posted
True, but that is the case toppling any dictator (of which there are sadly many still kicking around). And the world/regional threat seems to have been overblown, and some might say that our invasion made the threat worse (the WMDs, if they exist in the quantities implied by the US government, are now possibly dispersed amongst many groups now, and more terrorists are coming into Iraq, post-war, than there ever was pre-war).
posted
You know, I've been knocking this idea back and forth in my skull for a while, and I submit this for your consideration:
We are justified in invading -- but not compelled to invade -- any country whose leadership openly calls for the destruction of our country.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maureen never said anything about invading, at least I sure didn't mean to if I did.
Maureen said we shouldn't do nothing.
Many of you are the ones saying there are ways to deal with things other than attacking.
I just think we have to be prepared to deal with some backlash, and that I was willing to die for other people. Those do not necessarily equate to attack or invade.
posted
Bok, you are arguing that there were other ways to deal with Iraq possibly. Okay, that may be true. I'm arguing that now that we're in it, we need to stick it out because there's a good chance worse things will happen to us than losing the good opinion of other countries if we don't. And I'm scared that there's a real good chance that what will happen if we get an anti-war president will be a dangerous withdrawal rather than a well thought out one.
edited for extreme lack of point
The point is that those two things aren't really opposites and a reasonable person could hold both opinions.
posted
Maureen, once again, it's a fact that most of the Democratic candidates do not favor withdrawal from Iraq, including none of the frontrunners.
quote:How long before the USA believes it can do no wrong?
I think that, as a USA citizen, this should be a more important question.
Ditto. And on a practical level, what will the rest of the world do to us if they come to believe we have come to believe we can do no wrong?
quote:I'll stand by Bush, He most defenitly better than any of the other options.
Why? [EDIT: Oh, wait, nevermind. You started a whole thread...]
------
There's a lot of talk about Iraq on this thread - what about the other three problems I mentioned? Even if you don't think the preemptive strike on Iraq was unacceptable, don't you have problems with the other things the Bush administration has done? I would think any one of them should be enough to drive one to take a chance on a different person as president, rather than condone the Bush administration's actions.
I also have to wonder why there aren't more concerned Republicans talking about what the Bush administartion is doing to their party. It is becoming increasingly reactionary (not to mention big-spending), and if they don't watch it, it might take the whole conservative agenda down in flames with it in the end.
posted
I hope not, in that case the least moral of the republicans would switch parties again.
(as a brief history lesson, when the Democrats stopped being the party of oppression a number of members jumped ship and went to the republicans. Those same people currently hold many of the leadership positions in the party)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should liberate what be can. We can't liberate Tibet because China stands in the way. We could liberate Iraq. As a Jew I ask, "How can people claim that the US should have stopped the Holocaust in 1933 but claim the US shouldn't end the genocide of the Kurds?" I guess there just aren't enough Kurds in this country for people to care. Its also amazing how the discovery of mass graves went virtually unnoticed. My first reason for supporting this war was the liberation of Iraq. My second reason was WMD. Granted WMD was first for Bush or so he claimed at the time, but in this case the ends easily justify the means.
posted
Is that in the same way bin Laden thinks the ends justifies the means when he blows up innocent Americans to "liberate" the Arab world from us? Or is more like the way the ends justified the means for the Soviets, when they "liberated" all those countries from inferior, corrupt capitalist regimes?
quote:In my opinion, if the world stood together in an invasion of China, they'd be a lot MORE likely to start nuking.
I totally agree. I think it was Sun Tzu who advised to always leave a way out because the cornered animal fights much more fiercely than one who can flee.
Promethius[sic] wrote:
quote:I like it when people such as Johnnynotsobravo say how we have supported dicatators in the past, as if that is a good reason to stop supporting ruthless dictators now.
So, you're saying that we should support ruthless dictators now?
Okay, I'm gonna be all noble and believe that what you meant to say is that the evil we have done in the past does not justify ignoring the good we can do now. In which case, there are plenty of ruthless dictators in Africa that we can kick out, where women are oppressed and there's plenty of civilians slaughtered everyday. But we're going to need to draft you and every other person of military age. Sorry. You know what, though? We're not going to invade any (more) countries in Africa! (okay, we did invade Somalia - but no more!) We could, but it's just not worth it economically, or in terms of American lives lost. Our policy in the US has never been dominated by whether dictators needed to be removed. It's about our best interests. If it doesn't cost too much or only a few of our people will get killed, then we'll go ahead and do a good humanitarian thing, like Kosovo. That's just the way America is. Bush(43) may be in public office now, but so is Rumsfeld. And so was Rumsfeld before. And if you clicked on my previous link, then you know Rumsfeld was involved in providing chemical weapons to Iraq. This administration isn't as pretty as you think it is.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or our ends are the institution of a puppet Iraq, while bin Laden's ends are the freeing of the Arabic world from western domination and an end to Palestinian oppression. It depends on who you ask.
And yes, terrorist opinions do matter, at least if you have any concern at all about stopping those terrorists. After all, if we convert the entire Muslim world to share the terrorists' opinions, they will all become terrorist supporters and we won't be able to stop them. They already believe America is the world's biggest threat (opinion polls consistently show this and our decision to teach them a lesson is going to do nothing but reenforce it). If you're then telling them it's okay to attack anyone who they think is a major threat to the world and that ends justify means, there should be no surprise whatsoever when they try to destroy us by any means necessary.
See, the irony is that there is probably an Arabic newfoundlogic over there, looking at our actions from the Arabic perspective and supporting bin Laden, claiming that any means are valid for something as important stopping the American domination of the region and that that makes all of bin Laden's questionable methods justified.
posted
Tres OBL uses a very demented version of Islam to justify killing other Arabs who don't fight the U.S. He is not afraid to kill men, women, and children not by accident but to deliberately target them. Yes we need to get involved in and help get Middle Eastern countries economically stable and democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan could go a long way towards doing that. But OBL would rather priests run the country and not allow women to go to school.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I totally agree. I think it was Sun Tzu who advised to always leave a way out because the cornered animal fights much more fiercely than one who can flee.
quote: I totally agree. I think it was Sun Tzu who advised to always leave a way out because the cornered animal fights much more fiercely than one who can flee.
The irony of the situation is, that truth applies equally to the September 11 and our response to it. The political and popular debate over what the right response to such an event, while a natural course of human nature that should be expected, is ironically perhaps the worst casualty of terrorism.
The world is not so different from a family who had a strong figure who for generations had been the one who seemed to always have the most protection and success in the face of adversity. Then one day, unexpectedly, that person was diangosed with cancer. The prognosis is, you can ignore it, and it might go away. But more than likely, now that it has taken root, it will spread, and you will die a slow painful debilitating death. You can take a moderate approach and fight it with diet, exercise, meditation, etc. That's probably better than nothing, but statistics from other people show it doesn't usually work, and you don't get a second chance if it fails. Or, you can take an invasive approach and do chemotherapy. It's has the most likely chance of killing the cancer so you can survive, but it still often doesn't work, and you are guaranteed nasty side affects that will tear apart your body and family for some time even if you come out of it in the end.
In such a scenario, I find much less interesting the choice of the person afflicted with cancer, than I find the choices of those around that person. Does the family recognize the low marginal benefit of one choice of treatment over the other, and focus on other areas with better marginal benefit such as taking care of themselves and their relationships regardless of the choice of action? Or do they tear apart what they could maintain, in a futile attempt to change the decisionmaking of the afflicted.
I am not a fan of Mr. Bush's invasive war on terror, nor Mr. Clinton's half-a$$ed lobbing of a few Tommahawks now and then, nor a stick-your-head-in-the-sand-and-hope-it-goes-away doves-are-nice-but-get-eaten-by-carnivores approach. All three answers suck.
What defines the heroes and villians in the war on terror is not how the US has responded in the face of being trapped with no good choices. But rather, how its citizens, its politicians, and the broader world have responded to the tough choice the US has made. The villians are those who waste much energy bickering and deviding relationships on an issue where their taking sides can only hurt the situation. The heroes are those who act with humility, understanding, and respect of the difficulty of the situation, and focus their energies on building up in areas where the ratio of good done to effort spent is far greater than arguing over a set of bad options. The heroes are unknown because they are quiet. And the villians are the politicians and countries who fight the war on terror, not because of the common reason given -- that the war on terror is good or right or moral or better (it is bad and sucks like all the other options) -- but rather because they are doing the political equivalent of tampering with the sick person's chemotherapy session out of their own selfishness, and in so doing make the situation worse by lessening none of the nasty side affects while greatly lessening the chance that the treatment will succeed.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What defines the heroes and villians in the war on terror is not how the US has responded in the face of being trapped with no good choices. But rather, how its citizens, its politicians, and the broader world have responded to the tough choice the US has made.
To say that the US was "trapped" with no "good" (extremely subjective wording) choices is ridiculous. We are the most powerful nation in the world. We chose to go invade Iraq, even though the UN didn't want us to. No one else would go invade another country without UN backing! You know why? Because we would stop them like we stopped Iraq from doing it to Kuwait in '91! We become the thing we fight against...
But say you weren't talking about Iraq. Let's talk Afghanistan. Did we need to invade? No. There were plenty of other options, such as bombing, or running covert ops to enter the caves and deal with the terrorist camps. Am I glad we invaded? Yes. Feeling good about it doesn't make it right, but it felt like the US was fighting back. Is the campaign in Afghanistan effective? Arguably so. So we happened to choose a viable option that worked toward our goal of destroying the people who attacked us. But we weren't trapped, by any means, into doing it.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If N. Korea and Iran (the other members of the Axis of Evil that we have suggested we want to destroy) attack us tommorrow, are you sure you want to say that attack is justified?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iraq justified in invading us? Hmmm, interesting theoretical bit of belly-button contemplating.
Justified and able are two different things. But let's look at it a bit more closely. Surely a nation as pitiful as Iraq (and let's make no bones about it, this is a sorry armpit of the world and Saddam's military leadership has justifiable been called the worst in history) couldn't invade the US. The US, on the other hand, proved without a doubt, that it could successfully invade Iraq.
So, calling it justifiable for Iraq to invade us is a nice piece of rhetoric, easy to accept giving the circumstances of the argument and it also proposes something so laughable that it further heaps disdain on the US's actions, i.e., we were picking on the littlest kid in the playground. Bravo, nice work.
But sadly, it doesn't stand up. On Sept. 11, 2001, a small group of people (Al Qaeda) with limited resources (compared to even the poorest of nations) brought the United States to a standstill. Four airplanes, 20 men and box cutters left 265 million Americans and the whole world standing with mouths agape in terror at what had just happened. The war had just been brought to our doorstep. We, as a nation, were no longer safe behind the two great oceans that separate us from the rest of the world. We had taken the greatest single assault on American soil in history. And two shining towers crumbled to dust, taking with it our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, children and friends.
War, and invasion, were no longer at such great distance. These weren't the rumblings of far off cannonry. These were real deaths. This was destruction on a scale we had never experienced before. And this was brought about by an organization that had nowhere near the resources of Saddam's Iraq. It had done what Saddam would have given his eye teeth to do. And somewhere in a viper's bunker, a very evil man watched not in awe, but with apt interest.
And, most importantly, it was something that showed us, and the world, our greatest vulnerabilities. Try as we might, we can no longer live thinking that everyone else in the world holds American lives the way we have taught ourselves to value all human lives. As difficult as it is, we have to accept that to some in this world, we are a vermin to be removed.
And all it took, was planning, time, 20 men and a handful of box cutters. You saw it, you felt it, you cried when it all came tumbling down. And others saw it, too, others who don't want to put bandages on your injuries but who would rather make those injuries more dire.
That is what invasion is from the other side of the coin. It is all about taking it to your enemy. We rolled into Iraq, we rolled into Afghanistan and we did it in the traditional manner. But on Sept. 11, 2001, we had been invaded as well. The scale was different, but consistent with how wars are being fought in the Middle East.
posted
Sopwith, you completely misunderstand. Someone stated that "We are justified in invading -- but not compelled to invade -- any country whose leadership openly calls for the destruction of our country." If that is the chosen criterion, then Iraq is justified in invading us. This is a qualified assertion.
Your entire rant is silly, because it is predicated on ignoring the primary point of the statement -- that a country's leadership calling for the destruction of another country is not sufficient reason for the latter country to go to war against the former.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, you seem to be implying that September 11th was what made it justifiable to attack Iraq. Why?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sopwith said: Justified and able are two different things. But let's look at it a bit more closely. Surely a nation as pitiful as Iraq (and let's make no bones about it, this is a sorry armpit of the world and Saddam's military leadership has justifiable been called the worst in history) couldn't invade the US. The US, on the other hand, proved without a doubt, that it could successfully invade Iraq.
So, calling it justifiable for Iraq to invade us is a nice piece of rhetoric, easy to accept giving the circumstances of the argument and it also proposes something so laughable that it further heaps disdain on the US's actions, i.e., we were picking on the littlest kid in the playground. Bravo, nice work.
Was it just me or did you just say that Iraq was justified if it wanted to invade us but it wouldn't happen because Iraq doesn't have the resources for it? Kind of a might makes right scenario? We have the resources to invade Iraq and make it happen so it should? This seems morally flawed somehow...
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since 9/11, we have been constantly trying to find or create loopholes in the law to allow us to forego the rights of suspected terrorists or so-called "enemy combatants." The Bush Administration has made no apologies for the Patriot Act or the treatment of the captives in Guantanamo.
Trying to find or create loopholes is acceptable only when it's done by the defense, then?
And so-called?
quote:We cannot afford to endorse unilateralism and the idea that we can ignore the rest of the world. Since Bush took office in 2000, we have systematically flipped the bird to all of our prominent allies, except perhaps Britain. Few could dispute this, at this point.
So you endorse the notion that, basically, world opinion should dictate American foreign policy?
quote:We have now invaded a nation with no proven association with terrorists, no proven stash of weapons of mass destruction, and that we failed to prove posed any immediate threat to us at all. The best explanation we've come up with is, it was good for the Iraqi people. Thus, if we reelect Bush, we will be actively consenting to the idea that it is okay to invade any country that we feel like liberating.
We had legal right to do so. No proven association with terrorists? Tresopax, what about rewards to families of suicide bombers to name one? The regime in Iraq was lying about all sorts of things, and the consequence was war for their violation of treaties. End of practical discussion.
quote:Last but not least, the Bush administration has consistently portrayed dissenters to its policy as unpatriotic, and has used nationalism to crush competing viewpoints. This, I think almost everyone can agree, is not acceptable.
And others have portrayed patriotism as facism and Bush as a goose-stepping fascist moron or puppet of such.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:and has used nationalism to crush competing viewpoints.
Since Dean opposes Bush's handling of the war, and has not yet been crushed. . . how exactly are we to view this statement?
Who has been crushed by nationalism? What competing viewpoints have been silenced? (NOT inconvenienced, mind you.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Trying to find or create loopholes is acceptable only when it's done by the defense, then?
Actually, I'm not sure it's ever acceptable for our leaders to be trying to find loopholes to get around the true intentions of laws.
quote:So you endorse the notion that, basically, world opinion should dictate American foreign policy?
Well yes, how could we possibly expect to create an effective foreign policy if we don't base it on foreign attitudes? Trying to make an effective foreign policy without basing it on world opinion is essentially like trying to fly to the moon without considering the laws of physics.
quote:Who has been crushed by nationalism? What competing viewpoints have been silenced?
I should have said "tried to use."
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Fugu, you might want to look a bit more closely to the reasoning there. And I find it somewhat offensive for it to be dismissed as "silly."
What you fail to take into your reasoning is something that I feel was clearly pointed out. Sept. 11 created a paradigm shift in the morality of invading a country that voices threats to us.
Prior to that fateful day, a tin pot dictator could say, "Death to America!" or somesuch and we could pretty much roll our national eyes and make the "cuckoo" sign. Before that fateful day, it was just words on the wind, idle threats that we need not fear. And then came along this rather small organization that showed very plainly how big and open a target we and our society are.
If a foreign organization with personnel and resources that are extremely limited (compared to what would be available to a whole nation) could accomplish what they did, then how serious should we take the threats of the leader of another nation?
If Al Qaeda could do Sept. 11, what could a person like Saddam Hussein or North Korea's Kim do if they put their nation's resources at work? Could we, as a nation, sit idly as threats continued to be made against us? Once upon a time, we could do just that and that's what we did. Now... it's a wholely different world.
I guess we could just ignore those threats and sit around and wait. But really, isn't that really what happened with 9/11? Hindsight is telling us more and more that all of the clues to this threat were there before us, long before the incident happened. But up until then, Al Qaeda was just a bunch of religious kooks who had gotten away with some anti-American attacks in ramshackle Third World nations (the USS Cole attack in Yemen and the bombings of our Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies) and had directly threatened much on American soil. The first World Trade Center bombing was a fluke and pretty unsuccessful, it even looked like we had taken out those responsible. Up until then, they were just a small mosquito, buzzing the elephant.
And then, the paradigm shifted.
Or can you not see that?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I clearly stated why it was silly. It had naught to do with what logic it possessed, but was due to it being a response to something that was never said, and in fact a response to something that was specifically not said.
However, if you want my response to the logic of your statement:
Everything that may have changed was emotional. Anyone intelligent could see the possibility of terrorism on our soil, and anticipate it. Our intelligence agencies already regularly issued reports of people near to being ready to pull of a terrorist attack, stopped before the act. Anyone who thought we were safe from terrorism needed their head examined.
However, we felt safe. And you know what? We still do. The attitude of America about our own safety hasn't changed a whit. We were shocked out of our skins, briefly, but your typical American feels no more threatened in his home than he did five years ago. Terrorism has not been brought home, it has been made monument by its scale. It is not the plane crashing into a tower that strikes fear into the heart of an Israeli, but the suicide bomber in a restaurant, or a bus. Terrorism remains an act far away, no longer in distance but in scale. "It will never happen to me, why would they target my city?"
We're still smug and safe-feeling, and I hope we stay smug and safe-feeling. Because it means we are safe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
To say that the US was "trapped" with no "good" (extremely subjective wording) choices is ridiculous. ... But we weren't trapped, by any means, into doing it.
JonnyNotSoBravo,
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said nor implied that we were trapped INTO DOING what we did. I said we were trapped with no good options, referring to the "cornered animal" concept.
Consider the hiker that cut his own hand off to save his life. I wouldn't say he was trapped into cutting off his hand. I would say he was trapped with no good options (choose your hand or your life but not both). I respect him for cutting of his hand as much as I would respect him for not doing so and dying on the mountain. My point (by analogy) is that it is counter-productive to fight a man in such position when he decides his action, not because his action is good (cutting off his hand sucks), but because our fighting against it isn't beneficial. Heroes recognize the difference between a trapped man making a tough decision and a foolish man ignoring obviously better options, and does not described the trapped man as a foolish man for political gain.
posted
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If I did so, I apologize. Please explain what you mean so I don't have to infer what you're saying.
quote:choose your hand or your life but not both
Your hiker analogy is false. Trapped by what? "Trapped" implies that we were cornered and had no way out. 9/11 was a guerilla attack. It wasn't about cornering the US. It was a quick strike, leaving no big obvious target for us at which to strike back. I think it would be near impossible to "trap" us with anything short of the threat of nuclear war. Perhaps you could make your reasoning more clear, because obviously I'm not seeing it.
And you talk about "Heroes" and "villains" like it's the Wild West and the good guys are all known by their white hats and chivalrous conduct. The US isn't a hero in this. We aren't noble. We gave chemical weapons to Iraq in the 80s. We supported Afghanistan and OBL when they were fighting against the USSR. We have put dictators as brutal as Saddam Hussein (e.g. Pinochet) into office. Don't be fooled by Bush's us vs. them and "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, which implies them=evil and us=good. Evil lies in the hearts of people.
My first response to your post was mainly because I thought you totally abused my Sun Tzu reference, and I think it doesn't apply at all to the US situation.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing changed after September 11. Nothing except people's attitudes. People's attitudes changed because they learned something knew. They learned that terrorism poses a real threat to our own interests and our own lives.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I maintain that our attitude has changed very little, and that we still feel completely safe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your hiker analogy is false. Trapped by what? "Trapped" implies that we were cornered and had no way out. ... Perhaps you could make your reasoning more clear, because obviously I'm not seeing it.
I'll try to clarify.
I guess my point boils down to the concept that one should distinguish between these two cases when looking at other people's actions: 1. Making a bad choice instead when there are other much better choices available. 2. Making a bad choice when available other choices are similarly bad.
For example, if a guy cut his foot of because his big toe had a hang-nail, most people would think him a complete idiot because he could have just put a bandaid on it and let it heal.
But if the same guy cut his foot off because it became lodged in some rocks in an avallanche in the mountains and he was either going to 1) freeze to death that night or 2) cut the foot off and crawl to safety before nightfall, most people would think him brave and treat him with respect.
The same guy did the same thing in both cases, yet in one case we think him an idiot, and in the other we think highly of him. Why? Because we recognize that the appropriateness of the action is not defined by the action itself, appropriateness is RELATIVE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECIFICALLY THE OTHER CHOICES AVAILABLE.
Just like I wouldn't say cutting off a foot is a good thing in and of itself, I don't say the war on terror is a good thing. Frankly, it sucks. But so do the other options because the other options are guaranteed to fail to remove the terrorists from their ability to attack us and will also communicate that they can get away with it without recourse. It's kind of like fighting crime. Throwing people in jail sucks, but so does not throwing them in jail and watching crime explode because people see they can get away with it.
I'm not suggesting that people should be pro war on terror. I'm suggesting that people should realize that the US was put in a "trapped" position in that it had NO GOOD OPTIONS in terms of response and prevention of future terror, and evaluate the US response RELATIVE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECIFICALLY THE OTHER CHOICES AVAILABLE.
quote: And you talk about "Heroes" and "villains" ... The US isn't a hero in this....
I agree the US isn't a hero in this! I never said nor implied it was! I basically said that the heroes are unheard, quietly respecting that the US didn't have any GOOD choices. Heroes respect that getting involved in fighting the US war on terror isn't going to improve the situation, and therefore let it be and focus on something else that they can make positive.
The villians are like the hiker's buddy who can't dislodge the foot or get help in time, and instead of giving his buddy something to bite down on when he cuts his foot of and helping bind the wound, he fights his buddy's attempt to cut his foot off to save his life. Not only does he piss of his buddy, but he puts him through more pain and ensures the death he was trying to avoid. How foolish and irresponsible! Yet that's pretty much what some of the opposing US politicians and opposing countries did to the US in fighting the war on terror. They made a bad situation worse by prolonging action and weakening the US attempt to reduce terrorist threat, when they could have focused on something more useful like domestic problems, humanitarian aid, invention, or any other number of positive things.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, its obvious that people's attitudes have changed. One simple example is that you can't even say, "gun" at an airport. Once September 11 happened people did realize they weren't safe just because they were in the US. If attitudes haven't changed then how did they "horrible" Patriot Act pass?
Jeff, I think you should try to start making sense. You're just making random, unsubstantiated claims about Bush and refuse to back them up with logic or evidence.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was initially an Executive Order, I believe. I'm not sure about that. That it hasn't been overturned is a function of our congressmen being scared to be seen as anti-american. It may be as simple as no one wants to be saddled with leading the charge against something called the Patriot Act.
It's kind of like gays in the military. There really isn't a mature reason that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hasn't been thrown out in the name of "Doesn't matter," but nobody wants to lead that charge.
posted
nfl, the "gun" and "bomb" utterings in airports were a policy before 9/11, and at BWI, at least, they had signs posted about it (in 1998/1999), I believe.
Sure, the lines are longer, and the like, but that particular policy (to my knowledge, I admit I might be misremembering, but since I have done 90%+ of my flying pre-9/11, I don't believe so), has been in effect since Lockerbie, at least.
Flying is different since 9/11, but not on this policy, and general security is still most accurately represented as a colander. I had at least one friend who went through security with razors and nail clippers, even though both were EXPLICITLY on the prohibited list (I believe one or the other has since been taken off, but wasn't at the time).
posted
Policies and attitudes are not the same thing. That a policy is in place does not imply that the populace is emotionally tied to that policy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeffrey- you have to include the whole quote.
quote:
Tresopax:...and has used nationalism to crush competing viewpoints.
Scott R: Since Dean opposes Bush's handling of the war, and has not yet been crushed. . . how exactly are we to view this statement?
My point was that Tresopax's statements regarding Bush's supposed iron grip on free speech were hyperbole-- much like a good deal of this thread.
Dean stands out against Bush's handling of the war; he has not been silenced, crushed, villified, martyred, or even reprimanded as far as I know. His campaign is flourishing.
Evidence therefore indicates that Tresopax is mistaken, at least on this one point.
Later, Tresopax amends his statement to the effect that Bush TRIED to use nationalism to crush competing viewpoints. This is an entirely subjective opinion, one that I'm not inclined to disagree with. I am not comfortable with the Patriot Act.
But apparently, all of the Democrats in the House and Senate WERE-- except one.
SO-- if we use Tresopax's reasoning-- why should we vote for ANY of the established politicians? They've all worked (according to Tres. and Co.'s reasoning) to undermine American freedom; they've all tried to use nationalism to crush competing viewpoints.
[ December 18, 2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
