posted on September 23, 2001 09:59:23 AM new
"...immorality is out and morality is in"? Says who-Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? I don't see the connection to anything going on now. I would say that there is an obvious "new patriotism" now. Many years ago I did not feel the Viet Nam war was a "just" war and did not feel good about being drafted. It was a moot point as I had several deferments. I did not however take part in any anti-war protests as I felt I should support those who went. I always felt that I would be among the first to defend the country if the homeland was attacked. It is that kind of feeling that I believe many of my generation have now as an attack on one's country quickly puts it into perspective. GAFFAN- you make a good point about setting a "date for blame" but somehow I feel that the "job" on Saddam should have been finished.
posted on September 23, 2001 10:38:59 AM newIt will take an act of violence that makes the destruction of the trade center look like a silly little prank by school children before they are motivated to be afraid of the US.
How exactly would you define this "war?" It was begun by a few dozen individuals not directly linked with a country, but by a fundamenalist religious movement. Do we play nuclear spin the bottle and blast the loser? Will that stop terrorism or the Islamic Jihad movement? No, it will not. And making a nation of largely innocents foot the bill for the acts of a few extremists will not intimidate anyone.
The people that we are talking about are largely living a social, political and technological lifestyle circa 1000 A.D. They are unfamiliar with and don't understand concepts like freedom and democracy. They follow their leaders, who define the political (and religious) imperatives.
Destroying Afghanistan will not "put a scare" in anyone. It will only reinforce the Arab world's opinion of us. The answer is to remove (with extreme prejudice) the leaders and supporters of the Islamic Jihad.
Unfortunately, U.S. policy is not equipped to deal with this situation. We need a clearly-defined enemy (i.e., another country) to fight. The U.S. response to WTC has been to turn this into "just another (non-)war." What's next, after Afghanistan? The Jihad leaders will surface elsewhere in the Middle East. Can we bomb one country after another, kill tens of millions of people, because of the acts of a few dozen individuals?
I suspect that most of the world sees our actions as completely self-serving. We sit down to the table with Yasser Arafat, the most visible terrorist leader of all, while decrying Bin Laden. What have we done to stop the IRA? We expect the world to look out for our interests, but will the world sit still while we defoliate Central Europe?
What is needed is military intelligence and to apply pressure to a few key points. Depopulating camel-driving nations will not end terrorism. We can't afford it and it won't work.
posted on September 23, 2001 10:45:22 AM new
I have to agree with oyu twinsoft this war will be fought as bush said mostly in the shadows not so much with bombs..
posted on September 23, 2001 11:00:51 AM new
>patriotism
Churches were packed because everyone just wanted to sing God Bless America?
A friend told me (ok, it was the grocery store manager that you all have come to know so well) that his pastor received call after call all week asking "Do you plan to have prayer meeting on Wed night?" to which he replied, "Yes, we have had it every Wed night for the last 42 years. We hope you will join us this week.".
Already "we", America, are bored with this "war". How annoying. Forget justice, forget the wake-up call, just let it be over so we can get back to whatever we were doing.
T
posted on September 23, 2001 11:16:59 AM new
Helen, I don't know how to convey to you that I feel that my children have been in less danger in the last week than any other time in their short history. It's like the clock of internal rot of our nation stopped for a spilt second and eveyone stood with gaping mouth in front of their tv.
I wasn't in the least surprised. Not in the LEAST. And people call me stupid for always having a 50 pounds of rice in a bucket? I will always have 50 pounds of rice, a case of ammo, and sleeping bags by the back door. It's not fear, it's common sense.
As was in the times of Noah, eat, drink, be merry.
T
posted on September 23, 2001 11:20:03 AM newHow exactly would you define this "war?" It was begun by a few dozen individuals not directly linked with a country, but by a fundamenalist religious movement.
Oh, really? Terrorism 101 says that terrorist groups are always proxies, always. Bin Laden, for example, may think he is a free agent and he may think he is using, for example, Iraq when they provide him with intelligence but actually both are using each other. Iraq cannot wage war against the United States directly, so they create, encourage, finance and help out in innumerable ways people such as bin Laden. Sure, one of bin Laden's goals is to purge Saudi Arabia of it's ruling "kaffer [infidel]" government. Ironically, the fall of the Sauds is also a main goal of Saddam Hussein. Say bin Laden does succeed in toppling the Sauds. Who do you think steps in, bin Laden? I bet he thinks so, but I also bet that Saddam says "thank you, Osama" and simply redraws the map of Iraq to include Arabia. Maybe he'll rename it Babylonian Arabia.
The same can be said of all the states which "sponsor" terrorism. Even Arafat was essentially a creation of Nasser, under the same principle. These states can't wage war on the West in ways that they'd like to, so they create and encourage at the very least these terrorist groups to wage proxy wars. The majority of terrorism in the 70s was linked to the USSR. That was how they waged war on the West; by providing training to terrorist groups, weapons and safe houses in Eastern bloc countries. I know it and seemingly our government not only knows it, but is now closer than ever before to doing something about it.
The Taliban of Afghanistan are only the tip of the iceberg.
Helen, you may not be grateful but it will be your safety and security that will be fought for as well.
It is the mentality of a slave or a damaged rape victim who blames themselves after they have been struck unjustly.
posted on September 23, 2001 11:25:22 AM new
By the way, if I sound particlarly annoyed it's in part because I found out the other night that I know someone who is one of the 300+ firefighters who died saving others.
Hmmm... maybe I should say "annoyed, but very much rational".
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 23, 2001 11:33 AM ]
posted on September 23, 2001 11:33:42 AM new
Very sorry about your friend James.
And it is the mentality of a fool who thinks themselves invincible and always entitled to fair skies.
T
James, the above statements are in no way related. One is sincerely expressed in sympathy, the other is related to the previous conversation about the state of our nation.
posted on September 23, 2001 11:40:54 AM newNobody else in their right mind shares your opinions. Helen Why is it that you continue to get away with directly insulting someone whose opinions differ from your own? Just because Teri has her own views of the situation doesn't mean that she (or anyone else who might share those views) are not "in their right minds", ie. crazy.
I'd venture that some here might think YOU are not in your "right mind",but of course out of politeness, I would never suggest such a thing.
posted on September 23, 2001 11:53:41 AM newThe opinions expressed here were off the wall
Thanks, Helen, for that clarification regarding your opinions.
posted on September 23, 2001 11:56:04 AM newBin Laden, for example, may think he is a free agent and he may think he is using, for example, Iraq when they provide him with intelligence but actually both are using each other.
Well, I would certainly agree with that. I personally differentiate between leaders of terrorist-supporting nations, and the people of those nations. I have a problem with devastating one nation's people after another. I don't think it will work, world opinion won't support it, and even the American people won't allow it six months from now.
If sheer brute American military force would work, then why didn't it work in Iraq? We pretty much levelled that country, but it didn't stop terrorism. Conducting ground war operations throughout Central Europe might succeed (not likely), but it's an expensive gamble, the ante to be paid in American lives.
I have zero sympathy for terrorists. They should be stopped. But I wonder about the expediency of our current plan (if plan it is). We can kill a million camel-driver Iraqis but unless the leaders are removed, we've accomplished nothing.
I can't believe ignorance of some who promote large scale slaughter of civilians [nuclear or otherwise]. That would definitely bring the wrath of the entire world upon this country.
posted on September 23, 2001 01:32:19 PM new
From what I can tell at this point, the only certainty is that the War on Terrorism, as distinct from bin Laden and Afghanistan, is that no one knows exactly what that means other than that the destructiveness of terrorism ought to be removed from the world. Last night on Larry King Live, Pete Domenici thought about ten years, John Kerry less than that, Powell suggests perhaps never. And then the questions about what the commitments of other countries to the present specific actions in Afghanistan will require in terms of our support for their conflicts, the IRA being only one of a number around the world.
CNN did a little synopsis of some of our internal problems with terrorism, the OKC bombing is the most focal because of the degree of destruction. But there have been a great number the last few years including the school shootings, etc.
Everyone is saying that the world has been forever changed and it will result in a loss of freedoms but no one has put any limit so far on how far that will go to prevent individuals the potential to make wrong choices and hasn't that been attempted in one form or another since earliest recorded times.
I don't see anyone offering any answers which don't suggest either a lack of knowledge or that isn't a contradiction. But barring any discreet definitions of The War on Terrorism, logically Powell's projection would seem the most reasonable.
posted on September 23, 2001 01:57:59 PM new
Antiquary, Do you really see school shootings as acts of "terrorism"? A courious thought to me because I have always considered them desperate cries for help that never came.
T
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
