Decius wrote:

oaknet wrote:
The above is a good summary of what has now become an intelligent, though essentially apologist's prayer for unreasonable US behaviour.

Huh? I'm not defending U.S. policy. I mean to argue that there is no basis to accuse individual people who work as bottom rung employees of the U.S. armed forces of being immoral for not quitting their jobs. You don't have to agree with U.S. policy to conclude that people in the Army are not all immoral.

I didn't say you were defending US policy. I said you provide an apologist's prayer for unreasonable US behaviour.

Now, they say, we are justified in all and any acts of violence and retribution - because we were attacked first. Wrong - the violence began long before the Twin Towers, and some of the blame lies at our own feet.

I never made any such argument! I did not say that any kind of violence is justified!!

I didn't say that you did.

I said that some violence is sometimes needed. Furthermore, if you insist on arguing about U.S. policy, I think its grossly ignorant to call it random retribution. They, in fact, do have a strategic purpose. You may argue about it, but accusing them of bloodthirst or corruption is a cop out that makes it easy to reject their position without thinking about it.

I don't recall using the word "random". Nor did I say "bloodthirst" or "corruption. Are you hearing voices by any chance? ;-)

Please discuss my point by all means, but try to discuss the point I make and not the one you would prefer or think it to be. I know you to be intelligent writer, yet you accuse me of being "grossly ignorant to call it random retribution". I called it no such thing. You make an emotional appeal against accusations that no-one has made. All symptoms of that prevelant US fear. Claiming to understand your critics without having listened to them first.

Have you seen Doonsebury today (25/01/06)? A good indicator of the US psyche at the moment.

RE: I don't support the troops