Bomb them with butter, bribe them with hope.

Jill Taylor Bussiere jdt at itol.com
Sat Sep 22 07:59:08 EDT 2001


Jay,
    I wanted to have the time to reply to this properly - we have very
different views about morals, strategies for peace, and equality.


Jay wrote that he advocated:
> Advanced technological weapons used with accurate intelligence,
> without regard to "collateral damage."  When properly waged,
> "War is Hell" as Sherman said.

Yes, war is hell.  If we disregard the civilians, then we are doing the same
thing that the terrorists did   -  killing innocent people to meet our own
goals.  I hope you are not advocating the new smaller nuclear weapons.

In addition to worrying about the morality and strategies of humans, there
is the earth to consider.  After all, the earth is our base for living.
Every life support system on earth is already stressed.

You know, in the Gulf War, our military leaders told us that the weapons
they were using were accurate, and that their targets were hit accurately,
and that military targets were the aim.  All lies.  There were many
thousands of civilians killed.


> What kind of "justice" are you looking for???
> If you saw an individual walk into a supermarket and start shooting
> people to death without regard... is justice killing the shooter on the
> spot in the act -- or is it waiting until s/he runs out of ammunition,
> arresting and prosecuting and then parking them in prison until they
> die?

If the above scenario were the case, I don't know of any military or law
enforcement personnel that would bomb the supermarket with shoppers in it in
order to kill the individual that was doing the shooting.  And in the case
of the WTC, the individuals are already dead that did the shooting.  Your
analogy doesn't work for me at all.

We must look at ourselves here in the same light.  What is abominable when
done by others is abominable when done by us as well.


> No doubt, some portion of our success results from repression of those
> who want to change the affairs, governments or power elites of states
> we deem "friendly" to the United States' cause.  It seems foolish to me
> to offer an apology absent a reason.  Do marathon winners apologize
> to those they beat?

And here is where we differ again.  I don't see our coexistence in the world
with other nations as a race to the top, or a race to be the most wealthy,
but rather a challenge to live on the earth sustainably, and to get along.
The US almost exclusively exempts itself from any worldwide agreements that
are made for the betterment of all, and for coexisting.  You seem to believe
in the "strong nation gets to do anything it wants" school of politics.  I
know this is the way it has been for most nations - I am advocating
something newdifferent.

> You can't have it both ways Jill.  People living in repressive states have
> a choice, accept their fates or change them.  Either way you eventually
> die.  That is what happened in the thirteen colonies in 1776.  The
> decision of the time was to live free or die.  Without that attitude we
> would not be having this discussion today.

I was going to reiterate the same to you earlier.  You can't have it both
ways.  If killing 6000-7000 civilians is wrong for terrorists to do, then it
is wrong for the US to do too.  And yet if you read history we have been
responsible for many, many times 7,000 souls.  Not for any just cause, but
rather because it suited our short term goals of pursuit of wealth and
power.


> There are also bad people in the US, even in positions of influence.
> Complicity goes without saying and is the bedfellow of complacency.

Again, you can't have it both ways.  If Afghani people are "complicit" in
your eyes, and deserve to be killed, then we deserve the same.  This is not
my belief, but rather an exploration of consistency within your beliefs.   I
would not advocate for killing either groups of "complicit" people.

> To stop a fire you remover the oxygen, lower the temperature below
> the ignition point (apply water), or remove the fuel.  The last option
> means destroying the house.  I recommend the first or second options.
> The first two options, in effect, "kill" the fire; the last one merely
> "starves" it to death.

Jay, if you study the situation,  and look beyond your goals of revenge, we
may find that we share some goals here.  I will put forth the goals that I
am working towards, and you put the goals you are working towards, and we
will see if we can find some common ground.

1.  Apprehend those responsible for the destruction of the WTC the Pentagon,
and the plane that crashed in Pa.  (Here, we will need to carefully define
responsible, or we get into the stickiness of complicity, and get into a
"holy" war of our own.)
2.   Work to make the world a safer place for all - safe from unexpected and
unjust attacks.
3.  Follow the UN rules made to live together in peace.  (Which we broke and
are still breaking in our treatment of Iraq, for one out of many examples)
4.  Submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of the World Court.
5.  I may have others, but I have to go for now.
                                Respectfully,
                                            Jill





More information about the Market-farming mailing list