funny, or that it was cool that these people were killed. The point was that the same pirates that forcefully boarded and seized a vessel and its crew were successfully repelled and the captain's life spared by the decisive actions of a U.S. Naval Captain and a team of Navy Seals.
Here's a common fact: people die everyday, and often naturally and/or undeservingly. But the pirates weren't women, children, the elderly, the sickly, or the "innocent." They were adult men who made a conscious decision to pursue the path they did and choose this course of action. Whatever the circumstances, they reaped what they sowed. It's not a tragedy, it's real-life. Choices have consequences.
The idea that it's morally virtuous to torture, maim, or kill anyone you judge to be a "bad guy" is akin to saying "it's not lying if I lie to a liar." One bears the moral onus for any deeds one commits, or causes to be committed.
The fact that these pirates were "bad guys" by any reasonable standards makes their killing necessary, but not something to celebrate. (As Derek pointed out, the fact that the captain was rescued, that no SEALs were killed -- THAT is cause for celebration.)
Anyone can feel free to disagree, but wait until, say, you kill an intruder in your home out of necessity, for example. If you feel like Rambo after that, and run around cheering, then you're not anyone I personally would trust. On the flip side, if you throw up and regret the necessity, maybe you'll have some vague clue what I'm talking about here.
P.S. Nick and others: this was suggested on another political thread, that using a "contributor" tag when contributing political opinions is sort of bad form, insofar as Paizo does not necessarily endorse those views. Aliases all around might be a good solution there.
|
meh, I guess concern for human life is some great thing, I've never had it, a person, a dog, a patch of grass, a cocroach they all have a life, if you can take one without feeling remorse you should be able to take the other. So I'll cheer for the loss of life because in my opinion it was necessary to the situation. If there was some magic solution that made it possible for this to never have happened well dandy, next time lets use that. And that isn't to say that I don't hope the situation in somalia improves. I've just never understood the bemoaning of the loss of life.
|
|
Anyone can feel free to disagree, but wait until, say, you kill an intruder in your home out of necessity, for example. If you feel like Rambo after that, and run around cheering, then you're not anyone I personally would trust. On the flip side, if you throw up and regret the necessity, maybe you'll have some vague clue what I'm talking about here.
You know, when I caught my first deer, my father asked me if I felt the exciting rush that accompanied it, I honestly told him no, I shot it, reloaded just in case I missed and calmly went down and checked where I saw the deer fall. If I found an invader in my home, it would be the exact same, I would calmly shoot him and check to make sure he was down then call the police. a person= a spider= a deer. I do my best to value all life and only kill when the situation calls for it. I don't see death and killing as something to either shun nor celebrate it's just a part of life.
I've just never understood the bemoaning of the loss of life.
I'm not bemoaning the loss; merely asserting that thinking it's really cool to shoot people is an indication of one of two things: (a) lack of any real connection with what these SEALs are actually doing, close-up, or (b) violent psychosis. I assume that the vast majority fall into category "a." Loss of life with little feeling is one thing; getting all excited and reveling in it is quite another.
I don't see death and killing as something to either shun nor celebrate it's just a part of life.
Exactly my point. As you yourself point out, neither shun nor celebrate.
Humor is a very natural way of dealing with extremely stressful situations of moral complexity. Just because someone makes a joke about a serious situation doesn't mean they are a psycho or incapable of appreciating the moral complexity.
|
|
I don't see death and killing as something to either shun nor celebrate it's just a part of life.Exactly my point. As you yourself point out, neither shun nor celebrate.
True I guess in the end is that I don't celebrate the loss of life, merely the results of said loss of life. Whether that the captain returned safely to his family or the fact that I have a freezer full of delicious meat. Reading what you wrote earlier throughout the thread I think we are predominantly in agreement in our views on life, take it only when necessary and only to the amount necessary. The reason I can celebrate in this instance is because from what I see of it, what happened went down exactly as it should have. and the results are worth celebrated. I'm certainly not for indescriminately laying waste to somalia or its people, I am however for arming ships so that if attacked they can defend themselves, but I would equally expect criminal action against any ship that used that armement in anything other than self defense (i.e. say they blow up a powerboat heading in their direction but which hasn't shot at them because they might have been pirates)
Humor is a very natural way of dealing with extremely stressful situations of moral complexity. Just because someone makes a joke about a serious situation doesn't mean they are a psycho or incapable of appreciating the moral complexity.
I totally agree. But there's a difference, you'll perceive, between a bit of gallows humor and "That was aweseome! We blew all those guys away!"
|
|
Some of those shirt suggestions made made out a lethal situation to be funny, which it wasn't. Awful circumstances forced a series of extremely unpleasant decisions. People died. That isn't funny, it isn't cool, and it doesn't make for a good T-Shirt.
Grow up.
It's not?
"Kill 'Em All, Let <the Deity> Sort 'Em Out!"
"Mess with the best, die like the rest!"
Art and slogans on aircraft and bombs.
Bounties on bin Laden.
"Dr. Strangelove, Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb."
"Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot."
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him Horatio."
I grew up a long time ago.
When do you plan on making the attempt?
|
|
The idea that it's morally virtuous to torture, maim, or kill anyone you judge to be a "bad guy" is akin to saying "it's not lying if I lie to a liar." One bears the moral onus for any deeds one commits, or causes to be committed.
Anyone who feels it is intellectually honest to equate the morality of torture or deliberate maiming to killing in the heat of battle, or even the use of snipers, is akin to saying "it's not lying if I lie to advance morality.
One does indeed bear the moral onus for any deeds one commits, or causes to be committed, and the killing of criminals, including general enemies of humanity like pirates, remains a morally good thing.The fact that these pirates were "bad guys" by any reasonable standards makes their killing necessary, but not something to celebrate. (As Derek pointed out, the fact that the captain was rescued, that no SEALs were killed -- THAT is cause for celebration.)
In fact there is a point of criminal offense past which it does become a reason to celebrate the death of a person guilty of such.
Anyone can feel free to disagree, but wait until, say, you kill an intruder in your home out of necessity, for example. If you feel like Rambo after that, and run around cheering, then you're not anyone I personally would trust. On the flip side, if you throw up and regret the necessity, maybe you'll have some vague clue what I'm talking about here.
The fact that individuals feel the weight of killing no matter the, overwhelming evil of the people they kill, speaks to the inherent humanity of those that kill in such circumstances.
The fact that individuals who do not carry out such killing can celebrate the greater security they or others now enjoy in no way speaks against their inherent humanity.It is not proper to confuse the two.
I do want to say that reveling over this situation is inappropriate. Those S.E.A.L.S. did their job, and, while I'm sure they're proud they did their job well, I doubt they're happy they had to take lives.
The reality of the world is, there are people alive who don't get it. Think whatever you will of the following countries, all of these nations/regions function relatively well: Europe, The Commonwealth, the U.S., India, China, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, et cetera. These nations have shown that stability and relative peace can be achieved through rule of law, whatever you think of that particular legal system. People who have selfish, short-sighted goals, and not enough respect for others to become lawyers (sorry), need to be spanked. Whether that spanking is probation, prison, or, if the crime/situation is heinous enough, death, the punishment is measured in degrees of severity.
But individuals and nations who chose to ignore the rules others have decided to play by, well, they need to be given much more stick than carrot. We need to, as human beings, keep trying to make opportunity available to as many as possible, but if people and nations chose to try and disrupt the flow of civilization, they don't need to be reasoned with (because, obviously, they have little reason to begin with if they oh, for example, decide to take a U.S. flagged merchant ship, knowing full well, the U.S. has a "zero tolerance" policy towards shenanigans), they need to be taught a lesson. I think they were testing the new guy, to see if he would cave and pay like the Euros, and he answered clearly. Hate to say it, but I feel a lot safer right now knowing dude will do the right thing when it comes down to it.
Criminals and governments who don't play nice with others need tough love, frankly. Lock them up, cut them off, or, if necessary, put them on the shelf. Try to help them understand how the world works in the 21st century, but don't let them hold you a hostage of your own compassion.
One aspect that muddies the water in this regard is that the U.S. played a major role in insuring the continuing destabilization of Somolia in recent years.
Somalia was well under way to being 'unified' by the Islamic Courts Union (hereafter ICU). A group that is pretty abhorrent to modern western sensibilities (Hardline fundamentalist Islamists) but one capable of appealing to all Somali's irrespective of regionalism.
Unfortunately for the ICU a united Somalia is inherently dangerous to Ethiopia and a Islamic Fundamentalist Somalia is potentially a political problem for the United States. A whole country ruled by people likely to perceive American actions in the Islamic World in a very negative light - and who probably has members that are willing to go out of their way to support America's enemies in the Islamic World. In other words, while the ICU's official stance was that they would not support Islamic Terrorist Organizations they sure were not bothering to send anyone around to check that individual members were not supporting such organizations.
This convergence of interests led America to back an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia (with training, equipment and air strikes) that quickly shattered the military power of the ICU. However mainly Christian Ethiopia has no hope of actually controlling Somalia, and the result has been a total disintegration of the nation back into what amounts to anarchy. An anarchy made more violent, for the moment, because the disintegration of the ICU has left a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. An ideal breeding ground for pirates.
|
|
One aspect that muddies the water in this regard is that the U.S. played a major role in insuring the continuing destabilization of Somolia in recent years.
Somalia was well under way to being 'unified' by the Islamic Courts Union (hereafter ICU). A group that is pretty abhorrent to modern western sensibilities (Hardline fundamentalist Islamists) but one capable of appealing to all Somali's irrespective of regionalism.
Somalia was well under way to being stabilized by the Transitional Federal Government when a group of warlords allied with the ICU and began a new round of civil war.
Whether all Somali's would back the imposition of their extremist Sharia is far from accepted.It should also be noted that the ICU advocated war with Ethiopia for the purpose of conquering the Ogaden region.
This convergence of interests led America to back an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia (with training, equipment and air strikes) that quickly shattered the military power of the ICU.
Ethiopia sent troops at the invitation of the TFG, the leigitimate government of Somalia. They were later joined by African Union troops from Uganda, Burundi, and Kenya.
Following the defeat of the ICU other groups took their place, but an agreement between the TFG and another group has led to the current situation, which looks to be installing an Islamist government.Note the key differences:
1. Another government was stabilizing Somalia when the ICU began a rebellion that destroyed the unity that had been built.
2. Ethiopia did not invade, but was invited to help fight the ICU rebels.
About joking and killing, I found it interesting on the Colbert Report, Colbert made the comment, "The captain was rescued in a painless operation. *pause* I assume you don't feel pain when you are shot through the head." Does this mean that Colbert is a psycho for joking about the killing of these people?
Does this mean that Colbert is a psycho for joking about the killing of these people?
I'll agree that it's certainly tasteless. Colbert does make a career out of spoofing a conservative newscaster; odds are that's exactly what he's (trying to) do in that case: joking at the expense of conservative news sources, more than at the expense of the pirates and/or SEALs themselves.
|
|
You have a premise here Sam, that you don't mention.
That while the ICU is a terrorist group, Ethiopia is not.
And of course it really depends on what you mean by terrorism. If by definition any violence done by Ethiopia is not terrorism, than of course you are correct.
A lot of what you dispute here Sam, is based on your own premises which I don't share. Because of that, we aren't going to agree.
So you are asserting that Ethiopia is either or both a terrorist group and that their actions during their mission to aid the Somali government were terrorist acts.
While you may, as an individual, certainly assert such a thing, without any similar assertion from any legitimate (that is, a recognized government, a recognized trans-governmental body such as the UN or AU, or an NGO that is not otherwise listed as a terrorist organization), the validity of such an assertion is not merely questionable or highly suspect, but pretty much completely illegitimate.You can claim I am confused, but all we have is your assertion by fiat that I am confused.
I provided several links to explain where I am coming from.
Ethiopia invading Somalia is not a stabilizing event, it is a destabilizing event. I state this based on what I have read and the results of that act. You can assert otherwise, and you can continue to share your opinion on why I am wrong, but I disagree.
Did I miss these in the text?
Otherwise I saw links about dumping and fishing, but none about Ethiopia invading as opposed to intervening that cites a legitimate source as noted above. A random excessively biased and partisan blogger certainly does nothing to prove it was an invasion as opposed to an government requested intervention.Incorrect facts or politically incorrect facts?
What am I basing my statements on? By what I read. Such as this mention by Daniel Luban.
Cause and effect. I am not alone in pointing out this connection.
Unfortunately for your case, as I noted above, the accusations of a random partisan blogger do not constitute proof by a long shot.
Do you have a citation of a U.N. resolution calling it an invasion?How about an investigation by the ICC?
Or even a random indictment from an over-reaching Spanish court?
Guilt by blogger rant is a long way from legitimate evidence.
That certainly is a nicer way of putting it. But it is the same thing, only using different words.
No, it is not the same thing, any more than murder is manslaughter is self-defense.
Words like that have specific meaning, particularly in law and international relations.Why would the "legitimate" government need assistance? If the "legitimate" government was backed by the people, why would it need a foreign power to come help it?
Because sometimes a government has been weakened by other factors to the point that an insurgency may threaten it with destruction, even if the insurgency does not enjoy a popular mandate, and even if the government is unable to muster popular support.
Do I even need to answer these questions?
Yes, you do.
In fact, what makes a government "legitimate"? We probably don't share that premise either.
Probably not.
But stating such a difference, or even the existence of such a difference, equally does not lend legitimacy to your definition by default.Actually it is. There are plenty of contradictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia
Conflict broke out again in early 2006 between an alliance of Mogadishu warlords known as the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (or "ARPCT") and a militia loyal to the Islamic Courts Union (or "I.C.U."), seeking to institute Sharia law in Somalia. Social law changes, such as the forbidding of chewing khat,[29] were part of moves by the ICU to change behaviours and impose strict social morals. It was widely reported that soccer playing was being banned, as well as viewing of broadcasts of soccer games,[30] but there were also reports of the ICU itself denying any such bans.
There is no contradiction there.
And apparently you missed the part of that article that makes it clear that Ethiopia did not invade, but intervened at the request of the legitimate government.A rhetorical question, since that doesn't describe me.
You characterized the ICU as a government that was stabilizing Somalia.
You characterized the intervention of Ethiopia at the request of the TNG as an invasion.You characterized the invasion as coming when the ICU was stabilizing the government as opposed to when they were merely destabilizing the existing legitimate government.
How would you describe those things?
Actually my conclusion is similar, so we do agree on some things, the states in Africa should break up. Although I say don't promote it, leave Africans alone to do it as they see fit.
No matter how many people die along the way?
Such as when the West copped on intervening during the Rwanda Genocide?Such as how the West continues to cop out during the Darfur Genocide?
Such as not doing anything now while Somalia continues to descend into chaos, except to prevent pirates from attacking ships, even if it includes violence?
I am not saying don't hold them responsible for their actual actions though. Just stop interfering.
But my viewpoint is purely theoretical. Obama has made it clear he will continue to meddle in just about any country in the world he chooses.
Actually, quite a few more people than just Obama advocate "meddling", so you have quite a task promoting a position of non-intervention given what is actually happening.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Painfully naive how? If you see and hear about this "tactic" (piracy) working (extremely well in most cases, what with the ransom money a lot of companies have paid) and your only other option is starving in a very unstable country, one practically engaged in civil war, how is it naive to think that this will force a lot of people to choose this way of living?
As with most things, the solution is more complicated than we'd like. Solving piracy might be related to solving poverty in Africa, which can't be solved without combatting terrorism, corruption, etc.
Perhaps if the UN were more interested in helping Africans than in its own self-importance, something could get done.
Lord knows throwing money at the problem hasn't worked. Nor has pocketing millions while looking the other way.
Nicholas Logue:
If you'll pardon the threadjack, are you in the US at the moment, or simply (like me) having a very late night or very early morning?
Ha! Nope. I'm in Southend-on-Sea! Last night/early mornings are my tea and crumpets! ;-)
|
Ha! Nope. I'm in Southend-on-Sea! Last night/early mornings are my tea and crumpets! ;-)Nicholas Logue:
If you'll pardon the threadjack, are you in the US at the moment, or simply (like me) having a very late night or very early morning?
sorry for this but I've waited far to long to use this quote
"Cricket? Cricket! You gotta know what a crumpet is ta' play cricket!"Raphael TNMT
First of all, I never boo-hissed those policies. I don't know where you are getting this from. Read my posts.
Second, when you first made the maybe it will only serve as a BOO-HISS AMERICA moment both you and I were referring to the specific incident of the hostage situation and rescue mission undertaken by the SEALS. My point was that this SPECIFIC INCIDENT would hopefully call attention to the serious underlying problems of several incidents like this in the past few years. Not once did I indict America. I don't know where you are getting that from. I never said America was responsible for either the toxic waste or the over-fishing. Read my posts instead of reacting to perceived attacks on our mutual country.
I did read them. Until this one I saw no acknowledgement of anything positive in them, only condemnations of anyone who cheered the actions against the pirates.
Here's what I wrote that you responded too as if I were lambasting America's activities abroad (bold added now for my emphasis):
The problem is pretend-patriots who want to toot our horn and do nothing to maintain our legacy of attention to positive change in the world. Blaming Somalia for their own problems certainly smacks of balking at an opportunity to help out. Instead these pretend-patriots wanna kick back and party when our military succeeds, but don't want to actualize any positive impact on the world at large. They make me sick.
YOU'RE RESPONSE TO IT:
"Okay, now I am going to have to call you on this Nick.What legacy of the U.S. in Somalia are you referring?
Even assuming the worst of those reports are true, the U.S. has not been named as being involved in either the dumping or overfishing, so neither of those can be pinned on the U.S.
As for involvement in Somalia, the U.S. was heavily involved in sending aid, and has tried to support the legitimate government against usurpers ever since the trouble began in 1991.
As for involvement in the region, if we need to delve into that, it happens that the U.S. supported Somalia in the Ogaden War against Ethiopia. So what exactly has the U.S. done in and around Somalia that is so horrible to Somalis?"
I was saying that we HAVE a legacy of doing good around the world. We've done a load of good for a lot people since our involvement in WWI and II. That is the positive legacy I was referring to. Do you understand what I meant now?
Double post... Oops. Smurf .
I notice also a lack of response to my reply on your other question, as well as any statement as to what you would do. Stonewalling was it?
Dude, I've been at work for the last 14 hours. Why would you assume that my lack of a reply means I'm stonewalling you. That's a very defensive reaction. Relax.
Anyways, your response to my question was flaccid:
YOU WROTE
"Well then you mean people who have lost their livelihood and not pirates, as I would not choose to become a pirate in the first place. Instead I would work against the social and economic decay, fighting back against the warlords, Islamists, and pirates, and doing what I could to support a decent government, for my area, if not for the entire country."
Nice rhetoric. How exactly would do that? What specifically would you do? Especially while you are starving to death and dying from exposure to radiated toxic waste? Your response above is a lot of empty words and lofty rhetoric without even the shred of effort of trying to put yourself in the shoes of these desperate people.
My answer to your question is this: I have no idea. I don't imagine I would be capable of making very good decisions when I can't feed myself or my family.
That's my point. It's not as simple as "Choose the Right Choice, Bad Pirate Man."
This is a very complicated situation that you feel the need to oversimplify into - "I'd do the right thing if I were them." But you don't even know what you would do specifically, and you can't even begin to imagine the terrible circumstances you'd forced to do it under.
Oh, and, btw: Pretend-Patriot is my term for ANYONE who thinks we should stop challenging ourselves and our country. The thing that makes America great is its capacity for change. The forefathers included an Elastic Clause in our Constitution and appointed a Supreme Court to interpret it through the ages, just to ensure that we engage in a constant revolution - not of guns, but of ideas and the potential of humanity. I for one, as a patriot, and a true American, have every intention of living up to their example and doing my best to ensure that America isn't a dead idea or a moldy piece of parchment, but a thriving beacon - one that has light the world for hundreds of years and will only continue to do so if we fan the flames of freedom, compassion, humanity and justice.
I'm willing to sacrifice my complacency and creature-comforts to do it if needs be. I'm willing to always question our policies and our actions in the world - not to be a critic of this great nation for criticism's sake, but rather to ensure America never falls short of the ideals set out before us.
Anyone who cheers the death of a few 17 year old, uneducated, half-starved, desperate pirates is not bolstering up the legacy of Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, FDR, and all the named and nameless great men and women who bled for the freedoms and ideals we maintain, but rather dropping it in the mud - and that my friend, I blithely label "pretend-patriotism."
Ha! Nope. I'm in Southend-on-Sea! Last night/early mornings are my tea and crumpets! ;-)Nicholas Logue:
If you'll pardon the threadjack, are you in the US at the moment, or simply (like me) having a very late night or very early morning?
Ah well... Don't forget, Tuesday night, 04:00 (GMT/BST) usually, Paizo Chats... turn up and give JJ a nasty shock one of these weeks.
And (on a separate note) I hope you like our PaizoCon UK website. :)
The website is thriller-killer! Great job guys! Looking forward to the con!
About joking and killing, I found it interesting on the Colbert Report, Colbert made the comment, "The captain was rescued in a painless operation. *pause* I assume you don't feel pain when you are shot through the head." Does this mean that Colbert is a psycho for joking about the killing of these people?
I didn't see the episode, but was it maybe ironic? Dunno, just asking.
P.S. Nick and others: this was suggested on another political thread, that using a "contributor" tag when contributing political opinions is sort of bad form, insofar as Paizo does not necessarily endorse those views. Aliases all around might be a good solution there.
Ha! Just noticed this Kirth! Sorry! I'll bow out of the thread now anyway, as I don't have time to contribute to it enough truth be told, and - I probably shouldn't be arguing politics anyways - bad form.
Enjoy the rest of your thread everyone! AND COME TO PAIZOCON UK!
|
|
Dude, I've been at work for the last 14 hours. Why would you assume that my lack of a reply means I'm stonewalling you. That's a very defensive reaction. Relax.
Anyways, your response to my question was flaccid:
Or pehaps I assume that you want to be confrontational. Starting with descriptions like "flaccid" certainly suggests that.
Nice rhetoric. How exactly would do that? What specifically would you do? Especially while you are starving to death and dying from exposure to radiated toxic waste? Your response above is a lot of empty words and lofty rhetoric without even the shred of effort of trying to put yourself in the shoes of these desperate people.
My answer to your question is this: I have no idea. I don't imagine I would be capable of making very good decisions when I can't feed myself or my family.
Talk about a flaccid response!
You do not know, but I cannot confidently assert I would do otherwise?Well, since you want to frame the discussion on that level . . .
That's my point. It's not as simple as "Choose the Right Choice, Bad Pirate Man."
This is a very complicated situation that you feel the need to oversimplify into - "I'd do the right thing if I were them." But you don't even know what you would do specifically, and you can't even begin to imagine the terrible circumstances you'd forced to do it under.
No Nick, with a reply like that your point is to harangue anyone who does not leap to join you in expressing the same degree of sympathy as you embrace.
If you feel incapable of making a moral judgement because you feel you cannot make a moral decision over a situation you are not actually expreiencing, that is you. Some of us do not feel so limited, and are capable of going beyond and recognizing that morality is not subject to redefition by exigency, but something that must be more than that for the concept of law to have any meaning. If all it takes is an appeal to inconvenience, however great or minor, then there is no way a society can create any structure to recognize any rights, and so make any transgression of them a crime. With such a construct there can be no property rights."I have less than you. Therefore I make take from you and you may not judge me because you do have more than me."
No. I reject that, as does every basic code of morality and law we have to draw upon to define our culture. You are not doing anything to empower people by excusing any action on the basis of being lacking, but instead casually condemning them by the "soft bigotry of low expectations".
Oh, and, btw: Pretend-Patriot is my term for ANYONE who thinks we should stop challenging ourselves and our country. The thing that makes America great is its capacity for change. The forefathers included an Elastic Clause in our Constitution and appointed a Supreme Court to interpret it through the ages, just to ensure that we engage in a constant revolution - not of guns, but of ideas and the potential of humanity. I for one, as a patriot, and a true American, have every intention of living up to their example and doing my best to ensure that America isn't a dead idea or a moldy piece of parchment, but a thriving beacon - one that has light the world for hundreds of years and will only continue to do so if we fan the flames of freedom, compassion, humanity and justice.
Such a revolution does not include an abdication of the essential rights of person and property that you are casually throwing away with your excessive sympathy for the pirates. When you abdicate passing judgement on them you surrender the guarantees of protection of property in the Constitution.
There is no freedom without security, no justice without judgement.Without those compassion and humanity are mere buzzwords, full of sound and fury and signifying less than nothing.
I'm willing to sacrifice my complacency and creature-comforts to do it if needs be. I'm willing to always question our policies and our actions in the world - not to be a critic of this great nation for criticism's sake, but rather to ensure America never falls short of the ideals set out before us.
For starting by accusing me of "Nice rhetoric" you certainly rely on such yourself.
Questioning entails no surrender of creature-comforts, nor does criticism. If you truly intended to surrender that and your complacency you would be in Somalia, working to rebuild the country, and show the pirates a better way. Of course you might be killed for not following sharia, or just for not being a Somali, but that might be a bit too much commitment for the cause, eh?Anyone who cheers the death of a few 17 year old, uneducated, half-starved, desperate pirates is not bolstering up the legacy of Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, FDR, and all the named and nameless great men and women who bled for the freedoms and ideals we maintain, but rather dropping it in the mud - and that my friend, I blithely label "pretend-patriotism."
And anyone who excuses people who take a father hostage, threaten him with death over several days, and demand a reward at the conclusion, is trampling those legacies in the mud, and throwing them in the cesspit afterwards.
And that my friend, I do not blithely label as anything but the disservice to the principles of Western law and democracy that it is.
I didn't excuse anything. Nor do I have sympathy for the pirates. You actually don't understand things you read - or worse you just try and twist them around to seem righteous.
There is no excuse for using violence to get what you want regardless of how little you have.
There is also no excuse for cheering the death of a human being forced into a situation where they believe they have no other choice than the use of violence.
No Nick, with a reply like that your point is to harangue anyone who does not leap to join you in expressing the same degree of sympathy as you embrace.
If you feel incapable of making a moral judgement because you feel you cannot make a moral decision over a situation you are not actually expreiencing, that is you.
As a former Marine and sniper I have to go with Nick on this one. These guys aren't terrorists. They are in no way threatening the United States in the way you are asserting. Are we all glad the captain is free and safe? Absolutely. I don't think anyone is shedding a tear over the pirates. But I grant you if these pirates weren't stupid kids with guns 9 times out of 10 the story doesn't have a happy ending.
I don't begrudge anyone being proud of our military and giving kudos where it is due. (To take down three targets on the water within seconds of each other is beyond what is normally required, exceptional skill, no doubt about it.) But I guarantee you none of those SEALS did any spiking the ball celebrations or chest thumping after the fact.
Sometimes this bull*cough* penchant for equating patriotism with which football team you cheer for is rather infantile and disturbing. I was in Somalia in '92, I was part of the landing force that encountered idiot reporters as soon as we were at the landing zone. I can only imagine how much more &!%$ed up the country is now compared to then.
To come on to Paizo's website and make broad statements about foreign affairs and belittle others comments only shows how clueless some people truly are.
Thanks for pitching in Craig -- your point is exactly the one I've been trying (and apparently failing) to make. The testimony of combat veterans on these matters weighs a lot more than statements from people whose closest sight of a firearm has been when hunting quail, or attending rallies to ban them.
These guys aren't terrorists.
Boredom, hunger and fear for pirates' hostages
Some hostages have told of mock executions in which pirates, angered that ransom negotiations weren't going well, lined up their captives and fired weapons close to their heads.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Nick - to clarify, is your basic point that we shouldn't take joy in the deaths of others? Because, on a theoretical level, I can agree with that. And, seeing the one Somali pirate that was captured on t.v., I find myself with greater sympathy as a result of being able to put a name with a face. But, on an emotional level, I can't help but feel some sense of victory and satisfaction in the death of the other pirates. It appeals to my sense of justice - the pirates did something terrible in taking a hostage, and with so many injustices in the world going unpunished, it was rewarding to see something done about this particular injustice.
And, mind you, I'm not unsympathetic regarding the injustices which led to the pirates taking up their lifestyles. I'm also not unsympathetic to your average criminal, who generally comes from a terrible family life and is so emotionally damaged that they feel driven to do terrible things. But, I do believe there is a choice involved, and that painting the pirates (or any criminals) as victims of circumstance is as dehumanizing as taking solace in their punishment.
Anyhow, that's where I come from. Yes, in theory, I agree that death is a serious thing and not to be taken lightly. But, I also think that what the pirates did was fundamentally wrong and that they should have been punished after an appropriate trial and deliberations. Unfortunately, the circumstances did not allow for those procedures (at least for 3/4 of the pirates), so all we have left is the ultimate punishment handed out for a crime that may or may not have justified such a punishment. That said, it was a crime, the killing of the pirates seems to have prevented a greater crime (the murder of the captain), and I can't help but feel that all things considered, some amount of justice was served on behalf of the captain and his family. I find that comforting, rightly or wrongly. In an ideal world, justice would also be delivered to the Somalis in their day to day lives, and that's definitely worth striving for, but the lack of justice in that arena does not dampen my enthusiasm for the justice that was delivered.
(Hmmm...better lay off on the use of the word justice or everyone will figure out my secret identity...)
|
|
Boredom, hunger and fear for pirates' hostages
Some hostages have told of mock executions in which pirates, angered that ransom negotiations weren't going well, lined up their captives and fired weapons close to their heads.
"Seafarers from the Philippines account for 105 of the prisoners, not surprising for a poor Southeast Asian country that supplies about 30 percent of the world's 1.2 million merchant sailors."
So poor Somalis become pirates, but poor Filipinos become merchant sailors.
"Despite the risk, men like Adler will keep crewing ships, even to danger zones, because the pay is good. And some know no other work."
As contrasted to Somali pirates who will "heroically" continue to engage in piracy because the pay is good.
""You put a piece of fish or meat on the end and that was it, kind of like Robinson Crusoe," Adler said with a laugh. "Those waters are very rich in fish, and in about two weeks of fishing we caught more than 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of fish.""
Those horribly overfished and poisoned waters.
|
|
There is also no excuse for cheering the death of a human being forced into a situation where they believe they have no other choice than the use of violence.
Being forced?
Someone held a gun to their head, and ordered them to do it under pain of death? Or threatened their families in the same way?I didn't excuse anything. Nor do I have sympathy for the pirates. You actually don't understand things you read - or worse you just try and twist them around to seem righteous.
There is no excuse for using violence to get what you want regardless of how little you have.
And you see no contradiction in that?
There is no excuse but they were forced.Twisting words to seem righteous indeed.
I didn't excuse anything. Nor do I have sympathy for the pirates. You actually don't understand things you read - or worse you just try and twist them around to seem righteous.
Nic have a nice cup of tea and some crumpets with honey and jam or maybe some scones with cream. Pull up a chair and watch England lose the cricket, its less frustrating. Although a drawn test match can drive one a little potty.
Sam is actually a FOX propaganda droid, programmed to misread, misinterpret, to twist, obfuscate, denigrate and crush critical thought.
He has become so extreme in his rebuttals that it is a joke. I no longer reply to his posts.
|
|
Sam is actually a FOX propaganda droid, programmed to misread, misinterpret, to twist, obfuscate, denigrate and crush critical thought.
He has become so extreme in his rebuttals that it is a joke. I no longer reply to his posts.
I am not the one who runs around demanding other people shut up because they do not agree with me.
That makes crushing critical thought a defining element of your agenda.Your inability to frame rational rebuttals merely demonstrates the bankruptcy of the ideas you attempt to assert.