There has to be a balance. You don't just blow everyone up. What does that solve? In the past, there were certain things that were relatively understood. Russia and the US knew that they each would be highly reluctant to use weapons of mass destruction because if one did, the other would and we'd end up destroying each other. Yes, there were extremists, but the prevailing wisdom was that the presence of both kept the peace, if an uneasy peace. Now, there is nothing preventing terrorists or rogue states from using weapons or tactics (as we've seen) that would normally be unheard of in a traditional military war. They don't want their ideology to win in this world. For them, they are already going to heaven. They just want to see us go to hell. They would prefer that our coalition fail and that we gain the ire of every country in the world that has any sympathy for them. They want us all to destroy each other and ourselves. That is why it is even more important that we exercise caution when making decisions of this nature. "Pacifist" isn't a dirty word. It doesn't equate to weakness. It is far more difficult, in fact, to choose peace instead of war. The toll can be much higher and the time taken to achieve total peace much longer, but, ultimately, peace is the thing we all want. Some just choose to practice it in the face of every adversity.
haven, it makes absolutely no sense to take out bin Laden and leave Saddam there. Saddam (Iraqi Intelligence) is a major source of funding, armaments, and planning for the worldwide terror network, and is actually more active than bin Laden in those respects. Bin Laden provides more motivation than anything else, while Saddam supplies the nuts and bolts. I will repeat this again and again until someone listens: it is a known fact that Saddam has been cultivating anthrax, botulinum, and cholera since he kicked the inspectors out in '98. We still have a few spies/informants there, and they have confirmed this. Where do you think that s*it is supposed to end up? We are his arch enemy. You seem to have the impression that I'm a full-time hawk, just salivating at the thought of bombing another country. Truth is, most wars can be avoided, and I think the vast majority of them should be. I have no desire to see Americans die, and I have no desire to see foreigners die. I really don't even relish seeing Saddam or Osama die. But there are times when you just can't avoid war. There are some people who not only deserve to die, but must die is others are to be saved. You cannot reason with these people; they don't abide by treaties. They are like rabid dogs - you just have to shoot them before they bite anyone.
There are times when that can be suicidal. I happen to think this is one of those times. Peace should always be the goal. As I said, State is by nature pacifist, and that has probably kept us out of several unnecessary wars. In general, that is the right attitude. But when you're up against people like this, you don't offer them the olive branch. You 'praise god and pass the ammo'...
I certainly don't disagree with your assertions. I guess I just view it a bit differently. Buddhist monks, for example, rather than killing or being killed in the Vietnam War set themselves on fire in protest. It was done as a way to overdramatize the insane nature of violence. Sometimes, "suicide" is the morally just action even if goes against the greatest natural instinct - survival.
It's usually pretty counterproductive. Anyway, what did those monks really achieve? Aside from ending forever any opportunity to be moral people in this life again? Anyway, if you're hinting that we need to keep the moral high ground in this conflict, I agree. And I realize that that will be difficult, especially concerning Iraq in the eyes of much of the world. But we can't sacrifice our principles just to please other nations' senses of morality. I just see this in terms of practical defense. For example, if Saddam supports terrorists, and he brews anthrax, then that leads me to believe that he will give them some and they will use it if we don't stop him...
Haven, I especially like your remarks on the UN. That is the way to go to control terrorism. A coalition of the US a few buddies and a few client emirs in the middle east just won't provide the legitimacy we need to be truly effective in responding to terrorism. The US and especially conservatives have a problem with the UN. They like to employ it when to their advantage, but won't even pay their dues when a vote or two goes against them. Often they prefer to throw their weight around as the world's only superpower and defy the UN. A guy at work told me that he read somewhere that we have paid our UN dues in preparation for the war on terrorism. If I have time I'll try to verify this.
