Quote:
Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown:
Yorick, i might go along with your quibbling over the meaning of the word "war" in this case if Bush wasn't amply demonstrating which meaning of the word he intends to carry out.
He is thinking in the traditional term of War as the use of Military force between rival nations.
That is NOT the correct situation here. We are NOT at war, damnit, and we won't be unless we escalate it into one by reckless use of our military might.
Bush wants to use the phrase "War" so the American people will more readily accept the use of military force he intends to carry out.
What we have are crimes carried out by at this stage an unknown number of people, working in conspiricy with one another.
If we view this properly and legally under our OWN LAWS, that would dictate one course of action. Insisting on viewing this as Pearl Harbor and the Japanese overrruning of the Pacific and WAR leads to another course of action, which Bush seems overeager to follow.
As a criminal case, from the standpoint of OUR OWN LAW, (and remember that the other terrorist incidents in Okla city and the first bombing of the WTC were dealt with appropriately as criminal violations and prosecuted under our criminal law) we should first complete the investigation to be sure we have the right suspects, and then figure out the least harmful way (to others) of bringing them to justice.
In our Pearl Harbor/War model, we seem to be just rushing forward to bomb the hell out of the enemy and whoever else gets in the way.
|
Diogenes, did you even listen to the congress speech? He articulated it would be a very different war. He removed it from the methods of WWII. He explained it would be very, very different.
------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....
A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!