h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

im sorry cooper but i cannot disagree with you more...the united states has an obligation to defend its territory regardless of the potential for casualties of war. yes, there will be many. but what better reason than a direct TERRORIST ATTACK ON CIVILIANS do we need as a republic to wage a war?????

although it would be ideal to be able to eradicate terrorism through tea and cookie negotiations, THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. i hope you will turn to the solace of your pacifism the next time someone attacks you or someone you love.

need i tell you that close to SEVEN THOUSAND INNOCENT AMERICANS WERE KILLED ??? are you unplugged from history? are you unaware that through conflict comes change?

im sure it would be neat for high school age children like yourself to be able to protest something like your parents did... but it may be my role to remind you that in the case of vietnam, THEY DID NOT ATTACK US and the reasons for protest were justified in most cases.

it also seems that you were not as personally affected by the tragedy as many in my circle. there is not a need for me to explain my personal connection to the tragedy.

your position is disgraceful to the lives ended in this senseless tragedy. pacifism has its place, but this is not it. how dare you call yourself an american when you are unwilling to stand and protect our countrys obligation to defend itself under these most extreme circumstances.

i hope not all high school age children feel the way you do about the events of 11 september. what a sad state of affairs if they do.

Several issues:

I am severely affected by the events of 11 September. I have connexions. It hurts me deeply as an American, but more deeply as a person. The absolute depravity of these acts is mind-boggling. I cannot fully grasp it. No-one can.

If you mean by "you were not as personally affected by the tragedy as many" that I am not in a blind rage for blood, then yes, that is correct. But make no mistake: it affected (and still affects) me deeply. I cried like a baby, and I'm a rather stoical guy.

But as you say, there is no need to explain the personal connexions.

We must not act out of our fear, or out of our anger, or out of our rage. We must be dispassionate. Otherwise our actions will be only revenge.

I do realise that many died. But I also realise that for the United States to take civilian lives--in this case, the civilians have no say in their government--is hypocritical and, more importantly, wrong. A crippled war orphan in Afghanistan, too poor to afford a wheelchair, is who will die in this conflict. The Taliban are the only ones with enough money and resources to escape an US attack. And escape some will.

You say, "pacifism has its place, but this is not it." Nothing could be further from the truth. Pacifism is the belief that ALL war is wrong, regardless of the situation. Therefore off-an-on pacifism is not pacifism. What good is pacifism if not applied in the times of war?

I think it is disgraceful to the lives ended in this tragedy to go and perpetuate more tragedies. Would a firefighter who died trying to SAVE lives want to kill those crippled orphans in Afghanistan?

I call myself an American because I live in America. I stand by my country's right to protect itself--right up to the point where it has to kill civilians to accomplish that goal.

I know change comes through conflict. I see that as the good in people coming out through the dark times. Every cloud has a silver lining, they say. But that does not justify the evil actions which caused the change.

The terrorists have acted madly. We do not need to act madly also.

These are primarily ethical, moral, and philosophical reasons.

My practical reasoning can be summed up thus: We will not end terrorism, nor even make a dent in terrorism. Will we send cruise missiles at the IRA?

Terrorism is not something that will end through even a protracted, bloody war. It will only end when humanity live in harmony. That, sadly, will never happen. Terrorism will always be around. If anything, killing innocents will provide more willing suicide-bombers. If you kill a man's brother--even if that man were previously apathetic--he'll hate you for it.

We will see increased terror attacks as revenge. This happened after the missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. In fact, 11 September may have been DIRECTLY LINKED to those strikes.

Are you unaware that violence only leads to more violence?

--Cooper
fearing Carnivore and more institutional madness

are you willing to enlist in the armed services of the united states?

now is the time to pay for the freedoms that you have made yourself accstom to. now is the time to prove you are the american you say you are. do you know why you have such freedoms? because SOMEONE (perhaps a member of your own family) fought in a WAR to make that possible. lets see, civil war...maybe we shoulda just let the south go? maybe we shoulda invited the slave owners for lemonade so we could "talk about it" and make nicey nice with them? o and that pesky revolutionary war...maybe the redocoats would have taken our invitiation for tea at the pub?

Several issues there as well:

The American Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery was just the symbol of the Southern way of life.

The American colonies had the lowest taxes, highest standard of living, and most freedoms of any colonies of the British Empire. Canada didn't do so poorly. You don't often drink tea in a pub.

Like I said, bad events have good consequences. But they have bad consequences, too.

As Gandhi said, "There are many causes for which I would die; none for which I would kill."

I would sacrifice a lot of things, friend, but I will not go against my religious proscription of killing another human.

--Cooper
(fearing Carnivore)

no need to nitpick who drinks what where...i would like to think you understand the point i am making...

if i am incorrect in assuming that you would not join the armed forces yet you are willing to reap the benefits of conflict, let me know

Your assessment is essentially correct.

I would gladly join the armed forces if it did not involve killing others or being a part of an organisation which kills others. I'm willing to help, just not in that way.

And I do no think that will help anyhow.

--Cooper
(fearing Carnivore)

It's a sad fact of life that innocent suffer in war, but there are causes, which are severe enough to require war. No body wants to kill any orphans. We can only let so many of our people die before we take action to stop the threat against us. It's possible that non-combatants will be killed, but that's life.

Cruise missiles and random bombing have only made the situation worse. However, violence can be used to solve this problem. The only alternative is appeasement, which has a pretty miserable history. Violence ended the Japanese empire building in the Pacific. In the two most violent acts in history, we ended WWII and Japanese aggression. After we defeated Germany through force of arms, it has been a peaceful nation.

Violence can solve problems.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron

amen, brother/sister ... unfortunately an immutable truth

No problem sibling Judith.

So if you be willing to sacrifice civilian lives--of another nation--in an effort to achieve a political goal, then aren't you on a par with the terrorists?

I mean, if you can stomach even on civilian casualty, then it's just a matter of targeting.

The Old Norse had a word for what happens in war, the absolute madness: "berserkr". (for more on this, see [url removed by moderator] "War Stories")

All war is terrorist in nature. Need I remind you that even in WWII, the "Good War", the Allies committed grievous war crimes.

If you could solve these problems through violence, then WWI would have been the last war. Yet we see violence continuing, and it's obvious that it's a cycle--whatever you put in has to come out someplace.

--Cooper
(fearing Carnivore)

PS Many at my school, at least, agree with me--we're having weekly peace rallies now.

I didn't say violence always works. What we're facing now is probably a reaction to our silly impotent responses to terrorism in the past. However, it has been successfully used to resolve issues.

There's a signifcant difference between war and terrorism. In war, you attack the enemey and sometimes non-combatants are killed. The goal is to destroy the enemy's abilty to fight. In terrorism, your target is unimportant. Your goal is to cause terror in the people who watch the event.

There are always going to be war crimes. We try to train our people to not cimmit them, but there's some criminal activity in any endevour. I can't think of any huge war crimes commited by the allies. Well, maybe the Russians. It was inexusable that they did not return the German POW's.

You attend a liberal arts high school. I would be surprised if you didn't have protests. That community is hardly representative of the nation as a whole.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron

As for war crimes committed in WWII by the Allies, a short list follows:

The firebombing of Dresden and other German cities near the end of the war. These targets had no strategic value, and were aimed solely at making the German people rise up against their government--much the same as modern economic sanctions. We burned 135,000 people alive in three nights in Dresden alone, as well as destroying some of Europe's finest architecture.

Nagasaki. 'Nuff said.

And I'll stop there, because I'm physically ill at the thought.

Every war has its war crimes. The only way to stop them is to stop war.

Can you ask someone someplace else to give his life in an horrible way for YOUR interests?

And it's not a liberal-arts school; it's a fine-arts school.

--Cooper
(fearing Carnivore)

What was wrong with Nagasaki? I really don't know enough to comment on Dresden.

Other than the fact that we killed thousands of civilians initially and then thousands more to radiation poisoning, including those who hadn't been born yet, not much was wrong with Nagasaki.

If you think about it, it's the classic terrorist action.

--Cooper
(fearing Carnivore)

No it was an act of war. For all I know it was a legitimate target of war.

I don't know why Nagasaki was chosen. The Secretary of War put it on the list of targets to replace Kyoto. He objected to Kyoto because it was the ancient Japanese capital and had too much cultural significance to the Japanese.

It was an overwhelmingly civilian target. The purpose was to instill the FEAR of US atomic weapons. We acted as though there were thousands of other atomics, though we only had one left. An attack without regard for civilian loss of life for the purpose of instilling civilian fear is terrorist by definition.

So it was an act of war. It was still a terrorist action.

This post has been removed.

If I wanted to argue with you about grammar, I'd have done so already. You've presented enough opportunities.

What I do take issue with is your insult of me. There is no need for that.

I do realise that my freedom is very good for me. It has allowed me to live in a way no-one else has before. It has enabled me to practice my religion freely.

However, it must be said that my religion (Christianity) started and thrives under persecution. My freedom of speech, certainly, is valuable, but human life is more sacred. I can still think, even if I be unable to speak.

It is not a sacrifice to be made lightly, but I think it is far nobler to sacrifice one's freedom than to demand one's freedom at the cost of another's life.

--Cooper
(fearing Carnivore)

perhaps you need to take a trip overseas...hang out and see what its like to live under the thumb of oppression.

youre right, personal attacks arent necessary and i am sorry.

so dont take them personally. act as if they apply not only to you but to anyone who thinks as you do.

As long as the target was a legitmate one, it fails the test of terrorism. The psychological warfare element of the operation did help bring an end to the war. Since the violent conclusion of the war, we have had generations of peaceful coexsitance with the Empire of Japan.

Violence can bring about peace.