Replies

The average American has had to remember that all the men who didn't come from Vietnam didn't need to go in the first place.

Re: The price of doing nothing

I posted this to someone else on another thread. It's too late to re-type so I'll just copy the text to here.

I'm sorry this post is so long, but I've seen your posts on other threads of this topic and you seem to want a response.

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.