Re: World Trade, Holy War & Peace

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

> and Mark countered:
>  > Here's one for you Brian: "A conservative is a liberal who's had a
> lobotomy."

Joe:

But that one was pretty obviously a joke. And I will resist the idea that
people become more conservative as they age, if for no other reason than I'm
aging. It seems pretty clear to me (born out by Brian's statement and Drew's
condmenation of people who don't want the environment trashed) that
conservatives are just a little more selfish and short-term thinking than
liberals. That liberals (as you suggest) are thinking more of others and the
future. In general.
I have no problem with anyone being conservative, but the problem starts
when they try to inflict their ideas on me. For instance, I would never
force someone to have an abortion (although I'm not really in favor of them)
because it's not my place to make decisions for someone else...but
conservatives would stop women from having them completely. The difference
is pretty clear. And "the word is getting about about control."

> I was glad to hear one report that Guiliani had expressed a desire that
the
> skyline of New York be "made whole".  I'd really like to see WTC rebuilt
> (with a memorial included within).

Alan:

I've been thinking a lot about it, and have come to the conclusion that just
as the WTC's were symbols for Bin Laden, we need to take down some of his
symbols as well. What I would do is fake a vidoetape of him calling his
followers fools and admitting that he's only in it for the power...I'm sure
Hollywood could do that...and broadcast it to the world...but that's me. I'm
sure someone can come up with a workable way to achieve this. In the end,
though, I think the symbolism is as important as the direct action. Perhaps
more important.

> It's all about oil, that's the truth.

Lucas:

Yes, it's too damned bad people consider the more modern technology of
solar, electric and eventual fusion as stupid "hippy tree-hugging" ideas and
dismiss them, mainly because they take control of this country away from the
oil companies.

> > They are not religion, for no religion preaches such
> hate!
>
> Hm... Did you ever read the bible?

Any religion can be twisted. But it's never a good thing when any religion
teaches that their group is the elite, chosen few...because it tends to make
the others to be disposable. And while it hasn't been noted to date, the
Christian religion also allowed slavery in the US, justifying it because "it
taught savages about Jesus, they're better off."
The Christian religion is no less guilty than Islam or any other. To think
otherwise makes this indeed a holy war.

> I think a memorial or something to honor those that
> were
> "murdered" there be better than re-building.

Dave:

Yeah, well...the owners of the land might want to use it more productively.
After all, you know what real estate costs in Manhattan?
I think the thought to rebuild them is more about the symbolism I mentioned
earlier.

> What you'll be left with are Britain, Canada, the Russians and the
> Chinese

John:

And the support eroded even more yesterday. Calls within the US not to kill
innocents, to measure the response, and all the things which essentially
play into the hands of our enemies. This is what they expect us to do, and
if we do...they win.

> did over his and Hilary's sexual and financial frauds.

Oh, we got it all...and when it comes down to it, no one's got a perfect
record and the hypocrasy comes when the other party accepts the same or
worse from their candidate(s). Clinton-supporters accept this stuff because
it didn't affect his job performance, and most of it was just accused and
none proven. "Innocent until proven guilty" as a liberal might say...

> But, over here, Clinton is perceived as being the lubricant that helped
> the terrorists get up speed because he is seen as being weak on the
> incidents many of you have mentioned (USS Cole, Sudan etc.)

Well, like I said...many will say he appeased them, and many will say he
caused this in some dark and consealed way), but the bottom line is that
Reagan didn't kill Ghadifi, Bush Sr. didn't get Saddam (both incidents
teaching terrorists we are not willing to go all the way), and terrorist
attacks on Israel have increased dramatically since Bush Jr. decided not to
get involved in Israeli/Palestinian talks. These are all undeniable facts.
And they lead me to believe that while none of them intended this, the
responsibility lies with not being "serious" enough about doing what needs
to be done...something I heard a lot of from US citizens yesterday. You may
have another view. It was reported yesterday that Clinton established an
order to capture Bin Laden. I'm not sure if that's even constitutional, but
it DOES show he was serious about it. Still, there were attempts during his
terms.
It's the same as Bush Jr.; he didn't cause this but as Keets pointed out he
certainly has benefitted from it...more defense money, a higher approval
rating. And it was reported yesterday that two weeks before the attack, the
adminstration was told by the Israelis that a "big attack" was in the
offing. So he's not completely guilt free, either. Just like Pearl Harbor...

> This will not be easy, and murdering more innocents is not the way
forward.

Philip:

Unfortunately the time comes when you have to show your resolve. Innocents
are killed in every war. If we show we are unwilling to kill innocents (they
obviously aren't!), then we show them how to beat us...human shields, hiding
among innocents, etc. I wouldn't advocate targeting innocents, but to
restrain yourself from shooting the mad dog just because he used to be your
pet is the wrong way to handle this. We have to show them we will take away
more than their individual lives (obviously they don't care about that), but
their families and way of life too. If they're in any way sane, that should
cause them to pause and rethink what they're doing.
We needn't be barbaric...but we should speak in a language they understand.

> Talking of this as the start of the Third World War is insane.

That's what scares me the most. We Americans don't WANT WW III, but we're
afraid (given the scope of the targets) that it could quickly involve many
countries. The UK is already solidly behind us, and I saw a very impressive
interview of Tony Blair (he's dead on except what he said about Bush, and I
guess he has to say that stuff). And despite what some have written on this
list (not out of dislike I'm sure), we Americans DO appreciate our best
friend in the world. We're sorry you've lost people too, personally and as a
nation. Many on this list have lost friends, as it turns out. It's horrible,
just horrible.

> The people of Afghanistan are not all Western-hating war-mongers - they
are
> downtrodden humans who have been mistreated for centuries. What would it
> achieve to attack them?

Well, we don't HAVE to attack them. They need merely give up Bin Laden. It's
in their hands, really. We're not wrong to go after Bin Laden, and if the
Afghanis choose to force us to go in with military force because they will
not cooperate with a country that (BTW) has been giving 100 million dollars
a year in food to their starving every year...well then, they pretty much
deserve it, wouldn't you say?
But we don't WANT to fight them. Give us a choice!
If all the nations which knowingly harbor terrorists would give them up, the
only explosions you'll see are where the country's government is ruled by
terrorists (bye bye Saddam!). That would certainly satisfy every American I
know.

> Man's inhumanity to man is an abomination. I long for the day when we can
> love one another and nationalist views disappear

To do that, we must end greed in all its forms. I'm open for that. I'm sure
all sane people are. But, like you, I can't see a way.


"God may have mercy on you, but we won't."
        Senator John McCain


               Cheers                 ML