Kenny, see post #28. I think you skipped it, and if there's any post I'd like you to directly address, let it be that one. I'll admit, I was being a little "overly spirited" and hasty with #22, and I'll admit I honestly should learn to compose myself a bit better and think twice a little longer before hitting the "Submit Reply" button. Though in my defense, considering what this guy did to the US and how he laughed and flaunted it and his power, it's a little unsettling to see plenty of people who feel I'm "irrational" and that the US is berserk because we went after this war criminal, and feel we should have left him alone. #28 explains why I feel the way I do, and likely how plenty of other Americans do. Yes, leaving him alone was an option, albeit not a good one. Leaving Hitler alone was also an option, but that kind of blind indifference to the problem is just as bad as being the one causing it. Would have allowing Hitler to completely exterminate the Jews be the right thing to do? Same thing with Osama bin Laden. Would have allowing him to terrorize innocent people and destroy society been the responsible thing to do? Definitely not in the slightest.
My question to you is, do you think he deserved this? If not, why do you feel that way, and what should have been done? From what I've heard, Osama did not surrender even though our troops gave him the chance (source
), so there was little in the ways of alternatives to stop him from continuing what he was doing. I'm not sure why you think this is solely for vengeance.
Under your logic, we shouldn't be pursuing criminals either, as that would be "for vengeance." That kind of logic undermines law enforcement as a whole, as the whole purpose of law enforcement is to act upon regulation and punish those that refuse to follow it. A society without law enforcement would be one of complete anarchy, a society that would constantly turn upon itself rather than collectively cooperate to achieve development and thrive successfully.
And Osama was even more than just a criminal. After 9/11, he showed no sign of stopping, and like most criminals, didn't feel apologetic for what he caused, and would have gladly done it again given the opportunity. I don't understand why you feel he wasn't a problem, and why we shouldn't have taken action to find him and stop him.
Yes, when the guilty admit to their faults, regret what they have done, and would be willing to do whatever it takes to redeem themselves and repair the damage however possible, that is when people should forgive. But Osama was not that kind of person, and would have gladly continuing destroying and murdering anyone that stood in his way. And that is why the US did what it had to do, stopping a problem before it got worse, and making a guilty man and his followers pay for the crimes and murders they had committed. If you feel this was wrong, then I can't help but question your standing and your regards to the foundations of law and justice as a whole.
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002
There's a reason why I picked specific words without stating whether or not it had to be done. I didn't say America shouldn't, but rather that the trade off was horrendous for America. While this may imply that I am saying this is the wrong way of getting at it, it simply means that perhaps there is a better way of getting through this. Neo's insistence that war was the only way is reminiscent of the exact same things the terrorists had in mind. And that terrifies me. Remember, I am no genius and I am not a person who is capable of changing the world for the better. I am but a simple doctor.
I am simply criticizing America for insulting its own fallen soldiers and those that have died in 2001. It is a solemn event for that we have brought vengeance for our people. Nothing more, nothing less. I will not celebrate how our troops died in the war, but I will remember that they had sacrificed themselves for the war.
I'll admit, the trade off was costly, and I don't think anyone in America could have predicted it. Had we known ahead of time, a change in tactics and approach very likely would have been considered, but I still don't think that would have changed the reality that the only way to stop this guy was to take action. As for me "insisting on war," showing similarity with the terrorists, that's not true. Kenny, I'm not a warmonger who believes we should "kill all the infidels." War is ugly and I wish it wasn't necessary, but unfortunately, not everyone believes in the golden rule and words only go so far before they fall on deaf ears. In a perfect world, people would always respect each other person's uniqueness, would have compassion and not hurt one another, and would understand and learn from one another. Unfortunately, we don't live in that kind of world.
Also, I think you're getting the wrong idea why people are celebrating. It's a shame we lost a lot of good soldiers in this, and I really wish that kind of sacrifice wasn't necessary, but Osama bin Laden's death is a significant victory that was accomplished because of their actions. People aren't celebrating that the war brought death and destruction to our own troops (that would be pretty insane and deranged). It marks the beginning of what will hopefully be the end of all this, where innocent people don't have to live in fear, and soldiers don't have to die to stop these people. What you're suggesting is completely the opposite of what people are celebrating for.