Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Sen. Hollings plans tointroduceDMCAsequel: The SSSCA

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

Jeme A Brelin wrote:

> And there is something grossly hypocritical about saying that and then
> suggesting retaliation.

I apologize that my text seems to have offended you.  It's often been
said that the unuanced (lacking the inflection and expression of face to
face interaction) nature of newsgroup threads (nuance written
communication takes far more effort than most of us have time for) is
what makes flame wars inevitable.  So... let's both a take a deep breath
a I'll try to be clearer.

I don't believe that I suggested or reccommended retribution -- I only
said it was the logical, easily anticipated result of any prolonged
terror campaign against the US.  I also never said that the US has done
no wrong, but only argued that the actions taken would have no result to
ameliorate any of those wrongs, real or imagined.  Further I argued that
the attacks in NYC and DC would probably result in a greater support
within the US gov't for IDF/Mossad actions against Palestinians -- this
at a time when IDF use of US supplied weapons against Palestinian
targets was starting to be raised as a political issue.

As for self-righteousness -- more self-deprecating. I was arguing that
people who consider themselves reasonable (correctly or not) often have
a terrible blindspot regarding those whose actions they (the
self-identified reasonable people) would find unreasonable.  This often
has tragic results.  For example, the pattern of appeasement of Nazi
Germany both internally and externally had disastrous affects on the
whole European continent.  The terror of Tuesday surprised and shocked
many those of us who consider ourselves reasonable people.  Even Yassar
Arafat classified the attacks against the US as "shocking." 

I will however disagree strenuously against one item you stated:

> I completely reject the idea that the US has any right to enter a foreign
> nation officially for non-diplomatic reasons at all.  Foreign quarter of
> US soldiers is wrong and an attack on a foreign nation is a de facto
> disregard for that nation's sovereignty.

Understanding that I may be misunderstanding you utterly I must dissent.

The implication of that statement is that if a nation were to attack the
United States and  can get back across their border before we react then
we have no right to pursue them as that would involve entering a foreign
nation.  So, would you have stopped WWII at the German border and Iwo
Jima?  What if Iraq were to buy surplus nuclear/biological/chemical
armed SS-19's and fire one of them at New York.  Your statement would
preclude any action to destroy any unfired missles in Iraqi territory. 
Might doesn't make right, but self defense is moral.

Best Regards,

.002

"What is often misunderstood about 'an eye for an eye' is that it was
radical in it's concept of LIMITING a response to only one in
proportion.  Eariler precedent showed that 'a life for an insult' and
'kill all males in a village for one act of rape by one of them' was far
more common." -- source unknown