4 ms·

"So, Alderaan was a legitimate military target. Was the level of force used against it justified? It’s a tricky question, but it seems the least bad of all the

by beloch 11y ago

"So, Alderaan was a legitimate military target. Was the level of force used against it justified? It’s a tricky question, but it seems the least bad of all the alternatives. Consider another option the Empire could have taken: invading Alderaan, removing its leaders and installing a pro-Empire regime. However, putting boots on the ground in this manner would likely have destabilized not only the planet but also the entire region, creating a breeding ground for religious terrorists and draining blood and treasure for decades. It’s not hard to imagine a Jedi State of the Alderaan System (JSAS, for short, though they’d likely prefer the simpler Jedi State (JS)) arising from the ashes of some ill-conceived invasion and occupation." This guy is arguing that it would have been better to nuke all of Iraq into a glassy plain (civilians, historical sites, and all) rather than provide a potential breeding ground for ISIS. This completely ignores the fact that the occupation of Iraq was not conducted with, shall we say, anything resembling basic competence. The occupation was also cut short early out of political expedience. Palpatine would not have had to worry about approval ratings if his occupation of Alderaan had dragged on! Finally, it's worth noting that, as reprehensible as daesh's actions may be, they amount to nothing even close to the atrocity of nuking a city. So, based on this argument, the destruction of Alderaan was not justified.

lsc 11y ago
If you are trying to give the linked article a fair shake, perhaps you should be comparing it to Afghanistan, not Iraq? My impression was that we (the US) had some evidence that the government of Afghanistan was actually involved in attacking us, whereas the justification for the second war against Iraq was largely "They kind of look like the guys who did it" - there was noise about "weapons of mass destruction" that was later proven to be a lie, but the impression I got from my more right-ish friends before it was debunked was that this was largely a ploy to get the weapon-hating left to go along with it.
- beloch 11y ago
  His allusion to a JSAS arising from the ashes is a pretty clear reference to ISIS. The Taliban, by comparison, predate the U.S. invasion by decades. Hell, the U.S. supported them against Russia when Russia was trying to occupy Afghanistan. For a real mind-trip, go watch Rambo 2 again sometime. It's surreal watching Sylvester Stallone play rugged, manly, ball-games with his heroic comrades: the Taliban (Yes, the film really does refer to them specifically as Taliban)!
  - lsc 11y ago
    Eh, but my point was that I don't think there's a rational argument justifying the second war on Iraq, while there were rational arguments justifying the war on Afghanistan, thus if you are trying to justify another act of violence by comparing it to the war, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare your act to the Iraq war. My impression is that you are right that wiping out Iraq did a lot more to destabilize the area than the adventure in Afghanistan, though, mostly because Iraq had a much more functional government before hand. The timing of Rambo 3 was unintentionally hilarious, not only now, but at the time it came out, as it came out right as relations were warming; Time named Gorbachev "man of the year" in the same year that Rambo 3 hit theaters. But yes, he does go on and on about how hard it is to conquer the people of Afghanistan in ways that seem downright un-American if you are watching it in a post-9/11 era, as I did. Really, I think that the whole Rambo series is better if you remember that Trautman shoots John at the end of "first blood" in a scene reminiscent of "Of Mice and Men" - Rambo 2 and 3 have got to be... fever dreams? an afterlife? an acid flashback? as John dies.
    - beloch 11y ago
      Interesting idea. I may have to dust off the Rambo DVD's and watch them with your theory in mind.
      - lsc 11y ago
        "first blood" was a semi-serious film about the trauma one suffers in combat, even when you are the one doing the killing, and about the alienation that Vietnam vets felt when returning to a population who blamed them for the war and generally treated them like used-up human garbage. I mean, Stallone really hammed his way through in a way that wasn't really appropriate, if you ask me, for the tone that I got from David Morrel's book, but he did his best. The sequels were pure '80s action movie, and can be enjoyed (or not) on that basis... but what I'm saying is that 'first blood' stands on it's own as a (perhaps clumsy) piece of protest art; It really makes the "go usa" aspect of the third installment seem really out of place, and from an artistic perspective, the "Rambo" would be taken rather more seriously if it ended at 'first blood' I still haven't seen the fourth installment.
eropple 11y ago
Seriously. He's forming an argument that the United States should have glassed Iraq and build a regime of worldwide fear (and check his bona fides before you just go "oh, satire", dude writes for the team that created this mess). It's absolutely ghastly.
- beloch 11y ago
  Sometimes I get the feeling that the U.S. has gotten past the madness that seized it post-9/11, but then crap like this pops up. Bin Laden's mark is still deep inside the American subconscious.

by beloch 11y ago

lsc 11y ago

If you are trying to give the linked article a fair shake, perhaps you should be comparing it to Afghanistan, not Iraq? My impression was that we (the US) had some evidence that the government of Afghanistan was actually involved in attacking us, whereas the justification for the second war against Iraq was largely "They kind of look like the guys who did it" - there was noise about "weapons of mass destruction" that was later proven to be a lie, but the impression I got from my more right-ish friends before it was debunked was that this was largely a ploy to get the weapon-hating left to go along with it.

beloch 11y ago
His allusion to a JSAS arising from the ashes is a pretty clear reference to ISIS. The Taliban, by comparison, predate the U.S. invasion by decades. Hell, the U.S. supported them against Russia when Russia was trying to occupy Afghanistan. For a real mind-trip, go watch Rambo 2 again sometime. It's surreal watching Sylvester Stallone play rugged, manly, ball-games with his heroic comrades: the Taliban (Yes, the film really does refer to them specifically as Taliban)!
- lsc 11y ago
  Eh, but my point was that I don't think there's a rational argument justifying the second war on Iraq, while there were rational arguments justifying the war on Afghanistan, thus if you are trying to justify another act of violence by comparing it to the war, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare your act to the Iraq war. My impression is that you are right that wiping out Iraq did a lot more to destabilize the area than the adventure in Afghanistan, though, mostly because Iraq had a much more functional government before hand. The timing of Rambo 3 was unintentionally hilarious, not only now, but at the time it came out, as it came out right as relations were warming; Time named Gorbachev "man of the year" in the same year that Rambo 3 hit theaters. But yes, he does go on and on about how hard it is to conquer the people of Afghanistan in ways that seem downright un-American if you are watching it in a post-9/11 era, as I did. Really, I think that the whole Rambo series is better if you remember that Trautman shoots John at the end of "first blood" in a scene reminiscent of "Of Mice and Men" - Rambo 2 and 3 have got to be... fever dreams? an afterlife? an acid flashback? as John dies.
  - beloch 11y ago
    Interesting idea. I may have to dust off the Rambo DVD's and watch them with your theory in mind.
    - lsc 11y ago
      "first blood" was a semi-serious film about the trauma one suffers in combat, even when you are the one doing the killing, and about the alienation that Vietnam vets felt when returning to a population who blamed them for the war and generally treated them like used-up human garbage. I mean, Stallone really hammed his way through in a way that wasn't really appropriate, if you ask me, for the tone that I got from David Morrel's book, but he did his best. The sequels were pure '80s action movie, and can be enjoyed (or not) on that basis... but what I'm saying is that 'first blood' stands on it's own as a (perhaps clumsy) piece of protest art; It really makes the "go usa" aspect of the third installment seem really out of place, and from an artistic perspective, the "Rambo" would be taken rather more seriously if it ended at 'first blood' I still haven't seen the fourth installment.

eropple 11y ago

Seriously. He's forming an argument that the United States should have glassed Iraq and build a regime of worldwide fear (and check his bona fides before you just go "oh, satire", dude writes for the team that created this mess). It's absolutely ghastly.

beloch 11y ago
Sometimes I get the feeling that the U.S. has gotten past the madness that seized it post-9/11, but then crap like this pops up. Bin Laden's mark is still deep inside the American subconscious.