|
|
2001-12-06 (Thursday) - 10:47 a.m.
by Micah Holmquist (Actually there is more than eleven but who's counting?) Assuming that "terrorists" in places such as Iraq, the Philippines, Somalia and Yemen are as much of a threat to the United States as you have made them out to be -that is they could attack the U.S. with deadly force at any time-, does it make any sense for the military to concentrate on one country at a time? By proceeding in this manner, aren't you by doing this, endangering the citizens that sort of elected you? How many Iraqis died in the Gulf War? How many Iraqis have since died from U.S. attacks? How many Iraqis have since died from sanctions? How many Afghans have been killed since October 7 by the U.S. military? How many U.S. citizens have died as a result of terrorism since, and including, September 11? Looking at all of these deaths, do you feel the people of Afghanistan and Iraq have the same right to demand vengeance as U.S. citizens do at the present time as a result of September 11? Could you please explain your answer? What is your definition of freedom? How does the recent anti-terrorism legislation fit into that definition? What is your definition of peace? Does that mean that people are just afraid to attack the U.S.? Does it have anything to do with justice? According to the War Powers Act, today (December 6) is the final day that U.S. armed forces can be in Afghanistan without either a declaration of war or a 30 day extension from Congress. Do you plan to seek such a declaration? If Congress does not take such action, will you do the Constitutional thing and remove the troops? Do you prefer to be called emperor or king?
|