adhere

Indeed. I would describe myself as a fiscal conservative but more socially liberal/progressive. I'm mostly for the free-market and neo-classical capitalism but I don't buy into the rest of the classic republican/conservative bundle of interventionist foreign policy, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-drug sort of thing.

In fact, the argument at hand has very little to even do with right vs. left.

i wasnt being hypocritical chrisp because america deserved the attack, that in a perfect world should have changed their foreign policy and hopefully put an end to it, obviously that would have never happened.the example about invictus beating me up and then me retaliating against him should have put an end to it. and sic yes thats exactly what im trying to say, but invictus for some reason has to bring right and left into it which doesn't really make sense.

Actually I think it has a lot to do with left and right. If you think no country needs a standing army because we should all be peace love and puppy dog tails, thats a naive left-wing point of view that is a fantasy which you have already acknowledge. The rest of your views are colored by those rose-colored glasses in which you view the world.

well were not really talking about that anymore are we?and it works for the swiss, so its not about viewing the world with rose-coloured glasses at all, im sick of no logic peace hating conservatives

@trim101 The Swiss most assuredly do have a military, and have required military service for everyone between certain ages (I can't remember them exactly). They also require every household to have firearms. I beleive they also have the mountains they're in filled with tunnels and bunkers in case of an invasion. They are most assuredly not an example of a country deciding they don't need a military.

They have however chosen a policy of pretty strict neutrality, which might actually be a policy that makes some sort of sense, but they most assuredly don't do it because they don't feel they need any defense, on the contrary, they seem to be of the opinion that the best way to maintain their neutrality is to make it clear that trying to invade would be an incredibly difficult prospect, and not worth the effort. (The fact that they're a mountainous country helps in making that so difficult).

Now as to my earlier question, I'm wondering what YOUR specific reasons for arguing that an attack by Bin Laden was justified. Though I would be interested in what you think his reasons were, and why you do or don't think they justified an attack (supposing for the moment that the attack was on a military target, rather than civilian).

You've also still not answered, or even addressed the question I've asked several times, which is what you propose we do to deal with people like Bin Laden who continue to attack civilians. Whether the idea of an attack "in general" is justified or not, you yourself agree that attacks on civilians are not, so... what do we do about that?

i never said you didnt need an army you just dont need a standing army and the swiss dont have a standing army which again is what i said.

Ok i dont need to think what his reasons were this link will tell you what his reasons were http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver from the man himself.My own views to a certain extent mirror his, the catolog of america intervention to further its own aims is huge and most of the time were at the determent of other countries this alone in my view is enough to justify an attack on a miltary target.

Deal with people who attack civilians, well first of all you need to get to the route of the problem and understand why these people feel the need to attack civilians, and try and solve that,if it is solvable, secondaly you need to apprehend these people and bring them to justice, which you dont do by invading a country and not even capturing the person who commited the attack.

If and only if there is catogoric proof that one the attack orginated from a country and that the government and the people of that country supported the purpotrators (sp) of that attack then you should invade that country.

but other than that i dont have an answer

@trim101 "well first of all you need to get to the route of the problem and understand why these people feel the need to attack civilians, and try and solve that,if it is solvable, secondaly you need to apprehend these people and bring them to justice,"

I absolutely agree that you need to deal with the root causes of many peoples resentments. I don't disagree there at all. What I am saying is that sometimes force is needed, and many people, and I believe Bin Laden is one of them, won't really be convinced to stop attacking civilians, by almost anything the US, or the West could possibly do. (That being said, changing policies could reduce the number of people willing to listen to and help such people).

"which you dont do by invading a country and not even capturing the person who commited the attack."

I whole heartedly agree, we needed to focus on Afghanistan and focus on actually killing or capturing Bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Qaeda who planned these attacks. At the same time, the a lot of focus also needed to be on building up the country, and helping the people there, so that the support base for the Taliban and Al Qaeda would evaporate (also... it's just good to help people.).

"If and only if there is catogoric proof that one the attack orginated from a country and that the government and the people of that country supported the purpotrators (sp) of that attack then you should invade that country."

I can't say that the people necessary supported the attack, in fact it was my impression that in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Afghanistan, many of the people were quite glad to be rid of the Taliban, and those they supported, but it was pretty clear that the "government" of Afghanistan (The Taliban) did in fact support the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks (Al Qaeda).

You and others keep mentioning Iraq, and I just want to make clear, yet again, that I agree completely that Iraq was a disaster and a terrible idea from the start. It had nothing to do with September 11th, was a distraction from the real issues in Afghanistan, and has done nothing but increase the hatred for the United States and west, thus creating more terrorists, and playing straight into the hands of Al Quaeda and their ilk. Make no mistake, I'm certain that Bin Laden was THRILLED when the US invaded Iraq. There couldn't be much better of a recruiting tool for him.

Oh, and also... The Swiss do have a standing army. It's not very big, but they do have it, and can call up a large portion of their citizenry at any time. Again, this isn't an argument against neutrality, or non-interventionism, just pointing out the facts.

the swiss standing army is their training section or leadership section the frontline soldiers are the conscripts, im getting off the point, i dont belive i ever said you shouldnt use force to capture bin laden, my whole point was about an attack being justified, but as he killed civilans he deserves everything he gets, but if he had just attacked a miltary target, then in my view thats kind of ok.

ok! I'm not sure I TOTALLY agree with you, but I understand your point, and don't completely DISagree with you either.

Just trying to open up the conversation a bit and make my own thoughts clearer (to others, and to myself), and to make sure I fully understand your and others opinions.

yeah its nice to talk to someone who does understand things and isnt blinded by bullshit patriotism

I think the problem Trim is having may be the delivery of his message. He is seeming justifying the attacks and condemning at the same time. What he seems to be indending is to justify AN attack and condemn the attack that actually occurred.

jesus... why cant you guys get this?

an attack on america was completely justified, due to americas imperialist foreign policies. what was not justified is an attack on a completely civilian target like to WTC.
what would have been justified is an attack aimed directly at the people who fucked them over in the first place, like taking out some federal buildings or a military base.

i'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just trying to explain it to people who have bananas in their ears.

i said it plenty of times the attack was justified just not the target its pretty simple

So, hitting "some federal buildings" with non-military, non-combatant personel was OK? So, if AQ/OBL had hit a veteran's hospital (a federal building!) it would have been fine. Had he hit the IRS offices (another federal building!) it woul dhave been fine. That's BS man. Even hitting the Pentagon (which they did), the Capital building, or the White Hourse would have been wrong due to the number of non-military personnel in those locations. The Pentagon may be OK in that the purpose of the building is military planning and that makes it a valid target. Instead of "federal buildings" I would agree that MILITARY targets would have been valid. I know I'll get flack, but the Japanese at least chose to attack a military base. they went after ships and airfields, not hospitals or administrative buildings, although there was some collateral damage done to those as well. Collateral damage happens, but to intentionally target non-military targets (and I'll allow targets where strategies are put in place like the Pentagon do have military value, as I mentioned above) is what makes AQ and the Taliban terrorists. It's also what makes the Palestinian dissentors terrorists. If Palestein went after Israeli airfields and tanks and military bases, I'd back them 100%. I think they deserve their freedom which was taken from them by an interferring third party and then taken advantage of by Israel at a time when Israel knew no one would do anything about it. But launching rockets into villages on the other side of the border is just as bad as flying a plane into the WTC, just on a smaller scale.

Not everyone in the world disagrees with the anger in the Med and the Middle-East. We just think a different tact should be taken when using violence to achieve the means.

It's pretty ridiculous actually! In terms of Nation comparison, America has acted rather selflessly for many good causes around the globe. Sure we have our hands stained with blood guilt from prideful endeavors, show me one nation who doesn't. I scored twice the national average on the asvab, though not like it's supposed to be difficult. I'll officially be in the Corps on May 1st. This is an interesting discussion, please continue.

@Sicarius "jesus... why cant you guys get this?

an attack on america was completely justified, due to americas imperialist foreign policies. what was not justified is an attack on a completely civilian target like to WTC.
what would have been justified is an attack aimed directly at the people who fucked them over in the first place, like taking out some federal buildings or a military base.

i'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just trying to explain it to people who have bananas in their ears."

Why the frustration at that point? It seems to me that it was pretty clear everyone understood by the time you posted that.

Hmm... Occasionally there is a trade dispute between American and another nation. There was a recent dispute over banana imports, the European Union was accused of this, that and the other thing. Without discussing the merits of the case, if America is accusing the European Union of discrimination, of hogging resources, or protectionism, etc, if it is viewed as morally wrong, can America bomb Paris? As long as its a military target? What's the criteria to determine whether a military can be bombed? 9/11 occurred before the US was in Afghanistan and Iraq, so 9/11 was caused by something other than direct military actions by the US. So what justifies an attack?

your comparing a trade dispute (money) to the deaths of thousands of people due to americas foreign policy stop being silly, this is my last post on this subject i have got my point across and the only people who cant seem to understand the logic behind it are stupidly patriotic ring wing people and im bored of it

actually i will respond to Droct and chrisp becuase they are in this thread worth debating with

LOL, I am certainly not right wing, nor conservative nor republican, but thanks for playing our game.

Is there a certain number of people that have to die before retaliation? And does it have to be direct deaths? And do you need 'catagoric proof' (I'm not sure what that means)? I just want to know where to draw the line as to when retaliation is ok and when it isn't. Since all my analogies are silly, please tell me the rules.

"i wasnt being hypocritical chrisp because america deserved the attack, that in a perfect world should have changed their foreign policy and hopefully put an end to it, obviously that would have never happened."

Uh... you're ignoring that hypocrisy takes two parts. You're compartmentalizing. Ok, you can say that the attack on USA was justified. But then you can't say that American retaliation was not justified! You've backed off of this somewhat, so you're reconciling your views to a more consistent view... but what you were saying earlier was hypocrisy.

Regarding the Swiss army, you also have to view that they have a geographical advantage. Most nations do not share their unique terrain, and this very much allows them to adopt a position of deterrence and neutrality.

"Actually I think it has a lot to do with left and right. If you think no country needs a standing army because we should all be peace love and puppy dog tails, thats a naive left-wing point of view that is a fantasy which you have already acknowledge. The rest of your views are colored by those rose-colored glasses in which you view the world."

That's a hasty generalization. The view is not left... it's naive but if it's spewed by a leftist that is only coincidence. Left vs. right has far more to do with fiscal policy and social progression. There are very few liberals who do not think retaliation for 9/11 was unjustified. Yes, it's true that classically conservatives are more war mongering and liberals are more hippie love, but the correlation is purely a cultural statistic and not a logical causation.

Re: Pearl Harbour vs. 9/11
I wouldn't say the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour out of some respect for the laws of war... but simply out of practicality. It was by far their best target. If they had instead attacked Seattle they would have been overrun almost immediately. 9/11 was the most practical attack for a terrorist cell that wanted to make a statement, because it hit symbolic targets considered to be safe, not necessarily to cause civilian death.

The point I'm trying to make is that most military decisions are not made upon abstract ethical considerations but simply concrete practical considerations.

ok im to tired to right a coherent reply so i will do it in the morning,i need to think of a better way to explain myself