A more detailed response to the first post in this thread:
Yorick said:
"The United States and Great Britain with the backing of an international community that includes China, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, Australia, Egypt and Italy, bombed military airbases, terrorist training camps and power centres.
They did so after 28 days of warnings, diplomatic pressure and military buildups to show that the coalition meant business."
My response:
It remains to be seen how long this so called coalition will hang together if the fighting becomes protracted. As for the 28 days, that is nothing except a period of time so short it shows a decided lack of patience on our part and a willingness to abandon prudence and judgement to the emotional desire for action. I remember in the earlier debates on this subject here, how several people were congratulating Bush on his patience. When some of us pointed out that it didn't look at all like he was being patient, since it appeared he was preparing the military for action as soon as it could be ready, several people responded that just because the military was being sent over there didn't mean it would be used. Well, guess what, it should be obvious now that "Mr. Patience" Bush was not patient at all, that he had made up his mind early on to use the military and all his supposed patience was just a matter of waiting till the military forces were in position.
Yorick said:
"They did not send suicide pilots careering into large civilian structures without warning, killing thousands and disabling downtown Kabul for the next year."
My response:
The campaign is quite early, Yorick, give it time. I am quite confident that our military will wreak much more widespread destruction in Afghanistan than the terrorists did here.
Yorick said:
"This is not WW3. America, Britain and a repressive Wahabi extremist group do not constitute the whole world."
My response:
Yes, I agree with you. This is not World War III, by any stretch of the imagination.
Yorick said:
"Bear in mind also, that WW2 was in part caused by a failure of the policy of appeasement regarding Hitlers aquisitions of Czechoslovakia and Austria. The attitude of "avoid war at all costs" in part caused the worst war the world has seen."
My response:
This is a straw man argument. Who here is advocating "avoid war at all costs?" (Except for our resident Pacifist, G'Kar
)
Yorick said:
"I find it increasingly annoying that there are loud shouts against preventative force, and arguments equating this preventative force with "vengance" and "retaliation". No alternative to preventative force is put forward however. Diplomacy? Diplomacy on this matter has been attempted since 1993 and has FAILED."
My response:
Diplomacy on what matter since 1993? Huh? Obviously not on the WTC bombings, since that just happened. Sorry, but I haven't the first clue as to what you are talking about here.
And again, you are mistaking criticisms of the way we are handling this situation as absolute pacificism. Another straw man argument.
Yorick said:
"Have these detractors tried the three hour drive into Manhattan from Long Island? Have they been stuck at a border for two hours? Have they been stopped on highways or rerouted from the Hoover dam for example?"
My response:
LOL. Sorry if you feel inconvenienced, but that hardly justifies throwing principle and judgement to the winds, now does it?
Yorick said:
"America is a fortress at the moment. Protected by people. These people must be paid. The fear resultant from the terrorist attacks is creating a recession. Who will then pay for the manned fortress?"
My response:
Personally, I am totally against the idea of turning this country into Fortress Amerika.
Yorick said:
"Protection from the snake cannot go on forever. The snake must be beheaded if it is to die. Osama must go. If the Taliban shelter him, they too must go."
My response:
LOL. So now 28 days constitutes "forever?" We are to rush off with hasty action in less than a month, because of vague fears about what might happen in the future. One would think that the gravity of the situation and the enormous consequences involved would encourage just a little patience.
Yorick said:
"A persons inaction when one can prevent murder, creates guilt equal to that of the murderer themself. The government of the United States has an obligation to act and protect it's citizens. That is part of it's job."
My response:
That obligation and moral right does NOT extend to the murdering of more innocents in the quest for justice, either for a private individual type of murder or that done on the national scene. Besides, part of the argument against military action at this time is precisely because such is NOT a case of the government protecting its citizens, but rather of the government creating a situation which will only serve to ENDANGER more citizens at a later date. We cannot look at this situation only in the short term, with blinders on for the future.
Yorick said:
"If one is going to decry violence then decry Wahabism and it's bloodstained past against even Islamics in Saudi Arabia! Decry the coward who hides in a rathole and orders followers to suicidal death. Decry the mothers who give glory to their adolescant sons strapping bombs to their chest and blowing themselves up."
My response:
Sure, decry those types of violence. However, why stop there? Why not decry all unnecessary violence, by whatever country, including the US?
Yorick said:
"Decry hate and ignorance that turns a religion of peace into one of hate and war."
My response:
Sure, I agree, but also decry hate and ignorance that turns a country like America into one of hate and war.
Yorick said:
"But do not decry governments from excercising their right to protect their people from the most cowardly form of war, murder and vandalism."
My response:
Again, governments have the right to protect their people. However, the point you are ignoring is that does not give them the right commit injustice themselves. Whether the current action is an injustice or not is a separate debate, however. Arguing that the current action is itself an injustice, in the form it is taking, is NOT the same as saying governments have no right to protect people. Indeed, part of the argument against the course we seem to be taking is that it will NOT protect people, but only create more danger for them in the future from the fall out of what we are doing now.
Yorick said:
"Terrorism. Let us eradicate the concept from human experience."
My response:
Sure, let us do that. Let us eradicate it in all its forms, including that masquerading as the legitimate use of military force at times when it is unnecessary and in ways in which it is inappropriate.