DCML digest, Vol 1 #675 - 9 msgs

[HorizonHse@aol.com]

kevin howard argues but he does not persuade that the united states is 
cowardly in pursuing its foreign policy against military targets, but 
terrorists are not cowardly when they blow up civilian targets and kill 6000+ 
people. military leaders who do not take all steps possible to keep their 
troops "from beyond the range of retaliation" has failed in their 
responsibilities. the idea in a war is not to die for you country, but to 
make your enemies die for their country.

when he writes that " In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): 
whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were 
not cowards," he is so sadly misguided that probably nothing will convince 
him otherwise. there is no courage or bravery in attacking and killing 
unarmed civilian men, women and children who do not know they are under 
attack and have no opportunity to defend themselves; these people, so-called, 
were the worst kinds of cowards: faceless,  indiscriminate, murdering 
thousands of individuals "from beyond the range of retaliation."

mr. howard argues that the people of the united states are somehow being 
hoodwinked by their leadership because " A wide spectrum of public figures, 
in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued 
abroad by this
Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand
united behind President Bush." That's because they support this particular 
policy: retaliating against enemies who have attacked the US with force of 
arms. Whether or not you agree that this will eliminate terrorism or even 
whether terrorism should be eliminated -- you don't state your position on 
this -- I'm surprised you don't agree that the US should respond to this 
horrid crime against humanity.

mr. howard says that the world trade center is not pearl harbor. he's right. 
pearl harbor was a military target attacked by a government. the world trade 
center was not a militrary target; it housed no ships, tanks, rifles, 
ammunition, bombs, fighter planes or soldiers. it was not attached by a 
government. 

i listened to the president's address to the legislature. i didn't hear "The 
unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party 
Congress" as mr. howard did. i hear the country's leadership united behind 
the president to uphold his oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend 
the Constitution of the United States." that congress supports the president 
on this response in no way means that it now unanimously accepts his policies 
to drill in the alaskan wilderness, limit energy conservation, expand the 
hole in the ozone layer, ignore curbs on chemical warfare and develop an 
anti-ballistic missle defense, which is both nonsense and impossible.

mr. howard implies it was different after pearl harbor. he's wrong again. if 
he'd bothered to watch the film of fdr's address to congress asking for a 
declaration of war, he'd have seen an even more divided congress, with much 
more verbal opponents of the president's policies before december 7 
applauding him vigorously over and over, then voting for war with only one 
dissent.

i agree that we should "not be stupid together." what should be be, mr. 
howard?  you say that being strong is "not all America has to be." what else 
should it be mr. howard? you don't say. 

regards,

william price
236 west portal
san francisco