 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Evildooers
Doc, With all due respect, I can't believe you say: "No more Hiroshimas. No more London Blitzes. No more Dresdens. No more St. Petersbergs. This, as much as anything else, makes this war vastly different in kind from the war already being waged by Al Qaeda." Have you seen the Pentagon's leaked plans for war? Have you missed the term "shock and awe?" True, it's not wholesale carpetbombing or a nuclear strike, it's still going to kill a whole lot of people. Should the Iraqi army not lay down arms and dig in to Baghdad, there's a real and frightening possibility that we will see another Stalingrad-esque battle. You're correct that the slaughter of civilians isn't a strategic goal, but when has it ever been? Even Al-Quaeda doesn't just want to kill people for the sake of killing them. They kill people to inspire terror to induce -- I believe -- spazims of fear designed to disrupt and tear at the fabric of a society. We're going to kill a lot of people very quickly in the hopes that it will cause the rest of the people to lay down their arms. While our ends are more noble than that of the terrorists, the tactics are morally equivalent. In any non-genocidal conflict, the slaughter of people is a means, not an end. This was true of Hiroshima, and it's going to be true of Baghdad. I only belabor this seemingly fine point because a lot of people listen to you and take your opinion seriously. To say the least, this administration has proven itself to be somewhat less than trustworthy. Our leaders don't need credit for being humane in advance of any conflict. I belive that only by holding them to the most stringent standard can we have a chance of turning this current (mis)adventure into a win for our country, the world and the future.
|
