(Excuse me for being less than articulate with the following question -- the allergies are acting up tonight, so my brain is probably running at 50%.)
First off, the usual qualifier -- I consider my ideological mindset to be generally left of center. I voted for Nader, and attend a Unitarian Universalist church. Occasionally, I'll think "dittos, Rush," but for the most part I'm a damn liberal.
Even though I'm liberal, maybe even "progressive" in some instances, I'm trying to figure out just what those peace protesters, most of whom are fellow liberals, are trying to accomplish? Why are they out there marching against the military action of the United States and UKoGBaNI in Afghanistan?
The United States has been attacked, directly and indirectly by Al Queda, several times over the past ten years. Embassies in Africa, a Navy ship in Oman, and the World Trade Center -- not once, but twice. Do the peaceniks think this isn't enough to justify a call to action? Are they waiting for suitcase nukes to level Chicago before they feel it's time to defend ourselves?
Maybe it's the progressive Pacifica Radio "everything America does is wrong" attitude that we're seeing. Oppose communism, in the form of an economic boycott of Cuba, and we're "holding a gridge," "hurting the Cuban people," and so on. Tolerate communism in the form of favored trading status for China, and it's wrong, because "Tibet should be free!" Progressives opposed military intervention in Yugoslavia, but you bet they'd be up in arms if we sat there and did nothing, claiming that "the United States is supporting ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars."
A few months ago, I've heard many women's rights advocates call for taking active measures to overthrow the Taliban. Now that it's happening, those same leftists are urging Bush to stop. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I've heard the "karma" or "it's all relative" argument several times. "The United States has suppored the violent overthrow of many legitimate governments in the past 50 years." "We wiped out Native Americans, and now it's our turn." "This is what we get for eating meat and slaughtering millions of innocent animals in the process." "Why should we worry about 6,000 lawyers and bond traders when thousands of slave children in the Sudan are starving to death?" True or not, is this a valid reason to sit back and let the terror continue?
What if President Al Gore had to deal with the WTC crisis, and he choose the same response that W is taking now? Would that be okay, then?
So, peaceniks, what do you want? Sit and let the planes continue to drop and businesses continue to receive "strange white powder" in the mail, because "we deserve it?" Give in to their demands, and legitimize terror? Mass conversion of the United States to Islam, or at least "deconversion" of Christians and Jews? What?
An afterthought -- can anyone explain the "STOP THE RACIST WAR!!!" posters to me? What, we should only be fighting back if it was a group that was more "Caucasian" than the Arab-backed gang attacked us? I guess it would be okay to fight back if Austrian terrorists or extremist Lutherans pulled off the WTC disaster, instead of radicals who hide behind the religion with its roots in Asia, huh?