posted on September 25, 2001 10:54:32 AM
Well, now you have me confused, Ken. Are you saying that you don't have an isolationist view? If so, where do you think that the U.S. belongs? I may have misunderstood, (wouldn't be the first time) but what I thought you were saying, was that the U.S. should not participate the Middle East, through economic, political, or other means. That if we were to withdraw completely, that terrorism will no longer be a threat to us directly. I would assume that goes for any other world region or nation that has problems with US foreign/economic policies. But we know what happens when we ASSume? So explain further, please.
posted on September 25, 2001 10:59:54 AM
bunnicula: "arouse hatred?". And they are merely miffed or perturbed with us now? The voice mail message on my clue phone states that they already hate, despise, and loathe us.
As for making new enemies, when Europe suffers an WTC-sized attack their penchant for appeasement will abate.
posted on September 25, 2001 11:17:34 AMkrs: And can you point out where I've taken an isolationist point in all things, historical or otherwise?
Well, I suppose I could be obnoxious and say that I wasn't talking about you, that it's not always about you, etc. But that's not my style.
In fact, though, I never claimed that you "have taken an isolationist point in all things". I do, however, think you are taking an isolationist view in the current situation, and I also happen to see strong parallels between the current situation and that facing the nation in the years leading up to the previous two world wars.
You may think that it's all "situational" and that the current situation has nothing to do with the examples I brought up. And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But I'm pretty darn sure that there were people who felt the EXACT same way you do back then, and I'm sure their justifications for feeling that way were just as strong as yours are.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there were people during WWII who acknowledged that we were right to get involved in WWI, but felt that things were "different" now. History, of course, has shown that things weren't all so different after all.
Pulling out of the MidEast entirely may very well preserve us from future terrorist attacks, at least for the short term, but I'm not sure the result would be a world in which most of us would want to live.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 25, 2001 11:20:24 AM
What, Katy? You need to put me into a box? You think that it's not possible to say, run across the street in your neighborhood to try to save your neighbor's car seat in a rainstorm by rolling up the window for him/her but on another rainy day leave a different neighbor's dog tied to a stake in the yard? In the first case the trouble you see is an oversight perhaps characteristic of that neighbor (ditzy, for ex.), and in the second the other neighbor leaves the poor dog that way all the time by choice so the heck with them, it's not your business what they do.
posted on September 25, 2001 11:26:43 AM
Or maybe that damn dog barks all night long keeping me awake. I can't help it, Ken. It's my nature to try to put everything in a box and tie it up with a nice big bow.
posted on September 25, 2001 11:31:08 AM
Oh. Gee, well I guess being quoted in reference is no reason to think that you addressed me. Really....so sorry.
But Barry, it's quite different. Those were viable European entities-part and parcel of our heritage, and these are mere.....arabs.
A joke, partly, but I think that that attitude will explain why our intelligence and security services have missed them all this time, and if nothing else comes of all of this a change in that perspective may keep us all much safer henceforth.
Did you see that these were so inept as to be comical but for their result? Two of them had their credit cards refused when they tried to buy their tickets and had to trudge down to the airport to pay in cash. Pros-you bet. It's a wonder that they didn't miss their flights.
"Actually, PL, Helen thinks we ought to go over there hat in hand and ask them Pretty please? With sugar on it? That's whatcha call diplomacy. Helen thinks that they are just misunderstood and they really just want to sit down to tea with us and tell us where it hurts."
I was unable to answer this comment last night because of a storm related computer disconnection.
Please refrain from interpreting how I think. Such an asinine and meanspirited remark is juvenile and serves no purpose other than to insult.
In this case, the thread topic was a suggestion that we should dump radioactive trash on another country. If you subscribe to that view, why not make it clear how YOU feel?
Joining a gang of posters only to bash me was both a disservice to yourself and unkind to me.
Actually, KatyD, I would like to put you in a box...or see you get on your mule and ride off into the sunset.
Do you think that we can arrange that?
posted on September 25, 2001 12:28:25 PM
NEWSFLASH, Helen. It's O-V-E-R. In other words L-O-C-K-E-D. We're talking about something else now. You're off topic. Get with the program dear. Can't live in the past.
posted on September 25, 2001 12:46:57 PMActually, KatyD, I would like to put you in a box...
That's a pretty twisted thing to say, Helen, and a heck of a way to ensure that a thread gets locked just because you don't like the way the discussion is going.
posted on September 25, 2001 12:53:24 PM
Surely the mods wouldn't lock a perfectly civil thread...just because of one disruptive poster. Nah. Besides, KatyD don't got no mule.
Your posts are disruptive and have nothing to do with this thread. I suggest you adhere to the Community Guidelines to keep your posting privileges intact. Keep to the topic of THIS thread.
posted on September 25, 2001 01:03:23 PM
Sorry, Helen, but from here it sounded like you were saying "I'd like to put you in a box" the same way somebody might say "I'd like to send you home in a box."
Maybe because we're discussing potential death and destruction and KatyD herself mentioned soldiers coming home in body bags only several posts earlier.
posted on September 25, 2001 01:17:24 PM
Oh now Spaz, could you possibly keep your end of the world ranting on topic? Remember? Terrorists--not Helenists, unless you mean to say that they are one and the same?
Since you have said that you are a Libertarian, I thought that you might enjoy reading this article by the Libertarian candidate for president 2000, Harry Brown.
I think that he has some very good anti war points.
Helen
an excerpt....
First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could have happened. Ask how a prosperous country isolated by two oceans could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.
Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.
Third, find a way, with enforceable constitutional limits, to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America.
Patriotism?
There are those who will say this article is unpatriotic and un-American – that this is not a time to question our country or our leaders.
When will we learn that without freedom and sanity, there is no reason to be patriotic?
posted on September 25, 2001 02:28:54 PMEven sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.
I can't help but think of that classic line Orson Welles delivers in the movie "The Third Man."
In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
Don't try and make fictional heros. The Swiss weren't exactly neutral in WW2, that is why neutral Denmark was invaded and neutral Switzerland wasn't.
posted on September 25, 2001 02:35:46 PM
I have to say that all your remarks on both sides seem to question if it is good or bad to take the Taliban and Bin Laden up on being left alone by withdrawing all US interest and activity from the middle east.
Hogwash.
If the US withdrew completely there would still be terrorism directed at it because of it's position as world financial leader and commercial cultural giant.
Next it would be demands to get out of the "persecution" of Muslim interests through the world financial markets and World Bank. Always of course with the help of the Jewish banking conspiricy. (eye roll)
When the other European western powers went into the region to stablize it - because it IS their primary source of oil they would just be regarded as proxies for the US.
They would even move on to blame the US for the morals crime of US movies,fashion, music and fast food.
These people are always going to find some justification for hating and killing Americans. Bullys always have a reason - like wifebeaters.
Oh - you didn't fix the suppper the way I like so I have to slap you silly.
The kid is crying and the TV is off my station so I have to sock you. yeah
posted on September 25, 2001 02:45:28 PM
I knew there was a reason I admired you, you have a way of getting to the very basics with no fooling around. Yay GRAVID!!
The Swiss seemed quite neutral regarding the source of the funds received in WWII, huh? Have the Holocaust survivors ever gotten their family monies returned?
posted on September 25, 2001 02:49:00 PMEven sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.
This is a fallacy. When there's a bully on the block, he'll find you regardless of how diligently you try to keep your head down. If Switzerland has gone unmolested, it's only because the terrorists have a wealth of other targets at hand just now.
Anyway, is Switzerland really a good comparison? They're not quite in the same league as the United States when it comes to being a world power. We are what we are. I doubt many Americans would be happy to see the USA retreat from the world until it becomes a second or third rate power. And I doubt many would feel safe or secure knowing that while we buried our heads in the sand here at home, other world powers were busy extending their influence across the globe, oppressing people, committing atrocities, shutting us off from natural resources, etc.
Some people have suggested that we leave the Middle East to its own devices, to do battle with their enemies if they please, to nuke each other into oblivion if they want. That might be fine if we could enclose the Middle East in a self-contained bubble. But any radioactive warfare over there is going to have an impact here and around the world in the form of fallout, radioactive contamination, atmospheric dust blocking out the sun, and so forth.
And in the Middle East itself, it would wipe out the last traces of the some of the earliest human civilizations. The very foundations of the human race. It would be a devastating loss to all mankind to lose that.
Yes, our presence in the Middle East is causing some problems. But I think in the bigger picture, our presence there may be preventing some even bigger problems from developing. If left to themselves, I think the combatants in the Middle East would set Armageddon in motion without a second thought as to the consequences for the rest of the globe.
So explain further, please.
