John,
I have no problem calling terrorism what you call terrorism in that post. I think the difference between us is whether the US has some ight/obligation/responsibility/wisdom to end all that terrorism. I think that begins and ends with the global terrorism linked to 9-11. For the moment, in my mind at least, that's limited to Al Q. The breadth of the definition of Al Q might be debated but I won't go there.
I actually think a lot of us on the thread agree with this reasoning.
I don't see the US as having any legitimate role in regional conflicts, in civil wars, etc. unless other dimensions come into play such as ethnic cleansing or flagrant human rights abuses. Perhaps national interest such as a regional ME conflict which threatens all the oil supply from there with no other major sources available.
Again - few would disagree.
Hmm, so I see four grounds for US involvement--self defense (Al Q), a narrowly circumscribed national interest argument, ethnic cleansing, human rights abuse (not all cases of the above but the presence of the case gives the US reason to consider taking some sort of action).
Now YOU sound like Bush. You agree with him in principle, but simply disagree over his choice of Iraq. We have not heard any argument from you that Saddam is not involved with ethnically cleasing his Shia or Kurdish populations or with extreme abuses on Human Rights. And while the Administration has not offered proof that you find acceptable for a direct self-defense reason - Iraq hits hard on 3 of 4 reasons you claim are accpetable.
But I don't see the presence of something called terrorism as a reason.
Wouldn't it by definition be an affront to Human Rights?
Oh, and one more disclaimer, I also feel that the US, as we've discussed on this thread, has itself been guilty of attacks on innocent civilians (terrorism) in the bombing of German and Japanese cities in WWII.
Now you sound like my 16 year old, wondering (after watching Saving Private Ryan) why we fought the way we did. Why didn't we do this, or that or the other...
I have heard from others who view our waiting to enter the war, stalling on opening a second front, etc as a war crime - because we knew what Hitler was doing in the Camps. We sat idle until we could minimize our causulties and we 'let' the Holocaust happen.
Maybe we should have 'Constructively Engaged' the Germans.
John |
