As former president Jimmy Carter said upon receiving his Nobel prize, "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each other's children."
When the ante is upped to the point where weapons of mass destruction are used, a proportionate response is expected. . . no matter how evil. And as you say, what would the alternative be? It is hard to imagine a non-nuke response to a nuclear attack on America being effective. . . . I guess it is possible. . . and certainly preferred by the attackers. . . but without using proportionate response, it leaves the door open to a second equally destructive attack.
No matter how you run the scenarios, it ends ugly. That is why President Bush is bent on eliminating each of the persons willing to use such weapons in their terrorist plots. It is an ambitious plan, for sure. And if there is an alternative plan to ridding the world of terrorists that would not be as ugly and messy and potentially dangerous, I'd love to hear it.
These harsh realities have existed for quite some time, but in our world of heavy entertainment, we push them to the backs of our minds and get along with the business of life. That is why we are shocked by these statements. There is nothing new here. . . . but to hear the words put together, "we will respond with nuclear weapons" pulls the harsh reality back into the foreground. . .shocking us all over again.
I wonder if putting an end to covert assassinations was a good idea.
Rande Is |
