Breaking news on CNN, no further details than that at the moment.
Here's my question:
So what?
He's the most wanted man in the Middle East besides Osama, who from all reports is a non-factor these days anyway. Osama himself even said that Zarqawi had nothing to do with 9/11. Not that Osama is a boy scout or anything, but one wonders why he would have said it at all, it's not like we'd stop searching based on his word alone.
But alright, let's say Zarqawi is dead. What happens now? Americans feel a sense of satisfaction of killing one of terror's major bosses in Iraq...and then his underlings simply get promoted and continue business as usual.
At what point do we reevaluate how we measure progress in this perpetual war?
[ June 08, 2006, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
According to reports, it's been confirmed via fingerprints and a first-hand look at his face.
It doesn't matter that Zarqawi had nothing to do with 9-11 because you know what, Lyrhawn? People behind 9-11 are not our only enemies. (That sounds snarky, mostly due to how I used your name, but I assure you it is not meant to be)
This is certainly a propaganda and PR victory in Iraq. Do you think the insurgency gained nothing from the fact that he was so desperately wanted dead by the Americans and the Iraqi government and yet remained so conspicuously alive? Of course it did. Things like that aid in recruitment, in politics, in fundraising, in all sorts of things.
Furthermore, while it's difficult for us newsreaders to tell just how good Zarqawi was at his 'job', it's definitely possible an underling would be worse at it, right? (Of course it's possible he could be better, but 'his underlings will replace him' is certainly not a good reason not to target someoen like him)
In a war, there are many battles, skirmishes, feints, withdrawls, etc. I would say this was a piece of progress in the battle, but only a little blip's progress in the war.
We are not necessarily in a perpetual war. You are stating that as though it were a fact when that is not the case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Breaking news on CNN, no further details than that at the moment.
Here's my question:
So what?
He's the most wanted man in the Middle East besides Osama, who from all reports is a non-factor these days anyway. Osama himself even said that Zarqawi had nothing to do with 9/11. Not that Osama is a boy scout or anything, but one wonders why he would have said it at all, it's not like we'd stop searching based on his word alone.
But alright, let's say Zarqawi is dead. What happens now? Americans feel a sense of satisfaction of killing one of terror's major bosses in Iraq...and then his underlings simply get promoted and continue business as usual.
At what point do we reevaluate how we measure progress in this perpetual war?
The Iraqi insurgency can be negotiated with - presumably, many or most of them are acting out of a desire to have a certain kind of government. The foreign terrorists in Iraq are there to cause trouble. There won't be any kind of peace while they are in Iraq.
Zarqawi was the leader of a particular element of insurgents. It's very possible he cannot be replaced in a plug-and-play fashion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe I was getting ahead of myself, but I'd be surprised if I was wrong in this case. The reaction to this development from the administration will be a glowing declaration of triumph. You know how Bush is.
But it's to be seen whether or not this is progress at all, other than a moral victory for our forces. You can't count out the possibility of his death turning him into a martyr, and that becoming a rallying cry for more foreign insurgents to stream into the country via the undermanned borders.
Also, keep in mind that the bulk of the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqi themselves, and evidence has pointed to them being angry at the way Zarqawi was handling the insurgency, since so many Iraqis had been targeted. All we might have done was eliminate someone the insurgents wanted gone anyway, so a native Iraqi could take over and do things his way, aimed at more American deaths and less Iraqi deaths.
It's not automatically progress, it's not automatically negative, but it has the potential to be both, or either. And I'm stating that this is a perpetual war because that is my opinion, which you are welcome to refute, but it's also my right to proclaim it. I don't believe this is the kind of war that is ever going to be won with weapons, unless we use them to their maximum lethality and just eliminate everyone involved and be done with it. Otherwise we're either just going to make it worse, or keep it the same. Or make such slow progress that it becomes virtually a perpetual war. You can't point me to any signs that this is going to end any time soon, so I'd say perpetual isn't a grandiose claim to make.
Edit to include response to Dag's post -
What has happened in the last few years that leads you to believe the native Iraqi insurgency can be negotiated with? Or, if they could be, what leads you to believe that negotiating with them would be any different than negotiating with Hamas? Hamas is perfectly willing to negotiate...so long as they get everything they want, their militant wing is willing to stop killing Israeli citizens. I've seen no evidence to show that the native insurgency is willing to settle for something less than whatever it is they want, be it a bathist secular government, a sunni government, or in the case of the shiite militia, a wholly shiite religious theocracy.
You might (and I hope you are) be right that Zarqawi isn't an interchangable piece of the foreign insurgency. But that remains to be seen. Something worse might replace him, his death might drive recruitment through the roof. Or it might dishearten the enemy and cause them all to go home. Even so, the majority of insurgents are native Iraqis, not foreigners, though I happily recognize the fact that that would still be major progress in the conflict over there.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Lyrhawn,
this thread and another demonstrate pretty well a fundamental point the opponents of this war keep missing:
an insurgency is largely about moral victories. The North Vietnamese did not succeed by beating American troops down, but by beating morale down. The PLO did not achieve legitimacy by beating Israeli soldiers, but by causing such a mess that the whole world just wants it all to end. For that matter, the American revolution followed a similar pattern, even though there was the surrender at Yorktown.
So Bush is right to crow and make as much hay about this as possible. Support at home is crucial to surviving (I hesitate to call it "winning") a war like this. People denigrate the administration all the time for trying to paint a positive picture and saying "stay the course". That's exactly the first and necessary step to counterinsurgency.
That's also why atrocities like (apparently) Haditha and mistreatment like Abu Ghraib are deadly enough mistakes in themselves and why I made such a fuss in that other thread about the blanket assumption and assertion that troops are doing these things as a matter of standard procedure. In addition to insulting the troops, it is, as cheesy as it sounds, exactly what the terrorists want.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:"What happened today is a result of co-operation for which we have been asking from our masses and the citizens of our country,"
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki
To me, this is the really encouraging thing. Not whether or not Zarqawi is dead, but that the people were willing to rat him out.
It may be naive (what with all the various factions in Iraq), but I like to think of ordinary citizens just not wanting to live under constant threat of violence all the time, finding out where this guy is, and picking up the phone.
Cynical me says that's not really the most likely scenario. But it's a pleasing enough thought that I think I'll hang onto it for a little while.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
While I realize that yes, it is an important moral (and morale) victory for OUR side. Isn't that the less important half of the battle? Sure, it's important to make sure our troops have high morale while they are over there doing their job, but if their job just keeps getting harder and harder, isn't that a sign that progress isn't being made?
I'd argue that you can't really use any of the comparisons you made above successfully. America's revolution was fought primarily with rank and file armies that numbered in the thousands squaring off in fields. And Yorktown was won in spite of the fact that America was getting it's butt handed to it time and again. Yorktown was a very lucky break, and American morale was so insanely low at the time, if Yorktown hadn't happened, it's entirely possible they would have lost. If we're supposed to be the British in that comparison, it's a poor one. And the PLO for all intents and purposes is winning too. They're still there after how many decades? Israel is pulling out of occupied territories aren't they? Maybe I'm just missing the point of your references.
I don't think he is right in this case to hail what could be construed as hollow victories. When Bush says one thing, and every major media network says the exact opposite, it has the effect of cancelling out his credibility on the issue, which might explain the war's insane drop in support, and for that matter, HIS insane drop in support. It makes it so that every time he steps up to the mike to support and champion our latest "success," all the people do is snicker at him for making the effort.
I'm not missing the point about moral victories, but I think part of the problem war supporters might have is that they automatically assume that a moral victory for us is a moral diaster for them. Pearl Harbor energized the nation and brought the fury of an angry god down on Japan. You'd think we'd learn from our own experience.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's actually possible to NOT be a war supporter and yet be glad that Zarqawi is no longer an enemy that we have to face.
It's also possible to wait and see what President Bush says and does before passing judgement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm certainly glad we'll no longer have to contend with him, I never said I wasn't.
And I don't have to wait to see what Bush says, he's already made a statement.
quote: Iraqis can be justly proud of their new government and its early steps to improve their security. And Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our armed forces, who worked tirelessly with their Iraqi counterparts to track down this brutal terrorist and put him out of business.
I give him credit for that much, he's right. It is good news that the Iraqi government has finally become proficient enough to be a useful partner for the US in intelligence matters. That should be a big help in the future.
quote: Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue.
I also give him credit for acknowledging this.
quote:Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda. It's a victory in the global war on terror, and it is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide of this struggle.
That however, is a vast overstatement. It's highly speculative to say it's a severe blow to al Qaeda. And even so, al Qaeda isn't even half the problem in this war, it's the native Iraqi terrorists and militia, people who for all intents and purposes aren't really even on the same side as Zarqawi was. Either he doesn't understand the problem, or he's ignoring it to try and make yet another false plea to the American people that things are going much better than they really are.
It's all well and good to ease the minds of the American people, but in the end it's just words. Just words will help raise our own morale, and while the death of Zarqawi will most likely be a good thing, maybe even a great thing for our side, it's barely makes a dent in the grande scheme of things.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Maybe I'm just missing the point of your references.
The point of my references is that the "most important half" of this type of battle is the morale of the nation which is doing the fighting overseas.
I definitely agree with what you said about Bush and the media, though I obviously have a different view of what's going on.
I also definitely think all of my examples are more relevant than Pearl Harbor. No offense.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It's actually possible to NOT be a war supporter and yet be glad that Zarqawi is no longer an enemy that we have to face.
It's also possible to wait and see what President Bush says and does before passing judgement.
Bob, was this directed at me? if so, I'm confused?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Wow, fast work! For both of you.
Seriously, this is a long way from his "Mission Accomplished" days.
I didn't see anything in there that made me choke with derision.
I liked what I read of PM Maliki's statement. This one by Bush is a bit more studied rather than instant reaction. But it neglects to mention the role of the Iraqi populace (if any).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jim- me...no, I was reacting to what I saw as a couple of assumptions that Lyrhawn was making that I thought kind of left people like me out of the picture entirely in terms of reactions to this event.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda. It's a victory in the global war on terror, and it is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide of this struggle.
That however, is a vast overstatement. It's highly speculative to say it's a severe blow to al Qaeda.
Lyrhawn, would it be insignificant if, during the Vietnam War, we had managed to kill General Giap? Was it significant in WWII when we shot down Admiral Yamamoto?
or to bring it away from war, how significant was it for Phoenix when Stoudamire went down? for the Eagles when McNabb got hurt (if you look at their slide last season, it started with McNabb's chest injury). What would happen to Indianapolis if Peyton Manning went down?
Would they still win games? sure... could they even win a championship? Phoenix nearly did... are they less effective with the first string out? you betcha.
edit: thanks for clarifying, Bob Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Okay, could we PLEASE not do sports analogies when discussing warfare?
Ugh!
(sorry, I hate sports analogies in every context I've ever encountered them, but this one in particular really bugs me.
It's my problem, not yours.
I'll be fine. Just give me a minute...)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I see your point. But I respectfully disagree. To use your own references, morale in England was actually quite high during most of the war. They were, with few exceptions, beating the everloving crap out of us. Especially in the south, three times they captured or defeated whole armies. Yorktown was a fluke. Thank God for it, but it wasn't a natural culmination of events, it was luck, and inspiration of a great commander, of which we thankfully had more than just one of. But in that case, the morale of England and the morale of the colonies was immaterial. They didn't give up because they felt defeated, they gave up because they lost, and that was just how it was done 230 years ago.
But I disagree in general that the morale of the invading army is more important than the morale of the defending army. If the morale of the defenders is high enough, they will fight to the last man, making victory unattainable except by the fact that you've killed everyone who was against you. I mean, hooray, they'd still win and all, but at what cost?
Look, I have no problem with Bush coming on the air every now and then to give us a progress report, but why not be candid about it? Roosevelt's fireside chats weren't all roses and springtime. Sometimes they were bleak, but the fact that he pointed out that times were rough, and then gave his ideas on how to change that course, and then actually followed through on what he was saying made his words a hundred times more uplifting and powerful. Bush hands us the same damned lines every week, to the point where he doesn't even need to be there for it. He could just put himself on a loop and send the tape to CNN.
He'd meet with much more success and popularity, not to mention be a lot more effective at raising morale if he stopped doing whatever it is he thinks he is doing, and would actually be candid, up front, and honest about the situation over there. Lying to our faces, even to try and paint a good picture for the good of the country, serves no purpose when we have access to the truth via a dozen other mediums of information. Telling us the truth, hearing our feedback honestly, and then maybe even changing his mind once and awhile to adjust to the new realities of the world would do more to endear us to him than anything he's done to date.
Vietnam, I agree, is more relevant. I disagree on the others. I flippantly pointed to Pearl Harbor because it had a great effective on the morale of the Japanese, but the effect on the home population, the people who were actually attacked, was so inflammed that it caused the eventual downfall of the Japanese Empire.
Edit:
Holy Crap that was a lot of posting while I was doing this. This is in response to Jim-me's first response to mine, gimme a minute to catch up with the rest.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bob -
Sorry, honestly. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't be against the war and still appreciate (in some way) Zarqawi's demise. In fact I didn't really mention that at all, my main point was, and is, that his death will be (and in my opinion already has been) vastly overblown in importance, and that the main thrust of the problem isn't about him at all. Also that his death might, for the short term, do more harm than good. It's all speculative I know, but I'm allowed to speculate aren't I? (Heck, it's Hatrack, that's half of what we do )
Jim-Me -
For Giap, I really don't know. Honestly I haven't done enough in depth on the Vietnam War yet to make an educated guess on the matter. But as for Yamamoto, I don't think it affected the outcome of the war. The men who took his place were mostly as competent, and at that point it didn't really matter anyway. They were losing, faith in Yamamoto was diminished after Midway and Guadalcanal, and the US was bleeding him dry in a war of attrition. It gave the United States a huge boost in morale, but so what? We were already winning, and would have won either way. Who's to say that if we hadn't used nukes, and we had to fight them house to house, that the people wouldn't have ambushed every US soldier yelling "Revenge for Yamamoto!"
As for the sports references...I really can't go toe to toe with you there, I'm not enough of a sports fan to even get all the references you're making. But for the Peyton Manning one, I can make an attempt. He's an integral part of that team. No other QB can replace him in the sense that his skill is so much higher than theirs, that losing him would kill their chances, in the same way that a hockey team would be screwed if they lost their top two goalies and had to rely on a minor leaguer brought up just to backstop them.
I'm not sure you can use sports analogies here. Too much of it has to do with irreplaceable skills, and not with what the person actually stood for. And for that matter, I don't think that Zarqawi is the Peyton Manning of the terrorist movement in Iraq.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, Bob has requested no more sports analogies, and I'm out of direct historical ones, off the top of my head, so I guess we just agree to disagree at this point. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well if we're really going into our element, the only other thing that comes to mind is marching band references. But I think once we get down to comparing Zarqawi to a drum major, we've gotten a bit off the point. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Very interesting discussion. Glad to see the other side.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I suspect that pilot is having a very good day today.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is certainly a propaganda and PR victory in Iraq.
Yes. It is. Which is why people who are naturally resistant to propaganda find themselves irritated by its application here, and why people who believe that propaganda is an essential tool of warfare think the first group is a bunch of party-poopers.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: So Bush is right to crow and make as much hay about this as possible.
Why? Bush didn't do anything. Whoever gave the military the information that they had to find and kill Zarqawi did something, and US military forces did something. It irritates the crap out of me when politicians (of either party, mind you, because they all do it) sit back here in safety and take credit for things other folks, who have risked their lives to accomplish a thing, have done.
Anyway, it bothers me when people "crow" and celebrate a death, even the death of someone who has done things to deserve their fate. It just isn't seemly.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So with your same logic then you can’t blame Bush for anything either. Good.
[ June 08, 2006, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: So Bush is right to crow and make as much hay about this as possible.
Why? Bush didn't do anything. Whoever gave the military the information that they had to find and kill Zarqawi did something, and US military forces did something. It irritates the crap out of me when politicians (of either party, mind you, because they all do it) sit back here in safety and take credit for things other folks, who have risked their lives to accomplish a thing, have done.
I got the impression that Bush was giving credit to first, the Iraqi government, and secondly our soldiers. No where did I see him praising his leadership and giving credit to himself for the victory.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Okay, just for the record, I didn't say Bush was crowing about this - all I know of his statements is what I've read here, so I don't know what all he is saying about it. I also, if you will read my entire post, am not singling Bush out - I said that all politicians do this, and I don't like it when any of them do it. So please quit painting what I said as a specifically anti-Bush statement. I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth.
Additionally, no, I don't believe that one can blame Bush for things he had no input into, but I think he can be blamed, or any other president can be blamed, for things that he and his closest aides have done.
And, anyway, I just don't understand why Bush supporters (and I am not targeting anyone here, because it happens all over the place) don't want anyone to ever blame him for anything, but they don't have any problem with blaming politicians they don't like for everything all the time, even when they didn't have any input into the things that happened. I'm really getting kind of tired of that sort of double standard.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I see your point. But I respectfully disagree. To use your own references, morale in England was actually quite high during most of the war. They were, with few exceptions, beating the everloving crap out of us. Especially in the south, three times they captured or defeated whole armies. Yorktown was a fluke. Thank God for it, but it wasn't a natural culmination of events, it was luck, and inspiration of a great commander, of which we thankfully had more than just one of. But in that case, the morale of England and the morale of the colonies was immaterial. They didn't give up because they felt defeated, they gave up because they lost, and that was just how it was done 230 years ago.
I think you might want to brush up on your history of late revolutionary war battles. France did not sign up to help America because we were getting our butts kicked on a constant basis, they joined up because they recognized that we actually COULD win this war based primarly on our victory at Saratoga.
But more importantly, the British forces were consolidated at York Town because Cornwallis (the leader of the southern campaign) had conceded that the British had lost control of the south and wanted to head North to join forces with Clinton and reevaluate their strategy. Victories in the south at the Cowpens and the subsequent British victories (that were in reality loses) forced them north where as fate would have it Clinton sold out Cornwallis at Yorktown and Cornwallis' entire army was removed from the picture.
Not to paint a picture of Americans having the upperhand all the time, but to say we lost our way to victory is a bit of a diservice to America.
As for this Zarqawi business. I really feel like restraint is being used. Nobody is saying "THE BACK IS BROKEN!" or "THE HEAD HAS BEEN CUT OFF!" they are merely saying that Zarqawi was a huge figure in the Iraq insurgency and his death is a serious blow to the insurgency.
If the terrorists SOMEHOW blew up president Bush you could say that the terrorists had dealt a big blow to the US's moral. Whether this would only fan the flames of American indignation or if momentum for the war on terrorism would slack, I care not to discuss. It sufficeth me to say, "If a major supporter is removed from the picture, overall support decreases."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:"What happened today is a result of co-operation for which we have been asking from our masses and the citizens of our country,"
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki
To me, this is the really encouraging thing. Not whether or not Zarqawi is dead, but that the people were willing to rat him out.
It may be naive (what with all the various factions in Iraq), but I like to think of ordinary citizens just not wanting to live under constant threat of violence all the time, finding out where this guy is, and picking up the phone.
Cynical me says that's not really the most likely scenario. But it's a pleasing enough thought that I think I'll hang onto it for a little while.
From the news reports I saw, the tips came from within the upper-eschelons of al-Qaida in Iraq organization, and were largely a result of in-fighting and disagreements over Zarqawi's tactics. Although there is significant cooperation from the populace, I don't think this is an example of it.
IMO the best things about this are that Zarqawi 1) was trying to start a civil war by targeting Shia; there should be fewer non-military attacks now, which I think is a good thing and 2) was the planner behind some of the more spectacular and deadly attacks in Iraq. The IEDs will continue killing soldiers and civilians, there will still be suicide car attacks, but I doubt we'll see any more large scale massacres.
Oh, and I think Dag's point is very valid and isn't getting enough play. Defeating Zarqawi (and his Jordanians and Saudis) will have a big effect on being able to deal politically with the native Sunni insurgency (which evidentally hates Zarqawi's organization almost as much as we do). If we can demonstrate that our goal is truly Iraqi autonomy, by aiding native Iraqis in the defeat of foreign terrorists, I think it buys us significant credibility.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:morale in England was actually quite high during most of the war.
Link, please? I'm curious to know how you draw this conclusion. CURIOUS, not skeptical.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And the PLO for all intents and purposes is winning too. They're still there after how many decades? Israel is pulling out of occupied territories aren't they?
I'm not going to get into this again, but the PLO was absolutely out of it. Out in Tunisia and pretty much powerless. It was a deliberate act by one group within Israel itself that resulted in them attaining the position they currently have.
It is the same group of people who are pushing ahead with further withdrawals even though the first one factually resulted in a huge increase in terrorist attacks. The recent electrical outages in Israel were due to the fact that rockets from areas that were abandoned in Gaza are being shot at Israel's primary power plants.
These individuals are profiting personally by their actions and are not doing what they do as a reaction to terrorism. It is the general populace which has been worn down enough by the terrorists that they are willing to grasp at straws that are being offered to them by the cynical politicos currently running the country.
So this is a bad example.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well if we're really going into our element, the only other thing that comes to mind is marching band references. But I think once we get down to comparing Zarqawi to a drum major, we've gotten a bit off the point.
Yay! Band analogies! THOSE I can live with!
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
An Evil man is dead. A man who targeted women and children simply because they were easier to kill then soldiers, a man who gave us the televised beheading hour on Al Jazzera. I wish I was the one who had killed him.
We have been closing in on him of course for months, taking out his lieutenants right and left. The vacuum is bigger then just the head of the group, we have hit a half dozen of his money people and his chiefs and there were many operations simultaneous with his death to further weaken the group.
The one thing this man did have that made him a threat was what made Saddam so powerful in Iraq, he was a violent thug with personal courage. A mans man as it where, to the Muslim male. Courage is much rarer then you might think among insurgents. In dozens of encounters with insurgents I never saw one that would stand up and fight when cornered or outnumbered, they all crumbled and started lying and denying. Some convictions huh?
He might not have been the much of a set of brains, but he was represents a set of balls that are now cut off.
BC
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Tracking down and killing Zarqawi may be (hopefully is) indicative of better intelligence, which is, in turn, indicative of more cooperation from Iraqi's, including Sunnis. If the success of this operation stems from greater cooperation by Iraqis and greater support for the new Iraqi government, then this may be a turning point.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Okay, could we PLEASE not do sports analogies when discussing warfare?
Well, even if we capitulate, you've only won half the battle, haven't you?
How you gonna get sports writers to stop using war analogies when discussing sports?
Do these terms look familiar? draft crush defeat rout surrender
So, was I talking about sports or war? And can I really talk about one without using metaphors from the other? Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here is a good article from Slate (Fred Kaplan; no fan of Bush's handling of the war) on what he thinks the killing of Zarqawi means. Here is another from staunch Bush foreign policy supporter Christopher Hitchens.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To respond in general to some of the stuff mentioned here:
I won't get into a huge discussion about the Revolutionary war in this thread, however I'd be happy to continue that conversation elsewhere. Scott R, I can't give you a link to English morale during the Rev War because it's not something I read online, it's something I learned in a history class, and I just don't feel like googling to find a proper webpage that may or may not satisfy you. I can however email you notes from my history classes, if that'll suffice.
As for the law Rev War victories, Saratoga alone was seemingly the reason why France decided to enter the war (well, other than the obvious benefits she would reap from joining with Britain's enemies). The Franco-American alliance constantly lost battles from the beginning of their relationship early in 1778 to 1780. In the early 80's, we lost an army to the British in Georgia, then Horatio Gates got pummeled in Camden. The only military victory to speak of against red coats in the south BEFORE Yorktown as Cowpens.
starLisa -
I'm not going to get into this debate with you again, it's not the right thread for it. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of the reference I was making (either way, I didn't make it first), why the PLO is in many ways getting what it wants. The point is that the Palestinian cause, in some way or another, has been there for decades and is making real progress in achieving stated goals. Regardless of the political situation in Israel, that is the case.
Senojretep -
Part of the problem there is that so many of the insurgents are native Iraqis who don't want the style of government that we're forcibly installing. All of the pro-democracy forces who want a unity government will just sit back and let us do the job for them. Everyone who doesn't like it, will easily find themselves a friend in the myriad array of Anti-US groups out there willing to fund insurgents who'll blow up US troop convoys with IEDs. In that war, we've still made little progress. All we've done is to kill one of many leaders of the foriegn insurgency in Iraq. Hooray, justice is served and all that, let's crack open a miller lite and celebrate a bit. But we've just barely scratched the surface, there's too much left to do to call this a major victory, or a severe blow. Midway in WWII was a severe blow, this was not.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually I believe it is a big victory for the US.
1) Al Zaquari was the leading proponent for civil war in Iraq. His bombing of the Golden Dome and other Shi'ite Mosques led to retaliations just as he planned. He hoped that the US would leave once a civil war became too bloody.
2) His spiritual advisor, the religious kook who saw half of Islam as death deserving infidels, was also killed. He will no longer be promoting his brand of hate.
3) Both of these individuals may not have been military geniuses. Their mistakes made our troops job easier. But they had a charisma that drew others to them, others from around the world. Without them maybe some of that support will disappear.
4) This happened at a strategy meeting. Our experts have reportedly been able to find a lot of useful intel from the remains.
5) The US has recently appeared a paper tiger, unable to do much right. This shows that the Tiger has real teeth. Our image in that part of the world just got better.
All of these are reasons that this is a victory. Its not the end-all, Midway-esque, Waterloo event. But it is a good victory at a great time.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:An Evil man is dead.
There are no evil men; there are only confused men. And it is never a good thing when one has to die, although it can certainly sometimes have some good consequences.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tresopax...no evil men?
That's a very odd assertion. Either you ascribe to a definition of evil that simply precludes the possibility that a human being could attain that state, or you have some insight into the profound consequences of "confusion" to share with us.
Either way, I'm intensely curious as to how you came to that conclusion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:An Evil man is dead.
There are no evil men; there are only confused men. And it is never a good thing when one has to die, although it can certainly sometimes have some good consequences.
Bullshit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
I hope that is the case, but I have serious doubts.
1.) there are a ton of people left to carry on that particular dream. The Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites are still at odds, regardless of Zarqawi being there. Armed Shiite militias still abound and refuse to disarm. Sunni insurgents still plant IEDs, and Kurds are just hanging around waiting for those two to blow themselves to kingdom come so they can secede from the whole mess. His death doesn't bring us nearer to the goal, though hopefully it'll make it less likely that that particular problem will escalate much more.
3.) I hope so. But I wonder how realistic that is. You perhaps forget that his group wasn't the majority of the problem, they were just the most visible and well known to the public eye. Other leaders and other groups will pick up the slack, and maybe even just as powerful an icon. We won't know for awhile.
5.) Iraqis know we have teeth, look at Haditha. If anything, the problem is that our teeth are biting the wrong people. Between the rare Haditha like incidents, bombs landing in the wrong houses, and US troops kicking down the doors of their neighbors, they know all too well that we have teeth, it's what is pissing so many of them off.
I think this has the potential to become a victory, but it's nowhere near automatic. It depends on how the insurgency deals with the fallout. Terrorists/Insurgents have an amazing ability to turn lemons into bombs.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
???
So, if the insurgents get really, really angry, then the action wasn't a victory?
I could see saying that it means we're facing a more desperate foe and that things may get worse before they get better, but I'm having a really hard time coming up with a scenario that makes it bad thing that we don't have to fight Zarqawi any more.
Even if he becomes a martyr and his name is used as a rallying cry, we are no longer fighting this particular person who, we have seen, was among the worst of the worst of our enemies.
QUESTION: Has there been any rioting in the streets over this? I haven't been able to catch any live news feeds over the past day. Anyone know whether that have been massive protests sparked by this man's death?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would highly doubt there being protests at his death. Most ordinary Iraqis didn't even like the man, he targeted too many Iraqi civilians in his attacks.
And while what you said was a gross oversimplification of what I said, almost to the point of misrepresentation, you could construe it that way. Given what happened after Pearl Harbor, you could easily call it a blunder just as easily as a victory. For sure, it was actually one of the greatest military attacks in the history of warfare. A nearly bloodless attack sank a large portion of our powerful surface warships in the Pacific. But the fallout from the attack negated any possible positive military outcomes from the attack.
I've perhaps misworded myself somewhere in here, but I'm not saying Zarqawi's death is a bad thing. Not necessarily. Though I consider that a remote possibility, my main point from the first post has been that this will be (and I think already has been) overblown by the government, and that his death will actually do very little to solve the problem. Also that in the short term there will probably be an increase in revenge killings. But his death does nothing to quell the majority insurgent population, those of native Iraqis.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...we'll see. you're probably right about the overall effect on the Iraqi insurgency. I don't think this government has blown this up more than any other administration would have, and actually less than some.
At least all that I've seen. I have to admit I haven't really been following this in mainstream media, though.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A nearly bloodless (for the japanese) attack sank a large portion of our powerful surface warships in the Pacific.
fixed that for you... I don't recall exactly, but I'm fairly sure more Americans died in that attack than in the entire Iraq war so far.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That's a very odd assertion. Either you ascribe to a definition of evil that simply precludes the possibility that a human being could attain that state, or you have some insight into the profound consequences of "confusion" to share with us.
The nature of people precludes them from being evil. Evil is something of negative worth, either because of its own nature or because of the bad things that inherently flow from its nature. People, however, are inherently valuable by their nature. And the nature of people is to choose do what appears to be good over what appears to be bad, as determined by the beliefs of the person in question. (That's just what it means to have free will - a defining feature of people.) It is only when beliefs are mistaken, and when the wrong choice appears to be better, that people do bad things. Thus it's the mistaken beliefs that are evil, not the people.
I think this is one of the most fundamental Christian beliefs, as I see it - which interestingly is rejected by a great many Christians. But if God loves all people, then all people must be valuable rather than evil.
The trouble is that I suspect many people get being evil mixed up with being responsible for something bad. They tend to believe that if you are responsible for some wrong choice you made, then you must be evil, and that if you aren't evil then you aren't guilty of anything. Some people believe that if al-Zarqawi's beliefs are evil but al-Zarqawi is not, then his beliefs must be responsible for his crime but he is not. I don't believe that is true. You don't cease being valuable if you try and fail to make the best choice, but you remain responsible for the mistake.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jim -
Sorry, I was assuming everyone would know what I meant. The attack was bloodless for the attackers, but certainly bloody for the defenders.
And I think just recently the number of dead in Iraq hit something like the 2,450 mark, which is more than the roughly 2,400 killed in Pearl Harbor, but the point is well made.
Thanks for the fix.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tres,
So, you are saying that it is impossible for a person to knowingly choose to do something they consider to be evil. That every action that every person takes is motivated by a desire to be and do good?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So, you are saying that it is impossible for a person to knowingly choose to do something they consider to be evil. That every action that every person takes is motivated by a desire to be and do good?
Yes, that is what it means to choose. If you choose something, you don't really consider it evil. There might be some part of you telling you that it is evil, and you might later realize that that part was right (even seconds later), but if you choose to do it anyway then that means there was some other part of you telling you it was the right choice, and that you listened to that other part even if only for that instant.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jim -
Sorry, I was assuming everyone would know what I meant. The attack was bloodless for the attackers, but certainly bloody for the defenders.
No worries. Pearl Harbor was roughly 2500 if you count civilian casualties... but the thing is, for the methods of war and the intense damage inflicted, it actually *was* kinda bloodless. Half of the deaths occured in the sudden, violent death of the Arizona. Leave out that one event and you have most of the US fleet down but only the loss of 1300 people and under one hundred civilians.
It was a remarkably surgical strike for the time.... and for the Japanese, who had recently perpetrated the Rape of Nanking, among other things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Generally when I hear people say things like, "There are no evil men, only confused men," after a little scrutiny I discover they have very little if any experience with misery, suffering, agony, violence that some humans do to others.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If he's saying that when a man chooses to do evil, thinking it's really being done for the sake of good, that makes it all well and good, then I don't really get where he's coming from.
If a man does something evil, knowing full well what he is doing, then it doesn't matter what his endgame scenario is, he's still doing evil, and willfully. You don't think the Japanese knew what they were doing in Nanking? (to use an extreme example). You don't think Osama bin Laden knew what he was doing? (to dial it back a bit).
Just because they might be misguided, or because they can find some justification for their actions, it doesn't make them less evil.
I guess to summarize:
quote:If you choose something, you don't really consider it evil.
That doesn't jive with me. It's an insane assumption to make across the broad spectrum of people in the world. You're working from the premise that everyone isn't evil, so therefore they must have good intentions, but are going about them the wrong way.
I just don't buy that. Ignorance is a poor excuse.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tres-
I would draw a distinction between people desiring the things they choose at the point of choice (utilitarianism) and "doing evil." Of course, this gets into the Objective Morality territory, but I have no problem believing that some people desire evil, and so choose it. It's evil, not in the sense that they don't like it or want it or desire it, but evil in the sense that it's contrary to the morals of society and/or God.
However, that said, I would not call him an evil man, but for reasons other than those you stated.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Generally when I hear people say things like, "There are no evil men, only confused men," after a little scrutiny I discover they have very little if any experience with misery, suffering, agony, violence that some humans do to others.
I think there is a tendency towards that. Those who experience a great deal of suffering, agony, misery, and violence caused by other human beings tend to have their judgment of other human beings tainted by those experiences. I think it is difficult to accurately see the value of someone when they are destroying your life or the lives of those around you. One very bad side effect of certain sorts of victimization is the way in which it can distort the judgement of the victim and make them see people as evil when they are not.
quote:If a man does something evil, knowing full well what he is doing, then it doesn't matter what his endgame scenario is, he's still doing evil, and willfully. You don't think the Japanese knew what they were doing in Nanking? (to use an extreme example). You don't think Osama bin Laden knew what he was doing? (to dial it back a bit).
Just because they might be misguided, or because they can find some justification for their actions, it doesn't make them less evil.
Do you think that any person who does evil is evil? For instance, if a toddler willfully decides to hit his little brother with a big stick, not understanding the pain it causes his little brother, does that make the toddler evil?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:An Evil man is dead.
There are no evil men; there are only confused men. And it is never a good thing when one has to die, although it can certainly sometimes have some good consequences.
And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why evil flourishes as well as it does today. The fact that so many good people refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are evil people in the world.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why would not acknowleding that there are evil people prevent us from stopping people from doing evil things? Do we need to consider someone evil in order to stop him from doing what he is doing?
I suspect the real reason evil flourishes is because people continue to not be all-knowing and all-wise, and thus continue to sometimes think evil things are justifiable. Like people who get so wrapped into their religious doctrine that they believe it's okay to kill innocent people to promote it. If such people could get perfect judgement, evil wouldn't flourish. I have my doubts that that will ever happen though...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tres-
What are you using as your definition of evil?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Evil is something of negative worth, either because of its own nature or because of the bad things that inherently flow from its nature.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
How do you judge whether something is of "negative worth?"
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That's going to depend on what your values are, but if you think it would be best if it had never existed, then that's an indicator that it may be of negative worth. But I'd add that the reason it would be best it had never existed needs to be it's own nature, rather than something external to it. For instance, you might argue that if Hitler's mother had never existed then the Holocaust could have been avoided - but that wouldn't mean Hitler's mother had a negative worth, because the bad that she caused was not caused by a flaw in her own nature, but rather in future things she couldn't see to avoid. I think it is a little bit tricky to describe the difference.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Since in your judgement, evil depends individually on values, isn't it entirely possible that Zarqawi was in fact an evil man (judged by Bean Counter's values), although not an evil man judged by yours?
When you say "There are no evil men; there are only confused men" do you really mean, "Due to the value I ascertain from God's love for everyone, it is not possible for me to judge a person as having negative worth." And could BC similarly say, "Due to the value I place on the sanctity of human life relative to other things, it is possible for me to judge a person who has murdered people en masse as having negative worth."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
How you judge evil depends individually on what you value, but your values may be mistaken. What actually IS evil depends on what actually IS valuable.
It's possible that Bean Counter would judge Zarqawi to be evil based on his values, but that wouldn't make Zarqawi evil. That would just make BC mistaken in his values if he thought that way, and thus mistaken in his judgement, in my view. (Just like Zarqawi has mistaken values if he doesn't value the lives of the innocent Americans he kills.)
However, I think Bean Counter values the sanctity of human life just as highly as I do, so I don't think the disagreement is so much over values. I think the disagreement is more over the nature of Zarqawi, and other people who do bad things.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why evil flourishes as well as it does today. The fact that so many good people refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are evil people in the world.
I find Evil flourishing most where others are too quick to point to someone and brand them as Evil. Once so branded they become the victims of those who branded them.
The truly sick and sadistic are not numerous enough to do the big evils our world has witnessed. But label those they harm as Evil, and the multitudes will join in their villainy, believing they are just combating Evil.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'm just curious for your take on this Lyrhawn. My impression from your posts is that you think al-Zarqawi's killing isn't that great of news. Do you have pretty much the same view if they manage to kill bin Laden?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:How you judge evil depends individually on what you value, but your values may be mistaken. What actually IS evil depends on what actually IS valuable.
So...hmm, to restate. Things (events, people, etc.) have objective values (presumably defined by God or nature or something), which we as humans are prone to misjudge. And for someone to be an evil person, by your definition, it would require 1) full knowledge of the true value of things and 2) a choice of something with negative true value (relative to the alternatives). And since you accept the basic axiom of rationality that people must choose to maximize value, (2) is impossible, therefore there are no evil people, only confused people (i.e. people without a full knowledge of the true value of things). I guess I can see that.
Zarqawi's confusion led to enough evil acts that I'm glad he's dead. Furthermore I hope he suffers torments sufficient to teach him the true value of the thousands of people he callously murdered.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I find it so strange that people can agree that there are good men and women in the world who brighten the existance of everyone around them and yet we balk at saying there are evil men and women out there who seek only personaly gain and have no qualms as to what they must do to obtain that.
What so Mao Tze Tung was simply confused? Or was Mao simply misguided in his total lack of empathy for ANYBODY? When he writes in his journals about the powerful needing to sacrifice the weak he simply needed somebody to be sat down by somebody and reasoned with?
Tresopax, I respect your empathy for human beings, I myself try IMO very much to understand and find the good in everyone. Though there are VERY few people IMO that fall under my definition of complete evil, just as very few people meet my criteria for purely good, Anytime you do something you know you ought not to do, you are striving to accomplish the purposes of evil. While we do not have an autobiography of Zarqawi or any life story for that matter, on the surface it seems that Zarqawi was certainly not a good man seeking for the happiness of all around him.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
You know, when a bunch of ruthless killers get killed by another buncho of ruthless killers, there's just no tears to be shed. For anybody.
It's getting beyond the 'ruthless killers' mentality that needs to happen.
Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
But I don't have an army. Bush has the army.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Evil will not conquer evil. You will not win a war against terror with terror.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
I wonder how the Wehrmacht would have responded to that.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate
If the insurgents get really angry and throw themselves at the US forces with all their might then it will be great because that is when we kill the most of them with the least collateral damage. If this drives them completely mad we will put them down like mad dogs.
They will not however, they will flail about and lash at each other. That is good too, but not as satisfying.
As for there being no evil only "insert word here" ,all that argument amounts to is simply redefining words, which is nothing more then exercising Political Correctness, an effort to be part of a new "with it" crowd that separates itself with a new language variation. Stupidity and not clarifying. Confusion for the sake of confusion.
Evil is seeking to impose ones will on another, too the degree that that is needful it is necessary evil, but it is always evil.
BC
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Evil is seeking to impose ones will on another, too the degree that that is needful it is necessary evil, but it is always evil.
I find it hard to designate my mother as Evil, but she imposed her will on me as a child, not letting me play in dangerous situations, cut myself, or stick my fingers in boiling water.
I agree that definitions are the secret here. Defining Evil is important. If you claim its just being bossy, then sure there are lots of evil people out there.
If you claim its being a follower of Satan, who eats babies, bathes in the blood of innocents, plans the destruction of the human race and mutilates pretty flowers, then I am not so sure.
Every person I have met, read about, seen, or heard of that others considered evil, thought of themselves as good, and had followers or friends that agreed with them.
I don't claim there are no evil people to be pc. I claim it because branding someone "Evil" is lazy and destructive. You can not solve the problems that created the "Evil" person if you just put it off as "Evil". You can only destroy them.
I believe destruction, the oppositte of God's Creation, is Evil.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Evil will not conquer evil. You will not win a war against terror with terror.
I like this image... "A war of terror against terror, destined to remain an endless stalemate."
Rhetoric can be fun, but good arguments are more convincing.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:You can not solve the problems that created the "Evil" person if you just put it off as "Evil".
That doesn't sound right.
Let's say you know that a certain society tends to produce a lot of evil people. You could change the society and "treat the cause," so to speak, even while doing so because the society creates a lot of evil.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Very loosely speaking, we can 'narrow down' evil to:
1. Murder (including assault of any kind) 2. Theft (including all manner of cons) 3. Lies (any misrepresentation affecting others)
These, in my oppion, are the 3 basic categories of negative behaviour that have a clear 'victim'. They are 3 of the 10 commandments as well.
The 7 cardinal sins seem a good moral guide as well. They represent 7 forms of negative behavoiur patters that harm others.
Of course, human behaviour is so complex that even the above 3 crimes can be, at times, justified.. After all, if someone breaks into your home to murder your family, murdering that person seems perfectly 'justified'.
But who is to say?
Evil?
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
I wonder how the Wehrmacht would have responded to that.
They would have probably been very happy. That would have ment no war in Europe.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate
Yes, exactly. Minus the bombs, and such.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
I wonder how the Wehrmacht would have responded to that.
They would have probably been very happy. That would have ment no war in Europe.
Yep. Just Nazi domination of the continent. There were no bad side effects to that, were there?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
And then, when your less stupid neighbors are done laughing and wondering if it's some sort of bizarre trick, they conquer you, take the money and resources you used to build your brooms and train your army, and spend it for themselves, leaving you a pittance.
Oh, and in doing so the best you can hope for is that your army will be as deeply stupid and timid as you are, and not fight when your neighbors invade, thus avoiding thousands of deaths for your people.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As for there being no evil only "insert word here" ,all that argument amounts to is simply redefining words, which is nothing more then exercising Political Correctness, an effort to be part of a new "with it" crowd that separates itself with a new language variation. Stupidity and not clarifying. Confusion for the sake of confusion.
Is this a response to anything I've actually written, or just directed at some hypothetical politically correct stereotype you are thinking up? Because I think that if I just trying to sound like I am part of a PC "with it" crowd, I'm doing a very poor job of it.
quote:Rhetoric can be fun, but good arguments are more convincing.
That depends on who you are trying to convince. Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
All people and indeed all life has a 'will to power' that exerts a negative pressure on other living things, be they trees seeking to get more sun at the expense of neighbors and underbrush or rapist seeking to impregnate otherwise unobtainable women.
This 'will to power' shapes the whole of the habitat. A mothers inhibiting of the activities of the child are certainly evil and strongly resented from the child's point of view. However from the point of view of the rest of Wal Mart, it is appreciated in that it limits the child's unchecked 'will to power' treading over their activities. So it becomes a trade, the least evil choice to the rest of mankind.
This is what I described as a necessary evil, however it is identical in principle to rape, slavery and demonic possession. It is a question of degree and of cost benefit pairing.
Evil is evil, taking another's life, using terror to enforce submission, using targeted violence to try to trigger a general breakdown in order in the hopes of coming out in a position of power, not to mention being known for child abuse is pretty damning.
Sorry I had to digress from the point to explain the universal definition of evil and its utility in such situations. It was clear that I was being misunderstood.
BC
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:.
And then, when your less stupid neighbors are done laughing and wondering if it's some sort of bizarre trick, they conquer you, take the money and resources you used to build your brooms and train your army, and spend it for themselves, leaving you a pittance.
Hardly, because the first order of business for my mercenary army would be recruitment of the armed forces of my enemy. This way, my bloodless army would be able to hold all the guns. Based on common sense and good taste. My allies are always armed, but I don't have to be.
Oh, and in doing so the best you can hope for is that your army will be as deeply stupid and timid as you are, and not fight when your neighbors invade, thus avoiding thousands of deaths for your people.
Exactly. You see a real invasion by a real army would be easily won. Sufficient people with common sense to open jails to political prisoners would be more than enough to destory almost any Nation. Should that destruction be called for.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: All people and indeed all life has a 'will to power' that exerts a negative pressure on other living things, be they trees seeking to get more sun at the expense of neighbors and underbrush or rapist seeking to impregnate otherwise unobtainable women.
This 'will to power' shapes the whole of the habitat. A mothers inhibiting of the activities of the child are certainly evil and strongly resented from the child's point of view. However from the point of view of the rest of Wal Mart, it is appreciated in that it limits the child's unchecked 'will to power' treading over their activities. So it becomes a trade, the least evil choice to the rest of mankind.
This is what I described as a necessary evil, however it is identical in principle to rape, slavery and demonic possession. It is a question of degree and of cost benefit pairing.
Evil is evil, taking another's life, using terror to enforce submission, using targeted violence to try to trigger a general breakdown in order in the hopes of coming out in a position of power, not to mention being known for child abuse is pretty damning.
Sorry I had to digress from the point to explain the universal definition of evil and its utility in such situations. It was clear that I was being misunderstood.
BC
Were you thinking of anybody in particular?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate
They build things out of bombs!! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If your allies are armed, you are armed. For all intents and purposes. So your high-handed morality is basically hypocrisy on that score, no surprise there. Furthermore, how would your 'army' go about recruiting? Pay them? They've got the guns. They'll take all the money, without your recruitment.
I don't understand your second response...but since this conversation is a collosal waste of time (even when I get my Net time by the month), I'm hardly concerned.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Evil is seeking to impose ones will on another, too the degree that that is needful it is necessary evil, but it is always evil.
quote:All people and indeed all life has a 'will to power' that exerts a negative pressure on other living things
So, from these two statements it follows that all people and all life is evil, according to you.
Does this mean you deny my assertion that "Evil things have a negative value"? Or do you believe that all life is worse than worthless, and that we'd be better off if none of us had ever existed?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Is that not a fundamental teaching of all great faiths? That all men are evil, and only through a process we can be redeemed?
Shared action to the good of all is Man rising above his evil nature. Evil is the primordial soup state of biology, and its tendencies emerge at all levels of behavior in various ways, goodness is in part knowing that we carry this baggage inside us and keeping it in check and further, acting for the benefit of others in a deliberate manner.
This is why we are the good guys in Iraq, we are trying to act for the benefit of everybody there and for our own, the locals are very selfish in action and motivation, barely reaching the level of action for the benefit of family for the most part.
But this is a place to cheer the death of a leader of evil, one that the latest news says nobody really wants to replace, not the place to clarify things for people who should already know these things...
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Of course evil is only meaningful to us. After all what is it to those below us but the natural order, and from God's POV it is the impulse that causes adaptation and evolution through Natural Selection, clearly a good thing.
Evil men can also be catalysts to greatness and goodness in the unity and focus that is required to beat them.
Evil is a human concern, both personal and public, fighting it is half of all goodness, the other half is building ever stronger connections with each other so that we can eventually move beyond selfishness and evil.
BC
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This is why we are the good guys in Iraq
But you also think that the U.S. military is evil, right? And all the leaders of America and American forces? And you, right? After all, you've said that EVERYONE is evil.
Frankly, I'm not sure if the sort of "evil" you are talking about is a very useful term in this case. If everyone is evil, being evil certainly isn't enough of a reason to cheer for that person's death. If it were, then by your logic we should cheer for the death of everyone. We would be cheering for all the deaths of 9/11 because, by your logic, each of those people were evil.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
Interesting thread. I thought I would agree with BC, not sure about his definition of evil. Evil is an extreme word. Exerting one's will over another is bad, but methods and goals matter. Persuasion by this definition is evil. When you say "everything is evil, some is just moreso than others" I think you have a definition as useless as "no one is evil, some are just less good than others." Paraphrasing, obviously.
And I know the army with brooms and daisies (paraphrasing again) line has been responded to, but I think you're making the following mix-up:
The opposite of war is peace, but the alternative never is. The alternative to war is one-sided aggression, conquest, enslavement and oppression.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)