<p>
Says who? No one asked me if I agreed with that assessment. I’m always cautious when people start throwing around statements like, “Americans believe…”
What made us a target in 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2000?</p>
<p>No, we don’t.</p>
<p>As DRJ4 so correctly articulated in the other thread, the terrorists are to blame for terrorists attacks. Our foreign policy should be crafted from a position of fear and defensiveness, cringing in cowardice because of what some group of lunatics might do? I don’t THINK so.</p>
<p>No response to the facts…</p>
<p>Just the facts, ma’m…just the facts.</p>
<p>An Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,001 Americans, that included 813 registered voters, reported last week that 71 percent believed the country was moving in the wrong direction. Only 26 percent thought otherwise. A Zogby poll, using about the same wording, showed voters saying wrong track by 59 percent to 34 percent.</p>
<p>
I am nearing the point where I think this is the crucial question that divides liberals from conservatives, Democrats from Republicans. Yes, GLA, I believe Western Civilization is in peril. I don’t believe that America will become a Muslim totalitarian state, at least not in my lifetime and hopefully never, but our nation does risk an increasingly complex and dangerous existence that Europeans already face in their unassimilated nations. </p>
<p>In the meantime, I think the imminent risk to America is two-fold. First, and most important, we face the dangers of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks such as those Israelis face on a daily and weekly basis. Second, and more insidiously, we risk an erosion of our civil liberties - not from the Patriot Act or the Bush Administration but from the PC police who, in the name of tolerance and understanding, appease those who object to things they find offensive. Recall how the worldwide media responded to the Prophet cartoons for a preview of how we Americans will willingly walk down the path of giving up liberties provided by America’s founders.</p>
<p>Finally, I do fear that America may someday fall to Muslim occupiers. Why would I say that? In WWII, my parents reasonably feared that America might become a Nazi state and I suspect most British, French, and other Allied Europeans agreed. It didn’t happen but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. In my childhood, I feared the Communist threat of the Soviet Union. That conflict never materialized, at least not in the nuclear war we all feared, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. There were clearly moments that we were unaware of at the time where America and the Soviet Union risked nuclear confrontation and, in truth, who knows if America would have prevailed? </p>
<p>When America wins wars, nations are rebuilt and continue their existence. Do you think America would be that fortunate if we lose a war? Viet Nam jaundiced us as a society into believing that war has no consequences except that people live or die. The consequences of this war go beyond who lives or dies. We fight for the continuation of the values of Western Civilization. Even if you look only at [one</a> date in history, September 11](<a href=“TCS Daily : Technology - Commerce - Society”>TCS Daily : Technology - Commerce - Society), you will find startling insight into how perilous this thing we call Western Civilization really is.</p>
<p>Thus, GLA, perhaps I am a pessimist but I am not as sanguine as some that Western Civilization will always prevail. I know that it won’t if we don’t fight.</p>
<p>
Let’s consider polls. I have been polled twice in the past 9 months. Both times I expressed disapproval of current American policies, and I am part of the 50-60-70% of people who disapprove of President Bush. My disapproval stems from the fact that America has been too lax in the prosecution of the war and because I object to President Bush’s immigration policies. However, I will vote Republican in November.</p>
<p>I have no idea how the November elections or future elections will turn out. Democrats may win in a landslide for years to come, but I wouldn’t decide that based solely on poll results like these.</p>
<p>Until we are willing to go after the money that funds Islamic terrorism we will get nowhere. Money buys the weapons, airline tickets and indentities used against western civilization. Most of that money comes from Saudi families and Iran. GW screwed up, face it. Had he gone after the financial side of terrorism with the same vigor he went into Iraq with we wouldn’t have the world we have now. </p>
<p>Some of the richest families in the world fund terrorism. As long as we allow that to occur we’ll be threatened. Unfortunately it’s a carryover from the old UK and leaving wealth and status alone during wars. It is considered more sporting to send our poor to fight their poor. If we actively pursued the wealth that financed terrorism and minimalized it, how effective would it be?</p>
<p>You can always find some fool to kill himself for a cause, but if the budget isn’t there… Maybe some of our Saudi “friends” might reconsider their “donations” if the chance existed that we would actually go get them too in the process were real. The terrorists can have all the “masterminds” they want if we take away those who write the checks.</p>
<p>DRJ4:
I think your analogy to the conflict between the U.S. and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and our current conflict with Islamic terrorists is inappropriate. In those past conflicts we were threatened by nation states with large armies and great economic resources. Presently we are threatened by a relatively small number of radicals who have the ability to inflict great damage, but not occupy our territory or control our government. Nor have even the most radical of them expressed any desire to do so.
Yes, the U.S. rebuilt Japan and Germany after WWII in order to counter Soviet expansion. But we did not rebuild Mexico, Spain, The Phillipines, Cuba, The Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Panama.</p>
<p>The threat to civil liberties today is no greater than any other time in American history. Probably less so. Reaction to the Anti-Muslim cartoons was nowhere near that of imprisoning people for being union organizers or Holocaust deniers.</p>
<p>Allmusic, Sideways and anyone else who doesn’t things the way I do:</p>
<p>What do you think the administration should have done differently in response to 9/11?<br>
Do you think it was wrong to go into Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power?<br>
Do you think that terrorists only began plotting against the U.S. in January of 2001, when George Bush was inaugurated?<br>
Do you think that the US government or American civilians did something to deserve what happened on 9/11?
Do you think that the fact that there have been no other attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 is an accident?</p>
<p>These are just some of the issues I don’t understand about Democrats. I hear lots of criticism against the President, the military, anyone even remotely leaning toward conservatism etc. What I don’t hear are alternative solutions.</p>
<p>I DO see this as an epic struggle, as DRJ4 describes. I don’t understand anyone who doesn’t. It seemed to me that after 9/11 there were a fair amount of people on the left who wanted to blame Americans for what happened. I only blame the perpetrators.</p>
<p>I had a rule when my boys were younger – whoever hits first gets in trouble, regardless of the reason. But I was always a little bit lenient on the one who hit back – you can’t expect to hit someone and not get something in return. (Actually, they almost never hit each other because of this rule.)</p>
<p>I also grew up in a family of five children, where the youngest four were girls. We sisters argued, borrowed each other’s things without permission and could offer scathing insults to one another. But as soon as someone outside the family was mean to one of us, we all stood together. It’s about loyalty. So that’s another problem I have with the continual criticism of this country and it’s leaders.</p>
<p>
I knew you would say this which is why I included the example of the Prophet cartoon in the first place. Part of the danger we face isn’t from one big army or nation but from the way we accept demands that we change - not changes we make democratically through our elected leaders but cultural changes our media, university professors, and diplomats make in our names. The threat is greater because we acquiesce to it.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there were people who initially argued the Soviet Union wasn’t a threat because it lacked a large navy and couldn’t bring it’s massive armies to our shores. The next war is always asymmetrical compared to the past ones. We need to think asymmetrically because our enemies certainly do. What if terrorists are fortunate enough to unleash 2 or 3 nuclear events, even “mere” dirty bombs, in a large American city? Maybe that would unite our citizens but there would always be some, perhaps many, who would rather appease our enemies. It looks more like option 2 every day in America. </p>
<p>GLA, at what point do you say “Enough is enough”? For me, that point was 9/11. Let me know when you get there, too.</p>
<p>SJmom, I don’t blame American citizens, but I do blame our government and foreign policy…our imperialism and colonialism is partially to blame. I do think that the 12th century mentality of these extremists is not the fault of America or Western influence at all, however.</p>
<p>DRJ, I don’t believe in “appeasing the enemy”, but I also do not believe in bombing the middle east into oblivion. It obviously hasn’t been successful, nor will it be successful in the future. Americans value life (at least if it is American life), and these Islamic extremists do not. Their families benefit from the death of a son who has died as a suicide bomber. Young men continue to join the ranks, eager to die for their cause. And demographically, these people have huge families, with many sons eager to join up. Traditional warfare will never, ever alleviate this threat.</p>
<p>SJMom:
To answer your questions:
Yes we should have invaded Afghanistan.
Radical Islamists began attacks on the U.S. in the early to mid 1970’s
Did we do something to deserve being attacked? I don’t think so. What could justify the murder of 3000 innocent civilians.
No Attacks in 5 years? Not an accident, but it seems like the typical time frame for attacks on U.S. soil. Eight years between attacks in the Clinton administration.
What should we have done differently? Continue to pursue Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Insist that Pakistan turn over A.Q. Khan for U.S. interrogation. Rebuild Afghanistan and wipe out the opium trade. Reinstate CAFE standards to reduce dependency on Middle Eastern Oil. Refrain from invading Iraq and thereby inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment. Pursue a more evenhanded approach to the Israeli/Plalestinian conflict so that we could be perceived as an honest broker. Insist that Saudi Arabia cease to fund terrorist organizations. Insist that Yeme turn over the U.S. Cole suspects to U.S. authority. Take over airport security instead of subcontracting it. Increase funding for cargo security. I could go on, but this is a start.
Bush has absolutely failed to increase U.S. security. He is either grossly incompetent or he is attempting to establish a permanent state of war ala 1984</p>
<p>As far as who hits first, this is a fools game. Islam and the West have been hitting each other for 1000 years. It really doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>OpiefromMayberry, are you familiar with the rather significant component of the Patriot Act that addresses BSA and moneylaundering? How about the Egmont Group? FinCEN, under Treasury? New regulations for correspondent banking? </p>
<p>How about the hearing in the Senate Banking Committee held just this morning on what has been done to thwart terrorist financing since 9/11 - testimony should be posted in another hour or so, if it’s not there already:</p>
<p><a href=“http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=235[/url]”>http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=235</a></p>
<p>Or how about this Senate hearing, just a few months old, on terrorist financing threats and countermeasures: </p>
<p><a href=“http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=205[/url]”>http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=205</a></p>
<p>This represents only a very small fraction of the work being done to stop the flow of funds and support to terrorists. </p>
<p>These efforts are global, and have been in place for some time, and more and more countries are signing up, cooperating with the U.S., and sharing information. The Egmont Group started as only a handful of countries post 9/11 - now is up to 101.</p>
<p>DRJ:
If the greatest threat we face is aquiescing to demands for change (I don’t think the Prophet cartoons reach this level) why are we bombing Iraq? Shouldn’t ideas be fought with better ideas?
The assymetry between a few thousand Islamic Terrorists and the U.S. is not at all comparable to questions of whether or not the Soviet Navy was large enough to launch an invasion of the U.S.
For sure we need to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear devices. Have you met anyone who wants them to have nukes? While we can argue whether or not invading Iraq was moral or not, I don’t see how anyone can feel that we are safer because of this agression</p>
<p>My point about hitting first is that you can’t let a bully get away with it. It emboldens the bully and teaches him/her that there will be no resistance.</p>
<p>Allmusic, you said,
Then you are blaming all U.S. administrations prior to 9/11/01, including Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy etc. I can’t differentiate between blaming our citizens and blaming our government policies. It’s the same thing as saying you support the soldiers but not the military – it just doesn’t make sense to me.</p>
<p>The fact that you think that the murder of 3,000 innocent men, women and children is excusable in any way tells me everything I need to know about your point of view.</p>
<p>As I said earlier,
</p>
<p>Finally, I have evolved into a fairly right wing conservative since 9/11/01. My husband travels frequently between the coasts, so every time he’s in the air, I’m anxious. I listen to the news, I keep my cell phone near me and I can’t really relax until he calls from his destination. He traveled yesterday, which only added to my anxiety on the anniversary.</p>
<p>SJ:
relax. Your husband is about 1000 times more likely to die in an automobile accident, hunting accident, fall, etc. than a terrorist attack. In the last ten years 5000 non-military U.S. citizens were killed by terrorists.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf#search=“chances%20of%20dying%20in%20terrorist%20attack%20vs%20other%20forms%20of%20death”[/url]”>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf#search=“chances%20of%20dying%20in%20terrorist%20attack%20vs%20other%20forms%20of%20death”</a></p>
<p>This is my first post. I’m the spouse of "Sideways, and I’m frankly very impressed with the quality of discussion, the passion, and the love of America that’s driving these messages. In my view, here’s the upshot:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Very few would take issue with our response in Afghanistan, since Bin Laden and Mullah Omar’s Taliban hit us. My regret is, as someone suggested, that our military response wasn’t more vigorous and definitive, and some argue that Iraq, while unrelated to 9-11, drained our resources, and has placed our military heroes in a position unable to deal with real threats; Iran and North Korea.</p></li>
<li><p>There is legitimate debate about Iraq. Bush critics say they support the troops but question the policy, and they point out that he admitted not knowing a Sunni from a Shiite even as the first bombs fell,that there were no WMD’s, no Al Qaeda ties (Saddam even tried to arrest Zarkawi, Al Q’s man in Iraq), there was no imminent threat to us, yet the number of killed Americans approaches the 9-11 number, even as our new Iraqi government is forming alliances with terrorist Iran. Proponents say yes, the intelligence was bad, but now we’re there, and we now have a HUGE opportunity to spread democracy in the region; that we must succeed with U.S. credibility at stake.</p></li>
<li><p>My wish is that each side would heed the admonishing of Ben Franklin and “doubt our own infallibility”. I would ask Bush critics (as was suggested earlier) what the better plan ought to be. What’s the alternative policy? I would ask the supporters of Bush’s Iraq policy to ask themselves honestly; is there a smidge of a possibility, however miniscule and remote, that this president made a colossal mistake?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
Oh, that’s one I have no problem answering. Yes. But a possible mistake, based on the consensus of available intelligence reports, in a crisis, is a whole lot different from “HE LIED TO US AND DELIBERATELY LED US INTO WAR UNDER FALSE ASSERTIONS TO ENRICH HIS HALLIBURTON CRONIES.”</p>
<p>Don’t you agree?</p>