Anyone sick of seeing peace protesters in NYC?

[even_sven]

I just have a little trouble buying the whole “terrorist infrastructure” argument. Where the hijackers in the September 11th incident trained at these training camps? Nope. They used our flight schools. They didn’t need a massive infrastructure. Methinks that these training camps and bases that we hear so much about are more useful in situations where terroristic groups act like military groups (e.g. local spats, keeping the govenments they like in power and that sort of thing) and not the kind of International terrorism that we are worried about.

So we declare war on places that harbor terrorists. Were these terrorists even centered in one place? Nope. They were from many many different countries, some of them our allies. Military action in any specific place with not “round up and destroy the current crop of terrorist” anymore than bombing Italy would round up and detroy the mob. Terrorism exists within and takes advantage of the infrastructure of the non-terrorist world.

Okay. Over and over again I have heard that the Taliban has to go. I admit, the Taliban is a singularly repressive form of government. I do recognize, however, that the Taliban did do one good thing for the Afghanis. They stopped the fighting. To most Afghanis living under a repressive and foul regime was better than constant war. Guess what they get to go through again? Constant war! I guess we are making up for killing them, forcing them out of their homelands and destroying whatever life they might have built for themselves in the past years by dropping some peanut butter. Please.

Let’s look at what toppling the Taliban will do. Civil war! Fun! Perhaps the Northern Alliance will win, in which case we get to deal with another set of backwards tribal warlords. Or maybe we can put the eighty someodd year old reluctent ex-king in power. Our support of unpopular and unfit monarchies sure is working in Saudi Arabia. Not. It is not right for us to destroy the Afghani system of government, no matter how repressive, without having some sort of plan to get a legitamite power in and keep the region from falling into anarchy. We can’t just go around deposeing everyone who pisses us off. That is the sort of imperialism that people can look at and use to paint us as “the Great Satan”.

And what is this I hear about deterents? Please! **The goal of these attacks is to trigger a jihad. **The terrorists do not see war as a bad thing in this case. There deterence will not be a factor in this.

Yes. I am keeping up with my readings, so to speak. I understand the we are making a few gestures to the International community. I even gasp believe that some of the steps we have taken are in the right direction. I am not being oppositional just to be oppositional, and I can see when we have made the right decisions. The future ahead of us, however, is long and unknowable. It will be a while before we learn if the US is really seeking an International solution or if they are simply interested in making other countries bow to our wishes. The difference is subtle, but important.

[Bricker]

How pleased I am that even sven and elucidator do not have jobs which permit them to make, or substantially influence, our policy decisions.

How pleased I am that those people having such jobs have made the decisions they have made thus far.

Peace protestors are certainly entitled to and welcome to their opinions - as are the contributors to this thread.

Fortunately - at least in my view - the Congress of the United States has pleged its support to the President, and he is acting sanely and appropriately.

• Rick

[toadspittle]

*Originally posted by Mandelstam *
**
Here is a very intelligent analysis of “A Just Response.” It is not precisely a purely pacifist position (as mine is not); but I think it represents part of what at least some peace protesters are thinking.

http://www.TheNation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=falk **

Mandelstam, maybe I’m just very dim, but can you extract from this article for me exactly what the author’s solution is? I sure can’t find anything except don’t hurt innocent civilians and promote humane globalization whatever the heck that is, and however the heck you do that. Doesn’t seem any more concrete than the sign of one protester I saw here in NYC on Sept. 13, which read: "If there is evilness in our hearts, let’s drop a bomb there, too."

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Squink *
That’s a peculiar use of the term “sacrifice”. Is there some particular God you intend to sacrifice these innocents to, or do you instead mean to imply that it would be noble of the Afghan civilians to, unkowingly, choose to die in order to to reduce some americans feelings of insecurity ?
If you are in favor of killing innocents to achieve your ends, at least have the decency to call it murder. Will you call it justice when the relatives of those same civilians turn around and attempt to kill you and your murderous friends ? Some will, and they’ll be wrong too. **

I am not going to argue semantics with you.

How many German civilians were accidently killed by Allied bombs in WWII? Was it worth the life of a single innocent civilian to prevent the Nazis from murdering another 10 million? Would it have been worth 1000? 100,000? Save your cultural relativism. Unlike Osama and the Taliban sheltering him, America does not intentionally target civilians. We don’t launch our cruise missles at schools or carpet bomb shopping malls.

It’s like these wackos think these terrorists are some kind of heros or something? “Yes, they’re monsters, but they are just responding to America’s oppressive foreign policy”. One single Afghan gets killed who isn’t a card carrying member of al-Qaida and all of a sudden America is now the Nazis marching through Poland? What is this nonsense? If you don’t want cruise missles and fighter planes raining down on your country, don’t crash planes into our cities.

Really the only arguments against our war against terrorism I’ve heard are:

1. It’s too hard to find them

2. They will attack us again

3. People don’t like us

4. It’s not nice to bomb people

I mean really. Get some fucking balls people.

[Polycarp]

To answer previous questions, I made my earlier post under the impression, garnered from radio news reports and from two sentences from our church’s Rector (hence conveying highly condensed information) that we were bombing cities, not specific war-related targets on the edges of cities.

MrSmith, I will concede that some of the antiwar protests have been truly negative towards our country. However, some have not. Some people are just plain opposed to any war. And thank you, but part of what we’re fighting to protect is their right to hold those views. Others of us are seeking to minimize the killing of anybody by seeking the most effective way of neutralizing and rendering impotent the terrorist network, and do not necessarily see the launch of a conventional war as the best way to achieve what we’re all hoping to see result.

Really the only arguments against our war against terrorism I’ve heard are:

1. It’s too hard to find them

2. They will attack us again

3. People don’t like us

4. It’s not nice to bomb people

I mean really. Get some fucking balls people.

In this Land of the Free, one can be opposed to a particular course of action espoused by the government of the day while supporting the nation and remaining a patriotic citizen. I want as badly as you to see Osama and all his cronies in a place where they will never again be able to lift a finger against a single living being. If we differ on ways and means, that does not make either of us evil, just looking at different possibilities of how to accomplish it, and seeing different levels of justification for our own actions.

“It’s not nice to bomb people.” Very cute: I will remember this the next time I deal with five-year-old terrorists. :rolleyes: But yeah, that’s what the debates about morality boil down to. And if you think bombing people is “nice,” I suggest you volunteer to stand on ground zero. It may be the best way to end a given evil, as our President evidently feels is the case today. That doesn’t make it intrinsically right.

“Get some balls, people.” Well, the males among us have some, and use them to produce sperm and testosterone. Almost all of us use a different organ for thinking, though.

[Blackclaw]

*Originally posted by even sven *
I just have a little trouble buying the whole “terrorist infrastructure” argument. Where the hijackers in the September 11th incident trained at these training camps? Nope. They used our flight schools.

True. But they didn’t learn their perverted slant of Islam there.

Known terrorists need a place to hide. The Taliban regime offers such a place.

So we declare war on places that harbor terrorists. Were these terrorists even centered in one place? Nope. They were from many many different countries, some of them our allies. Military action in any specific place with not “round up and destroy the current crop of terrorist” anymore than bombing Italy would round up and detroy the mob. Terrorism exists within and takes advantage of the infrastructure of the non-terrorist world.

We obviously have a lot more options when it comes to finding terrorists in Italy. The Italians want to help us find them and we can go wherever we wish in the country in our search for them. We don’t have these options in Afghanistan. Actually this is so obvious I have trouble believing that you’re not just being contrary for the sake of holding an opposite view.

Okay. Over and over again I have heard that the Taliban has to go. I admit, the Taliban is a singularly repressive form of government. I do recognize, however, that the Taliban did do one good thing for the Afghanis. They stopped the fighting. To most Afghanis living under a repressive and foul regime was better than constant war.

I’m not sure the pace of the executions didn’t match the war.

Guess what they get to go through again? Constant war! I guess we are making up for killing them, forcing them out of their homelands and destroying whatever life they might have built for themselves in the past years by dropping some peanut butter. Please.

Let’s look at what toppling the Taliban will do. Civil war! Fun!

Guess what? The war never ended! Even without us there, there was still a war!

Perhaps the Northern Alliance will win, in which case we get to deal with another set of backwards tribal warlords. Or maybe we can put the eighty someodd year old reluctent ex-king in power.

Reluctant kings are the best kind. They aren’t all power hungry. Maybe this time things will work out better. We have hopefully learned not to just forget about our proxies once we’ve gotten what we want. Economic aid will go a long way to giving nay new government a chance. The Afghan people see the king as a unifying force. With his support a government that the people actually approve of can be put in place.

Our support of unpopular and unfit monarchies sure is working in Saudi Arabia. Not.

Sure it is. We get to buy oil. They don’t get invaded by Iraq. That was the deal wasn’t it?

It is not right for us to destroy the Afghani system of
government, no matter how repressive, without having some sort of plan to get a legitamite power in and keep the region from falling into anarchy. We can’t just go around deposeing everyone who pisses us off. That is the sort of imperialism that people can look at and use to paint us as “the Great Satan”.

I think destroying repressive governments should be our hobby. Why is there some sacred right for would be governments to murder their own people? Why does it only become actionable if they cross some imaginary line and kill someone else’s people? And we’re working on a plan. Weren’t you just complaining about it a moment ago? Don’t you have an attention span?

And what is this I hear about deterents? Please! **The goal of these attacks is to trigger a jihad. **The terrorists do not see war as a bad thing in this case. There deterence will not be a factor in this.

I don’t want them deterred. I want them jailed or dead. And they already have declared jihad against us. About twenty times in the last decade. There’s not a whole lot you can do to avoid a war if one side wants one. If we have to have one, I’d rather it be fought in Afghanistan than New York.

It will be a while before we learn if the US is really seeking an International solution or if they are simply interested in making other countries bow to our wishes. The difference is subtle, but important.

Of course we’re making other nations bow to our wishes. You think Pakistan’s leadership is happy about this? But the US has a strong interest in not having its citizens end up dead before their time. So what does it matter if we lean on nations like Syria to stop supporting terrorism? Is there some sacred right that other nations have to support the activities of terrorists?

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
MrSmith, I will concede that some of the antiwar protests have been truly negative towards our country. However, some have not. Some people are just plain opposed to any war. And thank you, but part of what we’re fighting to protect is their right to hold those views. Others of us are seeking to minimize the killing of anybody by seeking the most effective way of neutralizing and rendering impotent the terrorist network, and do not necessarily see the launch of a conventional war as the best way to achieve what we’re all hoping to see result.

1. Who are you kidding? You aren’t fighting for anything. You have the luxary of living in a country that allows free speech and peaceful assembly. There is minimal personal risk to you because the government you protest against provides you with protection.

2. This is not a conventional war. That does not mean that we will not use conventional weapons to fight it when those weapons will help us to achieve a military objective.

3. The most effective way of neutralizing Osama and his network is to find them and then kill them.

4. Unlike our enemies, we are not indiscrimately bombing women and children and people on their way to work. We are destroying antiaircraft weapons and other military infrastructure so we can move special forces and humanitarian supplies into Afghanistan more freely. Try to get the WWII image of fleets of B17s dropping bombs wholesale on German cities out of your head.

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
“It’s not nice to bomb people.” Very cute: I will remember this the next time I deal with five-year-old terrorists. :rolleyes: But yeah, that’s what the debates about morality boil down to. And if you think bombing people is “nice,” I suggest you volunteer to stand on ground zero. It may be the best way to end a given evil, as our President evidently feels is the case today. That doesn’t make it intrinsically right.

Fortunatly I did not happen to be at my office on “ground zero” (+ about 100m) the week of 9/11. Academic debates about morality are fine, but if bombing a few obsolete Afghan helicopters and antiaircraft guns saves American lives in the long run, I think it’s worth it.

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
“Get some balls, people.” Well, the males among us have some, and use them to produce sperm and testosterone. Almost all of us use a different organ for thinking, though. **

From talking to these protestors, I’m willing to guess that organ is their ass. That seems to be where most of them have their head. Not every problem can be solved by sharing feelings.

[Telemark]

3. The most effective way of neutralizing Osama and his network is to find them and then kill them.

In general, I’m supportive of the war effort currently underway. I view this with the “mad dog” analogy, you kill the dog regardless of how it got that way. But I’d like to hear more about the above idea. My fear is that killing ObL and destroying the network will generate other networks, probably less organized but stil capable of creating terror.

I believe we must have a plan to deal with the spin-off, splinter, and copycat groups and I really haven’t heard about that. Some of these groups will be located in countries like Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. An operation like what is going on in Afghanistan wouldn’t work IMO in a more organized, recognized, and supported country.

[Phlosphr]

Well Actually Telemark ‘they’ have been talking about spin off terrorism and they are planning to break down the possibilities or break down as many factions as they can. And I would postulate that fighting in a more industrialized nation would be in fact easier, because terrorists won’t have caves and ravines to jump into and hide, they will have to be in more or less the open. I think fighting in the mountains would be a little more difficult. Granted I am not an authority on military tactics, its just IMHO.

[audient]

even sven, i’d like to address this issue you raise:

**I just have a little trouble buying the whole “terrorist infrastructure” argument. Where the hijackers in the September 11th incident trained at these training camps? Nope. They used our flight schools. They didn’t need a massive infrastructure. **

what you say is partially true - they did train at US flight schools. But some of them also trained at Bin Laden’s camps. I believe that there is a very dangerous infrastructure in place, existing purely to train people in terrorism. Those camps are huge (now they’re huge craters, but i digress). Many of the hijackers did train there. They used more than their flight training to carry our their carnage. They were skilled in hand to hand, use of knives, subduing crowds, etc. Those same hijackers may have also been trained in explosives & could have been assigned a different mission.
New York Times article describing camps

Such camps have been the life’s blood of Al Qaeda, providing indoctrination and training for many of the estimated 5,000 foot soldiers, go- betweens, planners, document forgers, communications specialists, scouts, technicians, bombers and even hijackers who passed through en route to terrorist attacks

so, there are 1,000’s of trained soldiers in this jihad against americans, dispersed around the world. That kind of army does have a large conspicuous infrastructure. It does suffer from having that infrastructure destroyed. those camps have got to go (they were abandoned already). And when they pop up elsewhere in the world, I believe the US will knock them out too.

a quote from someone who trained there

Mr. Ressam described his seven months of training and indoctrination at Al Qaeda’s basic and advanced training camps, saying he and other militants from Arab countries and even Sweden had learned how to conduct terrorist attacks on a wide range of American targets, from hotels and tourist sites to power plants, embassies and warships. He was also taught how to assassinate political leaders and disseminate toxins in public buildings.

given that the US is in a declared (on both sides) war with them, can you think of a reason not to go after their capacity to grow their army?

[Shodan]

even sven writes:

And the only way to do this is through International action. If we bomb cities, we are the Great Satan. If we kill Osama Bin Laden ourselves, we are the Great Satan.

**We are already the Great Satan. ** No action on our part is going to change his mind. Since he is not susceptible to reason, other avenues must be found.

If we work Internationally, however, I still have hope that we can make some progress… We must make the terrorist alone in the world.

No doubt with the same shining success we have encountered with the embargoes against Iraq and Cuba - two examples of ‘international work’ that I assume you firmly support.

The peace protestors remind me of a phrase used by Stephen King (in Christine). They are people ‘who deal with evil by having what amounts to an allergic guilt reaction in its presence’.

Protestors are free to march around and chant. Just as I am free to dismiss their brand of pin-headed pacifism as another example of thinking globally, and acting stupidly.

We tried that sort of thing with the Viet Nam war. We gave peace a chance - and the blood of two million Cambodians is on the hands of every leftist in America.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Shodan, you geo-political awareness is on a par with your literary taste. But there are nuggets of half-truths in the steaming pile of balderdash you have posted. (Please note “balderdash”. This isn’t the Pit, and I will conduct myself accordingly.)

The embargo on Cuba as an example of “international action”. The U.S. is the only, repeat, only nation that embargoes Cuba. Our leaders pander cravenly to the wishes of a powerful anti-Castro contingent years after Cuba has ceased to be any threat at all. As to Iraq: our sanctions have not discomfited Saddam in the slightest. He has not the merest qualm about the misery of the Iraqi people, he was perfectly content to shovel thousands into the grinder of our war machine. Our sanctions afford no comfort to ourselves, and heap misery and pain on the innocent and innoffensive.

The point in not acting like the “Great Satan” is clearly, to the meanest intelligence, not directed to changing OBL’s “mind”. It is a rational concern with how other Muslims percieve us. It is precisely OBL’s goal to goad us into lashing out, to provoke the irrational rage that can lead to the Armaggedon he seeks. In this, you are his ally.

As to your contention that the Vietnam war protestors are culpable for the horror that Pol Pot visited upon Cambodia…words fail me. I feel an urge to dip my computer monitor in disinfectent, lest the vile slime seep out and poison my house plants.

Against a great, grey and grinding Death Machine we did our best, and it was little enough. In all honesty, I think we are due very little credit/culpability. It was men like Sen. Kerry, combat veterans who could not be ignored or explained away as unpatriotic cowards who forced America to look at what it was doing.

One way or another, the era of War is over. Our weapons have overwhelmed us, we either learn tolerance and restraint or the next war will make WWII look like an ice-cream social. We can no longer afford the kind of troglodyte mentality you so blandly espouse. Let me try and break this down for you: peace or death. Choose.

[Blackclaw]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
One way or another, the era of War is over. Our weapons have overwhelmed us, we either learn tolerance and restraint or the next war will make WWII look like an ice-cream social. We can no longer afford the kind of troglodyte mentality you so blandly espouse. Let me try and break this down for you: peace or death. Choose.

What if the other guy choses my death, regardless of the choice I make? As much as I’d like the era of war to be over, it clearly isn’t.

And I’ve been to a Republican ice cream social, so you can’t scare me.

[Mandelstam]

toadspittle with regard to the below link:
"Mandelstam, maybe I’m just very dim, but can you extract from this article for me exactly what the author’s solution is? I sure can’t find anything except don’t hurt innocent civilians and promote humane globalization whatever the heck that is, and however the heck you do that. Doesn’t seem any more concrete than the sign of one protester…

toad, sorry I didn’t catch your query. First, I have to cut back or desist from Straight Dope posts due to major work frenzy; second, I decided this thread had gone even further to the dogs when I read gobear’s citing elucidator and Mark Twain as examples of the Left’s alleged obtuseness. (gobear the need to find your inner goteddy is beginning to affect your higher functions )

Okay, toadsplittle, back to Falk’s recommendations. Are they concrete? Absolutely. Does that mean they’re simple? Hell no.

Falk makes clear that any military overreaction may play into terrorist hands. To avoid that he recommends the following:

"First of all, there should be the elementary due process of convincingly identifying the perpetrators and their backers. Second, maximum effort should be made to obtain authorization for any use of force in a specific form through the procedures of the United Nations Security Council. Unlike the Gulf War model, the collective character of the undertaking should be integral at the operational level, and not serve merely as window dressing for unilateralism. Third, any use of force should be consistent with international law and with the “just war” tradition governing the use of force–that is, it should discriminate between military and civilian targets, be proportionate to the challenge and be necessary to achieve a military objective, avoiding superfluous suffering. If retaliatory action fails to abide by these guidelines, with due allowance for flexibility depending on the circumstances, then it will be seen by most as replicating the fundamental evil of terrorism. It will be seen as violence directed against those who are innocent and against civilian society. And fourth, the political and moral justifications for the use of force should be accompanied by the concerted and energetic protection of those who share an ethnic or religious identity with the targets of retaliatory violence.

To be honest, I’m not sure what about these recommendations you don’t see as sufficiently concrete. They are road-map for using force in a way that, as Falk sees it, will help the terrorist situation rather than fan the flames. The Bush administration, moreoever, is attempting to do these very things though, undoubtedly Falk would argue about the extent to which they’re succeeding (and he’s publishing a follow-up to this piece in the wake of the bombings).

Harder to grasp might be these recommendations:

*"There are contradictory ways to address the atrocities of September 11. The prevailing mood is to invoke the metaphor of cancer and to preach military surgery of a complex and globe-girdling character that must be elevated to the status of a world war, and that bears comparison with World Wars I and II; the alternative, which I believe is far more accurate as diagnosis and cure, is to rely on the metaphor of an iceberg. The attack on America was the tip of an iceberg, the submerged portions being the mass of humanity that is not sharing in the fruits of modernity, but finds itself under the heel of US economic, military, cultural and diplomatic power. To eliminate the visible tip of the iceberg of discontent and resentment may bring us a momentary catharsis, but it will at best create an illusion of victory. What must be done is to extend a commitment to the sacredness of life to the entire human family–in effect, joining in a collective effort to achieve what might be called “humane globalization.” " *

Source:http://www.TheNation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=falk

Now here Falk speaks more in a pacifist mode addressing long-term and non-military solutions to what he sees as an iceberg-size problem that doesn’t only involve the Middle East. Even if I had the time I don’t think I want to hijack this thread long enough to concretize for you what is meant by humane globalization. Suffice it to say that in the West industrialization started out at a brutal and inhumane social development and was improved by “collective effort.” Falk asks us to take the widest view possible of our current crisis–a truly global view–and to participate not only in rooting out terrorism but also to making the world more stable by promoting all kinds of social justice. The economic payoff behind this idea would be that the beneficiaries of “humane globalization” would be able to buy products from us Americans (I assume you are an American), and therefore help us to stabilize our economy as well. Visionary and idealistic? Perhaps. Lacking in concrete achievability: absolutely not. To quote that old TV series: “We have the technology”

[december]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**One way or another, the era of War is over. Our weapons have overwhelmed us, we either learn tolerance and restraint or the next war will make WWII look like an ice-cream social. We can no longer afford the kind of troglodyte mentality you so blandly espouse. Let me try and break this down for you: peace or death. Choose. **

elucidator, your sweet post takes me back to the 1950’s when this philosophy was popular. We peaceniks argued that the existence of nuclear weapons made war impossible. (It is now known that SANE and other organizations promoting this viewpoint were not true believers in peace. They were actually influenced by Stalin, hoping to weaken the US military. But, set that aside.)

Despite the slogans of the 50’s, there have been lots of wars in the past 50 years, and the world goes on. Of course, the losers have been out of luck. E.g., South Vietnam.

Looking forward, it would be beautiful if every human being on the planet would forswear war for ever. Unfortunately, human history over many thousands of years shows that this outcome is fanciful. We will have to find a way to deal with the world as it exists and with human beings as we exist.

Still, I must thank elucidator. Debating this issue makes me feel young again.

[gobear]

second, I decided this thread had gone even further to the dogs when I read gobear’s citing elucidator and Mark Twain as examples of the Left’s alleged obtuseness. (gobear the need to find your inner goteddy is beginning to affect your higher functions

Now, now.

Twain wrote The War Prayer as a reminder of the real consequences of war, and as a tug at the conscience. what I found obtuse is Elucidatorquoting Twain as if that were an argument in itself. As I said, he is ignoring the larger issues. Our nation was attacked; thousands of Americans are dead for no reason. The author of the WTC/Pentagon/PA attacks has promised on TV to perform similar acts soon.

In such circumstances, asking us to feel sympathy for the enemy is ridiculous. What the peaceniks don’t seem to understand is that al-Queda wants them dead. Suing an implacabler enemy for peace will only ensure the deaths of more Americans. I don’t want the Afghans hurt, but they are the hostages of the terrorists. If we do nothing, the Afghans will still die, starved or beaten, or outright murdered by the Taliban. Only by wiping out the Taliban can we give the Afghans a chance at a decent life.

[Polycarp]

Who are you kidding? You aren’t fighting for anything. You have the luxary of living in a country that allows free speech and peaceful assembly. There is minimal personal risk to you because the government you protest against provides you with protection.

Damn straight. I am a 52-year-old man with a history of heart disease. My former foster daughter’s husband was among the first 1000 ground troops sent to the area, and I am both proud of him and worried about him. And my beloved foster son would be among the Marines being rushed to the area if he had not ended up with a medical discharge. You, on the other hand, are clearly on the front lines – we of course drafted tons of people from the Financial District[sup]1[/sup] to combat the terrorists’ investments by knife and gun. :rolleyes:

Yes, I do have that luxury. It is my constitutional right, and one of the reasons I love this country.

Memo: If you would care to read, rather than venting bile, you would find that I support, in general, the stance our government is taking, and felt the air attack to be inappropriate when (as I was misinformed) it was directed against Afghan cities. Why? Because (a) it is both immoral and contrary to the rules of war to which our nation subscribes to bomb civilians not engaged in the support of armed forces, and (b) because the attack on such civilians would serve to weaken the coalition which Mr. Powell is putting together, and conceivably to destabilize the pro-Western Islamic nations supporting us by showing us as callous of Muslim lives, which would © play into Bin Laden’s long-range plan. I signed onto one telegram drafted by a graduate student at Princeton with a concentration in Middle Eastern politics and sent to Mr. Bush, copy to Mr. Powell, encouraging the seeking of non-military means of resolving the problem first – in short, doing precisely what Mr. Powell and his department are charged to do and in fact attempted to do. We now are at war, with a majority of Muslims backing us along with the rest of the world. Aside from that, I have not “protested” my country’s action until the post on this board regarding “the air attack on Afghan cities” (as noted, a misunderstanding based on radio news and one brief in-person statement) to which you took offense.

I concur with you that many of the people engaged in protests are not thinking clearly. I’d ask you to note that some are – and that among the reasons that we’re better than the Taliban is that we have a jealously guarded tradition of freedom to dissent from the government’s views in orderly and legal ways.

I hope that it will never be necessary to say that in defending freedom, it became necessary to destroy freedom. And I think you agree with me on that.
[sup]1[/sup] Originally posted by msmith537: "Fortunatly I did not happen to be at my office on “ground zero” (+ about 100m) the week of 9/11.

[gobear]

Just to make my position very clear, there is no moral equivalency here. The US is in the right, Al-Quaeda and OBL are in the wrong. It does not matter what beefs they have, it does not matter if any of their gripes may have legitimacy.

OBL murdered 5000 of your fellow citizens. That makes anything he has to say, any complaint he may have, immaterial.

The peaceniks wish to appease OBL. As we have seen from the past, appeasement does not stay the hand of murderers. If the peace crowd were to succeed in having the US military do nothing to apprehend OBL, he and his cohorts will strike again, and this time, the blood will be on the hands of the peace crowd.

[gobear]

You, on the other hand, are clearly on the front lines – we of course drafted tons of people from the Financial District to combat the terrorists’ investments by knife and gun.

[quote]

Polycarp, haven’t you seen the pictures, the Financial District is on the front lines. I dare say he, and the other New Yorkers have already suffered the casualties of war. And yes, part of the weaponry we will use is to attack OBL’s investments.

I concur with you that many of the people engaged in protests are not thinking clearly. I’d ask you to note that some are – and that among the reasons that we’re better than the Taliban is that we have a jealously guarded tradition of freedom to dissent from the government’s views in orderly and legal ways.

For some reason, the protestors remind me of the Copperheads in the Civil War, like Clement Vallandingham, people who in exercising their rights to protest did their best to hamper the Union war effort. I wonder why we don’t see them as heroes today.

It just strikes me as odd that the protesters despise a society where they are free to speak their minds to defend a society that would kill them as infidels.

[Shodan]

elucidator -

Your reading comprehension is on a par with my literary tastes. You post:

As to Iraq: our sanctions have not discomfited Saddam in the slightest. He has not the merest qualm about the misery of the Iraqi people, he was perfectly content to shovel thousands into the grinder of our war machine. Our sanctions afford no comfort to ourselves, and heap misery and pain on the innocent and innoffensive.

Which was exactly my point. Since sanctions are (in the opinion of the “blame America first” crowd) not affecting the terrorist Saddam, it is naive to suggest sanctions as effective against the terrorist bin Laden. Since sanctions are likely to be as ineffective as holding hands and sending positive vibes would be, we are left with military action, which was effective in removing Iraq from Kuwait.

Am I going too fast for you?

As for the rest of your post, I am glad you feel so sanguine about your efforts to put an end to war. My point was and remains that efforts to put an end to the US involvement in Viet Nam led directly to the slaughter of millions. But, since the collective ass of the draft dodgers, New Leftists, anti-American publicity whores and dreamy-eyed dolts of the ‘peace’ movement were not in the line of fire, the killing fields of Cambodia and Viet Nam and Pol Pot didn’t really happen, did they? It was all just a misunderstanding. What is Really Important is that we all got the chance to feel all morally superior and groovy, isn’t it?

I wouldn’t recommend any use of disinfectants. It sounds like you have been inhaling too many chemicals already.

Peace and love beads, man.

Shodan