|
|||
But they have a responsibility to themselves, their cause, and to all of us to try to make a rational and convincing argument for their point of view, which sure as heck doesn't seem to have happened yesterday. "I don't want to see more Americans die because of a militarist cowboy, or be dragged into a war, a long land conflict. That's where I think Bush is taking us." I'm sure not too thrilled about war, myself. But I also don't want to see thousands more Americans die in terrorist attacks on our cities. How does he suggest we stop that? Actually, he didn't even mention the possibility of further attacks on us; it doesn't appear to be an issue. Everyone here condemns what happened, but people feel that there must be an alternative policy, that war cannot be the only answer. But until you can tell us what that alternative is, then your argument is empty. The mere fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean the answer is wrong. Sometimes there are no good choices. That's how things are in the real world. Asked about alternatives to war, she said: "We have international standards. We don't need to attack the Afghani people." That's not an answer, that's doubletalk. The question is not whether we need to attack Afghanistan, the question is how we prevent al Qaeda from attacking us in future. In fact, there's a consistent theme all through these reactions: they're very short sighted. They're looking only at the immediate events and not taking a broader view and considering secondary consequences, especially the consequences of inaction. They look at deaths which happened yesterday and are horrified, and that's legitimate. (War is a horrible thing. Robert E. Lee said, "It is good that war is so terrible, else we should come to love it too much.") But is a hundred deaths tomorrow more important than ten thousand deaths in six months, merely because it's sooner and more immediate? Or are a hundred deaths inflicted by our side more important than ten thousand killed by our enemies simply because the blood is on our hands? We're not fighting to avenge the deaths in NYC; we're fighting to prevent deaths in Philadelphia, and Miami, and Seattle. (discuss) And do they not see the fundamental inconsistency in the fact that they were able to make their protests against war yesterday because American men had died in previous wars to preserve and protect the protester's rights of free speech and free assembly? Update: Joel Achenbach sez: We understand that there are people in the world who vociferously protest the expansion of American culture and Western-style corporate capitalism, who see the spread of McDonald's and Coca-Cola as a vile toxin amid the indigenous cultures of the planet. These people are known as "American college kids." |
|||
