> >kelley wrote:
> >
> >>what i can't understand is why anyone would think that what seth
> >>just typed or even mcreynold's wrote is somehow not the view of
> >>most of us here?
> >
> >Regardless of what most of us think, many people in the peace
> >movement are absolutely unable or unwilling to condemn the bad guys
> >and say they should be punished. That's no good.
> >
> >Doug
>
> It was _clear from the beginning_ (especially due to the
> non-existence of the well organized Left in the States) that the U.S.
> government would invade one or more nations in the Middle East,
> making the 9/11 bombings a pretext for war, rather than criminal
> justice. So, it seems to me that the subject line "Is there a
> nonviolent response to September 11?" is missing the point,
> especially now that the war actually began, making extradition &
> other questions of criminal justice moot. There of course remain the
> question of international laws which the U.S. invasion violates, but
> no one expects any American to be brought to justice for any war
> crime committed in this war.
>
> Could there have been a non-violent alternative to the war?
> Theoretically, yes, but practically, no, as the U.S. government's aim
> was not to put the perpetrators (the most responsible of whom died in
> the bombings anyhow) on trial but to reassert its military might
> (restoring confidence in its competence which was shaken by the
> Pentagon bombing), reaffirm its political leadership, expand its
> sphere of influence (e.g., more US military bases in the Middle East
> & Central Asia), and install a more useful regime than the present
> one in Afghanistan.
>
> Yoshie
>
Yoshie,
You left out the last but not least goal of the WOT, namely a reason to
attack the Sandinistas when they win their upcoming election...the
ulitmate terrorist threat to Shrub et al...
steve