| |
|
Zerone,
In response to 2- that's the old 'two wrongs make a right' argument. The further we progress in a world where sovereign nations deem themselves the highest authority, the more they will oppose and compete with each other. The US has a history of using the UN when it suits it and at other times totally sidelining it. And it doesn't pay its bills.
International law is currently a partially effective, but very fragile thing: however, creating a firm standard of conduct for nations offers a way out of this burgeoning cycle of violence.
In response to 3- all the intel that's been released about the MO of the hijackers suggests that they were 'sleepers'- that they 'westernised' themselves, used training facilities in the US, the UK, Germany etc. The training camps in Afghanistan, to judge from what little footage there is, are boot camps/brainwashing centres for the local Taleban enforcers (many of whom appear to be conscripts.)
4- I agree that we can't stand by and let the Taleban do their thing. Strangely, that's just what the West has done for the last four or five years. Our oil companies were even working on going into business with them. So I'm abivalent about this one. I think that we should act. But I'm pretty sure that the better solution would be to go in and take the guns away, root out the landmines and give the country back to the people.
5-so making it more questionable is a good thing how? I saw a quote from some Pentagon type who said that airstrikes made the possibility of further acts of terrorism '100% likely'. This current action is legitimising violence. Next time a bomb goes off in the US- or quite possibly the UK- there will be no period of diplomacy and restraint, will there? Just a tit-for-tat strike and further rhetoric.
peace out! |
|
|
