To argue with this repeated point, that of the deaths of civilians being acceptable in a wartime situation, I'll try using this method. This situation does not compare with WWII, in the same way the attack on New York City doesn't compare with Pearl Harbor -- it's worse. Pearl Harbor was a military attack on a military target, as opposed to this use of civilians to kill other civilians. What is important to remember is that the carpet bombings of WWII were used to destabilize the economic bases of countries we were at war with, not just an excuse to kill the civilians of those countries to keep them from helping out. The same technique would be ineffective in this campaign (I prefer not to dignify this situation with the word war, since it seems to give legitimacy to our attackers), since we are not attacking a country, per se, but a group of much smaller organizations, some of which are being sheltered by sympathetic nations, meaning that the civilian population may not necessarily be in favor of what they're doing (or even knowledgable of it). Therefore, the reasoning of a civilian threat and an economic necessity doesn't come into play. Carpet bombing would actually strengthen the terrorists' positions, since it would lead to hundreds of now-motivated civilians joining the groups, reinforcing their strengths, not damaging them. But, ultimately, this comes down to the decision as to whether or not we want to act like the people we're supposed to be better than. They made their move, and showed they are willing to jettison all ideas of humanity to the wind in search of what they feel is divine vengeance. Should we lower ourselves to their level by planning a campaign that does not attempt to avoid civilian casualties? Then, we become like them, and they've won, because they will have changed something fundamental about America, which is the point of terrorism -- to get the larger army to blink. So far, we haven't ... much. But to say that, as a civilization, we need to lower ourselves to the level of these people, who have chosen to sacrifice humanity in the name of their own personal prejudices, is flat-out wrong. This is a completely different situation than WWII. Certainly, we had our Dresdens, but our attacks on civilian targets were designed to weaken an economic infrastructure that was keeping a larger conflict going and destabilize a much larger population that was working for the advancement of Germany, Japan, and Italy's causes. Did it work? Yes. Is it something we should be proud of? No. Did the atomic bomb work? Sure, but was it the only way to avoid millions of casualties? We don't know, and historians continue to argue. Should we be proud of what we started with it? Are you kidding? We don't have to do that now, and we shouldn't. Why should we allow our country's methods to leap back in time fifty or sixty years when we have shown that we don't have to. There's not a single academic in this country who doesn't want justice for this event -- and we don't live in ivory towers, but low-rent offices that sometimes have windows, depending on how much money we're making, and how many books we've published (ivory towers would cost universities too much $). What we're trying to avoid is a call for vengeance -- the sort of blind vengeance that allows a human being to justify the hijacking of a civilian plane and ramming it into a civilian target. At this time, we have to show that we are better than these people, that we will take the time to plan our strategy, and protect as many civilians as possible from what will eventually happen. That's the difference between ourselves and the ones who attacked -- we actually care about what happens to the people who aren't involved. That's what makes a strong nation, not an aged belief that innocents will die, no matter what. Let's not lower ourselves just for the knee-jerk reflexism of revenge. David Murphy (last post on this, I promise)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST