Thank you Wirt, for just the right words.
    Tom Hula
    Victor S. Barnes Company

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wirt Atmar" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT : Sept. 11th, 2001


> The problem with a unilateral, pre-emptive strike against anyone is that
it
> sets an enormously bad precedent for the world. China will be freed to
invade
> Taiwan on the same pretext: a presumed danger, as will Guatemala Belize or
as
> the Soviet Union did Afghanistan. The United States has never acted in
such a
> manner and I am appalled that it is even being suggested now. It is far
> better for us to be tolerant of such attacks and be perceived as weak than
> ever take one "pre-emptive" action.
>
> Although it doesn't satisfy the visceral testicular juices of the most
> militant among us, the US, Britain and UN's action to date *has* contained
> Iraq. I have no qualms about forcing UN inspectors back into the country,
but
> the primary defense we have against the Saddams and bin Ladens of the
world
> is no longer military might but intelligence.
>
> The United States is an open and wealthy and rich society, and it derives
its
> wealth from its openness, thus it will always be at risk. But it is also
at
> its core a very moral and ethical society and it cannot act in a
unilateral
> bullying manner. If it does, a wave of anti-American sentiment will sweep
the
> world, and the traditionally isolationist American nation will be
transformed
> overnight into a Roman society, where peace on the frontiers is maintained
> only by force of arms, not by a rule of law equally applied. And we will
> exacerbate our current problems many times over, extending them outwards
for
> perhaps all of the century to come.
>
> Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *