Which would be worse, sanctions or a hot war in Afghanistan?

[Daniel Bloomingdale]

This is the classic false choice fallacy.  

There are plenty of alternatives other than war or
Iraq type sanctions.  Today Bush acted to freeze the
asssets of suspected terrorist organizations--a type
of sanction I suppose, but a good start.  Another
alternative would be to provide the Taliban with the
evidence of bin Laden's culpability--they've made a
public commitment to cooperate under that
circumstance.  Third, we might listen to the
grievances of those who would be our enemies and 
maybe even consider redressing some those grievances. 

For those of you out there who are Christian here is a
whole laundry list of alternatives:

?You have heard that it was said ?an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth.? But I say to you, offer no
resistance to one who is evil.  When someone strikes
you on your cheek, turn the other one to him as well.?
(Matthew 5, verses 38-39).

?You have heard that it was said  ?you shall love your
neighbor and hate your enemy.?  But I say to you love
your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for
He makes His sun rise on the good and the bad, and
causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.?
(Matthew 5, verses 43-46).

?Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.?
(Matthew 7, verse 12).

?Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take
the sword will perish by the sword.? (Matthew 26,
verse 52).

?Then Peter approached, asking Him ?Lord, if my
brother sins against me how often must I forgive him?
As many as seven times??  Jesus answered ?I say to you
not seven times but seventy seven times.? (Matthew 18,
verses 21-22).

Dr. Elliott makes a good case against Iraq style
sanctions, so let's consider the alternative he
advocates--war with Afghanistan.  It worked out really
well for the Russians didn't it? And they had plenty
of advantages we don't have.  They knew the terrain
and they had plenty of intelligence on the ground by
virtue of their Central Asian Republics--they even had
citizens who could pass as Afghani. 

Maybe we should model the Israeli strategy and strike
back after every attack--they've been retaliating
against terrorism for 50 years.  Do they feel safe?  

We launched air strikes against Libya after the Pan Am
bombing and we attack Afghanistan after the embassy
bombings.  Recent events prove those responses didn't
stop terrorism.  But maybe more and better bloodshed
will do the job.

I like the advice of Arun Gandhi, grandson of the
Mahatma, who has suggested we respond with compassion.
 It drove the British out of India (unlike Northern
Ireland, were my Catholic and Protestant ancestors'
policies of tit for tat retaliation have succeeded in
producing generation after generation of terrorists. 
And the British are still there).

My knowledge of history is pretty thin but I can't
think of many instances (actually, I can't think of
any instances) where a military response has deterred
terrorism.  Oftentimes it creates new terrorists. And
it produces dead people, every time.

Praying for peace and lovin' my enemy,
dan

--- "Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D."
<scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> The U.S. is the number one contributor of aid to
> Afghanistan--$45 million last year. Given that there
> are only two real choices to inluence the
> Taliban--sanctions or a war, which would you in the
> debate community choose given your experience with
> the sanctions topic.
> 
> I for one believe that a hot war would save more
> Afghani lives than a global withdrawal of aid and
> subsequent economic sanctions.
> 
> Do you really want another Iraq in order to sooth
> your Anitwar sentiments?
> 
> Scott Elliott, Evil Heretic
> 
> 
> P.S.
> 
> My Call:  This Thursday, 3:00 a.m. Afghanistan Time
> when the first bombs will drop.
> 






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com