What is the moral course

[Max Sawicky]

I've posted a lot (here, as it happens) so I
ought not to rehash at any length.  In a nutshell,
it's a demand to the Gov to find the guilty parties
and those closely associated and blow them to kingdom
come; and don't take refuge in symbolic acts entailing
real violence against people the U.S. happens not to
like, regardless of their involvement.  As GF said,
revenge is a dish best served cold, and prepared
carefully.

You're right about the strong undercurrent of
rationality, but it takes the form of
highlighting the impracticality of open-ended war
mongering, and its unsuitability to task. NOT its
immorality.  There is zero credibility to the position
that the U.S. should focus first on somehow making things
right for the Palestinians, or to the violence begets
violence mantra.  People understand that when the
U.S. kills a terrorist or someone it takes for a
terrorist, it can create additional ones.  The only
question is what the acceptable ratio is.

mbs

Max Sawicky wrote:


>Which is one reason the peace position will ring hollow
>to most people.

I was away for the weekend, and am just catching up, but: 1) while 
there's the usual gang of ravers raving, I've also been surprised 
that the level of public bellicosity hasn't been higher; 2) there is 
no single "peace position,"; 3) should one only take political stands 
that have a large immediate audience? - after all, on a more banal 
level, your position on fiscal policy "rings hollow" with most 
people, but that doesn't stop you from holding or promoting it; 4) 
what's a non-hollow-ringing nonpeace position that you support?

Doug