Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
G'Kar, I'm not trying to flame you. I don't see it as an Eye for an eye. If the police go to arrest somone and that person resits with violence. The police use what ever force is necessary (NOT TALKING ABOUT EXCESIVE FORCE) that is not considered "an Eye for an Eye". That example is on the individual level.
On the National level protecting your citizens from being attacked is not an "Eye for an Eye" The USA has given the Taliban the diplomatic equivalent of "Come out with your hands ups". The Taliban have refused. What are we to do? Walk away and say "Ok you don't want to give up, so we are leaving. Oh, by the way please don't kill any more of us".
As for the "if you are not with us you are with the terrorist" Did no one else hear President Bush say that we would use ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT, DIPLOMATIC, INTELLIGENCE, ECONOMIC, AND MILITARY (paraphased by me but words to that VERY effect). He DID NOT say we would ONLY USE MILITARY FORCE.
|
No Flame taken, you've made some interesting points.
Another way to see an eye for an eye is "it takes more than one to tango". Or how bout "what goes around comes around and goes around and comes around, round n round when does it stop?"
Yep,I agree we have other means available, besides force to challenge the terrorists.
I heard today on a variety of news sources, that while the Taliban wont force Bin Ladin to leave, they have asked him to do so on his own. Although our govt has implicated and "condemned" the Talibon, I get the impression they just want nothing to do with it and will defend their country, just as the U.S. would from a military attack on its soil. Does the world have "good samiritan" laws that I am unaware of?
The strong rhetoric used by Mr. Bush and other leaders implies, without a doubt, that violence will be used, against other nations. I obviously have to live with police violence. The police anology works, when a person has constitutional rights. "Wanted dead or alive", That implies using more force than is neccessary and is beyond the procedures that make our justice system fair to the extent that it is. Tradionally we use our military to defend against the attack from another country. So far we know that terrorists live and train in some countries, not that these nations were specifically involved in the recent attacks. Proliferating war with these nations will cause a backlash of violence, possibly polarizing more arab nations against the united states and causing instability in other muslim countires. It wont stop terrorism, more hate and violence for the U.S. and it allies will be the effect, More children growing up, ready to give thier lives, taking many innocents with them, like their fathers before them. More innocent deaths. It could cause a war of epic destruction and death. A coup in pakistan, by an extremist military faction would give the bad guys nukes and the 9th largest military in the world. Thats Scary, and is reason enough to use restraint when it come to a violent response, at least. I agree with using diplomatic, economic, and other non-violent means to dismantle the terrorists from the bottom. I'll concede to restrained and exact use of force, though it conflicts with my personal beliefs. The European community has wisely worded their support agreement concerning using military action. They wont be caught in an all out war with anyone, the cost is too high. The cost is the vicious circle, It takes two or more to tango after all.
Also a question for the general audience: if one follows the teachings of christ, how do we incorporate supporting retaliation with the viewpoint "turning the other cheek"?
[This message has been edited by G'kar (edited 09-22-2001).]