Have either of you posted an alternative to war? Have you taken notice that:
1) the U.S. was attacked first by terrorists, resulting in nearly 6,000 dead, billions in property damage, and much more in long-term economic damage?
2) that the Taliban willingly chose to harbor foreign terrorists and terrorist organizations, even after we gave them weeks to surrender these terrorists and their camps?
3) that Al-Qaeda attacked us not once (WTC in 1993), not twice (U.S. embassy bombings in 1996), not thrice (U.S. military ship off of Yemen), but four times (September 11th)? As much as I abhor war, and, admittedly, I could never fight in one, is there really an alternative? If the U.S. does not act, do you really think the terrorism is going to stop?
But I know what would happen if, let's say, Canada, Europe, or Australia were being repeatedly attacked by terrorists. You'd expect the U.S. to come in to save your ass.
Trust me. I'm quite critical of government, especially in ones run by Republicans, but there is a basic goodness to Americans, and, like any nation, we should be guaranteed reasonable security.
We allowed bin Laden to attack us on three previous occasions without going after him. We gave the Taliban weeks to hand over bin Laden, but, in the style of Jerry Falwell, they tried to play the victim, and also repeatedly lied about knowing his whereabouts. I think that's it's suffice to say we didn't go hastily into this.
Of course, what I fear is that, like the Gulf War, we are being lied to about specifics through our media, merely so the U.S. can be painted in a perfect light--only to find out the truth 10 years after the fact. I also fear that Bush will exploit this opportunity to permanently take away many of our freedoms, particularly when it comes to privacy issues. Regardless, it is clear that something has to be done to rid this world of terrorists and terrorist organizations. Sitting on our hands will do nothing.
It is my hope that war is only the first step, only to be followed up by properly rebuilding this nation (and potentially other nations) the U.S. attacks. We should have learned our lesson from the last world wars. By leaving the world in a mess after World War I, the Allies only caused the strife that led up to World War II, an even larger and more serious conflict. However, after World War II, by rebuilding Germany and Japan properly, we not only diffused the threat once and for all, but we brought an unprecedented peace to the Western world. Likewise, in rebuilding these desperate, destitute, and chaotic nations, we have an opportunity to not only to diffuse the threat, but to finally bring stability to nations terrorized by oppressive and unstable governments. If the U.S. simply blows up nations and then leaves once their objectives are complete, it will only serve to create further and more severe tensions--like the end of World War I and the half-assed Gulf War. All I have to say is that Bush II had better not fuck things up further like Bush I.
And that's all I really have to say regarding this topic.
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
