🚀 go-pugleaf

TarlaStar wrote:
> 
> bralph@home.com (Ralph) wrote:
> 
> >"John Roberts" <jroberts@nosp.ionet.net> wrote:
> 
> >>As I see it, the real problem with all of this is that the U.S. can't "win"
> >>in a war against terrorism - in fact, we can't even compete.  Our national
> >>policy won't let us fight "dirty" enough (at the risk of negative world
> >>opinion) to make it possible.
> 
> >What we need to do is set up a "special tactics" force that really
> >works. That is, we identify the terrorists, then we take then out. No
> >if's ands or buts. We don't need to bomb cities. Just send in a good
> >assassination team and be done with it. Airplanes and cruise missles
> >have "USA" written all over them, but a damned good assassination
> >squad is as anonomous as these damned terrorists.
> 
> An assassination team...funded by the Government? Sorry, there are
> laws against that for a reason. Ever hear of National Sovereignty? We
> don't have any right to go into another county and assassinate people
> without officially declaring war against them. You want us to become
> our enemies. How, then, do we tell the two apart?

That's the even worse part of the problem; eventually neither side's
assassination teams can tell each other apart, join up forces and go
free-lance, assassinate each other's leadership and then fall into the
powervacuum and shazam. There you go, fascist dictatorships from the top down
on all sides. Nobody benefits.

Of course that's a silly argument. But if the use of assassination became par
for the course in international politics, eventually international law
completely breaks down as does all diplomacy, war ensues, etc etc.

> 
> >History lessons: British Red Coats fighting in American's back yard.
> 
> Excuse me, but America was a British colony. The Red Coats were in
> their own territory as far as they were concerned. It was a war of
> revolution not terrorism. Guerilla warfare is not tantamount to
> terrorism.
> 
> >American Soldiers fighting in the jungles of vietnam. etc. You cannot
> >win a gorilla war with a large army and manouvers.
> 
> I don't want to fight the gorillas. I like gorillas.

So do I. Actually, is it just me or has anyone else heard anything about the
mountain gorillas in Rwanda? Since the genocide, I mean?

> 
> > You have to fight
> >"fire with fire", especially when the counties that protect the
> >terrorists can deny any direct involvement while aiding and abieting
> >their autrocities.
> 
> If we believe that a country is abetting terrorists, then we can
> either make certain challenges to that country, work it out
> diplomatically, or declare war. We have no right to enter their
> territory and kill their citizens. Otherwise, they have that same
> right with regards to us.

And we can't have that; we're already having too much fun killing each other.

> 
> >I don't like the idea of killing people, but I like the idea of being
> >killed even less. I don't want to be afraid for my children. To that
> >end, I am pursuaded that action needs to be taken.
> 
> Why don't you go take action then? You'd be acting in the same manner
> as a terrorist. If you want the government involved, then it better be
> official, and it better be military.

Hmmm - I wonder if any of the Kenyans or Tanzanians who lost family in those
bombings might be cooking up their own schemes for revenge.

-- 
    Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
          Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited. 
  Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
 Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow.      http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/