Re: Terrorism and Unemployment

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxx>]

> Without defending Bush-speak, which has proved painful in so many
ways
> (did anyone else note just *how* ill-chosen his word ``crusade'' was
> in the current context??), I am still puzzled by Ian's position.  He
> treats the issue as one of the meaning of `war,' but if that's the
> word at issue then his arguments would seem to force him to conclude
> that, e.g., there is no such thing as a civil war (and I imagine Ian
> steaming at the phrase `cold war').
==========
I was struggling to suggest that Bush et al are being somewhat humpty
dumpty-ish in their use of the word war. Why have they not called the
last few months, if not years of Israeli behavior war? Or the behavior
of Turkey against it's own citizens a civil war? Jus two conflicts the
US taxpayers support without being told many of the actual details.
Why did we not declare war when the USS Cole was attacked, or the
embassies?




Surely ordinary usage would allow
> for the US to be a state of war with some terrorist organizations,
> even if they are not states, and with certain states, even if they
> restrict themselves to subterfuges in persuing violent actions
against
> the US.

=======
So Viet Nam was ok in your book? Was Ho Chi Minh a terrorist? Where
does terrorism leave off and revolutionary activity begin? Who gets to
decide? What if the WTC was attacked as part of a larger strategy to
destabilize Saudi Arabia? What about the Islamic contempt for usury in
all it's forms? There's a lot of other issues we need to think about.





  So perhaps Ian is really more bothered by the term
> ``declare.''  (The idea being that war can only be declared in some
> formal fashion.)  But again, this seems overly legalistic.

=======

Well, given the manipulation of the muddle of alegality and legality
it seems pertinent if we are not to have a 21st century Gulf of Tonkin
resolution hurried through Congress, no? Note Chirac's refusal to use
the term war in yesterday's press conference. What are *his* reasons?


 There is a
> clear and standard meaning of `declare' that was in use: ``To reveal
> or make manifest; show.''  Now I doubt even Ian would deny that some
> hostile intent toward the US was manifested on the 11th, and I
imagine
> he would agree that treating this event as unlikely to be followed
by
> further efforts against US property and civilians would be both an
> absurd optimism and inconsistent with what we know.  So Ian, just
what
> is the problem here?
=========
That the US will "use a battleship to swat a bunch of gnats" and
create even more problems than it solves. Just like the "war on
drugs."

>
> The problem I see is entirely different from the issue of
redescribing
> the state of hostilities between the US and a few thousands of
religious
> nuts supported by regimes whose rise to power would make people
> nostalgic for the days when the US stumbled about the world.  The
> problem is evident whenever Bush speaks, for he is so clearly out of
> his depth in a time of crisis.  The US cannot afford a C on this
exam.
> For once I agree with Henry: Colin Powell has been a voice of
relative
> reason during the past week, and hopefully he will prevail as Bush's
> tutor.
>
> Alan Isaac
============
I agree CP has been a little more careful in his thinking than the
other members of the Bush admin. But when the term war is used over
and over again that signals some intent that truth - a problematic
notion already to be sure - and motive will be obfuscated to an
enormous degree and given the last century of US foreign policy that
makes me very nervous. When war is declared democracy - what little
there is of it in the US - comes out worse off.

Ian