|
|||||||||
Posted October 4, 2001
Dogma of Division
Jesse M.: I am confused about something. I am going to be civil and kind, so don't think I am here to spout ... threats. I respect your opinion, so please respect mine.
I will admit that the United States has made mistakes with the Middle East.... I can also admit that this terrorist attack was caused by the anger that we provoked in Desert Storm.
...But other countries have celebrated this horrible tragedy. ...Why be antiwar in this situation? In your own opinion, what should we do other than fight back? We can't just pick up the pieces, mourn and leave it at that. What if they strike again? If we merely accept it, and leave it at that, what will stop them from doing it again? They have already confirmed that their mission is to kill everyone who is not an extremist Muslim. That means you, me and your family. Being antiwar can't save this situation. Sometimes war has to happen in order to stop that which has disturbed us. I don't believe in our involvement in Vietnam or Desert Storm, but what about this situation?
What's the deal with this being a racism issue? Since when is this matter racially motivated?
Sam Koritz: There are at least two issues here: what we should do about this particular attack and what we should do to make future attacks less likely. No one at Antiwar.com has said that the US should refrain from avenging this attack – see our editorial director's piece, for instance.
You say that other countries celebrated the attack, but that's not the case. Small numbers of people in certain countries celebrated, but even America's traditional adversaries offered aid and support for us.
As for your question about racism, I agree that some antiwar protesters have overdone this angle – most Americans have not become anti-Arab racists. Still, there is that danger, which is why the president, to his credit, visited a mosque and met with Arab and Muslim leaders. We've received some racist hate mail, so we know that the racist loony minority is out there.
You seem to agree with us that American military meddling helped create the conditions for this terrorist attack. If so, shouldn't we stop meddling, bring home our military, and stop funding foreign militaries? That (along with keeping our political liberty here in the United States) is what Antiwar.com is all about. I suggest that you read more of our columns & news pieces, & if you agree with our mission, that you consider making a contribution.
Jesse M.: I do agree with you about the United States' tendency to meddle in places we don't belong....
On the front page of the newspaper, I saw many protesters saying that George Bush is the real terrorist and how this whole problem is America's racism and discrimination. How we're pointing the finger at another race, etc. That ... angered me, but I would rather get more information than label. I am sure your organization had nothing to do with this protest....
I do agree with you on your issues, and respect your opinions. I relate to many of them. I believe we should get out of those countries, and never should have been there in the first place. It's a mistake. I will find information, and make a donation to your cause.
Our Solzhenitsyn
Mr. Raimondo wrote:
"What is truly depressing, my friends, is that if the choice were put to a vote of the people today, Empire would win out. This may change, in a few weeks, a few months, a few years – but right now, in the rush for vengeance, the American people seem to have forgotten their heritage. One more WTC-like catastrophe, one more terrorist attack, is likely to push us into martial law – and the indefinite suspension of what is left of our liberties. When that day comes, just remember this: you had plenty of warning – and there's no turning back."
One
day, Mr. Raimondo, we shall meet, and we can rue this
day together in the "treason camp" in North
Dakota where we'll be. Maybe you could become our Solzhenitsyn.
Heimatsicherheitsdienst
President Bush now proposes to defend our freedom with a "Homeland Security Service." In the original German, it would be called Heimatsicherheitsdienst.
Just another part of the Neue Welt Ordnung.
~ Gene Berkman, Renaissance Bookservice
The "Backtalk" editor pipes in:
I guess it's official now: the United States Department of Defense is not responsible for defending the United States.
Cloud of Suspicion
In
the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, there's a cloud of
suspicion hanging over the government that cannot be
escaped. It's nearly impossible to believe our multi-billion
dollar intelligence agencies didn't know the attacks
were coming and news reports indicate possible U.S.
military and intelligence connections to the terrorists.
To say this is far-fetched is to be unacceptably disingenuous, naïve or ignorant of the dirty tricks our government has historically played on the American people. Some of the possible clandestine motives could be to distract the people from the coming economic disaster, fortify a permanent US military presence in the Middle East for British and American oil interests and channel our military forces to fight the enemies of Israel. The sudden on-air presence of Henry Kissinger and others from the Council on Foreign Relations spouting the supposed virtues of our failed foreign policy and The New World Order should raise eyebrows as well.
We must not commit our young men into battle, take the lives of more innocent people in the Middle East and engage our nation in a holy war with fanatical suicide terrorists, possibly having biological and nuclear weapons, without first knowing the whole truth about the attacks.
Illegal War
On Sept. 15, 2001, our Congress abdicated its responsibility under the Constitution to declare war and gave the Bush administration the following blank check:
"The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
~ Joint Resolution, US Congress, Sept. 15, 2001
If we are to go to war against Afghanistan – as seems increasingly likely – or any country, the above resolution is inadequate. To engage in such hostilities, under the Constitution, Congress is required to pass a Declaration of War. I would like to suggest that if the Bush administration declares a Constitutionally unauthorized, illegal war that your organization – perhaps in association with a libertarian legal association – launch a lawsuit in the Courts to compel compliance by the Federal government with the mandates of the Constitution.
~ David C., New York