okay, i'll bite
since the rhetoric is everywhere -- i'll ask the big unasked question:
why *do* we need a Strong Inflexible Offensive leader in the face of terrorism?
....
i guess in my mind the bigger question is:
who, exactly are "we"? is our leader supposed to protect the interests only of the people in his own country? And with violence?
....
why *do* we need a Strong Inflexible Offensive leader in the face of terrorism?
....
i guess in my mind the bigger question is:
who, exactly are "we"? is our leader supposed to protect the interests only of the people in his own country? And with violence?
....
posted by Redbaerd at 7:01 AM
4 Comments:
i would suppose one might start by saying an elected leader's first responsibility is to those who elected him?
and i guess one might suggest that he is to protect those people using whatever means necessary.
certainly, i am not a fan of war, i don't own a gun, in fact we recently got rid of all our knives (slicing bread with a spoon is very difficult), however, even a pacifist like me is willing to admit that lethal force is probably the only deterrent against terrorism.
so probably the question is, "do we desire to use lethal force in response to terrorist attacks in an effort to bring those responsible to justice, or do we desire to use lethal force offensively in an attempt to limit terrorist attacks"
i realize that this does not answer the question of Iraq, but this question must be answered before Iraq is even addressed... there is great confusion in America today because one side is make vague claims that Iraq is part of the war on terror and the other side is loudly yelling that force is not necessary. we must first clarify our stance on the necessity of lethal force against terrorism, only then can we address the issue of whether or not bringing down the reign of Sadaam is a necessary part of that lethal force.
hey! where'd you come from?
you disappeared from my cell phone the other night.
i agree with the questions that you pose. I think there does need to be a discussion of whether Lethal Force is the best deterrent to Terrorism.
I also agree with your "cloud of confusion" argument. This is a cloud that neither of our candidates are doing well at dispelling. Especially since Kerry seemed to be just as baffled by it when he voted the troops off to Iraq.
I guess I'm trying to say that the long term and systemic effects of a Lethal Force policy only Increase Terrorism....
i don't think terrorism increases or decreases based on anything we do. these people hate the West for reasons that go far beyond a simple reactionary mindset. i'm not sure that we can hope to ever reconcile these issues. thus lethal force against these people becomes an act of national self-defense (one which was not truly considered before 9/11 [which had been attempted before but never succesfully][and of course there is precedent for lethal force in retaliation, Tim McVey][of course that's not a justification, just a legitimization])
so ultimately we must ask, can we fight terrorists using lethal force and still seek to build a peaceful relationship with the majority of the middle-east that is not terrorists.
unfortunately the elephant that is Israel makes the entire proposition more difficult (see Iranian wrestler withdrawing from Olympics rather than wrestle an Iraeli and thereby giving credance to the existance of his nation). can we maintain our ties with Israel and still be viewed positively in the rest of the MidEast? Hmmm?
Nuke them all and let God, Jehovah, or Allah sort them out.
Post a Comment
<< Home