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

["Dave Spitz" <dspitz AT windwire.com>]

I am saying that our policies, whether or not you agree with them, do not
justify what was done. And you're in sad, lonely company if you feel they
do. And I certainly don't feel that we should say, "gosh, people are bombing
us because they don't like our policies, so let's retreat and change our
policies." For one thing, it's a lot more than just our policies that are
driving this -- it is, as I've said before, an explicitly stated objective
of these groups to destroy the United States, its political system, and
anything connected with American values.

Even leaders with an unquestionable hatred of US policy (if not the US
itself) like Ghaddafi have called this a horrible injustice. Has the fact
that close to 7,000 people were killed in a vicious, surprise, and
undeclared attack not sunk in to you, man? What would be enough to convince
you, a nuclear detonation in a major city? Anthrax spread over entire
segments of the population? 500,000 people killed? 1,000,000? Don't doubt
for a minute that these terrorists would carry out these acts if they could.
We are not talking about "justice under international law", or revenge, or
retaliation. We are talking about self defense against future attack by
people who have sworn to die trying to annihilate the US and everything it
stands for. It's not just "the policies".

And while I agree with some of your examples, such as abandoning the
Afghanis after the Soviet pull-out, some of them are ludicrous. The US is
not immune from mistakes, even mistakes that cost lives. But "Mass
starvation of the Iraqi people"? Give me a break. Next you'll be telling me
how kind and loving Saddam is.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo AT hesketh.com]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 1:46 PM
To: InterNetWorkers
Subject: [internetworkers] RE: Peace Rally


on Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 01:31:21PM -0400, David Spitz wrote:
> As for the points, I agree that I have no problem with the last
> two. I just don't think they're relevant to the current
> situation. Anyone who thinks our action is based on racism has a
> seriously skewed view of the world. And the idea of reacting to
> terrorism by "redressing our policy" is so bass-ackwards it's
> laughable. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"...

Are you suggesting that our support of Israel, our lack of response to
the recent Israeli moves against Palestinians, our mass starvation of
the Iraqi people, our abandonment of Afghanistan once the Russians
withdrew (after training rebels in guerrilla warfare), our support of
the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our removal of the democratically elected
government of Iran, our sanctions against Pakistan, our dealing with a
military dictator in Pakistan now that we need him, our defense of the
Kuwaiti monarchy in the name of "democratic principles", and other
policies had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks? Or are you just
saying that changing our already ridiculous policies is now out of the
question because of the terrorist attacks? Or are you saying that our
policies in the Middle East and South Asia have been right all along?

I'm just curious.

Steve

--
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com

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