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
