rameumptom Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Here is an article by Andrew Roberts of the Daily Beast, where he states that we should be going into Libya for revenge, due to past terrorist attacks, etc. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-30/americas-libya-attacks-are-justified/?om_rid=D35lbT&om_mid=_BNlHLyB8Z$yHE9 Do we really want to do that? Isn't that what caused the final collapse of the Nephites, when they sought revenge on the Lamanites? And if revenge for past events, how far do we take it? Should we bomb London for invading us in 1812? Should we bomb Germany and Japan again, just because we really didn't get revenge on them during WWII? How about bomb Mexico for all the drugs coming in? And then bomb all of Central America for all the illegals coming in. Of course, the 9/11 terrorists came in through Canada, so let's not forget them. Of course, China, India and Russia are stealing all our jobs. We may as well go nuclear on them, and then we won't have to worry about repaying the debt we owe them. Did I leave anyone out? Seriously, are we now to the point where we are going to seek revenge on other nations? Has our nation really slipped down the slippery slope that far? We truly ARE in trouble if we are now going to have such a discussion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Oh, please go to the site and share your displeasure with this ridiculous concept of revenge wars.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 There are many, many less expensive, less politically dangerous, and more effective ways to get revenge on Qadaffi than to invade his country and break his stuff. Geopolitics isn't about getting revenge, it's about improving your cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 There are many, many less expensive, less politically dangerous, and more effective ways to get revenge on Qadaffi than to invade his country and break his stuff. Geopolitics isn't about getting revenge, it's about improving your cards.For just pennies a day, you can lock Qadaffi in his office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Here is an article by Andrew Roberts of the Daily Beast, where he states that we should be going into Libya for revenge, due to past terrorist attacks, etc.America's Libya Attacks Are Justified - The Daily BeastWow. Gaddafi murders numerous innocent people, including Americans, so we should seek revenge. Any military action on our part will, despite careful planning, kill numerous innocent people. But that's okay, because we will have our vengeance? That's absurd.My political views are usually in line with TDB, though it's not a publication I read regularly. But I find Taylor's stance appalling. Vengeance should never be a reason to take a military action, primarily because innocent people will be killed. But even if it were possible to ensure not one innocent person were killed, I would still find the suggestion petty and juvenile.I do understand the rationale of there being consequences to murderous acts. But justice and vengeance are not the same thing.Seriously, are we now to the point where we are going to seek revenge on other nations? Has our nation really slipped down the slippery slope that far? We truly ARE in trouble if we are now going to have such a discussion.I feel like you're confusing Taylor's opinion with the stated goals of the nation, as represented by Obama. (Yes, I'm aware a significant portion of the nation disagrees with him, and thus is not represented by him in this particular issue.)Of all the reasons I've seen Obama state, none of them had anything to do with vengeance, in any shape or form, and thus, the nation has not fallen down that particular slope.Elphaba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipplecutBuddha Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 I can't really see how our actions in Libya have anything to do with Kaddafi's terrorist history. After all, the facts surrounding those actions have been known for a while now. No, the reason we're involved is because his people want him out of power, and instead of getting out of the way, he's oppressing them in the most violent of ways. We don't even get much oil from Libya, so that's out the door too. The UN wants to reign him in, and we're part of the UN...we're involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Family_Man Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Should we bomb Germany and Japan again, just because we really didn't get revenge on them during WWII?Pretty sure we got "revenge" on Japan. Little town by the name of Hiroshima, or maybe Nagasaki. To say nothing of the aprox. 90,000 we killed in Tokoyo with fire bombs. Or how about the roughly 500,000 killed in Japan by our fire bombing BEFORE we even dropped any atomic bombs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintmichaeldefendthem1 Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 Revenge is a touchy topic because it goes right down to the root of us. Those who are quickest to condemn the revenge motive are often unaware of their own inclination to avenge wrongs; and the weirdest thing of it is, sometimes we do so subconsciously because our conscience mind will not permit the payback that our subconscience is determined to see happen. It's seldom that one says, "I deserved that because of what I did to that person, so let's call it quits." Instead, a cycle of revenge is initiated whereby an act of revenge for a previous offense becomes itself cause imperative for another act of revenge. Gangs and family feuds are good examples of cultivating revenge cycles. The thing about revenge is that it's a personal motive that may or may not be superimposed upon a legitimate counter-action. Did Ronald Reagan have revenge in his heart when he ordered strikes on several sites in Lybia? We'll never know, but what he did was necessary for the security of Americans abroad, to give Gaddafi pause to think before bombing another American ship or aircraft. It's a good thing that it happened, regardless of the motive. So where is the dividing line between a legitimate act of reciprocity and Captain Ahab going after the white whale? That's something to think about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipplecutBuddha Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 Thus it seems best to take God at his word when he says "Vengance is mine and I will repay." We're too guilty of our own failures to go around seeking vengance on others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintmichaeldefendthem1 Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 Thus it seems best to take God at his word when he says "Vengance is mine and I will repay." We're too guilty of our own failures to go around seeking vengance on others.RB, one mistake a lot of people make is applying personal piety called for in Scripture to the machinism of the State. The State cannot "turn the other cheek" because it has an obligation to defend its territory and its citizens against attack. It also has an obligation to defend against people against crimes which is why justice imposed by the state in the form of incarcerations and even capital punishment cannot be characterized as an act of revenge. Keeping Scriptural adminishments upon our personal piety separate from the obligations of the law, society, and foreign policy of a nation helps to keep things clear and unconfused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetofdoom Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 This war is absurd. Especially since we are siding with Al Qaeda... huh? I thought they were the bad guys? US foreign policy is extremely confusing.The West and Al Qaeda on the Same Side Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintmichaeldefendthem1 Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 Maybe we could lend them the use of some NATO weapons. I'm sure they would be grateful for the help and wouldn't use those weapons against us in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipplecutBuddha Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 RB, one mistake a lot of people make is applying personal piety called for in Scripture to the machinism of the State. The State cannot "turn the other cheek" because it has an obligation to defend its territory and its citizens against attack. It also has an obligation to defend against people against crimes which is why justice imposed by the state in the form of incarcerations and even capital punishment cannot be characterized as an act of revenge. Keeping Scriptural adminishments upon our personal piety separate from the obligations of the law, society, and foreign policy of a nation helps to keep things clear and unconfused.I agree completely. However, there is a difference between seeing justice served according to rule of law, and seeking revenge or vengance purely based upon emotional trauma.For instance, the Libya situation is being addressed according to rule of law. If it had been an act of seeking revenge on the part of the USA, I can't imagine us taking a backseat, wait and see, approach.Also how many surviving family members of murder and/or rape victims want to see the attacker dead, whether or not the rule of law would allow for it?I am absolutely in support of consequences for breaking laws. The tough part is accepting what they are, whether we want them to be more severe or less, and letting the percieved deficiency rest in the hands of a just God who must, by definition of his character, see all wrongs answered for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 We've never needed vengence with Qadaffi. Starting the Iraq war and telling him "you're next" was sufficient to get him to abandon his WMD program. I figure we're in Lybia because the US is watching all the stuff happening in the middle-east, and we figure we ought to be involved somehow. You can't be a player if you don't play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) Those who are quickest to condemn the revenge motive are often unaware of their own inclination to avenge wrongs. . . .Or, what they believe is exactly what they say they believe.Elphaba Edited April 3, 2011 by Elphaba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 First, I do not see how our involvement is part or parcel of "rule of law." We jumped into the middle of a Civil War, taking sides where we don't even know who the rebels are, simply because we were rooting for the underdog with the hopes they would find true democracy. Rule of Law has it that we stay out of the fray. The president ignored rule of law when he attacked Libya without consulting the Senate. Revenge is not of God. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." "Turn the other cheek." I can give lots of other quotes regarding this. The LDS viewpoint comes partially from the Book of Mormon, where the Nephites were never destroyed or abandoned completely by God until they sought revenge of their enemies, the Lamanites. God would always help them defend themselves, but never to destroy their enemies. So from both a Biblical and BoM standpoint, we need to be very careful. God has blessed America as a land of promise, but only as long as we are righteous. When we take vengeance into our own hands, we are rejecting Christ and embracing Satan's method. And then we will be cursed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltF4Scrabs Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 · Hidden Hidden It smells like fresh vagina in here! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.