You Said -

> What to do if you happen upon a peace rally by naive college idiots,
> to teach them why force is sometimes needed:
> 1) Approach a student who talks about "peace" and says "There should be no retaliation."

Now you are using the same arguments that you defended when you spoke of the Democrat that didn't
support the death penalty and was asked what he would do if his family was raped and murdered.
Ok, I'm not good at this but the flaw in your argument is that instead of striking you back, I'd ask one of the
thousands of cops standing nearby to arrest you for assault and I would take care of you in a court of law.

If WE don't follow the law, why should we hold anyone else to it?
And what happens when there is no law?

Do we become no better than they?
I am not a dove but this is the question running in many people's minds.

In school, we are taught that if someone strikes you and you strike back then you are both punished.
We teach our children to appeal to an adult to rectify the problem.
But are we to be the adult or the child in this case?

After all these years of teaching in church and school to turn the other cheek, we are asked to cast stones.
Is it any wonder that so many are confused?

Sonny
 

Sonny, where did you get the idea that defending yourself is a crime?
You're allowed to take the life of someone who is physically attacking you.
If you do it right, they won't even file charges against you.

When you ask - Do we become no better than they?   - what is the alternative?
Allowing them to level America a building at a time?

As far as the children, we can't expect them to exercise sound judgment when they're
still learning society's norms and besides, children rarely kill each other.
If lives are at stake, sometimes decisive action is called for.

From: nave@neo.rr.com

Subject: Punching Pacifists in the Face ... Illogical argument...

Hi BC,
I think the bit about punching a pacifist in the face is an illogical argument.
Remember, the pacifist's dovish position is that retaliation may affect innocent people.

I'm a pacifist, and if someone punches me in the face I'd punch 'em right back, and twice as hard
-- that person I just punched was guilty of assault -- not an innocent.

Pacifists abhor needless violence, but will not hesitate to defend themselves with all necessary force.
I honestly hope that nobody would ever think of testing this faulty theory out in the real world.

I like 99.9723% of what I read at your site.
Thanks, and keep up the great job.

E. Edwards
 

E, I'm not saying that punch in the face is good policy, but my intent was to FORCE someone to take a stand,
force them to draw a line saying "I'd fight HERE, but not THERE," which you semi-did when you said

"Pacifists abhor needless violence, but will not hesitate to defend themselves with all necessary force."

Is it your position that you'd fight if sufficiently provoked, but the WTC just wasn't sufficient provocation?
That's the whole point of the punch in the face - assuming THAT would be worth fighting for.
I want to know where you'd draw the line.

From: glennpop@yahoo.com

I think the problem lies in that everybody is using similar sounding words..nobody really knows
where anybody is coming from right now.

For example, in this case, the post made in this was by someone who wanted to use nuclear arms in Afghanastan.
We say punish those responsible, and we mean some sort of police action/strategic military action
with a healthy dose of coalition building. (IE Clinton style warfare)

Those on the wacko right (Bauer et al.) say the exact same words, and they mean nuke every country
that has a brown person in it OR they mean a total cultural war, see Coulter's "Covert 'em all!" attitude.

That's the problem we're having on the left.
We've lost the rhetoric war so many times, we can't even get ourselves straight.

Same words. Two (or three!) completely different meanings.

I think people read bc.com because of the honest emotion behind it. The problems you're having is people just being swept away in that emotion. You hear wackos talking about some sort of freak "justice", and it tarnishes that word for those who use it with some sort of conviction.

Just my .02 cents.

GlennMac

From: the_deans@yahoo.com

Subject: Come on BC!!! I SENT you a "dove" solution, you ignored it!

Hey Bart,

A couple of weeks ago, I emailed you the solution (below) from the
"dove" point of view, yet you still claim that nobody has sent you a solution.
Well here it is again.

Morgan, I'm curious - why would you assume I "ignored" your letter?
Don't you think it's more likely that I never readt it?

It's mostly still relevant - although, it seems you've toned down your "glass 'em" point of view.

Let me say this about that:
My position has not changed, but I continue to clarify what I meant.
Remember the West Wing where Hamas killed Bartlet's doctor friend?
He started screaming "I want them bombed," and the military brass told them that was bad, that what we needed to
send was a "measured response," which was (trying to remember) blowing up a port or two and an airport or two.

If I was president, I'd order that every plane, every runway, every port, every boat etc etc etc
be blown out of existence. THAT'S what I meant by "glass them."

Yes, "glass them" was some ought-to-be-used-to-it-by-now BartCop hyperbole,
but I wanted (and still want) a ten-times "measured response."
If we normally do "X" when we're attacked, I want 10X for the WTC.

This, of course, assumed we have a target.
Never have I meant to suggest we bomb the inocent.

However - if thousands and thousands of Muslims insist on dying for Allah,
I would grant their wish in a goddamn New York minute.

I really don't think  anyone wants to do "nothing" about the 9/11 attacks. The "doves" as you call us,
just want the actual perpetrators to be apprehended and to stem the flow of terrorist activity within our borders.
I think we're closer on this issue than we may think. Here you go.... And BTW, if people threated to abandon
your site just because they disagree with a point or two - that's pretty lame. I don't always agree with you either,  but when are you EVER going to agree with EVERY single thing anyone says? Still a big fan.....

One more thing, I don't mean that "dove" was a perjoritive. It just saves a lot of time saying "dove" instead of
"those who are not in favor of swift and deadly retaliation against the nutjobs who set this up."
___________________________________
Morgan's original (I assume) letter
 

Hey Bart,

First, I must say that your militant stance, contrary to reason, is a disappointment for me - a longtime fan of the treehouse. There are indeed other avenues that we could take without "glassing" innocent civilians in some piss poor stone age country.
So consider this a suggestion from a "dove"

First, we must ask ourselves what the goal of any American military action is. Is it
1.) Revenge - killing 10 times the civilians that they killed in this terrorist act. Or is it
2.) To stop this type of terrorism from happening in the future, while bringing the actual perpetrators of the crime to justice.

The way I see it, your point of view seems to be number 1. Here is my
point by point plan for number 2 (the more logical goal, in my opinion)

I don't see the value in killing any civilians.

1. Assist the Afghani Northern Alliance in ousting the CIA-trained Taliban. Arm them with the latest American ground infantry weapons and provide logistical support. Then provide them with air support. Needless to say, the Taliban has no air force to speak of. The U.S. would suffer little to no casualties in this scenario. If we go into Afghanistan alone, we will suffer heavy casualties - just ask the Russians who were not able to subdue the Afghan rebels in the trecherous Afghani terrain. The Northern Alliance has already invited us to use thie territory as a launching site for any invasion - they also pledged trained and willing fighters. In return for assisting the Northern alliance, we would receive their assurances (by way of treaties) that they would never harbor terrorists and international criminals within the borders of Afghanistan ever again. We could also secure some basic human rights for the Afghan people - tied into American foreign aid to the new Afghan government (base on the Northern Alliance). Afghan problem solved.

2. Now that we have received support from every other muslim country with the exception of Iraq - even Iran has pledged to cooperate with some aspects of the U.S.-led effort. We engage the muslim countires in creating a cooperative coalition against terrorists and international criminals. This is where you make blanket statements about "them". In fact, many countries that you consider "them" have friendly relations with the United States. Others, who have not been as friendly have pledged support in response to this tragedy. THIS is the time to build coalitions with these friendly governments. If you want to stem the growth of middle eastern terrorists, you have to get INSIDER help from their fellow middle easterners. In case you haven't heard, CIA surveilance is behind because of their lack of Arabic translators. There are more "good" Arabs/Muslims than their are terrorist Arabs/Muslims - this is a valuable ally that should be utilized. Once we take away Bin Laden's "safe harbors", he will be easily flushed out as well as his network of radicals.

3. And lastly, we HAVE to stop propping up Israel. Israel is an occupying army - an empire if you will. They use the latest American weaponry and are the beneficiary of the greater chunk of U.S. foreign aid. THIS is the major motivation behind the terrorists' actions. Israel is building settlements in the Palastinian areas AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW and the Geneva Convention (which they did sign). They are in direct violation of U.N. resolutions. But they don't care. To them, the Palastinians are vermin who should be either deported to Jordan or simply eradicated. Their justification for this? Their holy books say the Palastinian lands are the Jewish homeland. Nice. We should not be taking sides in that issue and pouring money into Israel in order to allow them to blatantly disregard international law in their treatment of the Palastinians. We do this, and dealing with the muslim world will all of a sudden be much easier. Now when I say this, I don't mean we abandon Israel - if they are within their legitimate borders and are attacked - I believe we should vigorously defend Israel. But not when they act like some lawless empire. The Palastinians were robbed once already - in 1947, when the British carved out Israel from what was greater Palastine. Now they even want their little strip of desert.

So there you have it. I'm sorry it's so long, but you wanted a solution. I believe this plan will bring to justice the people responsible for the Tuesday bombing (Bin Ladin and his Taliban supporters) and will build coalitions against terrorist activity in the rest of the Muslim world to prevent future actions of this nature. Your method of "glassing them" will only enrage the Muslim world to the point where even the good natured among them will join the "jihad" - they will see that Bin Laden was perhaps right about America. We will then have many more such attacks on U.S. soil. I don't know about you, but I live in big city and would prefer not to get bombed if it can be avoided. Unfortunately, your method would guarantee massive terrorist retaliations. A pattern of escalation that could eventually spell the doom of American society and the world as well.

- Morgan (Chicago)
 

Morgan, now I know why I didn't read your mail.
It was long.
Long doesn't mean "bad," but since I can't read the mail as is,
it makes sense for me to read 20 smaller ones instead of 5 longer ones.

1. I'm all for assisting the Northern Alliance.
2. I mostly understand what you're saying there.
3. I can tell you don't have an election coming up :)
    Israel is the only democratic country (and ally) in the region.
    It won't be easy cutting ties with them now.
    Besides, Israel has nukes, so Katy bar the door if they get their back against the wall.
 

If the Muslim world doesn't want to be "glassed" then they need to learn to leash their dogs.
I am NOT in favor of playing nice because fighting back might make them angry.

Weak & Stupid should've put the Taliban on notice that, since they have bin Laden,
we expect him to be handed over NOW - not weeks or months from now.
As Tony Blair said, the Taliban surrenders his ass or surrenders power.
And we go in and remove them if necessary and ask whoever takes over
for the Taliban if they'd rather surrender bin Laden or lose power.