<p>“There are those who have learned something from 9/11 and then those who refuse to learn. I think I prefer to be in the “learned something” camp and am thankful that so far we have a government that has as well.”</p>
<p>You I agree with you 100% on this comment, Our administration has learned something. They’ve learned it’s not as easy as they thought it would be. Invasions and occupations are the last possible means AFTER all other things have been tried. That is why NK and Iran are being handled much differently than they would have 3 years ago. </p>
<p>I’m just as thankful as you are…but probably for different reasons. :)</p>
<p>Its hard to unilaterally enforce sanctions don’t you think? We’ve had unilateral sanctions on N. Korea and Iran for decades now and look how effective they have been at keeping these two countries in “their box”. Sorry, but having a military base in Kuwait and us not trading with him would mean absolutely nothing to Saddam.</p>
<p>f,
“Its hard to unilaterally enforce sanctions don’t you think? We’ve had unilateral sanctions on N. Korea and Iran for decades now and look how effective they have been at keeping these two countries in “their box”. Sorry, but having a military base in Kuwait and us not trading with him would mean absolutely nothing to Sad”</p>
<p>No I don’t think it’s hard, we’ve been doing for a while. We’re also talking about two different things.,</p>
<p>This issue was did we really need to invade Iraq? If I follow your logic then we must also invade NK and IRan for what they might do.</p>
<p>The thing that always occurs to me about people who say “The world changed on 9/11” or words to that effect is - where were they on 9/10? Did they sleep through 1993 - the first time the Islamic militants tried to blow up the World Trade Center? Did they suddenly think that the world had changed in some significant way because those guys were luckier the second time around?</p>
<p>Because it hadn’t. The world post 9/11 is different in only one way - the emotional response of the American people. 9/11 was tremendously emotionally affecting. I felt it like everyone else - my first impulse was to get my American flag out and run it up my flagpole. I rallied behind our President. It was gut-wrenching.</p>
<p>But if the only organ you think with is your gut you will make terrible, terrible errors in judgment. After a while you have to sit back, dispassionately, and evaluate your situation, assess your alternatives, and go about your business. Some people have never been able to do that. I understand the deep scars of people who lost friends and loved ones. I can understand the depth of emotion of New Yorkers. But I think with my brain, not my gut, and my brain tells me that the fact that the same guys who tried to blow up the world trade center with explosives in 1993 were luckier with their second try eight years later doesn’t mean the world changed during those eight years. The bad guys just figured out a better (and not particularly technically or militarily demanding) way to send the message they’ve been sending for years.</p>
<p>I knew about that message before 9/11. I didn’t have to see the planes fly into the buildings to know where the message was coming from, and what it meant. And my emotional response to 9/11 is not now going to make me run around like a chicken with my head cut off just to make me feel like I’m “doing something.” I’m very aware that it’s not unlikely that another act will be attempted sometime before 2009, and may be as successful as the first, or even the second. The world has not been free of danger since 9/11 - and it wasn’t free of danger before then, either. </p>
<p>Bottom line: any time someone uses “9/11” as an argument, excuse, or justification for something, I just figure they don’t want me to think with my brainb, but with my gut. I am very cautious around such people.</p>
The “tough” response of the Clinton administration was to use legal tactics to prosecute those terrible people who bombed the WTC in 1993. What we learned on 9/11 is that trying to prosecute terrorists did not work. What we learned is that we are at war and that in war you must kill your enemy and those supporting your enemy. When I hear people talking about the “rights” of terrorists (such as those at Gitmo), it reminds me they don’t have a clue that we are at war and they don’t have a clue how to protect me and my family. Anyone trying to attack me, my family, or my country does not have any rights and should be killed – its not emotional, its logical.</p>
<p>The problem with many of those who claim to “think with their brain” is that they use only the part of their brain that is trapped in an ivory tower of how things “should be” or “could be” and completely divorce themselves from how things actually are. Couple that with an irrational dislike of Bush and you get a very dangerous combination of people who think they are using the logical part of their brain but really aren’t.</p>
<p>A couple of days ago fundingfather linked to an opinion poll which showed that a huge majority of the Iraqi people thought that the removal of Saddam was worth the invasion.</p>
<p>There was a lot more to that poll and I recommend going back a few pages to link to it. Obviously, I could have just cherry-picked these items, so skeptical readers owe themselves a direct look-see. Here’s the stuff I found interesting:</p>
<p>A majority of the Iraqi people think we will have a permanent military presence there, at least in the form of military bases. A majority beleives we would not withdraw even if we asked.</p>
<p>A majority beleives that if we left, violence and crime would be reduced and services would be improved. Even given this, there is signficant concern that Iraqi security forces are not up to the task just yet, which is why a majority do not favor a quick withdrawal of our forces.</p>
<p>A majority who approve of our nonmiliary assistance do not beleive we are doing a good job with it and actually would like the UN to take over the lead in economic redevelopment.</p>
<p>So they appreciate that we gave Saddam the boot but, apart from secuirty concerns, we’ve overstayed our welcome but they’re not sure we’re ever going to completely leave.</p>
<p>One problem with this reasoning is that these people are NOT all terrorists. Some were rounded up by accident; some were turned in for a bounty by someone who dislikes them. By assuming that they are all terrorists, we remove all rights from those innocent people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.</p>
<p>It IS difficult to fight a war on terrorists because they don’t dress in uniform and are mixed into the regular population. We cannot fight it with traditional means, true, but that does not mean we need to set aside all international law and moral standards to fight it. That makes us no better than the bad guys. Rather we need to find means to fight it that still preserve the rights of the innocent people caught in the crossfire–or picked up by accident when they are, in fact, NOT terrorists at all.</p>
And there’s hundreds of millions of people in the middle east and far east who feel exactly that way about the United States. You folks are all “logical.” That same logic hasn’t changed for millions of years. That’s why less logical - and more rational - people realize that while there will always be those who wish to harm our nation, if we fail to recognize the difference between a situation where the continued existence of our nation is at risk - as it is in a real “war” - and the background, never ending reality that there have always been, and always will be, those who would do us harm but do not pose such an existential risk, we will ourselves devolve into a state of savagery which will accomplish what they never could.</p>
<p>Razorsharp - there is absolutely no difference between the philosophy you espouse and that which the 9/11 terrorists espoused - you guys are just on different teams.</p>
<p>Gee, I sure hope you get that “trying” part right. I’d sure hate to be in the receiving end if you guessed wrong. </p>
<p>And that’s the problem with pre-emption, which is what razorsharp (good name for one who likes to cut down suspected enemies) advocates. Sometimes you guess wrong. And those wrong guesses are tragic.</p>
This is exhibit A as to why the left just doesn’t get it and has no clue as to what we are involved with. To equate a group of twisted deviants who deliberately targets civilians for a tortuous death to someone who wants to protect his family from such treatment is just plain sick. Have you heard about what those sickos did to the two American soldiers that they captured and tortured to death? These are not people “just like us” but with different views that we can sit down and negotiate with. These are not just people who feel that the US wronged them and are just seeking retribution. These are as the most twisted, depraved people that have ever walked on this planet. It is sad that many more innocent people will have to be slaughtered before the left finally wakes up to that fact.</p>
<p>Of course. I understand perfectly. They’re not human. Anything goes when dealing with subhumans. We imprison and torture people who may – or may not – have had some remore connection to 9/11, as an official governmental act. But that’s okay. Becaue the other side is a bunch of “twisted deviants”, and we’re not. Our guys who killed and raped innocents in Iraq were just an anomaly. Doesn’t prove we’re “twisted deviants” - it was just a few guys. The innocent Iraqis killed as “collateral damage” by our bombs and shells - well, we’re protecting our families by killing Iraqis. Aren’t we? I guess as long as you can convince yourself of that fact, and of the sub-human status of “the enemy”, anything is justified. Works that way for al Qaeda, works that way for you guys. Always has, hasn’t it?</p>
<p>ff, you’re always good for a laugh. Thanks.</p>
<p>I took a quote from you and with some minor changes, IN CAPS, got this:</p>
<p>To equate a group of twisted deviants who deliberately targets CAPTIVES for tortuRE to someone who wants to protect his family from such treatment is just plain sick. Have you heard about what those sickos did to the two AFGANI soldiers that they captured and tortured ?</p>
<p>BTW, I’m sure the Afgani wedding party we mistakenly thought was something else a few years ago holds us in high regard. O, sorry, I forgot. We didn’t MEAN to kill them. It was an accident. Honest…</p>
<p>Yea, we only tortured. And, since we did it, it was automatically right. Honest. Bush’s lawyer even told congress that. </p>
<p>It is so interesting that those on the right can make such excellent distinctions between freedom fighters on the one hand and terrorists on the other hand.</p>
<p>We have release any accidentally captured people. And we have also released a few by mistake because we made the assumption you just articulated. How about this:</p>
<p>I propose we take half of the Gitmo prisoners and place next to newmassdad’s house and the other half next to kluge’s house. After these two thoughtful intellectuals welcome the prisoners with open arms, lets see how it turns out.</p>
<p>Can you prove they ARE terrorists? The US government seems to be having some trouble doing so, even after 3-4 years. Oh, sorry, I forgot, it’s guilty until proven innocent. Right?</p>
<p>I’m not saying they are all innocent. I’m quite sure there are some really nasty people among those being held. But the fact that some are guilty does not justify treating them as if they ALL are without any right to a trial. It reminds me too much of the former Soviet Union.</p>
<p>OK, razor, send them over. Of course, it would be a whole lot easier if we hadn’t abused and worked them over for the past FOUR years. </p>
<p>As others have thoughtfully pointed out (a trait sadly lacking in some posters here…) Iraq was no hotbed of terrorism until we got there and gave them the good old US treatment for a few years.</p>