|
|||||||||
Posted October 29, 2001
Get at the Causes
Regarding Scott McConnell's ... [column of October 23, "An Open Letter to Arab Readers"], I would have to disagree fundamentally (no pun intended) with his idea that the US would win the war on terrorism.
Firstly, what is terrorism? I'd define it as a process, using "terror" (bombings etc.) which a group without a political voice, exploits to make its points known. Now, no matter that the US has enough nukes for every city in Asia and a few thousand to spare, this "terrorism" can't be defeated, since it is a process rather than an "enemy". Eliminate Al-Qaeda, so what, another group with perceived injustices to avenge would pop-up in its place. Ignoring that, you'd have the odd Tim McVeigh to contend with, who after seeing the atrocities in Iraq turned against his own country, and then was labeled as insane (so we could ignore the reasons), when he completely was not, as his attorney will point out.
I'm not condoning terrorism, I'm just saying the only way to "beat" it is to get at the causes, which at the moment seem to be the disrespect of the Muslim holy sites, the blind support for Israel, and the inhumane sanctions on Iraqi innocents.
Scott McConnell replies:
I agree at least partially with most of Mr. Kular's points – and hope my piece made that clear. However I do think it is possible to win a war against Al-Queda, and we seem to have no choice since I'm not aware that they, after attacking us, have offered any negotiating possibilities. Destroying or neutralizing that network would not defeat all terrorism for all time, but would take care of someone who has made himself a major enemy of the United States. Then I hope the United States gets down the business of formulating a more balanced and sensible Mid East policy – and I would expect Mr. Kular and I would concur on much of what that entails.
But, again my main point is that we need Arab and Muslim help to win the (narrowly defined) war against terrorism; if the war somehow expands to entail nuclear attacks on American cities, large scale bioterrorism assaults etc., followed by a massive and unfocused American retaliation – i.e. breaking out into a total war with weapons of mass destruction – no one alive now would really win.
Reality
That was one pathetic article, why don't you deal with reality a little bit? Peace is not realistic when you have billions of people that would like nothing better than to see all of us dead. And your idea about bombing Germany has to be the dumbest thing I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Germany does not harbor terrorists nor have they. You should look up the word harbor and see what it means. Mid-eastern governments willingly help the terrorists the German government does not, that is the difference. But I know you have your little agenda you have to stick with.
Just letting you know this is one person who will not fall for your propaganda. Or anyone else's for that matter. Maybe you just need to think more before you type, I dunno. Anyway, you have your opinion I have mine. Isn't this country great, we can disagree and not have to kill each other. Lets keep it that way.
Alan Bock replies:
Well, at least we can agree that one of the great things about this country is that we can have different opinions without killing one another. I happen to think one way to keep it that way is to question the government during wartime, when the temptation to impose restrictions and censorship is great.
By the way, if there really are billions who wish us ill, I wonder how waging war on a puny, poor country will make them like us better. Or do you think a brave campaign against Afghanistan will instill untoppable fear in all those billions of haters?
Awfully Dumb
Regarding [Justin Raimondo's column of October 22] "Noonan's Madness," – this was the most hilarious thing I've read in a long time. I, too, read Noonan's column in the Wall Street Journal and thought the trixie better tone down her cocaine habit, especially in front of her son. And although I didn't appreciate the fact that she is a representative of female journalists, I didn't feel the need to give her column much thought since the absurdity of it did not warrant acknowledgment.
If the Wall Street Journal ran one of your columns (or any column from Antiwar.com) next to Noonan's, Peggy would probably have been pummeled (say that fast three times) based on the assumption that once multiple sides of an issue are presented, the best argument will win (or at least it should – all those hysterical females aside). I truly feel the only reason the general public is continuing to surf the waves of war hysteria is because they are not sufficiently being bombarded with better information. As for Noonan, she epitomizes my favorite line from Jack Kerouac's On the Road – "... she was awfully dumb, and capable of doing horrible things." You might want to try chillin' a bit yourself. Noonan is not that significant.
Sectarian Squabbles
This is written in response to Justin Raimondo's [column of October 15] "The Peaceniks" and subsequent pieces.
I want to start by thanking both Raimondo and Alan Lewis [whose letter, "Peaceniks," was posted in "Backtalk" on October 17,] for so thoughtfully illustrating the precise nature of the inner conflict thinking humans are experiencing over all this. Both are correct – the United States is responsible for the conditions it has created, but it must also respond to having been attacked.
I would only add my experience of the 1960s-1970s and reading Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test, that the peace movement then suffered from many of the same problems – basically a wishy-washy stance that no one could really get behind. The peace movement then was pretty ineffectual, right up until the Veterans Against the War started showing up in parades and rallies. Having been politically naive and undecided at my then-tender age of 20-ish, I personally recall what a much larger effect that had on my view of that war than had any politician or "peacenik" up to then. If "real guys" who were "really there" thought it was bad, then maybe it really was.
My primary concern then, as now, was that those in power would use the opportunity to wallow in it. I agree with Justin that the peace movement would be well advised to get over its sectarian squabbles and do its bit to save us from another descent into Nixon-Agnew chaos.
~ John McGill, East Glacier Park, Montana
Nutball Female Columnists
Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of October 22, "Noonan's Madness: Hysterical women – a byproduct of war":
Last week Raimondo was concerned that the peace movement would alienate the bulk of Americans by not calling stridently enough for justice. Now, based on a sample of three nutball female columnists, Raimondo is ready to ascribe war hysteria to female hormones? Hardly seems productive if his real intent is – as I believe it to be – to abridge U.S. military intervention on foreign soil.
~ Katharine Winans, California
Original Sin
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of October 15, "The Peaceniks":]
From
a Roman Catholic perspective,
you are a little off on your
Original Sin spin. Adam's fall
resulted in an inherited weakness
in mankind whereby he would
always have some tendency to
sin. Your interpretation would
be that of Calvin's.
A helpful distinction I hope.
Keep up the good work.
Pax et bonum....
~ Kerry E. Noonan