Questionable assumption?

Submitted by Boris Frenkel (United States), Dec 27, 2002 at 17:22

I think liberals always build their argumentation based on the assumption that problems of the US government are not really their problems. For that reason they talk about "preemptive" war with Iraq, although to me it would be instead a "miltary response" against Irag. They call this war "preemptive" because Iraq did nothing to THEM personally to call for a military action.

For the same reason they talk about "lack of tolerance to opposition". In their mind, "opposition" is a sort of non-violent ideological dispute occurring somewhere far away from their isolated world.

What kind of pressure or threat to their personal lives would be sufficient to justify a "preemptive" war? When liberals begin to realize that 9-11 is an act of new kind of global war - with no visible leaders, no armies, no responsible, no rules?. New kind of war needs new kind of strategy and actions and the responsibility of intellectuals is to help with developing this strategy and line of actions, not to continue to apply old kind of opposition.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".