Replies

I know you don't want to embarrass yourself by holding up our pummeling of a third-world nation as exemplary use of ordnance.

They are giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Good point. In the current issue of Arab-Asian Affairs (edited by Christopher Story, publisher of "Perestroika Deception", "New Lies For Old", "Red Cocaine" and "The European Collective"), he addresses just this prong of the new 33-page policy statement on "preemptive strikes" penned by Ms. Rice:

[the policy states] that "we will not hesitate to act along, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively."
Terrorism would be fought by "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

However, the document had nothing at all to say about the consistency of this freewheeling policy. What about Cuba, on the territory of which the KGB first began training international terrorists outside Europe in 1966? What about Ireland, which has callously harboured the IRA and its controlled splinter groups of terror-revolutionaries for three decades, knowingly allowing the Soviet GRU controllers of the IRA to use Shannon airport as their uninspected drop shipment center for weaponry and personnel?

And what about exerting pressure on Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, himself, given his Government's "politically correct" and laid-back attitude towards the intolerable presence of Islamic centers where terrorism is glorified and revolutionaries are trained? The new "line" is riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisy (of which Mr. Blair does not have a complete monopoly in this context).

I think those are excellent "for starters" questions. The true measure of any man's integrity is his ability to CONSISTENTLY defend and act in comport with his convictions.

Are we to apply this new policy consistently? Will respect the rights of other nations to adopt our "moral" stand?

I know you don't want to embarrass yourself by holding up our pummeling of a third-world nation as exemplary use of ordenance.

I think you misunderstand my comment--I was referring to our accurracy in our military as meeting the "Just War" requirement that the war solution isn't worse than leaving the status quo. And, of course, success against a 3rd world country applies well to Iraq.

Regarding giving aid and comfort to our enemies, to my knowledge, the IRA is not currently allied with the al Qaeda. If it is, we'll get them, either with the help of Ireland or without.

Cuba has been opposed by the US for almost 50 years, through a blockade and sanctions, and has not conducted a successful terrorist action. If they were to harbor al Qaeda anywhere other than Guantanemo Bay, I expect we'd come after them.

The UK, under the surprising Tony Blair, has supported us via intelligence and military forces. Although they have had tolerance toward Islamic centers, it is unlikely these centers are not being monitored by MI.

This is a war. We must fight the enemy wherever he is found. We need consistency in our goal, although the method can and should vary depending upon the circumstances.