PART 2 Re: Bomb them with butter, bribe them with hope.

jay gee jgj23 at
Sat Sep 22 12:45:45 EDT 2001

THIS  IS  PART  2  of  3  PARTS

Jill Taylor Bussiere also wrote:

JG>> 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?
JTB>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.

You are mistaken.  Only some of the individuals who did the shooting are
dead.  Those who planned, trained and financed the operation are
equally guilty and still alive.  Some may be in our country and some elsewhere.

The question was:  Which type of justice is more appropriate for a mass
murderer?  Incarceration or execution?  On the spot to save lives which may
be lost in the future, or after the fact to demonstrate the superior "morality" of
our legal system?

>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.

War is abominable by definition.  But its abominable characteristics are
what make it useful as a foreign policy tool and as a demonstration of
what can happen when a technologically superior foe is moved to action.

>> 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.

I don't see coexistence as a race either.  But those on the outside looking
in may see it differently.  Your statement about exemption from worldwide
agreements is overly broad.  Be more specific about which agreements
you refer to.  As for the 800 lb. gorilla world view, I don't advocate its
merits, I merely recognize that it is the way things are.  Change how we
represent ourselves governmentally and fundamental changes in our
policies will follow.

You do yourself a disservice by attempting to put me in a box or
categorize my beliefs.  Please address my specific points.
Please answer the questions I pose, do not ignore them.

>> 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

The issue of killing is not an issue of right vs wrong.  If you adopt
a utopian moral view as the correct response, you turn the other
cheek and hope for divine intervention.  In the meantime, the
next terrorist attack strikes closer to you or strikes you directly.

What would you have us do?  Apologize for being a free country?
Turn our other cheek if another fully occupied building is bombed?

Continued in PART 3

More information about the Market-farming mailing list