9/11, The War on Terror, and How Our Nation Has Healed

[demsformd]

Lately I have received inspiration to discuss this topic in great extent. Last week, President Bush remarked on how Christmas for the 9/11 victims would never be the same and while I was in Frederick this weekend, I saw a banner that said "America Remembers 9/11" or something to that extent. This has made me consider some things concerning the whole situation. I ask that all of you be very open-minded to what I am about to say (which is hard for us who are so passionate about our ideas) but I need your understanding because this issue has hit me so hard recently.
On September 11th, 2001, I was in Baltimore at the World Trade Center there to meet an old friend of mine for breakfast. I got on the elevator and went to his office where I saw on his secretary's desk a picture of the first tower burning on the Today show. I sat there and inquired as to what had happened and she said that a plane had crashed into it. John came out and we watched TV for a while. As we were getting ready to leave, I turned around and I saw the other plane getting ready to hit the second tower. I was shocked, I just could not believe it. John and I just could not leave now.

I called my wife...She was fine but very worried about our children, one an NYU sophmore and another a high school senior who was in DC on a field trip. John tried to call his ex-wife in Boston, who has custody of their children, but he could not reach them. I left John, got in my car, and I kept trying to call my son at NYU but the line was busy. I was in traffic on Light Street when I heard on the radio that the towers had collapsed. Emotion overcame me...it was so bad that I pulled over into a parking garage and wept from the bottom of my heart and soul. I prayed to God for the people of the towers, for our leaders, but most importantly for my family and Bobby in New York. It took over ten minutes for me to calm myself down enough to drive home.

9/11 brought out so many emotions for me...hatred, fear, immense sorrow. I could not believe that terrorism would consume this nation as much as it would in Israel and Palestine. I hated all the ragheads on that day...I just wanted to blow that entire part of the world off. Of all my emotions, hatred consumed me the most.

John called me that night with awful news...His ex-wife was taking his children to California that day...They were on one of the planes that hit the WTC. John was so somber, so depressed by this. Of course he would be, if I lost my children, I would lose my reason for living. His news just increased my hatred...I was becoming a monster, a conservative.

A couple days later President Bush said one of the things that I truly admired him for at that time: "Live your normal lives." This put everything into perspective for me...Hatred would not do anything to stop terrorism. Going on, living normally was the right way to thrawt terror. Thinking logically, and not with emotions or impulses like animals would stop terror.

But then President Bush launched the War on Terror. This mission has the most noble goal that any military operation would: the ending of all terrorism. This is such a great goal, yet it is one that is unobtainable. It is as unobtainable as socalism's goal of making all people equal financially. Why? Because terrorism is so prevalent throughout the Middle East, Europe, and the United States that we cannot stop it. Look at what the War on Terror did? We still do not have bin Laden, his top deputies, and his terrorist organization is still attacking American targets. What have we accomplished? Next to nothing, we are still at as great a risk today as we were yesterday. In Afganistan, the Taliban is still basically in power and our mark in that nation is not free elections, women's rights, or capitalism, but a bomb crater in the middle of a desert.

Terrorism cannot be defeated by a bomb, an army, or a court, unlike what President Bush thinks. World War II was a conflict, we knew who the enemy was and we defeated them. Same in the Cold War. But now our enemies come from a multitude of countries and unless we decide to nuke the world, that will stay the same. The War on Terror is not a conflict, it is another Vietnam in the making.

President Bush used bin Laden and the War on Terror to scare people into the voting booths in the last election. Bush selectee for the Senate in Georgia,Saxby Chambliss, ran a TV ad with a picture of Max Cleland and Osama bin Laden. When President Bush speaks today, a year and a half later, he still mentions 9/11. He uses 9/11 and our fear of terrorism to stimulate support behind an invasion of Iraq. He told us to heal a year and a half ago yet he still opens old wounds. President Bush will not let us forget that day because he wants to win reelection.

IT IS TIME FOR US TO HEAL. Too many of us allowed the terrorists to defeat us because we let them get under our skin and to make us fearful. President Bush has done nothing to stop that feeling through his milking of the situation for political gain. My friend John, a Republican, has become immensely disdainful of President Bush because of how he has continued to use the war as his polticial tool. He feels that Bush is using death to rise to the top. He cannot heal until we get bin Laden (not Hussein) or until our president allows the American psyche to move to another day.

Do not think that I believe that bin Laden should be let free. That is the wrong assertion. I want bin Laden to be captured, tried, and executed but I do not want what he has done to make our nation fearful or hateful. I do not want our President to use him as a reason to attack Iraq, which he has already done. We need to protect ourselves against terror through the creation of a Homeland Security Department that does not provide corporations with liablilty protection. I love America, it has given me so much. Yet we are allowing our President to tear us down piece by piece. We are a peace-loving nation and its time for us to act like it. America, it is time for us to heal, and it is time for us to get a new, peaceful executive.

 

[Heretic]

I agree with you in part, however I believe the war on terror is a success in the making. Calling it a failure is a slap in the face to anyone that has been saved (unknowingly) but extra steps taken since that horrible day. For the war on terror to continue to have public (read voter) support it has to stay fresh in the minds of the public (voters), unfortunately the American public has an amazingly short attention span and I believe if Bush lets up things will fall apart, people will get tired of having to arrive at the airport early, etc etc and we open ourselves up again.

As far as the liability rider on the homeland security bill it is unfortunate that we even have to think of things like this. I think it is bad, but I also think it had good points. ...follow me here

A company has new technology for screening bagage and gets it in the airports as soon as possible. 100% of the bugs havent been worked out but its better than the equipment we had before. Now nothing is 100% any scientist, engineer, or statistician will tell you this. Imagine one knife gets by this new system and another plane is crashed into something say the super bowl. Now you have 70,000 victiams and 100's of thousands of grieving family members that something done so they sue everyone including the manufacture of this new airport screening device saying that the company should have worked out all of the bugs before putting it in the airport. Now companies don't put out new technology as readily as before for fear of being sued. The new airport screening system could have caught much more than the old system and saved 1000's of lives more than the old system without anyone even realizing it, so we truely better off with the new system.

Everything is a tradeoff, unlike what most politicians try to tell people there is no one right way to do something and there will be someone unhappy with something no matter what. My old boss summed it up by saying "If I went down the isle handing out $10 bills someone would complain that they wanted two $5 bills"

 

[demsformd]

Some of the liability protections are good, such as the example that you gave. Yet the vast majority of the liability protections that were included provide too much protection to companies that have no effect on homeland security. And others that do can use the liability protection of this bill for their products and workers that are not involved with ensuring homeland security. Why do we need these? We don't, the Republicans are just helping out some friends.
I still hope that the President will realize that bin Laden represents a threat that is ten fold larger than Hussein.

 

[Heretic]

I never agreed with "riders" of any kind.

For those who dont know riders are things tacked on a bill that actually have nothing to do with the bill itself. I think its a dirty slimy trick, but everyone does it to sneak in their agenda.

This is just about the only thing I find the line item veto is needed for, otherwise I believe that the line item veto gives the President more power than the constitution intended.

 

[vraiblonde]

DemsforMD, what do you suggest Bush do to keep terrorists from preying on American citizens at home and abroad? You don't like the idea of military force to make these other countries reign in their own. What DO you like?

Because you realize, of course, that bin Laden is only ONE of the terrorists, right? You realize that he's merely the most high-profile right now and not the only one, right? Or do you honestly think that our country will be safe if we get rid of bin Laden?

 

[Kain99]

I'm confused too. What is your solution?

 

[Christy]

His news just increased my hatred...I was becoming a monster, a conservative.

Dems, it appears as if you have more hatred for conservatives than you do those at fault for killing your friends children. This is exactly what disgusts me about liberals. I'm also sick to death with the whole "we must heal" garbage. That crap started within minutes of those two towers falling. Do you have any idea of what message that puts out to these monsters? It's the exact effect they want to have on us. You didn't see any of this after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Rather than "healing our emotional wounds" this country pulled together and made huge sacrifices in order to defeat those who dared attack this Nation.

How do you propose we prevent another attack on this country Dems? By crawling into a corner and licking our wounds? Maybe they'll stop targeting us if we simply ask them nicely, to stop long enough for us to heal.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Christy
It's the exact effect they want to have on us. You didn't see any of this after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Rather than "healing our emotional wounds" this country pulled together and made huge sacrifices in order to defeat those who dared attack this Nation.

That is pretty sad, comparing 9/11 to pearl harbor.. for several reasons.. The first being the fact the Pearl Harbor was a legit military target.. Second, we knew who we were fighting againt at that time.. They had infastructure and troops we could take out..

What we have now is nothing.. No infastructure to take out, no troops to focus on, nothing.. We are blindly shooting off shots in hopes we get one (And we laugh at the iraq military for blindly shooting off anti-aircraft stuff at us).. As for the japanese, they didn't have people hidden in just about every country of the world waiting to pounce on us at any given moment.. The world wars we have had were just that, wars.. With certain "war time" restrictions and agendas. If we could drop a couple of bombs like we did in Japan to end this "war", I'm all for it..

I'm not against the military action were are using now, but comparing what he have now to Pearl Harbor is just ridiculous.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by SmallTown
That is pretty sad, comparing 9/11 to pearl harbor.. for several reasons.. The first being the fact the Pearl Harbor was a legit military target.. Second, we knew who we were fighting againt at that time.. They had infastructure and troops we could take out..

What we have now is nothing.. No infastructure to take out, no troops to focus on, nothing.. We are blindly shooting off shots in hopes we get one (And we laugh at the iraq military for blindly shooting off anti-aircraft stuff at us).. As for the japanese, they didn't have people hidden in just about every country of the world waiting to pounce on us at any given moment.. The world wars we have had were just that, wars.. With certain "war time" restrictions and agendas. If we could drop a couple of bombs like we did in Japan to end this "war", I'm all for it..

I'm not against the military action were are using now, but comparing what he have now to Pearl Harbor is just ridiculous.

No, being more concerned with healing our own emotional wounds rather than removing these monsters from the face of the Earth is what is sad and ridiculous.

And do you really think before WWII we'd ever fought a war like WWII? Do you really think we sat around and said "Oh gosh, this war is nothing like the last war, so gee golly, we just don't have the know how to fight it, let's just sit this one out". So what if they have people hidden in every country? It's our duty, and responsibility for the sake of our kids and their kids to rid the world of these vermin. AND WE WILL!

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by Christy
Dems, it appears as if you have more hatred for conservatives than you do those at fault for killing your friends children.

How do you propose we prevent another attack on this country Dems? By crawling into a corner and licking our wounds? Maybe they'll stop targeting us if we simply ask them nicely, to stop long enough for us to heal.

You tell em' Christy! We cannot close our eyes and hope that the terrorist problem goes away.

I'm not sure why some feel that we do not have a definitive enemy

Pretty stupid, considering The United States has tracked Terrorist funding to both large and small Governments.

Can we "blow up" every terrorist in the world? Of course not! That's why we are forced to cut them off at the knees by crippleing the Nations that physically and financially support them.

 

[vraiblonde]

I thought guys were supposed to be the aggressive ones and us chicks were supposed to be peaceniks?

Kain and Christy, excellents points!

Can we "blow up" every terrorist in the world? Of course not! That's why we are forced to cut them off at the knees by crippleing the Nations that physically and financially support them.

That bears repeating in case someone is just skimming posts and didn't catch it the first time around.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by Kain99
Can we "blow up" every terrorist in the world? Of course not! That's why we are forced to cut them off at the knees by crippleing the Nations that physically and financially support them.

But that would just be mean! I must speak to my therapist about this! (in my most lispy male sissy voice )

 

[MGKrebs]

Liability protection

If the government buys a machine that is supposed to meet certain specifications, and it does, a company should have no worries about lawsuits. This comes up all the time in automobiles, planes, buildings, etc. Somebody is always going to try to sue, but you don't need this kind of liability protection.

The idea of preventing (or minimizing) frivolous lawsuits is good. But what if the machine is designed to find all knives that have at least 6" metal blades, but they don't, because the company tried to save a couple bucks by not using the expensive nyombium crystals that make it work better? Perhaps they SHOULD be sued.

 

[Tonio]

I'm in favor of forcing Israel to give the West Bank back to the Palestinians, AND destorying the terrorists. I don't see these as incompatible.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by Tonio
I'm in favor of forcing Israel to give the West Bank back to the Palestinians, AND destorying the terrorists. I don't see these as incompatible.

I agree Tonio, Israel should give back the "settlements", however it is wishful thinking that in doing so, the Palestinians would stop trying to blow up Israeli's. It most certainly wouldn't stop the radical Muslims from trying to kill us.

 

[Tonio]

True, but most Muslims aren't radical, and neither are most Christians. Part of the problem is that too many of the governments in that part of the world are repressive. That breeds tons of discontent. The Bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins use hatemongering to turn that discontent against us, because our support of Israel makes us a big propaganda target. If we treated the Israeli/Palestinian situation more evenhandedly, some of that discontent might be turned instead toward the tyrants who perpetuate the repression. The military front isn't the only front in the war on terrorism.

 

[Bruzilla]

I have to disagree with you on the effectiveness of the war Demsformd. You're right in saying that fighting terrorists will not have a conclusive ending, like the fall of a capital or the killing of a national leader, but the war is not pointless.

The situation that we now face came about because too many US Presidents worried more about looking good than protecting America. This goes back to the second term of Reagan. When we were terrorized by Libya, Reagan took the steps necessary to supress the attacks. He met force with vastly superior force, and he caused the Libyians to rethink their war on the United States. This is the very nature of deterence... you make the consequences of people's actions so discouraging that they do not take action against you.

When Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton all became more worried about looking bad because of collateral damage (human and property) than they were about doing their duty to protect us, they failed us. We know who the bad folks are in the world, we don't need inspectors or UN officials to tell us. We can either make the cost of attacking the United States so high that none will dare try, or we can continue sending the message that the US will only respond in kind to attacks, which makes the weakest terrorist group the equal of the United States military.

Yeah, Bush hasn't piked Bin Ladin's head yet, but he's got him and his cronies on the run. They are responding to our actions rather than the other way around. They're being systematically cut-off from a lot of their resources. Most importantly, they are losing much of the prestige that they gained in the 80's and 90's. This will continue to cost them in human and financial support, will make them do stupid things, which will lead to their capture.

If America is to remain safe, Bush needs to continue to send a strong message to rogue states, terrorist groups, and anyone else who wishes us harm. That message is that if you attack us, we'll annihilate you, your family, your country, and everything you hold dear. If you want to support terrorists, we'll be coming to get you too. And if you think the days of a few missile strikes and a lot of talk out of Washington aren't over, think again.

 

[MGKrebs]

Bru, that is the best explanation

I have heard anywhere regarding what we are doing. There is one detail that I think is important:

"If America is to remain safe, Bush needs to continue to send a strong message to rogue states, terrorist groups, and anyone else who wishes us harm."

The word "wishes" may be the only significant difference between hawks and doves. (I am excluding true pacifists.)

A dove would say the deterrence comes from enemies knowing that IF they attack us, we will respond 10 fold or 100 fold or 1000 fold.

A hawk (I think) would say that even WISHING us harm is enough to get us to respond.

(in re-reading this, I'm not completely comfortable with it, but I'll throw it out there anyway.)

 

[Heretic]

Re: Liability protection

Originally posted by MGKrebs
If the government buys a machine that is supposed to meet certain specifications, and it does, a company should have no worries about lawsuits. This comes up all the time in automobiles, planes, buildings, etc. Somebody is always going to try to sue, but you don't need this kind of liability protection.

The idea of preventing (or minimizing) frivolous lawsuits is good. But what if the machine is designed to find all knives that have at least 6" metal blades, but they don't, because the company tried to save a couple bucks by not using the expensive nyombium crystals that make it work better? Perhaps they SHOULD be sued.

Statistically speaking nothing is 100%, thats impossible.

These companies now pretty much have an open invitation to build the most expensive machines they can, the government surely will foot the bill. That is of course unless some group gets their panties in a bunch and congress cuts back the money in the contract etc etc....

 

[MGKrebs]

The liability protection that I heard about in this deal was to protect drug companies in the making of vaccines. The thinking is that we may need something fast, and if it's not perfect, and some people die or get crippled (like thalydomide?) that the drug companies won't be responsible, and therefore we could theoretically save a lot of people.

So, the questions are:

1. Is the government going to compensate (i.e take care of) these people?
2. What if EVERYBODY who takes it is injured?
3. You might say that injuring a few is OK if it saves a whole bunch, but is that the way it is set up? IF a bunch of people are saved, THEN the insurance companies are off the hook?