<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Ted, you put forth a very comprehensive and complex post. A lot of dimensions here that are interwoven (domestic violence, pursuit of strategic national interests, collateral damage, etc.). As to my political/ideological beliefs, I would say I'm somewhat of a moderate. As an example, I agree with a woman's right to choose but I also think we should have a mandatory two-year period of service following high school -- doesn't have to be the military but some type of "service" to our society. I agree with both left and right on certain issues but I don't swing completely one way or the other. Yes, domestic violence is a major issue in this country. I don't agree with the presumption that there are <U>many</U> who "shrug their shoulders" regarding the death of innocents resulting from war. Surely, there are some. Unfortunately, "collateral damage" (and I don't take that ter!
m lightly) does occur in war. Always has and probably always will and while not acceptable, it has been mitigated greatly through technological advances in military equipment, tactics, and strategy. Yes, I agree that violence in war does impact our society both directly and indirectly and probably even more so with the advances in media and the Internet. I think it has desensitized people to a certain degree point that they tend to shut it out or even act out under certain circumstances (workplace violence, etc.). The flip side is to look at how giving our country is as well (e.g., the recent tragedy in Asia). I do support the death penalty under certain circumstances. I believe there are certain individuals who as a result of their heinous criminal actions forfeit their right to remain among us. And, while I've heard the death penalty doesn't necessarily deter -- I believe that particular criminal&nbs!
p;will not re offend once their sentence is carried out. I
do believe strongly in pursuing and securing this country's long-term strategic national interests to ensure the security and longevity of our society. And, I believe strongly in telling the American people exactly what, how, and why vs. trying to blow smoke at them -- be honest and up-front and you will garner the support that is needed. I think our people are smarter and able to deal with complex issues if they are told the truth early behind specific actions. Don't get me wrong though, I know there are situations where our tactics and judgement have been incorrect. Unfortunately, humans are prone to make mistakes no matter how educated or how well trained. And yes, I do believe we always need to examine our decisions and the impact they have not only on our own citizens, but upon the international community as a whole AND take corrective action where and when needed. The real question for me is, is the path the international commun!
ity (including the US) is on sustainable? From a personal perspective, I would argue no and certainly there are fundamental changes needed and soon. However, I'm not intelligent enough to know what they are or how best to approach them. I've rambled way too much and probably didn't answer any your questions. Cheers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Coop</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=Tbertruss@aol.com href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com"></A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To: </B><A title=Tbertruss@aol.com href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">DonaldH675@aol.com</A>;<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">sslund@adelphia.net</A>;<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>;<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">wocsom@earthlink.net</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> 1/15/2005 7:46:21 PM </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Does anyone else see a problem here?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR>Coop et. al.<BR><BR>I have a question or two or three about your statement that "the innocent need complete protection." <BR><BR>I don't know your political/ideological beliefs, but many who are adamant about protecting children in families that put them at risk, or the innocent life of the unborn, shrug their shoulders as they insist that killing tens of thousands of innocent thinking feeling perceiving already born human beings, many of them children, and even pregnant women, is the unfortunate cost of pursuing the goals of US military action in, for example, Afghanistan and Iraq.<BR><BR>I'm taking this question out of the exclusive context of domestic violence, I know. But there is no doubt that the mindset of people who will justify killing children in war spills over into the domestic situation of families here in the USA, leading to domes!
tic violence. This is one of the domestic costs of war: the demands placed upon troops, and even civilians who face the horror, to harden and desensitize themselves to the killing of innocents, even children, or pregnant women. To think we can keep this necessary (to wage war) hardened and desensitized psychology from being applied in our homes in the USA is just plain wishful thinking!<BR><BR>I propose there is direct link between the militarization of our society, and the psychology this militarization creates in a large segment of our culture, in both civilian and military people, with our high (compared to most other industrialized democracies) rates of domestic violence, that when taken as a whole over time has been more of a source of terror for our citizens than the terrorists we are now fighting have yet inflicted upon us.<BR><BR>The contradictions of people who, to expand my point, support the death penalty for minors, and also justify killing thousands!
of innocents, many children, to pursue war, who then become morally o
utraged at the hard choices women must face regarding abortion, and furthermore reject taxation to provide assistance for children who are in families that place children at great risk, are apparent enough, though there are often clever moral arguments trotted out to attempt to avoid the seeming blatant contradictions.<BR><BR>I propose that we cannot as a society with pretensions to high moral standards regarding protection of innocent children let these apparent contradictions (protect children in the USA, as long as your taxes are lowered and protecting children doesn't preclude buying that new SUV, then kill them in foreign countries as we wage war or via the death penalty for minors in the USA) go unexamined.<BR><BR>What do you think?<BR><BR>Guess what we have in common with Iran? We are more like them than many think! From the Amnesty International web site:<BR><BR><A href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html">http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/j!
uveniles.html</A><BR><BR><BR><B>Death Penalty Gives Up On Juvenile Offenders</B> <BR><BR>An almost universal prohibition exists on the execution of persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime. Since 2000, <B>only five countries in the world</B> are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan and China have abolished the juvenile death penalty, but there have been problems in nationwide compliance with the law.<BR><BR>--------------------------------------<BR><BR>V2020 Post by Ted Moffett<BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></FONT>
<P></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>