In article , Frank writes:


To use pre-emption, you must be capable of a decisive blow. Should N.
Korea launch its 3 nukes at us tomorrow, (assuming they have them and the
delivery capability), they would sting us, but we would then dump such
nuclear fire on them that Godzilla's would be popping up as far away as
the Aleutians.

Wow. 3 nukes would "sting" us? That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude.
And after we nuked 'em we could just go about our business as if nothing
happened?


Comparatively speaking, it would be a sting. And their options are limited,
they could either go for military targets hoping to dampen our responce, or
civilian targets to create the most casualties, but they just don't have enough
to cover all bases.

And we damned well better not let them get enough.

On the other hand, we could, if that little gargoyle succeeding in really
frightening us, pre-emptively take them out.


And so we learn no lessons from the past. It's just business as usual
whereby we are either killing people actively or sowing the seeds for the
next generation to be killed.

I want us to be looking for ways to make things better and avoid both of
your scenarios. And I believe we have the potential to do so.


I also want to avoid either course, but I believe the way to do that is to make
it crystal clear that attacking us is suicide and making us really nervous is
dangerous and foolish.


SNIP Anti capitalist rant

That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
pacisifists, contemptible.

Anyone that can describe Gandhi as contemptible is....

What Gandhi stood for and what the above statememt means is that the use
of force will not "win the war". His legacy is that non-violent protest
can work and is indeed very effective because it creates so much sympathy
for the cause and exposes so much of the true nature of the opponent. The
Palestinians would do well to take a lesson from him (and other examples).


His methods worked only because he faced a civilized enemy that cared
about world opinion. Had he faced an enemy with Britain's power led by
Stalin or Pol Pot, he would be remembered as an idealistic fool who got
his people exterminated.

Perhaps so, but what he did was show it _could_ work, and at great risk to
himself. Certainly nothing to hold in comtempt. And the lessons have been
used elsewhere. Romania comes to mind, certainly Ceacesceu (sp?) wasn't
much interested in world opinion.


Romania lost it's protector when the Eastern Block fell apart. Without that
shift in power, protests would have been put down by slaughter, as was the
tradition there. Aside from which, there was considerable violence in that
change of government, it was just sufficeintly decisive and sudden that
casualties were reduced.

Aside from which, non-violent protest in the face of totalitarian states has
sledom produced results. Think of the Chinese student who stood in front of
that tank. It made a great picture, but he was clubbed to death shortly
afterward and the rest of the non-violent protesters driven off or slaughtered.

This is part of my point. In today's world of instant communication Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam should have a much harder time concealing this sort of
thing from the world. Part of America's offense in the "war on terror"
should be to actively promote free access (as in beer AND speech) to the
internet all over the world and particularly poor areas. We should become
champions of free speech for everyone around the world, not just here at
home.


Saddam killed 300,000 while being inspected by the UN.

SNIP

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG