Re: The start of the third world war ?

[Jeffrey Goldberg <{$news}$@goldmark.org>]

On Sep 12, 2001 Per Goetterup <per@netgroup.dk> wrote
   in <3b9f3e66$0$239$edfadb0f@dspool01.news.tele.dk>:

> Jeffrey Goldberg <{$news}$@goldmark.org> wrote:

> > [...]  If there is a war to unseat the Taliban, then there is no way
> > that the US can do it alone.

> Depends on the weapons used. Nuclear cruise missiles fired from a distance
> would do nicely and if fired in a proper spread will eliminate *all* enemies
> quite efficiently. For that extra spice, add some weapons-grade anthrax in a
> secondary attack to make sure even survivors won't stand a chance.

I really hope that you meant that as a poor joke.   Although you quoted
it, did you somehow fail to read.

> > Russia with a common border and little
> > regard for civilian deaths couldn't win.
> > The US without a friendly base
> > near by and far more concern about civilian loss and loss of its own
> > forces just doesn't have a chance alone.

> > It is because of this that I hope that I am wrong and it isn't bin Laden,
> > since if it is, the US will not be able to do more than drop a few bombs,
> > which will hurt people and strengthen the Taliban.
>
> Oh yes they will - and should. Nuke them! Quite simple, and Taliban
> will be no more.

I am growing frightened by the nature of the comments in this newsgroup.
If it is at all close to representative, than I am more frightened by it
than the fact that there are a few groups and very nasty and capable
terrorists out there.

One the one hand, I've seen a huge amount of "fashionable"
anti-Americanism, and comments from people who seem unwilling to
distinguish between what happened toward the end of a very hot war
(Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden) and an attack targeting civilians for no
military goal whatsoever.  Someone once named this the "doctrine of moral
equivalence" arguing that acts of terror aren't so bad because

   (a) the US has supported repressive regimes
   (b) the US has hit civilians in wars.

The failure to distinguish between those and the targetting of civilian
populations in particular to achive not military goals, but terrorist
goals, is a weird failure of moral thinking.

One the otherhand, I've seen the worst sort of anti-Islamic bigotry with
comments like "nuke 'em all".

The state of the world is very very dangereous if both kinds of thinking
are as prevalent as we see here.

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg
 I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
 Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
 From line IS valid, but use reply-to.