> People do what they have to. Or are sheep and not people. So America will
> (hopefully) do what it has to in this instance. Better that than to lower
> our society to these other, much more primitive levels and states. America
> isn't perfect, but living like they do and why they do in places such as
> Kabul is not on my agenda and never will be.
Agreed -- I just hope that 'do what it has to do' entails as little damage
as possible to those not directly involved. It's always difficult to decide
"how involved" people are -- assuming for the sake of argument that it _is_
bin Laden, what's the call for a generic Afghanistani farmer who's forced at
gunpoint to let bin Laden hide out on his farm overnight? Sure, he could
stand up to them and try and keep the guy out, but he'd just get shot -- but
on the other hand, if there were nobody willing to provide shelter to the
terrorists it would possibly be easier to locate them. (though the geography
of that part of the world is very conducive to hiding out).
Going in there and bombing the entire region is going to hurt a _lot_ more
people that aren't terrorists than those that are;
Bombing's not the answer. We agree there completely. It isn't just
retribution I seek but the removal of these maniacs, first and foremost, so
that no repetition of yesterday's carnage might be committed in the future,
and then that we institute a program that works toward an end to the
reasons and means behind these people. They can't exist in vacuums, you know.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp claims that the Al-Qaeda has around 400
"operatives" in Afghanistan, spread out who knows how much. I suspect the
non-terrorist population there is a lot larger.
The problem is finding a way to get rid of the guy that _isn't_ just mass
bombing.
I'm very glad I don't have to make these sorts of decisions, and I hope
that those in power are very careful when they do.
-- dan
(and, as a final note, given I agree with Tom that this discussion will get
nasty if we're not careful, I certainly think they should get rid of the guy
(or whoever it turns out to be), just out of personal interest if nothing
else -- the company my father works for has (had) 1700 employees in the WTC,
Dad's been there on business before. I'm just concerned that the process of
removing him could easily get out of hand)
There's no need for name calling. That, however, is on whoever stoops to
it. Meanwhile, I care not to have my free speech curtailed. I just don't
understand all these calls always for the list not to discuss issues it
obviously wants to discuss. What is that about? Why is it there are always
those who would dictate the pursuits of others? Are we so afraid of
potential intellectual confrontation? Is it out of some desire to keep
things "nice"?
Sorry, I'll never get or subscribe to that, and if what happened in NY
yesterday isn't important enough for some of our list members then I don't
get that, either. I guess I'm simply not "getting it" today for whatever
reason. Perhaps tomorrow I'll be able to "get it" together better. <g>
Tris
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|