People can have different ideas and still respect each other.
We aren't JUST talking about ideas, but are talking about
self-protection. If you want to impede our attempts to
protect ourselves from an enemy that wants to kill us, then
you are essentially helping that enemy. This must only
be 'theoretical' to you -- and that is something that the
US populace has been starting to realize. Perhaps
that theoretical dehumanization of American life has
been an important 'wake-up' call for the American populace
to see.
Maybe the difference is that YOU aren't targeted in the
same way that we are. You probably see terror as a few
people being killed in a 1 pound C4 explosion. You also
probably see terror as a bunch of Jews being killed by
Arafat's people (Arafat is indeed too strongly supported
by Europe.)
We see terror (for example) as individuals who use our
relatively open and unguarded assets against us.
Anecdote: In the 1980's, as a private individual, I could
have easily ordered all kinds of 'dangerous' chemicals or
biological materials. We are losing some freedom
and sometimes lives because of evil individuals who
try to kill us by misusing our freedom and access to
technology/capital goods. Similar kinds of things
are happening in the computer world...
(Comment: it is good that we are strong enough
to learn how to handle the threats e.g. through the
internet. It is good that we weren't hurt fatally
so that we know which countries will support us
as strongly as we have might have supported/been loyal
to them... We now know
that France is definitely not an ally if we really
need them, and Germany isn't very useful either.)
We are now prepared to realize that when the chips
are down, France and Germany won't be there to help,
and will likely support our enemies (e.g. France's
ongoing support of Saddam.)
If you support those people who are trying to kill us, or
if you impede the mechanisms that we need to protect ourselves,
then you are effectively helping that side of chaos and
effectively joining the side of our enemy.
This is indeed a fairly 'binary' decision. It should have
been an obvious decision, except for the case of misplaced
ego (hopefully not, because that is an extreme character
flaw), or interests that devalue American lives.
It REALLY is a binary decision, and (as above) assuming
that a country wouldn't be making the decision because of
adolescent emotional reasons, then the resulting decision
is due to ongoing support of the terrorists themselves. The
reason for this support could be access to resources, perhaps
for perverse view of global politics, or maybe because
you agree with the terrorists.
In essence, the OBVIOUS devaluing of American lives WILL NOT
directly cause a tit-for-tat, but has caused a re-evaluation
for the future. At one time, a German or French life would
have been deemed practically equivalent to an American life.
It is probably true that the 'theoretical' attitude of
the French/Germans DO cause a very 'theoretical' attitude in
the US about French/German life. The initial response will
be 'they have done us wrong, and emotionally I feel dirty
if I am reminded of them.' This will likely morph into
a lack of interest, and any feeling at all (that is, without
any remedial action by the French, especially.) The
American people are smart enough to realize that the most
inept countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) try to do the TV commercial
thing. Well, France will probably have to change it's
way from effectively supporting the Islamists and Saddam-types.
Since it is now proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that American life
isn't valued in SOME places in Europe, then it is well known
that America has much less reason to be able to trust
France, Germany in the future. This isn't really an emotional
decision on the American side, but is only the realization
that it is best not to consider France and Germany as part
of a family anymore. There is little or no trust for France
(Germany is still in question) in the US anymore.
John