English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you not support the War on Terror because your are relativists? Meaning: you believe that no culture is in a position to judge another culture because there is no ultimate truth in this world, everyone has there own truth. Please respond. Thanks.

2006-06-30 12:17:41 · 11 answers · asked by cellistbwv75 2 in Politics & Government Politics

Please...no response from Republicans or anyone in support of the War on Terror...thank you.

2006-06-30 12:18:32 · update #1

Just to clarify...I combine the war in Iraq with the War on Terror because I believe that when we decided to invade Afganistan we had something to consider. Who is Saddam going to support? Us or the terrorists. I believe that had he not been removed from power when he was, it would have become necessary anyway as the war on Al qaeda progressed. I could be wrong, but this is why I feel they are linked.

2006-06-30 12:39:23 · update #2

11 answers

I suppose that, in this instance, I would side with the mainstream democrats, not the 6 or so that keep voting for "Come home now!"
That was context.

I'm not opposed to the war on terror. For example, I believe we should have gone into Afghanistan. That made sense.
Iraq didn't. That's my firm OPINION. I support the war on Terror, but I don't support what I perceive to be the war on terror destroying what the United States IS. For example, we've seen the executive use the war on terror to deny hundreds and hundreds of folks their right to not be held without reason. The Supreme Court just labeled Guantanamo that, I think quite clearly.

To answer your question more directly, I am an absolutist. I believe that occasions where relativism fits morally are created by prior fails to 'do the right thing.' Like the example of "What if you were hiding Jews, and the SS asked you if you were. Would you LIE?" Well, this example, which seems to support moral relativism, is caused by the SS's failure to observe basic morality. So I am an absolutist. I believe in a firm list of right & wrong. I believe in absolutes, and absolute truth. (I'm a christian; not much of a way around it for us, is there?)
I believe firmly that it is wrong to kill non-combatants for political/military ends. This is what terrorism is. I believe this is universally, always, everywhere, wrong. And I support our government for attacking it.
I do not support our government when it uses this good thing as a pretext to do other things.

-Stephen

2006-06-30 12:26:25 · answer #1 · answered by ruhamah13 2 · 2 0

I choose not to support the war . This is based on the fact we are not the world law enforcement . I have not been given any hard facts that 9/11 and Iraq are related . The president admits the information was flawed . How can any reasonable person accept the media as fact ? There must be proof beyond a shadow of a doubt . Therefore based on our very own system of freedom. The president should be put on trial . What makes American culture superior to any others ? We will help others in need . I believe no one should force their belief on another . Jesus did not force man . What would give America the right ?

2006-07-01 21:38:05 · answer #2 · answered by J D 4 · 0 0

I do not support the way that the War on Terror has been run. Secret prisons. Torture. Labeling anyone who shoots at Americans as 'insurgents'. There are local militants, some of which have religious sectarian ties, some that do not, and some are dangerous psychos that Saddam let loose from his prisons prior to our invasion. We need to be able to distinguish who is doing the shooting after the area has been secured or vacated. The FBI has developed a tool called Profiling that is very useful in figuring out things about people. I think that they have techniques that should be adapted to situations like the one we have in Iraq.
I don't think its legal or moral to hold people indefinitely without legal representation, no matter how much we dislike them. Bush may end up being arrested for his actions. Shadowy parts of the Intelligence Community sending people to secret prisons to be tortured is not the sort of things that the Good Guys do. We ARE the Good Guys, aren't we? Bush's heavy handed methods has led to many blunders, embarrassment for our nation and him, and has probably fed the causes that people turn to terrorism for. I hope that our next Top Administrator is able to change the way that this operation is conducted.
Everyone may have their own Truth, but when the lives of our citizens are in jeopardy we must protect them and disable the threat.

2006-06-30 19:37:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Listen, i am not going to insult you
but the way you frame your question about relativist is a non issue.

You try to frame the issue as black and white, in absolutes, the world isn't that way and its misleading and dishonest to debate.

When you say the war on terror you make the blanket term not specifics, asspects or examples or wars.....you try to make it seem that either you use this "term" or phrase or lable or else you are for nothing or against america.


I want my country protected under the laws that we have and without violating the constitution.

I don't want wars of choice or my country lying to me.

Declaring a never ending war on a tatic...terror is like the war on drugs....we haven't won that either.
There will always be these groups and hence the argument of that the presidential power should be unlimted for the infinite time the war last.

Declaring war on an abstract that is not a nation state with no one to sign a peace treaty or surrender is problimatic. Do we ever win?

Do other countries have thier reasons, sure why not, it doesn't change theirs a war going on.

2006-06-30 19:32:17 · answer #4 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 0

No. I don't support the war on terror because it's a waste of money and lives for something that accomplishes so little. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the Iraq war, and what have we accomplished so far? Getting rid of Saddam? Well, we had that chance not so long ago when the Iraqi rebels rose against Saddam and asked for our help, we promised them help, and what did we do? We didn't help them, leading them to fight a battle that turned into a massacre when the promised US troops didn't come at the critical time. US government helped set Saddam up in the first place in order to gain influence in the Middle East. Now that he's become inconvenient and no longer follow US orders, we come up with the "war on terror" to get rid of him. This "war on terror" came right after the 9/11 attack, which had nothing to do with Iraq. If it's a true war on terror, why not hunt down Osama bin Laden? Why not stop the terrorisms in Malaysia? Philipines? Cambodia? Africa? What about the terrors of famine, AIDS, and other infectious diseases all over the world?

I don't object to war on terror because of any relativists idealisms. Most democrats I know are not hippies with laisez faire attitudes toward everything. I simply think this war is a waste of resources. Imagine how far hundreds of billions of dollars would go toward things like, I don't know, world hunger? According to the UN estimates, that amount would solve pretty much most of Africa's hunger problems.

Many Iraqis that welcome US interference are now trying to get the US out of their country. Why? They wanted the Saddam regime over and now it's over. US presence feels too much like an invasion to them now, especially with US interests eyeing their oil fields and bidding for reconstruction contracts right now.

2006-06-30 19:35:38 · answer #5 · answered by DTD 3 · 0 0

If you are meaning the war in Iraq (which is not a war on terror) then there is a difference. Though I am neither a Democrat nor Republican, I have met many Republicans who do not support the war in Iraq. I think both sides support the war on terrror but not necessarily the war in Iraq.

2006-06-30 19:27:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As soon as you use the word WAR you loose me. I don't support a conflict over ideals as we will never prevail. People should be free to believe what they want and govern by what ever means they care to (so long as that governement doesn't oppress, persicute, or otherwise mistreat its non ruling classes). In other words if we pulled out of Iraq they'd meerely revert to tribal warfare as that's the culture there. Iraqi's were better off with Sadam despite his abuse of power because the factions were controlled (the various factions were responsible for more attrocities than Sadam). By intervening in Iraq and attempting to impose democratic ideals on the populace we've created chaos. Best to get the hell out and let them fight among themselves till they decide enough is enough. Better would be to try and have some respect for differences among peoples rather than attempting to make them more American.

2006-06-30 19:27:09 · answer #7 · answered by thebigm57 7 · 0 0

Most of them probably oppose it simply because it's ineffective.

As for objective ultimate truth, good luck with that. The only way to identify it is by a person's instinct or faith, which is subjective by definition, so it's totally circular.

2006-06-30 21:12:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I am a card carrying Democrat. I as a sane person do not condone or support war. Never ask someone to do something you would not do.

2006-06-30 19:29:49 · answer #9 · answered by chairbinder 4 · 0 0

Yes, but what happens when one of the cultures we're not supposed to judge declares war on you? twiddle your thumbs
while they do it.

2006-06-30 19:39:09 · answer #10 · answered by booboo 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers