Posted on 09/27/2001 1:08:51 AM PDT by Helix
I'm not sure, but I'll see if I can find out.
In those days I ran with the Liberal crowd, and truth mattered not at all, and I scorned the elementary fairness of "to each according to what he deserves" of traditional morality. In the end I repented of my wrong doing. Over many years I have recovered from my romance with evil.
The experience left me "sadder but wiser". I can see the difference between Leninism and Liberalism very distinctly. I can see people who embrace this evil clearly. I understand why they do it. That is why I reacted so strongly to you.
"Years ago I sat where you sit"
I don't think so, and, though I'm sure you intend no rudeness, you're tone is condescending. You could read my posts if you're really curious, but I wouldn't recommend that imposition on your time. Rather, since our paths will cross again, time will tell whose impression is correct.
Finally, you say;
" I can see people who embrace this evil clearly."
I assume you mean the evil of Leninism.
As opposed to being on the hands of those doing the actual fighting, and who had the actual authority to start/stop this fighting. Very usefull escapism. The fact is there ARE people who had the authority to start/stop that war -- they were in the administration. Of course they will not be charged, like the argentinean generals were after the falklands war. But its a very interesting twist of illogic to take the blame away from those making the decisions, and towards a bunch of kids in the street.
This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in "re-education camps" of hundreds of thousands more,
Given that the war killed a million, simple math should tell us which answer is correct.
And to the professors who teach their socialistic crap!
Interesting - but David Horowitz was probably commie buddies with most of today's professors spewing this vile socialism. At least there may be hope for the young ones but the profs, forget it.
The Communist Vietnamese invaded Cambodia about three years after the Communist Cambodian dictator, Pol Pot came into power. After the U.S pulled out of Vietnam and the S. Vietnamese forces were defeated, Pol Pot executed or starved approx. 1 million Cambodians. He was especially intent on weeding out the educated and teachers. The Vietnamese occupation killed many more. China was still supporting Pol Pot guerrilla fighters in the 1980's. Apparently, the "unification" under communism didn't improve too many lives. And, arguably the U.S withdrawal cost quite a few.
No one can predict with any certainty future results in national struggles. A nation can only act on the past behavior of its opponent, its own moral and political beliefs, and the moment. If we attack Afghanistan, lives will be lost. If we don't, lives will be lost. The Taliban regime has attacked us in the past. (The Cole, US embassy, WTC bombing in 93) and our response has been anemic, at best. I cannot state that retaliation will halt all possibility of further attacks. However, limited responses, diplomacy, and emergency aid certainly haven't worked.
Morally, I believe the people of a nation have the right of self-defense. The WTC was not a military target. Since we were not in a declared war with Bin laden or the Taliban, arguably neither was the Pentagon. The Taliban frequently murder and torture women and dissenters. Although any U.S. action may cause innocent deaths, our inaction will certainly do so, if the past is a predictor. No one can say which will cause more. However, the U.S is one of very few nations I know who rebuild the infrastructure and provide aid to civilian population of enemy nations after a war. We still send emergency food and medicine to the Afghani people. We sent the same to Iraq. However, Hussein was not allowing it to be distributed. I have yet to see one example of the Taliban (or a Communist Nation) do the same.
The protestors who are wishing for peace won't receive it, either way. If we allow our enemies to become stronger, that will only allow them to murder more of us and more of their own people. They have stated such in their words and have certainly demonstrated such by their deeds.
The anti-war people have also not offered any credible alternative to war. What can we do? Shut down transportation and make sure no terrorist can ever enter our county again? Not feasible and besides, that would be a violation of civil liberties and profiling as well. I'm sure that would go over well.
What else then? Shouldn't we just give them all our money and let them live like us? Good luck! If giving money, aid, access to U.S. universities, and a free pass to the most successful nation on Earth worked, we should be the most popular people on the planet. Besides, many of the hijackers have been exposed to western civilization for years. They had money, education, food etc. and somehow, it didn't seem to make them happy. Perhaps, they just aren't willing to "Give Peace A Chance".
So what are we left with? To do nothing. Doing nothing is, in itself a course of action. Would allowing the deaths of over 6000 people of many races, nations, sexes, and religions to go unopposed end the brutality? The "peace police" seem to think so. They also thought so when we left Vietnam. Chamberlain thought so when he proposed "peace in our time". The Communist movement thought so when Stalin enacted his "purges". Many Germans thought so when they looked the other way as Jews were taken to "relocation camps". History seems to suggest otherwise.
Colin powell seems to be doing a better job. my take on it is very few of the protesters are "turn the other cheek types". most want to avoid carpet bombing, mass sacntions and other collective punishment/collateral damage, which is the m.o. of terrorism, not tacticts. most want the people responsible punished (and this is loose, it doesn't have to be a "court", could be like the mossad and the munich kidnappers). but most of all, most of the "peacenicks" i know, know that the problem won't go away by simply finding the responsible and setting up a different set of murderers and rapists to be in charge of afghanistan. Most of them happen to think that indiscriminately bombing afghanistan with food and medicine may be more cost effective than to do it with explosives. there are plenty of alternatives to "war", few alternatives to "violence", and not exclusive to either of those, alternatives that make the world a better place, and the likelyhood of future terror smaller.
Personally from the snippets i catch on CSPAN, that seems to be in the direction that colin powell is going, though he seems to place too much stock in the northern alliance -- basically a bunch of gangsters and warlords.
Nice to meet you, fellow Texan. Maybe one day we Austin FReepers can get together with some of you from Houston for a FREeper reunion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.