|
Here we go again.
I suppose that at least this means the insane "War on Drugs" might be finally running out of steam.
But now we have the "War on Terrorism," in which case we are using the full might of our military strength.
Whoaaahhhh there, Mr. Bush, and my fellow Americans.
The War analogy is a FALSE one. It is only going to confuse our thinking on the proper response.
It would be more accurate to view what happened not as a WAR between the US and some foreign gov't -- especially not against Afghanistan.
It would be better to treat it for what it was, as CRIMES against various individuals, some american, some foreign, and property owners, including the US government.
Everything the terrorists did can be accounted for by routine principles of New York state and Federal criminal laws. (The same in the other jurisdicitions)
Plainly, they are guilty (assuming once again that we really know who did it) of over 6,000 counts of Murder, among thousands of other criminal offenses, which would certainly warrant the death penalty, if anything ever does. That includes Bin Laden (assuming he was really the one behind it) and all his co-conspiritors.
We are giving Bin Laden too much credit on the international scene by declaring this a war. Or are we recognizing Bin Laden as a legitimate government in his own right? If so, where is his land? Who are his people?
Why the quick rhetoric from Bush and so many others about this being a War?
What does he have to gain by insisting on War terminology?
If you ask me, he seems overeager to use his military toys, like his daddy before him in Kuwait. (Supposedly the very reason Ben Laden turned against the US in the first place!)
|