There are obviously many strong and differing opinions regarding our defending ourselves after the attacks made against us on 9/11. I have not as of yet seen any valid argument
against our defending ourselves, but things have been spread across many different threads, and I wanted to focus more tightly on the issues surrounding this.
Fact: On 9/11/01 19 terrorists launched an unprovoked attack against the mainland United States, targetting military, political, and economic interests, as well as civillians. Other than the plane that crashed in PA, we do not know if there were any other unsuccessful actions, or if any more are pending.
Fact: Subsequently the actions of the the terrorists have been tracked. It was discovered that this was an elaborate plan that had been in the works for some time. Analysis of phone records and financial transactions indicate that the actions perpetrated by these terrorists were on behalf of international powers.
Fact: An attack against the United States by an international power is an act of war.
Fact: The United States government claims it has concrete proof indicating Bin Laden's Al-Queda organization participated in the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorists involved were linked to that organization. This proof, although not released to the public because of its sensitive nature, was apparently concrete enough for NATO to invoke Article 5 of it's charter, which states that an attack against one member of NATO is an attack against all members of NATO, and the events of 9/11 met the criteria, and that Al-Queda was a perpetrator. Thus members of NATO were obliged to lend support for the US per the treaty. The evidence was concrete enough so that Australia felt obliged to apply its mutual defense treaty with the US. The proof was concrete enough to convince the governments of Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan to lend use of their airspace and military bases to varying degrees. The proof was concrete enough for traditional US rivals Russia and China to back the United States in these actions, particularly remarkable because we are using US military forces so close to their respective nations. Basically, anybody who has been shown the proof we have has decided that it is concrete.
Fact: The government of Afghanistan, run by the Taleban party,
shelters and supports Al-Queda. It allows Al-Queda to train and operate within its borders with impunity. Al-Queda and the Taleban regime have a close and mutually dependent alliance. Al-Queda provide the Taleban regime with material, financial and military support. Al-Queda could not operate their terrorist activities without the alliance and support of the Taleban regime. The Taleban's strength would be seriously weakened without Al-Queda's military and financial support.
I cannot understand where the problem with our exercising our rights of self-defense are, but I will try to address some of the comments I have heard.
It was simply a terrorist attack, not an act of war.
I think I have adequately addressed that one. The attack by the terrorists was carried out on behalf of a foreign power. Military command and control, civilian leadership, and economic interests were targetted, as well as innocent civillians. This attack was unprovoked. It was in every sense of the meaning an act of war, and there is no justification otherwise, but feel free to try.
There is no proof saying that Bin Laden carried out the attack
There is no proof that the public had been allowed to see, but there are the strongest indications that such proof must exist. Let's try this by negative induction (is that the right term, it's been so long since I've done a proof that way). Let's say that no proof exists. If no proof exists, then there is some kind of great conspiracy in which the United States has been able to coerce most of the world into supporting its actions. This includes support from long time US rivals Russia and China. What are the real chances that this is a possibility? None. Therefore, since the counter-claim in all likelihood cannot be true, the hypothesis that proof must exist is far more likely to be true.
The US shouldn't be attacking Afghanistan to go after one man... There were no Afghanis among the 19 terrorists... Afghanistan isn't to blame, just Al-Queda... etc...
I've grouped these together. There have been similar one's but you get the idea. The claim is to try to absolve Afghanistan of any responsibility. The Taleban is the government of Afghanistan. The Taleban and Al-Queda have a symbiotic relationship. One cannot exist without the other. Afghanistan is very much responsible for the actions of 9/11. There is no rational argument to the contrary. Feel free to try though please.
But the people of Afghanistan are innocent! How can the US bomb an entire country just because Al-Queda and the Taleban share responsibility for 9/11?
Is there another way to destroy the Taleban and uproot Al-Queda without attacking Afghanistan? The Taleban is the state and the state is being held responsible. Therefore it is necessary to carry out military action against the state. At least we were nice enough to give plenty of forewarning before we launched our attack, giving civilians an opportunity to flee areas likely to be targeted. If only they had done the same for us. We are doing our best to minimize civilian casualties. This has not been totaly successful, but has probably all-in-all been mostly successful. It makes it tougher now if the reports lately have been true. It seems the Taleban have been placing antiaircraft batteries in top of civilian dwellings. They have been dispursing their equipment in civilian areas. They have been using facilities such as hospitals, mosques, and aid warehouses for military purposes. In making these places legitimate military targets, they are hoping for civilian casualties they can show off to the press.
The US is to blame for its foreign policy
These arguments are shifting blame away from those truly responsible on to the victim, the United States. There is
no excuse for the events of 9/11. Bin Laden is upset with us for one main reason. He is upset that we have troops in the holy land, at the request of the Saudi government. He has chosen to link our actions against Iraq, and our support of Israel in order to garner wider support across the Arab world. He tries to garner further support by turning the conflict into one of Christianity versus Islam, which of course is bogus. Basically anything he can do at this point to rally people to his cause is fair game. But for him it all boils down to the fact that we have forces in Saudi Arabia. Granted for others of his organization our relations with Israel may be more of a problem, or our relations with Iraq. So then what would people who suppport this argument have us do? Abandon Israel? Leave Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to Iraq? Neither of these are acceptable responses. Personally, I think we will find out that Iraq was also involved in the attacks of 9/11 and/or the anthrax attacks on us. Time will tell.
We must understand the root causes. We must give them money and education, not drop bombs.
Puh-lease. This is related to the previous argument. Giving them money and education will not solve our current problem. At the very best, it is a long term solution, but in all probability even that would be futile. So then it stands to reason that everytime somebody attacks us, we should give them money and aid? Yeah, that will make us a less likely target. The concerns I addressed in the previous argument apply to this argument as well, regarding Israel and Iraq. Anyway this is another worthless argument that will not help us in our current situation.
How do we know that destroying the Taleban and Al-Queda will make us safer?
Well there is no way to know this. The world certainly will not be any more dangerous without those organizations around. True there will always be others to replace them. We must clearly demonstrate that we are not an attractive target for such terrorist action. There must be no doubt that there are consequences for attacking the United States. While it may not stop all attacks against us, at least the ground rules are now laid out and there will be no surprises when the B-52s come flying overhead (not the rock group, although that might not be a bad idea). Supporters of this argument think that the best response is no response. In actuality having no response makes us appear weak and afraid, making us a more tempting target, and therefore decreasing our safety.
Well dammit we just shouldn't be dropping bombs under any circumstances.
I really think that this is what it boils down to for many of the anti-war types. They just cannot bring themselves to see any valid circumstance in which military force is the proper response. They are willing to trade their security for some pipe dream. While they are all holding hands, singing Kumbaya, and burning the American flag, the attacks against us will continue. These are the most dangerous kind as they make us a more likely target, weaken our resolve to do what must be done, and endanger our security. They will always claim the purity of any actions they take in the name of free speech, but there is a line that should not be crossed. In fact the attackers are only encouraged by the actions of these people. The point at which your free speech increases the danger to others lives, or our security as a nation, is the point at which it ceases to be protected speech.
I think I've addressed most of the anti-US and/or anti-war arguments. So we've heard all of the reasons for us not to be bombing Afghanistan, and for the most part they simply show that the people who use them (Americans in particular) seem to not grasp the gravity of the situation. Not everybody wants to be our friends. Sometimes war is necessary.
Here's your homework. What I want to hear are valid alternatives to the course we have undertaken. We already know you think war is bad, now give some concrete solution as what we should do. Now please take into account what I have already stated here, particularly the facts of the situation. I'm not looking for rhetoric, just reasonable alternatives to military action after the events of 9/11.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited November 01, 2001).]
Let's try. (Only to make your position stronger 
but it doesn't seem so. 
Jim was kind enough to remove the rash of off-topic posts that quickly sprung up to their own thread. Woohoo Jim! 
