Posted by tommyD on October 30, 2001 at 23:59:57:
In Reply to: a question posted by tommyD on October 30, 2001 at 13:08:08:
I want to thank everone for their replies. No really...a challenge of ideas gets me to reexamine my thoughts, always a good idea. And insults don't bother me much...I'm used to Usenet.
But I noticed only a few tried to answer any of my questions. I only partly meant for them to be rhetorical.
It's just that I used to hear "What Would Jesus Do" fairly often, but haven't it heard it much since Sept. 11. I wonder how many have thought about it?
Some might have jumped to the conclusion I am opposed to retaliation. Well, I thought it over, and...you jumped to the right conclusion. I am.
But it surely doesn't mean I oppose defending the country or seeking justice. My question is: is retaliation against such a diffuse enemy in such a ham-fisted way the best way do that?
I said before I am not a Christian. I'm a Taoist, Philosophical Taoist actually, a belief system also followed by a Chinese fellow name of Sun Tsu, who wrote "The Art of War," one of the best works on military stategy ever written.
Sun Tzu was a follower of the teachings of Lao Tzu, who founded Taoism. Now Lao Tzu had as little use for war and retaliation as Jesus did, and even Sun Tzu agreed that war was to be used only in defense and only as a last resort. Lao Tzu and Sun Tsu also believed that, if it had to be war, it was best to be good at it. (Not sure what Jesus thought on that point.)
So my question is: what would Sun Tzu do? I don't know, never met him (him being dead 2,300 years) and didn't study him deeply, but I do know he would not base his actions on emotion. If retaliation were effective, it would be used, but not for the sake of retaliation, only for the sake of winning.
In this case I feel retaliation will mostly just inspire others whackos to attack us, and since the enemy is diffuse, and not easily destroyed in a quick retaliatory strike, it's a bad idea. And so far, it doesn't seem to have worked very well.
I'm sorry for using the word "jingoism." I looked it up and it turns out I was using it wrong. I thougt it meant a call for war based on emotion and patriotic feelings rather than reason. Dictionary says it means a stance in favor of an agressive, threatening, warlike foreign policy.
I might not rule out a little Jingo, if that would work. But I don't think it will. Far as I can tell, it hasn't yet. And I am still tired of emotional calls for war without much thought behind them.
If you jumped to the conlcusion I'm a liberal, you'd have jumped wrong that time. Of course, the word "liberal" now seems to mean the same as the word "fascist" -- as in any one who disagees with my way of thinking is:
a liberal
a fascist
a conservative
a communist
a reactionary
a nazi
a yankee
a rebel
ignorant
stupid
Such labels often lose their meaning. They should be used with care, or at least an explanation.
thanks again,
-tommyD