I guess I did not say it before, but I do agree that any attack should be well-planned and coordinated, and should concentrate on hitting military targets and the terrorists themselves (if at all possible). But an attack should happen at some point -- I suppose I am part of that 92 percent of Americans who is not good enough to reside in Kevin's ivory tower. That letter made it sould like little or no action, other than a court indictment, should take place at all. That's just not going to get it done in this case. Kevin then wrote, about the United States: "We have plenty of people capable of and willing to govern every corner of the globe, and we damn well should. Once we marginalize all other ethnic and religious groups, I'm confident there will be nothing left to fight about, and peace will finally reign." Perhaps we should not have interfered in Britain and France during World War II? Then what would you have had? Nine million Jews dead instead of six. In many cases, the United States does impose its will in nations and in ways that other people around the world resent, and is often wrong in doing so. But there are cases where regimes, through their severe violation of human rights and especially their support of heinous acts against innocent parties, are not fit to run nations. The Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime are two of those, and the United States (with international approval) is justified in removing those two regimes from power. Kevin, if would you prefer for the Taliban and Saddam Hussein remain in power, just say so. -Adam Fine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST