Nice post, John, and thanks.
I don't, however, appreciate the cheap shot about your 16 year old. All of us should just drop that stuff.
On the points you make about human rights abuse or ethnic cleansing issues in Iraq, etc. the Bush folk don't have credibility there. This is not an administration that came to office carrying the banner of protecting human rights abuse or putting a stop to ethnic cleansing. If anything, they backed away from the rather meager commitments of the previous administration to address these.
So, unfortunately, I think when the Bush folk advance those reasons, they are not serious.
As for terrorism being a human rights abuse, that's a good argument. But what to do about terrorism and what is actually terrorism are a part of the present national debate. I've tried to outline my own views on what terrorism I think the US should address as a military issue, that is the 9-11 related stuff. But the definition of civilian attack is a tough one for terrorism. It makes sense but it brings into the definitional fold, the US attacks I mentioned, Sherman's march through the South during the American Civil War, the use of terror by the Israelis in the late 40s, etc. So we need a better definition. Sorry, but I don't have one.
Thanks again for the post but with the caveat of dropping the put downs. |
