Subject:
|
Re: Who are we to judge?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Sep 2001 15:06:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
272 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > But in the context of the rest of the speech Bush made I think it
> > is clear that he was saying that the *nations* who are with the terrorists
> > are the ones who harbor, train, and fund them.
>
> So it's OK for GWB to unilaterally dismiss the notion of neutrality? I too am
> not particularly happy with this particular line. Though my government (and
> myself) are behind the US in this, I'm particularly worried about some of your
> current leader's words.
I don't think he's dismissing neutrality - do you? Should a nation continue
to host terrorist training camps would you consider it neutral? Should a
nation harbour terrorists knowingly and refuse to turn them out or turn them
over would you consider it neutral?
I think Bush and his people have made it clear that being "with us" doesn't
necessarily mean actively participating in this effort. I think they've
more clearly defined what it means to not participate - namely actively
supporting the bad guys.
For all the talk of historical (and not too distant) connections between the
US and Bin Laden and others, this, today, seems to me to be a pretty black
and white issue. Yes, we (through the efforts of our oh-so-lovable and
far-thinking CIA - admittedly during the Cold War) did help create some of
these messes. But messes they remain, and they've just recently become
messes that killed several thousand of our people.
We need to find the groups that did this and who do this sort of thing (and
I don't stop at the qualifying "global reach" place that Bush did) and we
need to eliminate them - and by that, so nobody accuses me of softballing, I
mean we need to kill them. I'd support that whether it was Bush, Gore, or
Harry Browne in the White House right now. We need to do it because it is
the right thing to do.
And yeah, that's my opinion. Fortunately for those who agree with it and
unfortunately for those who don't, that's pretty much what Bush has
committed us to doing. And the leaders of most, if not all, of the nations
all of you guys belong to openly support it.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
| (...) I expect people to clean up their own messes. Holds for my kids, holds for litterers (I have in the past almost been punched for tossing cigarette butts back into the open windows of cars that they just came out of :-) ), holds for polluters, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes: [snip] (...) So it's OK for GWB to unilaterally dismiss the notion of neutrality? I too am not particularly happy with this particular line. Though my government (and myself) are behind the US in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
