Np: The Prince of Egypt (Hans Zimmer) **********/*****

It's as simple as this: the people who make up the Taliban have proven that they pose a major, ACTIVE threat to world peace. They need to be forcibly removed from power before they can do any more damage.

In support of this, it should be noted that this recent military strike, while U.S. led, is a world action. The overwhelming majority of the world agrees that national governments can simply not advocate and promote the mass murder of civilian targets in a terrorist action and be allowed to continue to exist.

While violence of any kind is a grave and unspeakable act, it appears to be the only language of diplomacy the Taliban understands. Wedge is correct--this is a world initiative--not simply an angry retribution on the part of the US. In my opinion this action should have come long ago,it is unfortunate that it took a tragedy such as the WTC to unite the world.

Throughout this campaign the message will be clear--to rid the world of terror while attempting to bring the humanity, compassion and justice that we of the free, civilized world enjoy to those who do not.

In my opinion it will take many years for the goals of the world to be brought to fruition.

Excuse me, but this is not a "wrong" and taking the moral equivalence route of likening justifiable retaliation to an act of war is IMO outrageous. If Bush were "trigger happy" he would have dropped a nuke on Kabul on September 12. This is the most methodically planned attack one could have asked for, and America has nothing to apologize for it.

NP: Ennio Morricone Cinema Paradiso
(drg)

while this country sure isn't white as snow, we are not an evil empire.

One has to understand terrorism. If we don't fight to eliminate this sort of coward behavior, we will see many September 11ths.

To put this as a fight against Islam is to mistake the issue completly. No one likes the choices. No one wanted this, (well, perhaps some).

The target hit in the last few days were military training grounds of both the Taliban but mostly Osman Bin Laden's camps. We also hit some of his known living quarters, although it seems we haven't caught him yet.

You may disagree with this. It's your right. But many of us have lost dear people on September 11th, this seems to have escaped many who so wittlessly oppose this military action.

I hope that we not only destroy the Taliban, but also strike Iraq and wherever else terrorist activity is supported.

DISCLAIMER: I do not want any other innocent people killed, but the people who sponsor this stuff must be removed.

But that number will most likely triple by the time all this is over with, so you have to ask yourself, is it really worth it. We are fighting this war now to save the lives of innocent people, but were going to end up killing more throughout the process.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LemonsAreIcky:
But that number will most likely triple by the time all this is over with, so you have to ask yourself, is it really worth it. We are fighting this war now to save the lives of innocent people, but were going to end up killing more throughout the process.

---

Welcome to the definition of WAR. You might want to look it up. It usually involves casualties on both sides. It's not all warm and fuzzy...

quote:

---

I agree that some action needed to be taken, but this course of action was not thought out well enough.

---

On the contrary, I believe that this current course of action was well thought out - which is why we're striking back almost FOUR WEEKS after being attacked, as opposed to four DAYS afterwards.

I'm curious what you think the correct course of action would be?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LemonsAreIcky:
[QUOTE]I agree that some action needed to be taken, but this course of action was not thought out well enough.

---

The Taliban is one of the most heinous regimes in history. They are a clear and present threat to the entire world. They have slaughtered masses, taken a nation hostage and gone on the offensive. What course of action would you take? A strongly-worded letter?

The Taliban must be eliminated. The only way to remove them is by force. By "only" I mean the fastest, most efficient way with the least loss of life. In your opinion, how many more would have to suffer and die before the removal of the Taliban became paramount enough to justify military action? Put your money where your mouth is: give us a number with your argument. Is the blood of 6,000 innocent civilians in one blow, the persecution of millions, and the insane promises of more to come NOT ENOUGH? Once 18,000 are dead because we stood by and did NOTHING will you change your tune? Or will you say "54,000 will be killed by the time all this is over, so is it really worth it?"

The second dark scenario is this. The Anti-Terrorist coalition meets heavy losses. American and European anti-war demonstrations grow as sleepers kill hundred of civilians daily. The coalition retreats to India and Australia. Osla makes a treaty with the new Taliban influenced Pakistan government after it collapses from internal pressure by extremists. Governments in southwestern Asia, Northern Africa, and Southeast Asia cave into public desire to help bin Laden who has driven the Anti-Terrorist coalition out of Afghanistan. A sudden jihad is declared on Israel. A multi-national air strike and numerous suicide bombers kill thousands of Israelis. The E.U. helps evacuate the remaining Jewish population from the now defenseless state. The US quickly leaves Saudi Arabia. Saddam take over Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. A new Islamic Empire is made with bin Laden as its king.

North America is now a police state. The UN has lost all sense of itself as its members quickly withdraw their memberships. NATO is the last multi-national coalition of Western nations. They agree to make their member police states to control the populace and to hold down the attacks. The US and Europe go into a severe depression. Oil prices rise. The US and Canada desperately start drilling for oil all across the Artic Tundra. Russia, Jordan, China, the Philippines and India makes treaties with the new Islamic Empire that give up some of their lands in exchange for keeping their old governments. The E.U., Australia and US are now weakening powers. Australia is bombarded daily as the Empire tries to take the country. All the Western Allies are now plotting ways to sure up their shores. They all prepare for the beginning of World War III.

Interesting scenarios! One flaw I see in the second (dark) one is that you have some countries negotiating with the Islamic empire to "keep their old governments".

Since most of those countries are non-Islamic, I doubt there would be much of a deal for those "unbelievers".

quote:

---

Originally posted by LemonsAreIcky:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jonathan_little:
[b]Why did we do it? We did it because [b]SIX THOUSAND AMERICANS WERE KILLED.

But that number will most likely triple by the time all this is over with, so you have to ask yourself, is it really worth it. We are fighting this war now to save the lives of innocent people, but were going to end up killing more throughout the process.

I agree that some action needed to be taken, but this course of action was not thought out well enough.[/B]

---

First off, let's not forget the fact that all the people who perished were not just Americans. Almost every industrial nation lost some people here, my heart goes out with them as well.

First off, whether the numbers triple or not, if we do nothing the price that will be paid will be much higher than the one we are willing to pay now. You choose. I rather live in a country that might get attacked for defending itself (for that is ultimately what we are doing), then living in fear because we do not defend ourselves and thus are fair game.

Lemons, how you can say that this plan was not well thought out is way beyond my capabilites of understanding. I believe Bush and associates have done a magnificent job in retrained, planning and execution all the while helping many of us to get over these events and to go on with our lives and dealing with an already out of bounce economy.

How many lives could have been saved had the US joined WWII sooner? We can only guess. One thing is for sure, we would have saved lives. How many lives will be saved by us going out and destroying terrorism? Many, trust me, many.

Scott

I commend you for having the courage to admit that perhaps you had not thought things out completely. You are quite young, but there are many of us old coots here who do not have that kind of courage, or whose pride would not allow them to do so. It is important to feel free to express yourself here and elsewhere, especially in these times when our freedoms are under attack. It is also good to read what others have to say and "try on" those points of view, to see whether they make sense to you or don't. If you have a good mind and a real interest in politics and government (which I suspect you do, in both cases), allow yourself to be persuaded or to change your mind when something else makes more sense. My politics at 14 were a far cry from what they are today, and they have undergone many changes, small and large, over the years. Of course, having reached the ripe old age of **, I now know what the truth is

NP: Serge Prokofiev Peter and the Wolf
Chamber Orchestra of Europe/Sting/Abbado (Deutsche Grammophon)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Wilcox:
Don't let the loudmouths scare you off, my friend.

---

Hey, I am not a loudmouth! I resent that.

Scott

Look at it this way: if there's a rabid dog in your yard, what do you do? It's useless to respect its right to live. Even if you lock yourself in your house, it'll just wander somewhere else and hurt someone else. For the dog's sake and for the sake of LIFE IN GENERAL it needs to be put down ... humanely, if possible; but if the only way to do it is to shoot it through the head ...

Or how about this scenario. The Taliban is like a kid throwing lit matches into a room full of explosives. You don't just sit around hoping you can stomp out every match before everything goes to hell. No, you take action to stop that person from throwing matches in the first place.

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke) We stop this war now, we DON'T forcibly remove the Taliban, then it will only be a matter of time ... THEN you'll see your mass genocide.

What will you say then?

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try to convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001. These activists may be alone or in a gathering. Most of us do not know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us; we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2 - 5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

NP: Scott Joplin Piano Rags
Joshua Rifkin (Nonesuch)

In other words, if you hit me in the nose, I'll hit you back so you won't be able to hit me anymore. It's called self-defense.

In other words, I agree with your sentiments completely!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Wilcox:
Scott, I certainly never meant to characterize you as a loudmouth. Indeed, you are the very voice of wisdom and thoughtful analysis.

In other words, I agree with your sentiments completely!

It was those loudmouths who disagree with us to whom I referred.

---

LOL! Dana, I'm sorry. I was just kidding. I didn't take it persoanl or was offended. Just being silly ole' self.

Thanks for the compliment though, much appreciated.

Scott

Np: Jurassic Park III (Don Davis) ****/*****

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Zimmer:
I was listening to the news this evening and I heard disturbing reports of Arabs being beaten, harrased, stabbed, etc. And it stuck me. If Bush has declared a war on all terrorism then wouldn't he have to seek out the people that have hurt the Arabs? Even just throughing rocks at a store window owned by an Arab is in a sense terrorism. Do you have to live in a Middle Eastern country or have some fancy? Am I right? Wrong? Thoughts. Concerns. etc. Remember this is just a thought please don't get offended.

---

I assume you're talking about domestic (U.S.) crime. Do you have any evidence that law enforcement isn't "seeking out" people who commit crimes against Arab-looking people? (The term "terrorism" is not well-defined, but it's usually applied to actions by organized groups.)

BTW, that lined up and shot bit was an attempt at sarcasm so Lemons don't even say anything.

Scott

Np: The Lost World (John Williams) ****/*****

When you consider that Muslim-Americans have shown their support for their country through-out this ordeal speaks a great deal about them as a people and the shared and independent ideals. More than anything, this gives me hope that those persecuted in the all regions of the middle east will persevere and one day overcome.