Mike,
In response to your statements:
>>I think America is worth preserving as a bastion of freedom and democracy.
>If
America kills one innocent civilian in a knee-jerk response to the killings of
its
own citizens, it will have sunk to the level of the terrorist.<<
Innocent civilian casualties are inevitable in a war. If killing just one
lowers us
to the level of the terrorists than we are already there. How many civilians do
you
suppose died in Germany during our bombing raids in World War II or in Japan at
the
end of that same war?
>>these people weren't animals. Animals are not malicious; animals know
>nothing
about politics or dogma or hatred<<
True, but that's the problem with slang as I was using the accepted slang usage
of
the word animals to describe people who use viciousness in their attacks which
is
truly inhumane.
>>I used none of those words. I used the word "justice". Perpetrators of
>crimes
deserve justice.<<
True, but I've developed an overwhelming sense that "Justice" has become a
catchword
for kindness and mercy in North America. Justice in this case should hard and
swift
and should include ALL those involved, not just the ones who "pulled the
trigger".
>>Forgive me, but America's foreign policy over the past few months has
hardly been an example of rationality, of logic, or of kindness.<<
Foreign policy? I thought we were talking about an act of terrorism. I had no
idea it
was called foreign policy in the Middle East.
>>Please believe that I am not for a moment suggesting that
America somehow "deserved" this, but you should be aware of how your
country's policies are seen abroad.<<
I am well aware of how some of our policies are viewed abroad and as you said,
we did
NOT deserve this type of attack.
>>You are advocating acts of war to show that acts of war will not be tolerated.
Think about that.<<
I have thought about it. To not respond at this point would be an open
invitation to
all their ilk. Perhaps I should have stated "to show them that an act of war
against
our nation would not go unpunished."
>>What kid gloves? Ask the Iraqis or the Palestinians if America has been
>treating
them with kid gloves. Don't delude yourself: America has been playing
hard-ball
with international relations, and frequently with good reason.<<
What kid gloves? The ones we've been wearing in all our dealings with
terrorists.
What did we do when the WTC was attacked the first time? Or how about the
bombings of
our embassies? In one case we imposed our brand of "Justice". We threw the
perpetraters in jail. Boy, that "Justice" was sure effective wasn't it.
Anything we
do to them will be construed, by them, as more evil aggression by the "Evil
Americans".
>>And how is that going to help? You want innocent Afghans and innocent
>Americans
dying for the sake of your desire for vengeance? For shame! Let's target the
guilty, not the innocent. And remember that whichever
country harboured the terrorist organisation which planned yesterday's
atrocities, it
is made up of people, at least 99.99% of whom had nothing to do with it.
Innocent
people die in wars.<<
No, I don't want innocents to die for my desire for vengeance. This is not a
desire
for vengeance. I have no friends, relatives or even friends of friends of
friends
that work or live in New York or D.C. Have you ever heard of self defense? If
we do
nothing we're viewed as cowards and they attack again. If we bring the
"trigger-pullers" to "Justice" we're labled as "Evil Americans" and they attack
again. Decades of terrorism leading up to and including the events of yesterday
demand real justice. Hard swift and final against ALL parties involved!
>>Unless it can be shown that the attacks on New York and Washington DC were
state-sponsored, then I
could not support the idea of going to war with any state.<<
This begs the question of what you consider state-sponsorship. If you mean that
arms,
finances, personell, etc... were given to the terrorist group then there may
never be
evidence if those things happened at all. But what if you include harboring
known
terrorist, already linked to crimes against the US and the world? Allowing them
to
set up terrorist training camps? Ignoring the warnings that the US has given
that any
act of terrorism from a terrorist operating from within their borders would be
considered an act of war, not only by the terrorist, but by the government as
well?
>>If it turns out that a particular country had, as a matter of policy,
>assisted in
the arrangements for these attacks, then, yes, sadly, war would be justified,
and
more innocent men, women and children would die.<<
By standing aside and doing nothing while these attacks were planned and
carried out
they have offered assistance.
>>Going to war is a serious step; perhaps more serious than we can easily
comprehend. It should never be undertaken lightly, or in anger.<<
I agree that this step should not be taken lightly or in anger. I support our
government in its search for those responsible and anyone who may have aided
them.
Once that is determined however, I believe our only possible response is war on
the
parties responsible and the government(s) that made it possible.
I know you will still disagree with me and that is perfectly ok. I've never set
out
to make enemies but my feelings on this are a bit strong.
--
Ben Miller
-An act of war has been committed. We MUST react accordingly!-
'79 Spit - "Bitsy"
Corvallis, Or.
/// spitfires@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|