>
>Lawrence wrote:
>I agree entirely that the US was the recipient of a horrible attack and I
>realise it was shocking. So.... what...?
>
>Whether it was the act of fanatics or not, I am not interested. The word is
>nearly always counter-productive because it clouds clear thinking. Sep 11th
>happened.
Lawrence, this seems like sort of selective clarity. You are against the
militarism of the US, ok. But you are not interested in the violence done
by others, to the US or to others. But the existence of extreme violence
requires a response. Do you use military force to restore order an defend
civil society, or it it just something that "happens", as you put it? It's
all well and good to demand instant pacifism by the US, but wouldn't you
agree that an attack on a nation poses some problems for its elected
government? Or are you not interested in that, either? It seems to be a
non-problem for you, as long as you have more fodder to condemn your
supposed enemies.
Please do not misread what I'm saying as an endorsement of American
militarism. I'm asking you whether this is a complex problem - or do you
see it simply as an occasion for moral condemnation.
Henry
|