U.S. Had It Coming

BubberMiley · March 11, 2008

I thought I would start this thread in response to the hurt feelings engendered by the name of a recent but highly prolific poster.

I think one would be terribly naive to think that a superpower can act aggressively toward lesser nations, consider itself the world's police force, and yet remain untouched by terrorist reprisal. That doesn't necessary justify the reprisal (I'm a pacifist--I don't believe in that myself), but such violence appears to be a fact of life in the world today. If you play the game, I think you have to expect to occasionally get burned.

This, of course, goes for Canada too. We are by all means complicit and even active participants in what is ultimately western foreign policy. We have it coming too.

I don't think such sentiment necessarily disrespects the innocents who die by terrorist action. It is not to say that the people who died deserved it, but that all of us by our actions should be able to foresee potential pipers being paid.

Now, whether or not this risk of reprisal is worth taking is another story. I think, for the most part, it is. Our society is strong and good, and the actions of a few desperate nihilists shouldn't persuade us to change, and they certainly shouldn't persuade us to sacrifice the freedoms that made our society what it is.

But to suggest that our actions don't necessarily cause reactions and that acts of aggression won't spawn potential retribution seems to be denial of basic reality.

So, sure, we have it coming, but so what? It's worth it.

UShaditComing · March 11, 2008

I thought I would start this thread in response to the hurt feelings engendered by the name of a recent but highly prolific poster.
I think one would be terribly naive to think that a superpower can act aggressively toward lesser nations, consider itself the world's police force, and yet remain untouched by terrorist reprisal. That doesn't necessary justify the reprisal (I'm a pacifist--I don't believe in that myself), but such violence appears to be a fact of life in the world today. If you play the game, I think you have to expect to occasionally get burned.

This, of course, goes for Canada too. We are by all means complicit and even active participants in what is ultimately western foreign policy. We have it coming too.

I don't think such sentiment necessarily disrespects the innocents who die by terrorist action. It is not to say that the people who died deserved it, but that all of us by our actions should be able to foresee potential pipers being paid.

Now, whether or not this risk of reprisal is worth taking is another story. I think, for the most part, it is. Our society is strong and good, and the actions of a few desperate nihilists shouldn't persuade us to change, and they certainly shouldn't persuade us to sacrifice the freedoms that made our society what it is.

But to suggest that our actions don't necessarily cause reactions and that acts of aggression won't spawn potential retribution seems to be denial of basic reality.

So, sure, we have it coming, but so what? It's worth it.

I largely agree with what you say and it may even be 'worth' it for some. I don't know how much immorality should be overlooked to make it 'worth' it. Are the lives of the millions killed by US bombs worth it for you. That makes it not worth it for me. I also take exception with your claim that our society (societies because Canada needs to be included) is good. Strong- no doubt. Our society is good in many ways but when we take part in wars that are not just and good then that can't be overlooked so easily. In the case of the US it starts wars which are not just and good. Therefore I would consider your entire post quite well written and intelligent until you got to that part where you had to formulate some justification to back the statements and claims you had made. You failed in my opinion on that note to maintain your credibility.

But thank you for conceding that the attacks were revenge attacks because they obviously were.

rover1 · March 12, 2008

Without commenting on the substance of the previous posts, I have to say that issues like these are clouded by the difficulty in defining 'Terrorism' in context.

Terrorism is nothing new, and seems to have been used in different forms from ancient times, and most notably recently in the 60's and 70's by such as the Baader-Meinhoff gang, and the IRA.

Up until recently, it has been considered as a rather nasty part of world political reality, and various methods have been used to suppress it, and it has been considered a sort of social criminality.

Since 9-11, the US and others have tried to characterise 'Terrorism' as some kind of entity which a country can be 'at war' with. Except in the sense of 'the war on poverty' or 'the war on drugs', in other words a figurative sense, this is a misleading way to put it, and using the word war literally in this context is either foolish or deceptive. Yet President Bush claims to be a 'wartime president' and seems to believe it. Others seem to believe that the US is 'at war' too. It seems unlikely that this mindset will lead to much success in the suppression of terrorism, but it does seem to justify unending and expensive measures to win the war, which is unwinnable in the terms stated.

bush_cheney2004 · March 12, 2008

I thought I would start this thread in response to the hurt feelings engendered by the name of a recent but highly prolific poster.
I think one would be terribly naive to think that a superpower can act aggressively toward lesser nations, consider itself the world's police force, and yet remain untouched by terrorist reprisal....

OK...then let's follow this silly Yellow Brick Road:

Canada Had It Coming (Air India Flight 182) ..... for harboring terrorists, aiding and abetting terrorists, failing to prosecute terrorists, and gross CSIS incompetence. Yep, all those Canadians deserved to die because Canada Had It Coming.

BubberMiley · March 12, 2008

Yep, all those Canadians deserved to die because Canada Had It Coming.

Why would you say they deserved to die?

bush_cheney2004 · March 12, 2008

Why would you say they deserved to die?

Because Canada Had It Coming.....through its own actions (and inaction). I'm just running with your theory, which is not limited to "superpowers" acting as the "world police". In fact, most Canadians (and Americans) aren't killed by terrorism at all. But those that are "deserve it" because that is today's flavor of bashing America.

We can have a lot of "fun" with this....figuring out everybody who "Had It Coming".

Edited March 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

August1991 · March 12, 2008

What a wonderful it would be if the US didn't exist. The Soviet Union would now control western Europe. Saddam Hussein would occupy Kuwait. Slobodan Milosevitch would still terrorize the former Yugoslavia. Israel would long since have been overrun. The world wouldn't have jazz or Mickey Mouse.

Perhaps most of all, teh world wouldn't have a place where millions of people dream of going because they can simply live their ambitions freely and in peace. I am always surprised when people who essentially espouse American values (eg. Bubbler and USHIC) are so critical of America.

There are some things you shouldn't wish for because you just may get them. A world without America would not be a better world.

BubberMiley · March 12, 2008

I am always surprised when people who essentially espouse American values (eg. Bubbler and USHIC) are so critical of America.

Neither of you read my post if you think I was being critical of America. Not surprised though. Reading is hard.

bush_cheney2004 · March 12, 2008

Neither of you read my post if you think I was being critical of America. Not surprised though. Reading is hard.

No, I read it and understand your purpose. But you must expect a minimum of critical blowback if you really believe your position. Do you think it can be contained to the narrow issue of American foreign/domestic policy? As in "the USA deserved Terry McVeigh and the OKC Bombing" too?

Shall we give objective acknowledgement to any and every group who wishes to violently rip power from the evil doers that currently have it...because they "Had It Coming"?

August1991 · March 12, 2008

Neither of you read my post if you think I was being critical of America. Not surprised though. Reading is hard.

You posted in your OP:

I think one would be terribly naive to think that a superpower can act aggressively toward lesser nations, consider itself the world's police force, and yet remain untouched by terrorist reprisal. That doesn't necessary justify the reprisal (I'm a pacifist--I don't believe in that myself), but such violence appears to be a fact of life in the world today. If you play the game, I think you have to expect to occasionally get burned.

"... a superpower can act aggressively toward lesser nations..."

WTF? That's not being critical of America?

As much as I dislike the World Police analogy, would you say the RCMP is "acting aggressively" when it arrests member of the Hell's Angels? Are the Hell's Angels justified in retaliating against the RCMP? In deciding who is right, does it matter who started it? The RCMP or the Hell's Angels?

I am afraid that you simply cannot see the difference between someone like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein on one hand and George W. Bush or Tony Blair on the other.

eyeball · March 12, 2008

You've got your rogues and then you've got your super-rogues. The only difference is, it takes one to catch one.

BubberMiley · March 12, 2008

You posted in your OP:
"... a superpower can act aggressively toward lesser nations..."

WTF? That's not being critical of America?

No...or yes, it's not.

As much as I dislike the World Police analogy, would you say the RCMP is "acting aggressively" when it arrests member of the Hell's Angels?

Yes. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I am afraid that you simply cannot see the difference between someone like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein on one hand and George W. Bush or Tony Blair on the other.

Speaking of WTF...

Edited March 12, 2008 by BubberMiley

BubberMiley · March 12, 2008

No, I read it and understand your purpose. But you must expect a minimum of critical blowback if you really believe your position. Do you think it can be contained to the narrow issue of American foreign/domestic policy? As in "the USA deserved Terry McVeigh and the OKC Bombing" too?

I deliberately did not use the word "deserve", other than to make clear I don't think innocent people deserved to get hurt or die.

Edited March 12, 2008 by BubberMiley

BubberMiley · March 12, 2008

Obviously I have to make my position more clear.

One of the popular discussions of our age is whether homosexuals should be treated as equals. Even though other forum members have recently diverted threads to a discussion of my appreciation for women, I still believe strongly in eqality for gays.

One would be absolutely correct to say that Canada has terrorist reprisals "coming to it" from totally immoral whackos who are violently opposed to gay equality and want to teach the nation a lesson for instituting gay marriage.

That doesn't mean Canada is wrong for its actions or that it should back down from its position.

Now, can you explain the difference between George W. Bush and Sadaam Hussein?

Edited March 12, 2008 by BubberMiley

bush_cheney2004 · March 12, 2008

I deliberately did not use the word "deserve", other than to make clear I don't think innocent people deserved to get hurt or die.

But you don't have that luxury.....innocent people must die to support your premise either way. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this.

bush_cheney2004 · March 12, 2008

One would be absolutely correct to say that Canada has terrorist reprisals "coming to it" from totally immoral whackos who are violently opposed to gay equality and want to teach the nation a lesson for instituting gay marriage.
That doesn't mean Canada is wrong for its actions or that it should back down from its position.

Why didn't Canada have reprisals "coming to it" for blatantly disciminatory practices against women, Asians, homosexuals, or Blacks? See how that works....should any oppressed group, real or imagined, have the high regard and informal legitimacy afforded by "Had It Coming" relativism?

Now, can you explain the difference between George W. Bush and Sadaam Hussein?

Yes...Saddam is dead.

UShaditComing · March 12, 2008

OK...then let's follow this silly Yellow Brick Road:
Canada Had It Coming (Air India Flight 182) ..... for harboring terrorists, aiding and abetting terrorists, failing to prosecute terrorists, and gross CSIS incompetence. Yep, all those Canadians deserved to die because Canada Had It Coming.

Well now you have taken it to an entirely new level. And I respect your right to your opinion but I definitely stopped short of saying that Americans deserved to die on 9/11. I did draw a parallel with Dresden and ask if people thought those people deserved to die. It could also have been a parallel with the people who died under the bombing of London.

I think your parallel is weak and right off the subject but I could have agreed if you said that Canada has it coming because of our participation in Afghanistan. We may also be able to agree that Britain had it coming on 7/7.

But you want to take it to a new level and say that people deserved to die. I don't agree but you probably are just really mad right now and you're really not as unhuman as you appear to be.

Shady · March 12, 2008

One could even say that because of Iraq's actions in the late 80's and early 90's, they had sanctions coming. Sanctions that had a very negative impact on the Iraqi populace. Now, I wouldn't say they deserved it, but they did have it coming.

bush_cheney2004 · March 12, 2008

Well now you have taken it to an entirely new level. And I respect your right to your opinion but I definitely stopped short of saying that Americans deserved to die on 9/11. I did draw a parallel with Dresden and ask if people thought those people deserved to die. It could also have been a parallel with the people who died under the bombing of London.

What's the matter....don't want to face up to the true manifestation of your "Had It Coming" stance? What do you think that implies....Al Qaeda just toilet papering a tree on the Mall in Washington DC? No, it means dead PEOPLE who lived in the nation you have decided as "Had It Coming".

The Air India bombing was chosen because the same government incompetence was claimed for Americans in the wake of 9/11, because we all know they surely "deserved it", quite justified in your mind because of "revenge".

UShaditComing · March 12, 2008

One could even say that because of Iraq's actions in the late 80's and early 90's, they had sanctions coming. Sanctions that had a very negative impact on the Iraqi populace. Now, I wouldn't say they deserved it, but they did have it coming.

Well they didn't deserve it of course because it killed Iraqi children indiscriminately because of US political interests. Neither did they have anything coming but the US needed a war to break Saddam's hold on oil and the inevitable selling oil in Euros which the world is now doing anyway. Once again none of this is based on anything but US lies for their wars of aggression. And the US had it coming on 9/11 of course.

BubberMiley · March 12, 2008

Why didn't Canada have reprisals "coming to it" for blatantly disciminatory practices against women, Asians, homosexuals, or Blacks?

Reread the post you quoted.

bush_cheney2004 · March 12, 2008

Reread the post you quoted.

Why? I am merely supporting your proposition that oppressed classes of people have an organic right to fulfill the "Had It Coming" paradigm. Homosexuals could have risen up in 1974 and slaughtered "heteros" at will, and surely they would be justified in their minds.....hardly "whackos" at all.

Shady · March 12, 2008

Well they didn't deserve it of course because it killed children indiscriminately

Oh, so kinda like the 911 attacks huh? And it was Saddam that led to the killing of Iraqi children. He built palaces instead of feeding the Iraqi populace. Stop making excuses for murderous dictators.

the US needed a war to break Saddam's hold on oil and the inevitable selling oil in Euros

Hmm, that's intesting since the European Union didn't come into existence until 1993, and a common currency (the euro) wasn't introduced until 1999. I guess Saddam was just pyschic huh? You're a buffoon. Stop embarassing yourself.

:lol:

BubberMiley · March 12, 2008

Why? I am merely supporting your proposition that oppressed classes of people have an organic right to fulfill the "Had It Coming" paradigm. Homosexuals could have risen up in 1974 and slaughtered "heteros" at will, and surely they would be justified in their minds.....hardly "whackos" at all.

You're still not understanding. I guess I'll have to think of another example.

bush_cheney2004 · March 12, 2008

....And the US had it coming on 9/11 of course.

Of course...you have made it quite clear that you think Americans (and many other nationals including Canadians) "Had It Coming" on 9/11. That is your right...of course.