PART 1 Re: Bomb them with butter, bribe them with hope.

jay gee jgj23 at
Sat Sep 22 12:46:54 EDT 2001

THIS  IS  PART 1  of  3  PARTS

Jill Taylor Bussiere wrote:

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


Our differences about morality, strategies for peace
and equality may be less than you imagine or greater.
They are not a concern to me at this time.

Our system allows us to voice our differences, something
the current government of Afghanistan does not allow.
Right now I am interested in sharing some serious
dialogue about what is the most appropriate response
the U.S.A. can have to the suicide bombings of two
World Trade Center towers in New York City, the
Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and other recent large
scale terrorist acts committed against the United States
on its own soil and abroad.

Long term peace among peoples is achieved through
understanding and tolerance.  People commit acts
of war against their perceived enemies when they no
longer believe that peaceful means will be effective
in achieving their goals, be those goals territorial
expansion, or state recognition, a.k.a. "respect."

The most common denominator of peace is equality
of strength.  I respect you because you can kill me
and you respect me because I can kill you.  This is
the reality of human behavior without fancy wrappings
in whatever philosophy you adopt to anchor your
morality.  It is rooted in the genes of all animals, including
ourselves and it tells us not to "rock the boat" unless
threatened.  It is also known as "enlightened self interest."

I ask you:  Has the general peace and tranquility of
United States residents and other peace loving peoples
around the world been interrupted by the acts of
September 11th?

Unless you believe the answer to be NO, something
has to be done to return some greater measure of
tranquility to our shores and abroad.

I now address your individual points.

>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 your original post your asked for "out of the box thinking" to deal with
the problems at hand and the longer term problems as well.

Low yield tactical nuclear weapons, delivered by air-launched cruise
missiles provide the best option to eradicate Bin Laden and his band
of followers -- if their whereabouts can be determined accurately.

These weapons are available in the arsenal, are cheap to deliver
and likely to cause less environmental damage than an invasion
of ground forces into Afghanistan.  An additional benefit is that
fewer lives would be lost on all sides by avoiding ground operations.

>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.

Many of the thousands of civilians killed in the Gulf War were individuals
rounded up and delivered by the Iraqi military to act as "human shields"
for military targets.  Their deaths were an attempt by Saddam Hussein to
gain an edge in the public relations war.

Thread continued in PART 2.

More information about the Market-farming mailing list