I'll definitely be heading to the Apple Store in Plano if my selling jellybeans to Europeans plan works out!
we've got another one too, don't forget off of knox-henderson. smaller than it's plano counterpart, but in a much, much cooler area. besides, who wants to go to plano if they can avoid it. plano has little to no character or personality what so ever. sprawlsville anyone?
Your dissertation topic is quite possibly the most interesting subject that I have ever heard anyone study. You are on your way to being some kind of Famous Guy somewhere on TV. More power to you.
Where the SEALs defied the constraints put upon them in Viet Nam, the terrorization of the local populace by the Viet Cong dropped off dramatically.
In Tehran, when the American Embassy was taken (we may be moving toward payback for that one), five Soviets were kidnapped in addition to our Embassy staff. Since the Russians weren't saddled with Jimmy Carter as their leader, the KGB immediately found out who was the leader of the people who kidnapped their people and kidnapped *the kidnapper's leader's* brother. They then sent one of the brother's ears to the leader with the promise that if the Soviets weren't released forthwith, the rest of the brother would show up... over a period of time.
The Soviets were released as was the Brother.
These people hate us and they will always hate us. They will not be charmed or schmoozed away.
Terrorism and terrorists are out there. Will always be out there. Shooting at them, as the Israelis have been doing for decades, doesn't make them go away; it galvanizes them.
Cheers
Scott
Of course. What you have to do is *hit* them when you shoot them. Then they go away.
Trust me, there were terrorists lurking all through the eighties. But our Special Forces were (mostly) at the right places at the right times, bless 'em.
Well you've managed to put forward logical arguments without inferring that the administration isn't a baby-eating machine.
I hate it when people make arguments that are based on the idea that Bush is inherently evil, it's irritating. You are much more pleasant to deal with. Hell, maybe even productive!
Indeed! Anyone who'd do his dissertation on Slutty and Fallen Women is someone you look forward to having a beer with!
Wahll, pardners, this heeyar war is just about over. Wheredya reckon the next stops on the War on Terror World Tour'll be?
I gotta admit, the fact that they actually ARE dancing in the streets of Baghdad is a pretty great thing and goes along way to make this seem like we did the right thing . . . .
I'd hate to have to eat all of my words . . . .so I won't . . . at least not now
While I am completely overwhelmed with joy at seeing the images of people dancing in the streets, and while I am happy that the really rough urban warfare seems to be more or less over (for the moment), I'm waiting to see what happens. I must admit that I personally had feared/predicted a MUCH more drawn out urban conflict.
While I am completely overwhelmed with joy at seeing the images of people dancing in the streets, and while I am happy that the really rough urban warfare seems to be more or less over (for the moment), I'm waiting to see what happens. I must admit that I personally had feared/predicted a MUCH more drawn out urban conflict.
House to house fighting sucks, but our guys have been REALLY trained in it. Trust me, we'd have done pretty well given the opposition.
We'll probably have to use it in SH's home town, so be prepared; this war isn't over by a long shot.
Look at the body language of the dancing Iraqis. Do you see the immediate reactions after their joyous acts of defiance? Do you see the fear of expected punishment/reprisal in their postures? Can you imagine the lives that these poor people lived?
The stories that are going to come out.... Our generation is in for one hell of a shock, I suspect. The 1941-45 generation was horrified by the reality of the Nazi Concentration Camps. Dictatorships keep meticulous records. Stories are coming....
Groverat: sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've been buried under a pile of freshman comp essays that require grading. I am also, at the moment, working my way through a fifth of Basil Hayden (a *fine* bourbon), so please pardon any weirdness.
Replies will be sporadic until Wednesday next (4/15), but I'd like to continue this discussion.
Anyway.
Quote:
I hate it when people make arguments that are based on the idea that Bush is inherently evil, it's irritating. You are much more pleasant to deal with. Hell, maybe even productive!
Well, I'm *no* fan of Bush's. At all. If it is possible, I believe I despise him more than I did Clinton. For different reasons, of course. Clinton gave a bad name to liberalism. (I have argued ceaselessly that he was, in fact, a republican, and that it was his success in co-opting republican initiatives and getting them passed that was the root of the right-wing hatred of him. But that's another discussion.) Bush, on the other hand, is a hair-do and I want him gone.
Quote:
To me it's not about conflict, it's about human impact. I am definitely a product of the idea that international affairs affect the people, not the leaders. So when someone tells me we're going to strangle the economy to punish the regime all that means to me is that we're going to starve the people.
I have to admit that this is a compelling position, mostly because it's rooted in that aphorism that "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I think, to a certain extent, we're on the same page here. SH is a turd and something must be done about him. Sanctions are incredibly problematic, and very probably do more harm to the people we want to help than to the government we're trying to punish. But the difference between us, I think, is that I think that in situations such as the current one, there are ways to go about accomplishing or goals without killing so many people, which is dangerous in terms of the geopolitics of the region. As I've said elsewhere, war is always a failure of the imagination. There are always ways to avoid it. The situation is SH is not the same as the one we faced in WWII (where we held out and held out until we were finally pre-emptively attacked by Japan); there was no aggression; there were no attacks; all the evidence attempting to link all the little pieces together were, shall we say, crappily done. There is always a better way.
Quote:
With regard to containment and the USSR that was an unspeakable human tragedy. The humanitarian crisis in the later parts of the USSR's existence were astonishing and horrible, from the orphanages of Romania to the starvation and killings across Russia to uprisings in now-independent states. Stalin killed more of his people than Hitler, but we went after Hitler and left Stalin to be dealt with by his own.
Sure. There's no argument here. And there are, of course, many, many other examples we might bring up of the evils of tyrannical despots. I honestly don't know if the doctrine of containment had emerged fully by the end of Stalin's reign. But as you, I think, pointed out to me once, this reluctance to "do anything" coincided with the falling away of what had been the traditional American isolationist attitutude toward world affairs. My point is that it's not particularly remarkable that we didn't do anything about Stalin (barring, of course, our very clear knowledge that he had just beaten the Germans--a feat no one else [and I only grudgingly admit that we "beat" them] had ever been able to do...save for Japan, and those were relatively minor incursions). My god, man, look at the battle of Kursk. It must've looked like something out of the Lord of the Rings.
Anyway, my point here is that pick our fights carefully. And some not so carefully. Taking on Stalin would have probably ended in defeat. And a really, really nasty one.
There are other fights that we choose not to pick, as well. And my argument throughout this post-9/11 administration has been that if you want to take out one "bad guy" you have to take them all out. Anything other than that is hypocrisy.
Quote:
To me inaction is the tragedy. Strangling the people to spite the evil leader is the tragedy.
Amen. To which I would only add that, sometimes, action can be equally tragic.
Quote:
I was (and am) in college on 9/11 and the world has definitely changed.
Well, I'll put it this way: judging by your profile, you're probably around the age of the students I taught on 9/12/00 (freshmen in college in the Fall 2000). I taught the next day. They were scared. They were confused. They were angry. I decided to chuck our scheduled assignment so we could talk about things (it was during a unit on American political rhetoric during war, so it wasn't all that out of place).
I answered a few questions about all of it, and I did my best to keep my political positions out of the fray (as I always do...I over-compensate so much that most of my students think I'm a republican). Many of them didn't know where Afghanistan was. Most of them didn't know anything about the history of our involvement in the region (and I include Iraq, Israel, and Saudi in this group). I tried to explain, and I made sure that they knew we were in a non-teacher/non-classroom mode.
Did the world change for them? Sure. Did it change for me? No. I had been tempered by the first WTC bombing and (much more close to home) the Murrah bombing, and I knew that "terrorism" (I abhor the term, which you know, of course) was a very real threat. I'm not saying that "we got what was coming to us," but I am saying that I am not surprised that there was, at last, a successful attack on American soil. The world changes ever day. Every minute. Every second. I'm not so arrogant as to think that my moments are the same as everyone else's (and I'm not suggesting that you are, either).
I guess, now that I wind this up (and find myself longing for another glass of Basil Hayden), I'm asking this question: did the world *really* change on 9/11?
Clinton gave a bad name to liberalism. (I have argued ceaselessly that he was, in fact, a republican, and that it was his success in co-opting republican initiatives and getting them passed that was the root of the right-wing hatred of him. But that's another discussion.)
Amen!
Quote:
But the difference between us, I think, is that I think that in situations such as the current one, there are ways to go about accomplishing or goals without killing so many people, which is dangerous in terms of the geopolitics of the region. ... There is always a better way.
I never saw that better way, and there were 12 years.
I think what the mythical "international community" had been doing with Iraq was little more than ignoring the issue, beating them down so they didn't pop up and bother us. Like beating the hell out of your kid and stuffing him in a closet instead of listening to what he says and what he needs.
To me this makes the question of timing invalid, because it's a problem that needs to be dealt with, and you can't address a problem like that too soon, it's impossible.
And it will even make me choose a less-than-ideal solution, because the ideal solution wasn't there. And, in my opinion, with a guy like Saddam in power there could be no bloodless solution. The route we chose was less bloody than the one we had been on for 12 years (I believed it would be and it turned out to be so), so I was and am pleased with this.
Quote:
But as you, I think, pointed out to me once, this reluctance to "do anything" coincided with the falling away of what had been the traditional American isolationist attitutude toward world affairs. My point is that it's not particularly remarkable that we didn't do anything about Stalin
... Anyway, my point here is that pick our fights carefully. And some not so carefully. Taking on Stalin would have probably ended in defeat. And a really, really nasty one.
Exactly. We can handle Saddam's regime with relative ease.
This now-catchy phrase "winning the peace" is the hard part, but it's not like they won't SEEK a stabilized state of affairs (and by "they" I mean the people of Iraq). They are a modernized people with a potentially booming economy and decent infrastructure to get there with a history of solid education, I don't know why people are so pessimistic about their future, I have a lot of faith in them.
Quote:
There are other fights that we choose not to pick, as well. And my argument throughout this post-9/11 administration has been that if you want to take out one "bad guy" you have to take them all out. Anything other than that is hypocrisy.
I disagree, I think you "take out" who you can and deal with others in different ways. You can't fix everything, but you need to fix what you can. I don't like the idea of just curling up in the corner because we can't/won't do *everything*
Quote:
Did the world change for them? Sure. Did it change for me? No. ... I guess, now that I wind this up (and find myself longing for another glass of Basil Hayden), I'm asking this question: did the world *really* change on 9/11?
I think it did, absolutely.
And I reason that out by seeing the reaction. The reaction to the WTC bombing was relatively limited. We took some guys out, jailed some others. International terrorism wasn't addressed very fully, supportive governments weren't addressed. The Murrah bombing brought about even less action, we kind of grieved for a while, developed a tasty hatred for McVeigh and moved on.
But with 9/11 it changed the way we addressed the very vital and real problem that we had been ignoring for a long time, the middle east/Arab world. What we see in Iraq is directly connected to this new attitude, not because Hussein helped the 9/11 terrorists, but because it changed the way we deal with these problems, maybe we will go back to ignoring it, but for now we are active.
And if America is acting out after years of relative inaction the world has definitely changed. We annihilated Iraq's ruling regime, Afghanistan's ruling regime and have essentially fired warning shots across the bow of a few other regimes/institutions we consider dangerous.
It seems many people in the government saw the events of 9/11 as a manifestation of the idea that America is weak, that it is a paper tiger. This is an idea bin Laden expressed, saying we wouldn't fight hard and that we could be defeated. Well he was sorely mistaken.
I think this amazingly quick and decisive military victory in Iraq will gain measured fear/respect among many of those who might otherwise think about harming the US. If you let them know that there will be retaliation they will be less willing to act, it's human nature.
It seems many people in the government saw the events of 9/11 as a manifestation of the idea that America is weak, that it is a paper tiger. This is an idea bin Laden expressed, saying we wouldn't fight hard and that we could be defeated. Well he was sorely mistaken.
I think this amazingly quick and decisive military victory in Iraq will gain measured fear/respect among many of those who might otherwise think about harming the US. If you let them know that there will be retaliation they will be less willing to act, it's human nature.
So yes, the world has changed because of 9/11.
He's won, you've lost. Well done.
OBL is trying to forment an apocalyptic war between Islam and the West. His type don't care about dying (rather he does but his boys don't), so forget about fear helping you one bit. What the US has done is make more individuals hate it more. You're dancing his tune.
Are these the people you think will fear retaliation? Terrorist groups? You can't invade al Qaeda.
Or do you mean the countries around Iraq? Like Iran, who you actually said you would protest in the streets about if the invasion looked on?
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
I'll definitely be heading to the Apple Store in Plano if my selling jellybeans to Europeans plan works out!
Yes, it's time for you to get a (new) mac. What about a brand new PPC 970 tower.
Originally posted by groverat
I'll definitely be heading to the Apple Store in Plano if my selling jellybeans to Europeans plan works out!
we've got another one too, don't forget off of knox-henderson. smaller than it's plano counterpart, but in a much, much cooler area. besides, who wants to go to plano if they can avoid it. plano has little to no character or personality what so ever. sprawlsville anyone?
Originally posted by midwinter
Israel.
Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
Cheers
Scott
Your dissertation topic is quite possibly the most interesting subject that I have ever heard anyone study. You are on your way to being some kind of Famous Guy somewhere on TV. More power to you.
Where the SEALs defied the constraints put upon them in Viet Nam, the terrorization of the local populace by the Viet Cong dropped off dramatically.
In Tehran, when the American Embassy was taken (we may be moving toward payback for that one), five Soviets were kidnapped in addition to our Embassy staff. Since the Russians weren't saddled with Jimmy Carter as their leader, the KGB immediately found out who was the leader of the people who kidnapped their people and kidnapped *the kidnapper's leader's* brother. They then sent one of the brother's ears to the leader with the promise that if the Soviets weren't released forthwith, the rest of the brother would show up... over a period of time.
The Soviets were released as was the Brother.
These people hate us and they will always hate us. They will not be charmed or schmoozed away.
Fortunately, we still have SEALs.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by midwinter
Terrorism and terrorists are out there. Will always be out there. Shooting at them, as the Israelis have been doing for decades, doesn't make them go away; it galvanizes them.
Cheers
Scott
Of course. What you have to do is *hit* them when you shoot them. Then they go away.
Trust me, there were terrorists lurking all through the eighties. But our Special Forces were (mostly) at the right places at the right times, bless 'em.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by groverat
midwinter:
Well you've managed to put forward logical arguments without inferring that the administration isn't a baby-eating machine.
I hate it when people make arguments that are based on the idea that Bush is inherently evil, it's irritating. You are much more pleasant to deal with. Hell, maybe even productive!
Indeed! Anyone who'd do his dissertation on Slutty and Fallen Women is someone you look forward to having a beer with!
Wahll, pardners, this heeyar war is just about over. Wheredya reckon the next stops on the War on Terror World Tour'll be?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=31940
Aries 1B
"'Cause we'll stick a boot in your ass, it's the American Way...."
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Fortunately, we still have SEALs.
Does the law matter to you at all?
I'd hate to have to eat all of my words . . . .so I won't . . . at least not now
Originally posted by bunge
Does the law matter to you at all?
Regretfully, no communications are possible between us on this issue.
Good Day.
Actually, a *great* day!
April 9, 2003: Iraqi Independence Day.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by midwinter
While I am completely overwhelmed with joy at seeing the images of people dancing in the streets, and while I am happy that the really rough urban warfare seems to be more or less over (for the moment), I'm waiting to see what happens. I must admit that I personally had feared/predicted a MUCH more drawn out urban conflict.
House to house fighting sucks, but our guys have been REALLY trained in it. Trust me, we'd have done pretty well given the opposition.
We'll probably have to use it in SH's home town, so be prepared; this war isn't over by a long shot.
Look at the body language of the dancing Iraqis. Do you see the immediate reactions after their joyous acts of defiance? Do you see the fear of expected punishment/reprisal in their postures? Can you imagine the lives that these poor people lived?
The stories that are going to come out.... Our generation is in for one hell of a shock, I suspect. The 1941-45 generation was horrified by the reality of the Nazi Concentration Camps. Dictatorships keep meticulous records. Stories are coming....
Aries 1B
"Slutty and Fallen Women" Man, that's wonderful!
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Regretfully, no communications are possible between us on this issue.
Yes, I realize it must be difficult dealing with someone that points out your flawed arguments.
You two are hereby invited to come on over to the good side. The only ribbing you will get is a quick noogie.
I'll see that you are protected as I guide you through the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Replies will be sporadic until Wednesday next (4/15), but I'd like to continue this discussion.
Anyway.
I hate it when people make arguments that are based on the idea that Bush is inherently evil, it's irritating. You are much more pleasant to deal with. Hell, maybe even productive!
Well, I'm *no* fan of Bush's. At all. If it is possible, I believe I despise him more than I did Clinton. For different reasons, of course. Clinton gave a bad name to liberalism. (I have argued ceaselessly that he was, in fact, a republican, and that it was his success in co-opting republican initiatives and getting them passed that was the root of the right-wing hatred of him. But that's another discussion.) Bush, on the other hand, is a hair-do and I want him gone.
To me it's not about conflict, it's about human impact. I am definitely a product of the idea that international affairs affect the people, not the leaders. So when someone tells me we're going to strangle the economy to punish the regime all that means to me is that we're going to starve the people.
I have to admit that this is a compelling position, mostly because it's rooted in that aphorism that "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I think, to a certain extent, we're on the same page here. SH is a turd and something must be done about him. Sanctions are incredibly problematic, and very probably do more harm to the people we want to help than to the government we're trying to punish. But the difference between us, I think, is that I think that in situations such as the current one, there are ways to go about accomplishing or goals without killing so many people, which is dangerous in terms of the geopolitics of the region. As I've said elsewhere, war is always a failure of the imagination. There are always ways to avoid it. The situation is SH is not the same as the one we faced in WWII (where we held out and held out until we were finally pre-emptively attacked by Japan); there was no aggression; there were no attacks; all the evidence attempting to link all the little pieces together were, shall we say, crappily done. There is always a better way.
With regard to containment and the USSR that was an unspeakable human tragedy. The humanitarian crisis in the later parts of the USSR's existence were astonishing and horrible, from the orphanages of Romania to the starvation and killings across Russia to uprisings in now-independent states. Stalin killed more of his people than Hitler, but we went after Hitler and left Stalin to be dealt with by his own.
Sure. There's no argument here. And there are, of course, many, many other examples we might bring up of the evils of tyrannical despots. I honestly don't know if the doctrine of containment had emerged fully by the end of Stalin's reign. But as you, I think, pointed out to me once, this reluctance to "do anything" coincided with the falling away of what had been the traditional American isolationist attitutude toward world affairs. My point is that it's not particularly remarkable that we didn't do anything about Stalin (barring, of course, our very clear knowledge that he had just beaten the Germans--a feat no one else [and I only grudgingly admit that we "beat" them] had ever been able to do...save for Japan, and those were relatively minor incursions). My god, man, look at the battle of Kursk. It must've looked like something out of the Lord of the Rings.
Anyway, my point here is that pick our fights carefully. And some not so carefully. Taking on Stalin would have probably ended in defeat. And a really, really nasty one.
There are other fights that we choose not to pick, as well. And my argument throughout this post-9/11 administration has been that if you want to take out one "bad guy" you have to take them all out. Anything other than that is hypocrisy.
To me inaction is the tragedy. Strangling the people to spite the evil leader is the tragedy.
Amen. To which I would only add that, sometimes, action can be equally tragic.
I was (and am) in college on 9/11 and the world has definitely changed.
Well, I'll put it this way: judging by your profile, you're probably around the age of the students I taught on 9/12/00 (freshmen in college in the Fall 2000). I taught the next day. They were scared. They were confused. They were angry. I decided to chuck our scheduled assignment so we could talk about things (it was during a unit on American political rhetoric during war, so it wasn't all that out of place).
I answered a few questions about all of it, and I did my best to keep my political positions out of the fray (as I always do...I over-compensate so much that most of my students think I'm a republican). Many of them didn't know where Afghanistan was. Most of them didn't know anything about the history of our involvement in the region (and I include Iraq, Israel, and Saudi in this group). I tried to explain, and I made sure that they knew we were in a non-teacher/non-classroom mode.
Did the world change for them? Sure. Did it change for me? No. I had been tempered by the first WTC bombing and (much more close to home) the Murrah bombing, and I knew that "terrorism" (I abhor the term, which you know, of course) was a very real threat. I'm not saying that "we got what was coming to us," but I am saying that I am not surprised that there was, at last, a successful attack on American soil. The world changes ever day. Every minute. Every second. I'm not so arrogant as to think that my moments are the same as everyone else's (and I'm not suggesting that you are, either).
I guess, now that I wind this up (and find myself longing for another glass of Basil Hayden), I'm asking this question: did the world *really* change on 9/11?
Cheers
Scott
PS
Thanks for welcoming me into the fold.
"did the world *really* change on 9/11?"
Yes. It did.
Originally posted by mrmister
That was a good posting, but I'm your age, so allow me to answer your semi-rhetorical question:
"did the world *really* change on 9/11?"
Yes. It did.
Well, I was kind of looking for more of a "how" that would follow that answer...
Care to elaborate?
Cheers
Scott
Clinton gave a bad name to liberalism. (I have argued ceaselessly that he was, in fact, a republican, and that it was his success in co-opting republican initiatives and getting them passed that was the root of the right-wing hatred of him. But that's another discussion.)
Amen!
But the difference between us, I think, is that I think that in situations such as the current one, there are ways to go about accomplishing or goals without killing so many people, which is dangerous in terms of the geopolitics of the region. ... There is always a better way.
I never saw that better way, and there were 12 years.
I think what the mythical "international community" had been doing with Iraq was little more than ignoring the issue, beating them down so they didn't pop up and bother us. Like beating the hell out of your kid and stuffing him in a closet instead of listening to what he says and what he needs.
To me this makes the question of timing invalid, because it's a problem that needs to be dealt with, and you can't address a problem like that too soon, it's impossible.
And it will even make me choose a less-than-ideal solution, because the ideal solution wasn't there. And, in my opinion, with a guy like Saddam in power there could be no bloodless solution. The route we chose was less bloody than the one we had been on for 12 years (I believed it would be and it turned out to be so), so I was and am pleased with this.
But as you, I think, pointed out to me once, this reluctance to "do anything" coincided with the falling away of what had been the traditional American isolationist attitutude toward world affairs. My point is that it's not particularly remarkable that we didn't do anything about Stalin
... Anyway, my point here is that pick our fights carefully. And some not so carefully. Taking on Stalin would have probably ended in defeat. And a really, really nasty one.
Exactly. We can handle Saddam's regime with relative ease.
This now-catchy phrase "winning the peace" is the hard part, but it's not like they won't SEEK a stabilized state of affairs (and by "they" I mean the people of Iraq). They are a modernized people with a potentially booming economy and decent infrastructure to get there with a history of solid education, I don't know why people are so pessimistic about their future, I have a lot of faith in them.
There are other fights that we choose not to pick, as well. And my argument throughout this post-9/11 administration has been that if you want to take out one "bad guy" you have to take them all out. Anything other than that is hypocrisy.
I disagree, I think you "take out" who you can and deal with others in different ways. You can't fix everything, but you need to fix what you can. I don't like the idea of just curling up in the corner because we can't/won't do *everything*
Did the world change for them? Sure. Did it change for me? No. ... I guess, now that I wind this up (and find myself longing for another glass of Basil Hayden), I'm asking this question: did the world *really* change on 9/11?
I think it did, absolutely.
And I reason that out by seeing the reaction. The reaction to the WTC bombing was relatively limited. We took some guys out, jailed some others. International terrorism wasn't addressed very fully, supportive governments weren't addressed. The Murrah bombing brought about even less action, we kind of grieved for a while, developed a tasty hatred for McVeigh and moved on.
But with 9/11 it changed the way we addressed the very vital and real problem that we had been ignoring for a long time, the middle east/Arab world. What we see in Iraq is directly connected to this new attitude, not because Hussein helped the 9/11 terrorists, but because it changed the way we deal with these problems, maybe we will go back to ignoring it, but for now we are active.
And if America is acting out after years of relative inaction the world has definitely changed. We annihilated Iraq's ruling regime, Afghanistan's ruling regime and have essentially fired warning shots across the bow of a few other regimes/institutions we consider dangerous.
It seems many people in the government saw the events of 9/11 as a manifestation of the idea that America is weak, that it is a paper tiger. This is an idea bin Laden expressed, saying we wouldn't fight hard and that we could be defeated. Well he was sorely mistaken.
I think this amazingly quick and decisive military victory in Iraq will gain measured fear/respect among many of those who might otherwise think about harming the US. If you let them know that there will be retaliation they will be less willing to act, it's human nature.
So yes, the world has changed because of 9/11.
Originally posted by groverat
It seems many people in the government saw the events of 9/11 as a manifestation of the idea that America is weak, that it is a paper tiger. This is an idea bin Laden expressed, saying we wouldn't fight hard and that we could be defeated. Well he was sorely mistaken.
I think this amazingly quick and decisive military victory in Iraq will gain measured fear/respect among many of those who might otherwise think about harming the US. If you let them know that there will be retaliation they will be less willing to act, it's human nature.
So yes, the world has changed because of 9/11.
He's won, you've lost. Well done.
OBL is trying to forment an apocalyptic war between Islam and the West. His type don't care about dying (rather he does but his boys don't), so forget about fear helping you one bit. What the US has done is make more individuals hate it more. You're dancing his tune.
Are these the people you think will fear retaliation? Terrorist groups? You can't invade al Qaeda.
Or do you mean the countries around Iraq? Like Iran, who you actually said you would protest in the streets about if the invasion looked on?
Originally posted by groverat
that it is a paper tiger.
...been listening to Beck, have you?