Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Andrew Phillips" <aphillips AT buildscape.com>]

I think the main question is "How far does someone/something/some-group have
to push before Military action is pertinent?". There has to be some line
drawn. If we let actions like this go unanswered, what is to say that they
will not do it again? I do agree that there has to be proof that whoever we
attack had some connection... but who it is in the best interest of "the
people" to know this?

I know I will probably receive much flack for saying this, but I feel there
are some things it is better that the government didn't tell us or show us.
I think the biggest problem with the United States right now is we have this
feeling that the government has to tell us everything that they are doing...
I feel that if its for the betterment of our nation that we don't know then
so be it. The news media needs to learn they can't have it the same way they
did during the Clinton Administration. although I'm a huge Clinton
supporter, I feel they were too lax with the Media...

If the government knows its Iraq right now, and not Bin Laden... and they
are planning on attacking Iraq do you think they should tell us and thereby
telling Iraq we are planning on attacking? What good would it do? Or, on a
larger stretch to not seem raciest... what if it was China? Should we tip
our hat to China that we know so they can ramp up there military?

Not I'm not saying we should go slaughter all the people in the area around
the group, I'm saying that we need to make sure that the group (however big
or small) that knew and/or caused this horrific act should be brought to
justice.

-Andrew Phillips



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael S Czeiszperger [mailto:czei AT webperformanceinc.com]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 1:57 PM
To: InterNetWorkers
Subject: [internetworkers] RE: Peace Rally


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 21 September 2001 12:37 pm, you wrote:
> How ironic. The very political system that guarantees these freedoms to
> assemble and protest is under attack by people whose explicitly pronounced
> objective is to destroy the United States, and the best these folks can do
> is suggest we capitulate to the whims of murderous lunatics.

That's not what the announcement said:
>* Bring the attackers to justice - under international rules of law

There's a big difference between appeasement and following international
law.
I'm definitely uncomfortable with the idea of going forward at this time
when
the government can't show evidence of either bin Laden's involvement or the
Taliban's support for his activities. What if six months from now we figure
out Iraq was actually the culprit?

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/wolf.blitzer.reports/

- --
Michael S Czeiszperger
czei AT webperformanceinc.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA+AwUBO6t/h1gOl/a4Fw2AEQKGRgCgpGqrpm42sOd6zzrvCAB3WlNFggMAl2tf
y2r8rPCFOrhtHEjPi5MFl0I=
=nCRR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to internetworkers as: aphillips AT buildscape.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')