On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

> F. Leon Wilson writes:
>
> >For your information . . .
> >

> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> I am well aware of the news article. Even if it were conclusive of
> anything--it isn't--it doesn't get you off the hook.
>
> Skepticism about whether the plant produced nerve gas is fine; I don't
> want military actions to be justified  on the attacker's say-so
> alone--but skepticism implies that the attacks would be justified if the
> facts are as alleged.

F. Leon Wilson writes:
This is your logic/argument.  Did I say anything about "skepticism?"

Who did? -- Your logic.

There has been NO evidence to suggest that the plant produced nerve gas.

> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> After all, if one's argument is that the unilateral
> use of force in reprisal for a terrorist attack is never justified, then
> it doesn't matter what the facts are.

F. Leon Wilson writes:
If a terrorist act is a criminal act, then why use military force (which
kills civilians) against a criminal element?

> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> So why try to prettify them? The Left should say,

F. Leon Wilson writes:
What do you mean by the "Left?"

> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> "it doesn't matter if the Shifa plant was making nerve
> gas that would be deployed in the near future against civilian
> populations, or if the Taliban were training thousands of suicide bombers
> in Afghanistan to carry out further attacks against people like you and
> me; the only legitimate recourse for the US is taking the matter to the
> UN and watching it get jawboned to death for years while the VX goes
> operational."

F. Leon Wilson writes:
What is the U.S. doing to create these conditions?

You need to provide details befire making such general statements.

> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> Then you would be making a truly principled argument.

F. Leon Wilson writes:
You mean an argument with facts?

> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> Of course, many sane people would find your principles completely
> unpersuasive.
>
> That the Left doesn't make this argument I think further reinforces its
> image among ordinary people as a bunch of armchair moralizers who aren't
> willing to own up to the consequences of their own moralizing.

F. Leon Wilson writes:
What?

> Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> Thought exercise: if it is shown that the plant DID produce or contribute
> to the production of nerve gas, would your opinion of the strikes change?
> If not, then why introduce an irrelevant issue?

F. Leon Wilson writes:
You need to see the big picture.

What is the U.S. doing to provoke such actions?