> Let us assume that the US were to act impeccably in international
> relationships. Wouldn't it make enemies by doing the right
> thing? Wouldn't
> it still be at risk for this type of action?
Surely what you say is true, but I am equally sure of our imperfection. To
forget that we aren't perfect is to assure no possibility of reconciliation
or peace. That was what I was saying.
Nick
Echoing what Dan said - why would we possibly want to reconcile with
someone who just killed 10,000 Americans? I don't want Osama Bin Laden's
forgiveness. I want him dead. I don't want to reconcile with him. I want
anyone who ever thinks about doing such a thing ever again _to know_ that
he's dead because of our justice. Why do you insist that we bear some
responsibility here? The only way we could have prevented this is to
abandon Israel - and thus condemn it to destruction. I refuse to be
complicit in the completion of what Hitler started. If we are under attack
because we refuse to abandon the Israelis, then we should defend ourselves,
not abandon the only democracy in the Middle East.
On the issue of nuclear weapons - I said that if another state had done
this, a nuclear response would be appropriate. I stand by that. I haven't
said that we _should use_ nuclear weapons - that would depend on the exact
circumstances. But it would be appropriate. Concede that, or concede that
deterrence is nonsense and go join up with John in defending NMD. If
another government killed 10,000 American civilians yesterday - then that's
the number killed that you could expect from a low-yield nuclear attack.
There is nothing particularly special about dying from a nuclear bomb.
Either it is okay to use nuclear weapons to retaliate in this situation -
or it is never okay, and deterrence is nonsense, and the _only_ thing that
can defend us from other country's ICBMs is NMD, since it is "insane" in
Jeroen's words, to use our nuclear weapons to defend or avenge American
citizens. Pick one.
Gautam
