Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
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!)
|
First of all, I believe that the rhetoric of War was used to inflame public support as well as to make it clear to Bin Ladden and his followers that the US now gladly accepted his invitation to the battlefield. Now, the Bush Administration as the full support of the public, the House and the Congress to go and find Bin Ladden and all members of his organisation.
What scares me is that we are entering this with an attitude of "bringing to justice" and "hold accountable for actions", etc, etc. In other words, we are seeking revenge for what as happened in NYC. That's the mistake.
You do not enter this kind of conflict seeking revenge. You must enter it to prevent future terrorist attacks. Again, it's sementics because the end result is the same: the death (or removal) of Bin Ladden and his followers.
As far as bringing terrorist to justice, I personnaly think it's a mistake as he can be percieved as a martyr. But then again, he will also be percieved as a martyr if we just kill him. Plus, let's face it. Bin Ladden, as one man, as just proven himself to be stronger than the entire Western Civilization. He's been illuding us for over 8 years and still manages to strike and bring us down on one knee (the economic one, not the attitude).
I also believe that sending US troops to the Persian Gulf again is an error. Let's face it, what boosted Bin Ladden network over the last decade? Hate for the US, not only for their involment in the Middle East, but for having military units in Saudi Arabia. No, a full blown military operation is the wrong approach to this problem if you ask me. However, it's what Americans want to see and that's what Americans will get.
The proper way to deal with this is by covert operations. You deal with terrorist like you would deal with guerrilas: with guerrilla warfare. Ironically, the US where never that great at this type of battle. Don't tell anyone, just send small groups of people to take terrorist out both at home and abroad.
CNN broadcasting Bin Ladden and War on Terrorism day and night doesn't help. Muslim extremist that were on the fence now might fall over to Bin Ladden's side 'cause they can now really see his true power. This whole thing as way to much publicity.
I'm curius as to what Americans will do with all that military hardware in the Middle East. I might be living in the world of "if" "maybe" or "might" but I know that B-2, F-117, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and AWACS can do nothing to bring Bin Ladden down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. So, why are they there? Maybe to carpet bomb Afghanistan, maybe to prepare the ground for another Desert Storm. Who knows but just a small flashback: did carpet bombing Drezden (spelling) solve anything but to boost the morale of Germans (like V1 and V2 boosted the morals of the English). It's amazing how much history can teach us, yet, it keeps repeating itself because people don't take time to learn from it (don't worry I don't know it all)
We'll know soon enough why they sent those troops and planes to the Middle East, so I'll refrain from further commenting on that issue.
The last point I want to talk about is a war in Afghanistan. I have a feeling that most of the Occidental world sees them as "bad" "evil" or "supportive" of Bin Ladden and Anti-American sentiments. Granted, the Taliban have a very strong hold on the locals and are anti-Americans. But, the Gestapo and the Waffen SS also had a very strong hold on the Germans during WWII. Were all Germans bad then? No. Today, like 60 years ago, it's not all Afghans or Muslims that are bad. We should be carefull not to generalize too much and go after the wrong people.
------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?