Thursday, 11 March 2004 - 2:11 PM EST

Probably not, as I suspect most of the people vocal in their opposition are unlikely to have supported the president no matter what he might do

Peaceful Tomorrows members have asked that violent responses to the September 11 tragedies, such as the US bombing campaign in Afghanistan, not be done in their names and the names of their loved ones. Members say they were concerned about the lack of discussion about options to respond to the events of September 11.

Friday, 12 March 2004 - 1:46 AM EST

in WWII you've got an immediate threat that threatened to take over the world if something was not done. Here you've got an abstract enemy that could concievably never go away. Since the group is so small, there is room for different philosophies for dealing with them, a military offensive being only one. In fact, no one has figured out the right way to deal with terrorism yet or Israel would just be a nice place by the sea.

My point being: How long are you going to put up with this crap?

Friday, 12 March 2004 - 9:15 AM EST

My point, and the point of the ads, is this discussion became real, not abstract, on 9-11. Although the enemy may be difficult to locate and destroy, it is far from abstraact. The enemy is Islamic fundamentalist jihads, bent on the destruction of the United States.

Yes, there are alternatives to war when dealing with terrorists, most notably prosecuting such acts as crimes, rather than acts of war. That, in fact, is what we did after the first bombing of the World Trade Center. It took the 9-11 attack to wake the country up to the fact that previous terror attacks were not isolated incidents. And they would not be put to an end by locking up Osama Bin Laden's underlings. By aggressivly going after terroists in Afghanistan after the attacks, and then prosecuting a war in Iraq against a dictatorial ruler more than a little interested in seeing the complete and utter destruction of the U.S., the country sent a message that terrorism will no longer be dealt with in a manner consistent with due process. It will be dealt with, as it should be, in a manner consistent with war. And America will and must defend itself from such acts. Obviously there are no guarantees against future attacks, but by putting ourselves on the offensive, we dramaticaly improve our ability to keep safe our citizens.

This is, however important, a little off the point. The question is whether it is appropriate for Bush to use 9-11 imagery in his ads. No one would deny his abilitiy to use his record during the attacks and his prosecution of the subsequent wars as his main argument for re-election. But should he use imagery, much of which is still painful for a number of Americans to watch, in his campaign advertising? The answer is yes. Despite the discomfort that some will feel, particularly those who lost loved ones in the attack, Bush needs to use those images and we need to see them. We need to be reminded, in vivid detail, that this is not an abstract enemy. It's as real and immediate a threat as we've ever faced.

Friday, 12 March 2004 - 10:46 AM EST

It is an abstract enemy and war. There is no end objective, nor is there a captured leader or conquered country that would allow us to stop our war on terrorism. Ever. And while Bush touts his record in those ads with the requisite piano music, any mention of the lack of a post Iraq invasion plan, the establishment of the Orwellian- named Office of Special Plans, or what's happening in Afghanistan now is severely limited.

We need to be reminded, in vivid detail, that this is not an abstract enemy. It's as real and immediate a threat as we've ever faced

Max Cleland would love to hear more.


I'm Sean, and I approved this message.

Friday, 12 March 2004 - 12:05 PM EST

The end objective is not for US armed forces to track down and kill the last terrorist on earth. What we are in the process of doing is eliminating attitudes (and entire governments, when necessary) that allow terrorists to function. The actions we have taken so far have resulted in progress towards that objective. Two governments which supported terrorism have been eliminated. As a result of those actions, another government (Libya) which has historically supported terrorism has renounced their support.

The war on terrorism does have an end objective - a world where no legitimate government accepts terrorism within its borders. That is not the same thing as the end of terrorist attacks for all time. Murder is illegal, and thousands of people are murdered in this country every year. I am guessing from your comments that you think terrorist attacks should be handled as a matter of law enforcement. Such an approach is only possible in a world where all governments recognize the illegitimacy of terrorism.

Saturday, 13 March 2004 - 5:05 AM EST

Yes, but I think there's a better way to achieve the cooperation of governments than barrelling in and saying this is how it's gonna be. While killing is probably the only action the terrorists understand, that's pretty unsustainable, and it's going to hurt us in the long run.

And for God's sake, if we've got to bomb people, let it be with pennies!

Saturday, 13 March 2004 - 8:45 AM EST

Heh. I like the part about strapping bombs to german shepherds:

The idea is that if the bomb doesn't go off, and the german shepherd's back doesn't break, then the enemy would be in for a nasty surprise when they'd try to retrieve our weapons. Sure a few dogs would die as collateral damage, but it would totally be worth it to see the expression on the terrorist's face when they get attacked by our german shepherds.