Wdtabor wrote:

In article , Frank writes:


Trouble with the preemptive policy is that North Korea could use the same
argument to justify a launch tomorrow. Or India on Pakistan. Or any number
of other conflicts around the world. Each side convinced they are on the
side of good and must defeat evil before it spreads.


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?

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.

The strength of America is more than just the military, we just don't use
it effectivly (if at all).

The "war on terror" as practiced up to now can never be won. I agree with
you though that the solution is to get other countries to realize it is
not,
their best interests to harbor terrorists. We disaggree on the methods.
Forcing cooperation at gunpoint only dooms us to be forever the occupiers.


No, once they understand the real balance of the world and take our
resolve seriously, it will not be necessary to occupy anyplace. We only
must be in Iraq now because we allowed ourselves to be seen as lacking in
resolve in the past.


Partly true, we must be seen as resolute. But to think that just because we
have all the power they will just do as we say is to deny history. Unless
we win they're cooperation we most certainly will have to occupy them,
otherwise another dictator comes along and the process must be repeated.

But just as North Korea is reacting to perceived threats precipitated by
being included in the "axis of evil", then so will other countries become
afraid of us. And that will lead them to take defensive measures. And
sooner or later we'll have to point our gun at them. And so that process
will be repeated.




No, we need to mobilize some of our other strengths to win this war. We
are the most adept marketeers in the world. That, backed up by some honest
humanitarian efforts (and maybe some judicious covert ops) is what will
win the day for us.


I agree that making them capitalist, representative republics will create
lasting peace, but the fascist totalitarian states and feudal theocracies
have be broken first.

It will go a long way but it also takes a sense fairness and protections for
the "little guy" that is often overlooked (especially when that comes in
competition with capitalists). Without that they just end up with another
totalitarian eventually.

Exporting capitalism is fine as long as we export compassion in equal doses.
And we'd better start cleaning up our own house because the "capitalists"
here have just about bought up all of our representatives. We can hardly
expect newly created democracies to grasp the nuances of effective,
successful free government when all we can hold up for a model is full of
corruption.




"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the
homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of
totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi



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.

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.

Free speech is not just a cornerstone of American life, it is one of the
most effective tools we have to combat terrorism. But it must be truly free
and that's not easy, even for us. We know all too well how much crap you
have to listen to when you let everyone have a say.

For us to wield the tool of free speech effectivly we must practice what we
preach. That means making hard choices and swallowing a few pills we may
not like. Such as reversing the current administrations policies of closing
off information. Such as considering policies of censorship of the internet
in China grounds for sanctions. When we have the courage and the will to
make the sacrifices this involves then we will be on the road to actually
winning a "war on terror".




The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.

Don


If the survivor's legacy is to become dependant on force then they will
end up being no better than those who came before.


They end up alive and free so long as the remain strong.

That is better enough for me.

Don


I don't want America to settle for 'good enough'. We are a great country
only as long as we strive to be better. We will lose the "war on terror" as
long as we have the attitude that as long as they're not bombing my house
that's good enough.

We should be working towards a day when any use of force on our part is
considered a failure on our part to be smart enough to find another way. It
is no victory for America if all we can say is "We're so powerful you must
all just do as we say."

We are not free if we must keep others down by force. No one is free unless
all are free.

Sorry for the long rant....
--
Frank....H