Posted on 09/16/2001 2:17:12 PM PDT by KevinDavis
The national cry for revenge is shameful. We Americans are presumably a people who do not believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Yet many of our national leaders, most of the talking heads who have been babbling on television this week, and the mental defectives who repeat cliches on talk radio are demanding that we get even.
The desire to even the score is an understandable human reaction. Thousands of lives have been destroyed and thousands of families suffer from losses that will change their lives and in many cases ruin them. Yet no one--certainly not the president or any of those around him--is promising that we will avoid action that might lead to the death of more innocents.
Moreover, who are ''they'' with whom we must get even--30, 40, even a hundred fanatics? We must apprehend and punish criminals. Then what? Will we nuke Kabul or Baghdad? Will we blow Afghanistan from the 10th century back into the first? Will mass murder satisfy American blood lust? Do we want to become indistinguishable from our enemies? It would appear that many of us do.
The Pearl Harbor analogy is frivolous and dangerous. There is no militaristic enemy bent on conquering half the world. No mighty navy to sink. No brilliant air force to annihilate, no fanatical population to bring to its knees. We must capture a few terrorists, eliminate a couple of networks, improve our intelligence agencies. Indeed, if anyone is to be blamed for the tragedies in New York and Washington, it is Congress, which has not passed bipartisan legislation that would have improved our intelligence services. We hotly debate a dubious shield against missiles and skimp on funding to intercept terrorists. Perhaps the cries for vengeance we hear are a cover-up for that failure.
The too-easy use of the term "war" is scary. With whom are we to go to war? Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? How will we fight them? Will we send combat troops into central Asia? Does anyone remember that the Russians tried that and it failed? Those who prate about "war" seem eager to have one.
President Bush knows full well that his legacy as president will depend on how he reacts. There are two models on which he might reflect. The first is that offered by John F. Kennedy who, when everyone else had signed off on an invasion of Cuba, would not give the go-ahead to an impatient military and thus avoided World War III. The other is Lyndon B. Johnson, who did not stand up to the military and escalated the war in Vietnam. In the short run, restraint looks like cowardice. In the long run, it becomes a mark of greatness. In the short run, the use of overwhelming military power looks like decisive leadership. In the long run, it ruins a presidency.
There appears to be nobody around the president on whom one could count on to counsel restraint. For all of Bush's fervent piety when he demands that God bless America, he does not seem to grasp that the religion to which he subscribes teaches that vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to us.
Also, he might follow the example of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and other leaders and warn against abuse of Muslim and Arab Americans.
The media babblers are telling us that Americans have lost their innocence, that the country will never be the same. Such claims are nonsense. The serious fear is that the American government will sink to the level of our enemies, and that a revenge-hungry public will support them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, the terribly naive leftists. Thank goodnes they are not currently in charge of our national defense.
The weenies whined, "Can't we all just get along?" But the general public scourned and shamed them for their cowardly attitude.
Sure enough, the whining soon ceased and most of them joined the ranks of the patriots. Some of them later when they lost close friends or relatives.
Freedom has a price. It is not an entitlement like many current Americans believe.
Whatever happened to "No Land War In Asia", Smart Boy?
P.S.: That generals' wisdom was current at the time of the Vietnam escalation. Way pre-Kosovo.
You appreciate the difference between a Soverign State attacking the US and an attack by a band of terrorists. There is no analogy to be made.
In any case, in light of what occured after Pearl Harbor - namely, the internment of thousands of US citizens because of their race -- calls for reason, patience, and wisdom are justified.
Now I know why his books SUCK! I tried reading one years ago and pitched it.
It is about wiping out a proven threat before it wipes us out.
It is about SELF DEFENSE.
We don't have to worry about pissing off the terrorists with our future attacks. They are ALREADY pissed off, and have shown that they will stop at nothing. IF we did nothing now, does he believe that these attacks would stop?
We did not start this. But we HAVE to finish it for our own survival. Of course, maybe this fool feels that it's gauche of us to be so nakedly self-interested that we want to save our own lives and way of life.
He's entitled to his opinion. Just like WE are entitled to defend ourselves -- our God-given right as human beings. If he doesn't like it, tough humus.
LOL!!! thanks, i needed that...
Nicely put.
This is what concerns me, that as this "it's gonna take time" effort goes along, the enemies from within and within the EU will gain momentum. Already Germany and France are equivocating what "standing by their Charter 5 assertion" means. Will this change the mission? Lets hope not.
As for myself, yes, I feel that America has its warts, (abortion, corporate greed, rampant immorality) but it is not alone in its warts, and I don't see anyone using fuel and passenger laden jetliners to ram them into the Brandenburg gate, the Eiffel Tower, the Parthenon, Tokyo and Hong Kong Business Centers or the Kremlin, all of which exist in countries whom share some of our own iniquities.
My position is I do not want revenge. I do not want "justice". Only one goal for any action taken. To prevent this from EVER happening again to any other of my countrymen.
Why of course not..............that's why we are going to wage well thought out just and righteous war.
That's not so clear. We are used to thinking of bin Laden as a stateless terrorist. However, since at least August he has been serving as as the commander of the armed forces of Afghanistan, where his brother-in-law is the head of state. He is a cabinet-level official of the government of Afghanistan, essentially its Defense Minister.
Indeed, let us pray for reason, patience, and wisdom. We shall need them all in our quest to maim or kill every single one of the subhuman bastards that had anything to do with these 5,000 murders.
Actually, it was a tasteless, tongue-in-cheek comment but, frankly, with all due respect, you can blow it out your ass. You've been here all of a couple of months (May 2001) and if you think Freepers lack common sense, I strongly recommend you go elsewhere.
I don't have to "understand how these guys think"...especially if they no longer exist which, by the way, I'm hopeful will not be much longer. You can call that hateful if you like...I call it reality.
At any rate, kindly refrain from wasting my time with any more of your holier-than-thou preaching, OK? I can already tell I'm not interested in anything you have to say...
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.