| Last Cereal: Message Board: posting |
| re: it was a perfect morning |
| [5845] by "Rob Pfeifer" (83.234.35.212.in-addr.arpa.ip-po) on Mon 17 Sep 2001 16:10:07 [ reply ] |
|
I suspect even America in a rage would find it hard to strike against a country that was providing at least verbal support. Interestingly, even Iran has spoken out in support of America (though practical aid offered is unsurprisingly nil).
But any country that can be shown to be harbouring proven, known or very strongly suspected terrorists is asking for trouble in this climate. "War on terrorists" to me is a statement of agression, an expression warning that the US might declare war against any country that harbours terrorists. It is also an expression of intent to carry out surgical strikes, perhaps, against identified terrorist bases. Regardless, probably, of country. But massing the troops, sending in the ground forces against another nation, this is not a factor in "war against terrorism". It is a factor in "war against <nation>", though this may easily come from "war against terrorism"... or Bush might just be firing up the popular support before he /does/ declare war. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs. But one cannot declare a conventional war against a not-nation, a not-coalesced entity, in the same way as one can against a nation. For a start, no-one stands up to say "OK, come on then. We'll conquer _you_ instead, you assholes." But then again, these days there are many kinds of war. Rob |