> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Hobby > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:06 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words > > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > > > > So where do you get off claiming that politics must > > > stop? Is it then unpatriotic to criticize Bush, for > > > the next > > > few years of the occupation? > > <major snip--writing more does NOT mean you are right : ) > > > > As for what war - Al Qaeda and its various allies are > > not still out there, trying to reconstitute themselves > > and launch further, and worse, attacks on us. The war > > is over when that isn't true any more. Iraq wasn't a > > war any more than Operation Torch was in 1942. Iraq > > was a campaign - and even the campaign isn't over yet. > > The war has barely begun. We are, at most, at the > > end of the beginning. Reminder: Al Quaida has claimed responsibility for the deaths of several hundred Americans last year in Indonesia. They are still active. Just because they haven't blown up skyscrapers within our borders recently, we have no guarantee that they will not do so again. In fact, their leader has announced their intention do so given the slightest opportunity.
> So you want everyone to "stand behind the President > out of patriotism" for YEARS, while he continues to throw > our military might around on the pretext of stopping terrorism? The primary role of a leader is to keep his/her country safe and its borders protected. If he were to ignore clear threats to his country's security by refusing to defend against them he would be putting his citizens at risk. Should we instead stand by a leader who ignores clear and present dangers to our country and hopes they go away? > Since his actions are producing the conditions for > MORE terrorism rather than less, this is asking a bit much. > THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR. The United States has fewer than > 10000 casualities, civilian and military, since September 2001 > or whenever. Sorry, but we have not been hurt enough to > justify treating this as a war. Having Bush call it a war > does not make it one. Forgive me for being blunt, but I think that's total bull. A body count does not make a war. Acts of aggression were committed on our soil by a foreign enemy. We are working actively to destroy that enemy. *That's* what makes it a war. But if you would prefer to argue this in terms of body counts, imo, your argument simply falls apart based on precedent: David, how many Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor before the US went to war with Japan? More than 2400 dead. Over 2000 wounded. More than a third of the people who died at Pearl Harbor were soldiers who suffocated to death, trapped in the hull of the USS Arizona when it sank. You have now essentially stated that 3000 American deaths does not justify going to war. Were we therefore unjustified in your opinion when we declared war against Japan? Why or Why not? Should we have waited until the number of dead reached a nice round 10K? 100K? What about 500K? At what point would the body count have been high enough? Jon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
