posted on Sep, 8 2003 @ 11:31 AM
John, you asked a question and I responded; I see no humor in that.
No action, no force or threat of force brought on The 9.11 attacks, and it didn't bring on the first attack on the WTC, either.
The world response, you say, was "Welcome to the club." We do not prefer to join the club and go by the world's rules. A Chamberlain-like
response to a delcaration of war doesn't work. This is obvious, and has been proven the case many times in history. It seems that some perceive the
world as a more dangerous, more unstable place since we responded to the cowardly assault upon noncombatants on our soil, and they preceive the reason
for instability is our response. I see no indication of this, but I do see that some have a weak constitution for doing what needs to be done, and as
long as it isn't their own kinsmen being blown to bits, they would rather ignore or appease the ones wanting to bring war and destruction upon our
citizenry. I do not subscribe to that way of thinking.
When England entered into the last war in Europe, she didn't bring instability to the continent, it was already there. Neither was instability
increased when America finally entered into the war. What did occur was the downfall of the enemy to peace and liberty, and even though the enemy was
a clear and defined nation bent on global domination, it still took longer than 2 years from the time the first shot was fired to conquor the enemy
that caused Hellish death and suffering. This war is obviously more abstract, with more complicated lines drawn into the sand of many places, but it
is still a war that must be fought, and cowardice only invites more death of innocent men, women and children.