What to do about North Korea...?

Cjcampbell,

Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way
before Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Morgans,

you are in a vocal minority,
around here.


Nope, he isn't. And even if so, all the more reason to speak up.

But, nice try.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Morgans,

you are in a vocal minority,
around here.


Nope, he isn't. And even if so, all the more reason to speak up.

But, nice try.

I count about 4, with the hardline views that he, you and about two more
share. That looks like a minority, to me.
--
Jim in NC

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Cjcampbell,

Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way
before Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

Possibly so. As I said, I am interested only in peace. If the USA
showed forbearance in not attacking Hamburg, then that is fine with me.

But I was not thinking of Iraq. I was thinking more along the lines of
Afghanistan.

I really do not claim to have the answers as to what constitutes an
attack that requires a response. I am fishing for what you and Jose
think. I am aware that you believe that attacking Iraq was a mistake.
As for my own opinion on it, I must remain silent. But I am genuinely
interested in your rationale as to why it is okay to attack Germany but
not Iraq, even though Iraq actually did kill US citizens and allies
quite frequently.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Cjcampbell,

Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?


Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way
before Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

Possibly so. As I said, I am interested only in peace. If the USA
showed forbearance in not attacking Hamburg, then that is fine with me.

But I was not thinking of Iraq. I was thinking more along the lines of
Afghanistan.

I really do not claim to have the answers as to what constitutes an
attack that requires a response. I am fishing for what you and Jose
think. I am aware that you believe that attacking Iraq was a mistake.
As for my own opinion on it, I must remain silent. But I am genuinely
interested in your rationale as to why it is okay to attack Germany but
not Iraq, even though Iraq actually did kill US citizens and allies
quite frequently.

Recently, cjcampbell posted:

Jose wrote:
I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
have already lost.

Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.

Including wars we shouldn't be in.


Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand.
I have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am
well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who
are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my
family, and all that I know.

But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

(rest snipped for brevity)

The differences between these examples are significant, and IMO, those
that can't tell the difference are those that believe any aggressive
action can be justified after-the-fact. Before *any* action was taken,
Hitler attacked other nations. The case could be made that action could
have been taken to stop Hitler sooner; so history taught us that lesson.
Tojo's direct attack of the US is the reason we retaliated; we didn't do
so on the mere notion that he may have had the capability to attack us and
might have wanted to.

As soon as Hussein attacked Kuwait it was time to move. The world agreed,
and he was immediately suppressed; Hussein posed no *real* threat to
anyone since that time.

Iran is a situation where we are still experiencing the repercussions from
our fiddling with their government since the early '50s. That mistake has
cost us dearly in the region, and we have little choice but to ride it
out. Sadly, our attack of Iraq has only complicated matters and created
new problem that will have repercussions for decades (if not centuries) to
come.

Korea is another situation where the world has contained the aggression of
the North, and won't really do much beyond that. Those living in the
region have the most at risk, and they do not appear to be of the opinion
that NK should be attacked a la Iraq. "Most thinking people" would agree.

I don't believe that wars will end in our lifetime, but I do think that we
can act more responsibly than we have acted by attacking Iraq. It was a
stupid, ill-informed move, and compounding that with other stupid,
ill-informed moves won't make matters better.

Neil

Recently, cjcampbell posted:

Jose wrote:

When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend
ourselves, to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation
attacks our allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according
to the terms of our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in
exchange presumably they would do the same or some equivalent for us.
[...]
In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were
attacked by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and
moral obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other
countries just because they "look the same", nor do we have the
right to use this attack as an excuse to the American People to wage
war on other countries not involved.


Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?

Apparently not, given that Bin Laden et al are very likely in Pakistan. We
knew that, and attacked Iraq. Hmm.

Apparently a lot of people believe he did by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

He was firing missiles at our planes in *his* airspace. Hardly surprising.

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?

Let's not gloss over your assertion that he "...bursts into your home..."
If he had burst into your neighbor's home, do you rush in with a gun and
start shooting? When your stray bullet kills one of your neighbors, what
should be the consequences?

Neil

Recently, Morgans posted:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Morgans,

you are in a vocal minority,
around here.


Nope, he isn't. And even if so, all the more reason to speak up.

But, nice try.

I count about 4, with the hardline views that he, you and about two
more share. That looks like a minority, to me.

So, you are of the opinion that the minority should have no voice? If we
don't agree with you, we should just let you rant on about such topics as
this? What is the value of that approach, Jim?

Neil

Cjcampbell,

But I am genuinely
interested in your rationale as to why it is okay to attack Germany but
not Iraq,


To put Iraq and Nazi-Germany in the same basket in this context is beyond
ridiculous.

May I suggest you just google back 3 years? The arguments have all been
posted here even though it is not the main topic of the group.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Neil,

What is the value of that approach, Jim?


It's very American. And it's the view of the majority.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)