> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
> When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we did not engage a restricted
> operation to apprehend the people responsible. (And do remember, the
> Japanese did not follow-up Pearl Harbor with additional attacks,
> so its not
> like a state of total war immediately existed between our two countries.)
> We did not assemble evidence against Admiral Yamamoto and seek to
> bring him
> to trial.
An immediate state of war DID exist. US forces in The Philippines were
attacked within a few hours of Pearl Harbour. British and Australian forces
were already at war with Japan a couple of hours BEFORE Pearl Harbour.
The US government had already decoded the Japanese declaration of war by
about the time the first Kates started their torpedo runs.
Admiral Yamamoto was assassinated by US P-38s in 1943. Almost a pity,
because he was strongly opposed to attacking the US. He was patriotic
enough, though, once the decision was made to make sure that the attack was
the most effective possible. And his plans DID call for follow up attacks.
It was the Admiral on the spot - forgotten his name - who stopped the later
attacks going through. That Admiral died at Midway, I think.
Tojo and other Japanese leaders as at Dec 1941 - apart from the Emperor -
were tried by War Crimes Tribunal. Tojo was hanged.
>
> No, when Pearl Harbor was attacked the United States immediately resolved
> to attack injustice wherever it was found.
Bullshit, John. Turn your hyperbole meter down a couple of notches, please.
Had Germany not declared war a few days later on the US, your forces would
not have had any involvement in the European war. As it was, even into 1943
the US Navy in particular was pushing for a Japan First war, aiming to
minimise or remove US involvement against Germany.
>We set out to defend freedom
> around the World, from Guadalcanal to the British Isles, from the Burma
> Road to the shores of Africa.
>
It was a state of war, and it was in defence of US interests that the US
went to war. "Fighting for freedom" was used as justification for public
consumption. It was not a reason for involvement, apart from the abstract
belief held almost solely by Roosevelt. And even then it was blinkered. It
was deals between Churchill, Stalin and Truman/Truman, after all, that
divided Europe up into Western/Soviet spheres of influence. The Poles,
Czechs, Latvians etc were not consulted. And just merely coming in on the
same side as Stalin puts paid to any belief that it was to "attack injustice
wherever it was found"
> That, is the response that is required of us today. We can no
> longer wait
> until another terrorist hits us to attack. No. We will wait no longer.
> If you are a State that actively sponsors terrorism, and if you
> are a State
> that does not even have the basic humanity to condemn the attacks of
> September 11th, then you are an enemy of the United States.
OK, that lets Afghanistan out then as they have publicly condemned the
attack. Highly likely that they do NOT sponsor terrorism, too. It is much
more likely that bin Laden has been supporting Taliban, rather than the
other way round. Part of the problem, really. To the Taliban, bin Laden is a
guest, and Afghans do everything they can for their guests.
Yes, if Iraq has its fingers in the piece, then it needs action against it.
But not before enough evidence to warrant a committal to trial is available
and published. That is going to be very hard to do.
>
> It is time for the United States to to unleash the full force of our
> military might against these States - as there is no just basis for
> permitting these States to stand, and to oppress humanity any longer.
>
You can't defeat terrorists by military force. Didn't Vietnam teach you
anything?
A fight against terrorism is going to mean, among other things:
* a REAL effort to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. This will mean
reining in Israel for a start and for the US to be SEEN to listen to the
Arab side of things. For example, declaring West Bank settlements as illegal
would be a pretty impressive start.
* a real effort to support moderate Islamic states
* support for liberalisation in Iran
* a push for democracy in Saudi and Kuwait, including especially women's
rights and those of the foreign workers (including Palestinians)
* help for Islamic universities
* resolving the Kurdish problem, especially with Turkey
* boosting the United Nations, worldwide
* giving up the UN veto
* for the US to be SEEN to abide by international treaties. Junking "son of
starwars" would be a good start.
* Pushing Russia for Chechen autonomy
* Helping Russia and other the ex-Soviet states develop functioning and
transparent government
* admitting fault in supporting corrupt and undemocratic regimes in the
past, such as the Shah of Iran, the Contras, etc
Actually, you know what would be a good start? Normalising relations with
Cuba. That really would send a message to the world.
> As of today, the above conditions are met by Iraq and Afghanistan. Both
> of them are known to harbor active terrorists, and quite frankly, whether
> they were involved in the September 11th Massacre or not is irrelevant.
John, their involvement MUST be relevant, otherwise you are committing the
US to an act of terrorism. If they cannot be found to be guilty then any
attack - military or otherwise - is unwarranted. More than ever, you need
evidence that points to proof, and which an unbiased court would be swayed
by.
> Moreover, both governments have quite pointedly refused to condemn the
> massacres.
>
Afghanistan has come out and condemned the attacks, Iraq has not.
In fact, Iraq seems to be alone in not condemning the attacks, which
probably also means that any link between Iraq and the attacks will be
extremely tenuous. If the proof can be found and published, then it is up to
the UN to carry the case against Saddam. At the moment there shouldn't be
too much problem with getting wide support. If it means the UN declaring
Saddam wanted, then maybe a push for the UN to mandate an interim
government - as done after WW1 with the Ottoman and German Empires - would
be the way to go.
Military force will not achieve more than wiping out one or two terrorist
cadres. Probably at cost of civilian casualties. It's the CAUSES for
terrorism that must be fought, and that will be expensive. But essential.
Brett
