Comments on LET'S TALK ABOUT FRANCE, PART 2

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to LET'S TALK ABOUT FRANCE, PART 2

You are welcome

You pose a good debating question, but the premise is flawed. Trying to transfer individual philosophy and morality to that of nations is a very difficult task, one that has been debated for thousands of years. The principles can be similar, but there are crucial differences.

“Retaliation” has no moral place between individuals or nations, but between nations it is not so clear. Nations with governments of hostile intent toward their own people and their neighbors, such as Iraq and Afghanistan were, always conduct secret campaigns of violence and terror, while telling lies in public that the naïve among us will swallow. But the violence of Iraq and Afghanistan against their own people was well-documented and undeniable. This may not have been the advertised reason for our war, but it is an excellent reason for me. We stopped two criminal governments IN THE ACT of massive destruction of their own people’s lives, property, and human rights. We are trying to RESTORE them now, despite the mistakes we are making. Can’t you take just a moment from your incessant attacks to acknowledge the goodness and decency in this?

WITHIN a nation with a government of good intent, some semblance of law and order exists, with enforcement structures in place, such as police and courts. BETWEEN nations, there is no higher structure of enforcement. In my example, I said I would turn the names of the people who burned my car over to the police. But what if there were no police? Between nations, there are no police. If there were no police in my community, I would have to rely on MYSELF to bring justice to the people who burned my car. If like you, I refused to do so, I would leave them free to burn the cars of others, or free to commit worse crimes against others. And they probably would, sooner or later. For if they are willing to burn my car for no just cause, then they are willing to commit the same or worse crimes against others. If I do not attempt to stop them, I am shirking my obligation to humanity in general. That moral principle, in my opinion, is what liberals like yourself fail to understand or acknowledge.

So it goes between nations. If nations were houses on the street, and Saddam Hussein lived across the street from you torturing and murdering his family, and the Taliban lived next door cutting off its childrens’ hands when they stole a cookie from the cookie jar, I trust you would have a different view of the actions of the United States, the neighbor who was attacked and decided to do something about it

Instead, you liberals were willing to let Saddam and the Taliban murder their families in their house, as long as they did not bother you in your house. Even if they did bother you, you don’t have the moral fiber to do anything about it, except protest and ask for worthless sanctions in the United Nations. Saddam thumbed his nose at you for 12 years.

Are the lives of such human monsters as Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and Zarqawi and their loyal followers “precious” to you? They are not precious to me. I want them dead, for the uncountable atrocities they have gleefully committed. This is not retaliation, it is justice. I am proud of my country for bringing down the monstrous tyrannies of two countries, and offering their people and chance at self-government and freedom. I am ashamed of people like you who lose sight of that and try to destroy what we have accomplished.

We made many mistakes. We have killed innocent civilians, but this happens in every war. We compensate many of the victims, and that DOES NOT happen in every war. We failed to realize that the religious fanaticism of Muslim jihadists would reach such insane extremes. We failed to predict that these monstrous human beings would find so many people willing to destroy themselves as suicide bombers, believing the absurd promises of reward in Paradise for murdering people. We failed to realize that so many of our own people would turn tail and run when the mistakes were made, giving the enemy sympathy and moral support in so many ways, as you are doing.

But still I am hopeful that in spite of all the setbacks, horrible tragedies, miscalculations, and betrayals, the promise of freedom and self-government will prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that whatever governments solidify there in the next decade or so will be infinitely better than the Baathist beasts of Saddam and the Muslim monsters of the Taliban. In spite of all your misguided pacifist protests.

Damonleigh, I will grant you this: if our leaders have committed crimes themselves in the conduct of this war, then I support their investigation and punishment, but not by you. You have already declared them guilty, but your extreme bias is clear. Let the judicial process take its course, for you can be sure that your philosophical allies in the US and British governments will do everything possible under the law to prosecute any crimes that have been committed.

posted by GoldenMean on November 18, 2005 at 11:03 PM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean...

...thanks for this - very clear.

Far be it for me to comment on the sort of society that makes it all right "by law" to shoot someone. The same sort of society, I guess, that says it's all right to invade another country without provocation.

Which brings me to your final paragraph.

"The worst kind of retaliation is violence against someone other than the original aggressor/predator. Like if a tough guy bullies you on the street, and you retaliate later against his brother or sister."

So, if there was an attack on an unnamed city using hijacked planes - for example - and, just for the sake of arguement, the vast majority of those hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, then in your book, the country that should be attacked (if any) in retaliation for that attack is Saudi Arabia? And the worst kind of violence is against someone other than the original aggressor - like, for example, Afghanistan or Iraq?

Interesting.

Thanks for the debate.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on November 18, 2005 at 7:17 AM | link to this | reply

Damon

Glad you asked me to clarify. In all my arguments, I have talked about STOPPING someone IN THE ACT of destruction. Where I live, I would be totally within my legal rights to shoot someone IN THE ACT of committing a violent felony. My philosophy is the law here, though you may find that hard to believe.

Now, if I discovered my car or house already burnt, with the criminals gone, and I went after them myself to shoot them, THAT would be retaliation or vengeance after they committed their crime, and the car or house is destroyed. If I found out who they were, I would turn the information over to the police and wait to testify at their trial, if they survived the police arresting them.

The worst kind of retaliation is violence against someone other than the original aggressor/predator. Like if a tough guy bullies you on the street, and you retaliate later against his brother or sister. This kind of retaliation is common in Muslim and other clannish cultures, and it is why your "dance of death" becomes endless.

posted by GoldenMean on November 17, 2005 at 6:18 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x...

...to have a government minister call an entire group of people 'scum' - and that was BEFORE the riots! - just beggars belief.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding (similar to that shown by other sin this discussion) of the total desperation in which these people live.

Just before the last French revolution, Marie-Annetoinette (sp?) was told that the people were restless as they had no bread. To which she is supposed to have retorted - No bread? Then let them eat cake! Again, a complete disconnection from reality, and it cost her her head!

Thanks for wading in here!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on November 17, 2005 at 3:01 AM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean...

...how can you say that retaliation and vengence are not part of your philosophy on the one hand, and yet state you'd shoot someone for buring your car on the other? What's that, if not retaliation?

D

posted by DamonLeigh on November 17, 2005 at 2:58 AM | link to this | reply

Damon

I just have a few seconds here to reply. Glad you are not a complete pacifist. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

As for the "dance of death", the recurring cycle of violence, that is a very real problem, but it can only continue with the practice of retaliation, vengeance and the like. That is no part of my philosophy.

posted by GoldenMean on November 16, 2005 at 5:00 AM | link to this | reply

well we don't have to label our lower classes

we just make them such

let's see

and almost all of them are Christian

African Americans
Latin Americans
homeless
women
homosexuals

actually the best thing is to get out of your living room and go to where this is happening. see where and how they live -- see the menial, low paying jobs they have, the lack of quality education, the few chances they have of clmbing up out of that situation.

it's what I think is called "de facto" discrimination, rather than labelled, open. it's not like the post Civil War era (1865-1965) when people of color were discrminated against by laws and other very open actions.

what we are talking about here is not how people are discriminated against, but that they are -- and our ways to doing so are no different -- no better, no worse -- than those of Moslem countries.

posted by Xeno-x on November 15, 2005 at 11:25 AM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean...

I remember being impressed, too! But that one discussion seemingly doesn't innoculate you from being naive at other times.

You make a strong arguement for protecting material possessions. Alas, it holds no water with me. I have NOTHING that I'd be prepared to kill for. Nothing. In fact, I have very little that I value that highly even to fight for. My computer, maybe - though it's all remotely backed up - and a couple of pieces of rock. That's about it. I've largely moved well beyond attachment to material "stuff", and I've never been one who thinks a car is worth more than a life.

So yes - hard though you may find this to believe, all tghe material things in my life are insignificant. And insured ;-)

However, in your rush to label me as pacifist, you wrong-foot yourself once again. I would fight for something worthwhile - like the safety of my family - and, if in the fight, I killed someone by accident, well, that's the way it goes. Providing I was fighting FOR something worthwhile (and not a bunch of consumer crap) and providing I was fighting WITHOUT the intention of killing, then I'd accept the outcome and the consequences.

Your dance of death arguement is pretty thin. The troubles in Ireland have been one group retaliating for the violence of the other group and it's been going on for - let's see - about 400 years. Want to make an estimate how long the US is going to get kicked around as a result of its aggressive invasion of Iraq? The point is, violence rarely leads to anything other than...er...more violence. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Thanks for reading.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on November 15, 2005 at 5:06 AM | link to this | reply

Dylan & saul...

...good points, people!

Thanks!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on November 15, 2005 at 4:57 AM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x...

...despite the macho cries of GoldenMean, suggesting that guns in America means America will never see such an uprising, I feel you may be closer to the mark.

And the guns will only make things worse, if and when it comes.

Thanks for the comment.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on November 15, 2005 at 4:56 AM | link to this | reply

malcom...

...when folk have nothing to lose they are the most dangerous.

And they always end up with nothing to lose as a result of the actions - or non-actions - of the state.

Thanks for reading.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on November 15, 2005 at 4:54 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome...

...don't worry, my friend - I don't utilise the sweeping generalisations of some of my detractors! I know there are people on your continent - and a lot of them at that - who are not so blinkered as some around these parts.

And that's a major relief to those of us looking on in dispair and disbelief, I can tell you!

Thanks for stopping by.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on November 15, 2005 at 4:52 AM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x

Are you aware that traditional Islamic states have a lower class of citizens? They are all the non-Muslims, they are called the "dhimmi" and they are "protected" from sanctioned violence only if they pay the "jizya" tax and follow all the restrictions put on them by the Muslim government. This is the traditional fundamentalist position, and when I get time I will find out which specific Islamic states have enforced this recently or currently. Perhaps none, but I suspect that is not the case.

posted by GoldenMean on November 14, 2005 at 10:04 PM | link to this | reply

Damonleigh, the Pacifist?

I remember once you were quite impressed to discover one of my philosophical discussions (I was one of 3 main participants), but now I am “blinkered” with naivete and sweeping generalizations. Let me see if I can impress you once again.

As to the philosophy of self-defense:
Yes, a car is a lump of metal. It is also a slice of the owner’s life. It is a product of the hard work, the dreams, the freedom, the empowerment of the owner. Apparently, you believe that nothing is worth defending except physical human life. What about your home? It is just a pile of organized rubble, is it not? What about the contents of your home-- your furniture, your art, your collections, your mementos, your books, your tools, your jewelry and other valuables? Are they all so expendable, so worthless? What about your wallet, your bank account? What about your computer and all the data and writings it contains? All of this is subject to be taken or destroyed by human predators.

Is all of this so insignificant that you would let a human predator destroy it, if you could not stop him without killing him? If so, you let the predator steal or destroy the hard-won resources of your life. Are we then to allow every hardened predator to take what they wish from us, if nothing short of killing them will stop them? I am not hawking materialism here, but a more profound understanding of what human life consists of. Our physical lives and limbs are precious, but the products of our labor are precious as well, as are the moral principles by which we acquired those possessions.

To me, allowing a robber to steal or a rioter to burn, is allowing their life’s philosophy to triumph over mine. As the saying goes, all that evil men need to succeed is for good men to do nothing to stop them. I am willing to do WHATEVER it takes to stop them, in most circumstances. They always have the option to stop themselves, before they are shot.

So I am wondering, where are your limits of generosity to the predators of society? You have already told us you are willing sacrifice your car to them. So if a brazen bloke breaks into your house while you are there and proceeds to clean it out, you will not resist him violently? From what you have stated, you cannot resist him, because if you fight him, you might kill him by mistake, right? And his life is infinitely more precious than all the material trappings of your life’s work, so you have told us. And let us say that he wishes to overpower you and rape your wife/girlfriend/sister/mother, or you for that matter. Is this worth resisting him? After all, rape is not a permanent harm. You cannot become pregnant, and if your wife/sister/mother does become pregnant, they can get an abortion if they wish. So no real harm done, and the “precious” life of the predator was preserved. Thus saith Damon the Wise, or at least he infers it.

Sorry, but I am not willing to hand the world, or my tiny little part of it, over to any criminal who is more determined or smarter or physically stronger than I am.

As for the “dance of death” which you seem to think is generated from my philosophy, the dance will stop abruptly when the initial aggressor/predator, who pressed the attack and would not be stopped by any lesser means, is dead and his intended victim is alive to return to his loved ones, with the fruit of his life’s work intact.

Out of time for now, will address your other points later. But thanks for the info about the French policies toward the Muslim immigrants. I would love to know more about how the French have completely mismanaged their socialist/pacifist society.

posted by GoldenMean on November 14, 2005 at 8:31 PM | link to this | reply

Saul Relative, I would hope it does reach the stage of organization, but not before it stops being violent!

People undermine good causes by doing bad things in their name.

That doesn't make the causes any less good.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on November 14, 2005 at 5:30 PM | link to this | reply

there is little doubt that the common denominator amongst the rioters of

France is that most of them are poor. The second commonality is that most of them are Muslim. And it is true that the Bush administration and the western world are doing little to distance themselves from the prevailing Muslim image of resurrected Crusaders. But this trend of violence, like gomedome has observed, is akin to the Rodney King uprising in South Central Los Angeles, an upwelling of the oppressed at a social injustice that has become the straw breaking the camel's back. And although the unrest is not basicly religious, the media is trying its best to make it so. Regardless, each individual is responsible for his or her actions during this time of social upheaval. Mob mentality isn't known for its intellectualism, but a few mobs have been known to change governments, public policy, laws, especially when political and economic recourse has been denied for an extended period of time. France is feeling the frustration of an unorganized hundreds of thousands of the disaffected -- pray it doesn't reach the stage of open armed resistance and... organization.

posted by saul_relative on November 14, 2005 at 2:55 PM | link to this | reply

true

when people see hopelessness all around, and there is nowhere to turn . . .

as this "good Christian" administration  continues to cut the middle class out of college educations for their children and lieving wage jobs -- and continues to cut aid to the poor (now it's preschool education [Headstart]) I think our own country will find a very substantial segment that will feel the same way.

they pretty much do already; yet they do have some means of diverting their wrath (gangs, music, etc.).  There is still some aid tricking down -- but look at this -- lessening educational opportunities, feweer quality job opportunities, cutting back on aid and medical availability -- and then the attitude of the representatives of the government -- similar to those you have described for France -- ranging from ignoring them to downright hassling for little at all to questionable police shootings -- it builds up.

I think this build up very well could result in something worse for U.S. domestic society than has been seen heretofore.  You cannot ignore people.  You cannot treat them as second class citizens.  You cannot maintain a relationship of superior/inferior without consequences.

While our conservative Christian friends bewail France's plight, they ignore circumstances closer to them than they would be comfortable with were they honest with themselves.

posted by Xeno-x on November 14, 2005 at 2:00 PM | link to this | reply

I'm with gomedome

when people are desperate and nobody listens and nothing changes and nothing is likely to change there is...nothing. Nothing to live for and nothing to live on.

posted by malcolm on November 14, 2005 at 12:24 PM | link to this | reply

DamonLeigh - I almost choked when I read some of the comments left on

this issue. There is more of an analogy to be drawn with this issue and the infamous French revolution or the equally infamous LA riots in the Rodney King verdict aftermath, than anything to do with religion. A disenfranchised segment of the French populace has come to it's breaking point. It has everything to do with simple economics as well as the heightened tensions and despair instilled by a seemingly hopeless future. It has virtually nothing to do with the fact that the group also happens to be adherants to a specific religion.  Yet we are treated to the perspectives of those who cannot look past the religious aspect. It smacks of the "ivory tower syndrome" and states loudly and clearly the mentality of those who would decry this unfortunate situation as simply a religious issue. Encapsulated in the words: "I'm okay, well fed and have a future....sorry about your luck" ... I want you to know that there are at least a few people living on this continent that can see a little farther than what some of your commentors have depicted.

posted by gomedome on November 14, 2005 at 10:45 AM | link to this | reply