Security v. Civil Liberty

[JVO]

What, in general, is more important to you; your civil liberties, or your safety?

This is the question we seem to be facing in the 21 century. With the Patriot Act and the possibility of domestic spying we are confronted with a difficult choice.

One positive thing that we can say about Pres. W. is that since 9/11 (and aftermath) there have been no more terrorists acts on American soil. I remember shortly after believing that we were going to have to become accustomed to these type of attacks and that our safety would never be guarenteed again. But really that hasn't happened. Because there have not been any follow up episodes, I feel as safe and secure now as I did before hand. In many respects I think the Pres should be credited for this. Unlike the million other bull shit wars that America has declared (drugs and poverty for instance) we actually seem to be making some headway in this regard. The problem is now to determine what actions the President took to ensure America's safety, and what, if anything, have we as American's given up for our own safety.

So what liberties are you willing to give up to ensure your safety? I guess that is the important question. Also if you are a law abiding citizen, you probably are willing to give up liberty for safety, since you have nothing to hide anyway. Also for what do you think a President will receive (or should receive) harsher criticism: a major terrorist act which kills thousands of America citizens? or to violate the civil liberties of a few dozen foreign nationals or suspicious America's who may have ties to terrorism? This seems like an impossible line for our intellegence agencies and President to walk. If they allow citizens to have freedom and due process, then they are opening the country to unseen terrorist acts, which will condemn their Presidency and their agencies. If they try to catch terrorists before they act, they will have to do things which are technically illegal. So which way do you error?

For me, my civil liberties are much much more important than my safety. I would rather have multiple terrorist attacks than to have my government violate the principals of what it means to be an American. In my opinion, if we begin to take away American's civil liberties, than the terrorist have won. By attacking us, they are making us much more like them. The reason why they hate us is because of our freedoms (and other reasons), so if we curtail our freedoms we are doing exactly what they want us to do. But, it is very easy for me to say that, since my job and location make it very very unlikely that my life will in any way be threatened by a terrorist attack. If I lived in Northern Virginia or New York, or had a family member who was killed on 9/11, there is a definite possibility that I would feel differently.

This even goes beyond terrorism. For years Democrats have been trying to slowly elliminate handgun ownership, despite the fact that this right is the 2nd right given to us as Americans. Certainly this country would be much safer if there was not an opportunity for ordinary people to buy guns, but it would mean sacrificing the 2nd Amendment. Is that a fair trade off? What about the millions of law abiding gun owners who have never done anything wrong? Is it right for us to sacrifice their liberities, as written in Bill of Rights, just because we don't personally care about them?

So I guess my question to the board is: What do you value more your safety or your freedom? And if you were President how would protect the citizens of America (your primary job) without inpunning the freedoms granted to Americans? What criteria do you use? What rules do you bend? What, as leader of the country, do you feel is more important intellegence and defense, or due process? How do you acheive both at the same time? I have heard many people condemn or applaud the President, but I have not heard anybody come up with better ideas. How do we protect ourselves against terrorist (who by nature work with spies and under covert covers) without subjecting Americans to legislation which violate their civil liberties?

Where do you draw the line?

[bubz_bluez]

what was your quote JVO live free or die trying
im willing to die for freedom but only if they run of of solders.......im kiddin ask Joe I considered signing up after highschool he convinced me it wasint worth it.

bubz

if i ever did get in a gun fight you believe i would be talkin shit all the way

[bangg trimm]

One positive thing that we can say about Pres. W. is that since 9/11 (and aftermath) there have been no more terrorists acts on American soil. I remember shortly after believing that we were going to have to become accustomed to these type of attacks and that our safety would never be guarenteed again. But really that hasn't happened. Because there have not been any follow up episodes, I feel as safe and secure now as I did before hand. In many respects I think the Pres should be credited for this. Unlike the million other bull shit wars that America has declared (drugs and poverty for instance) we actually seem to be making some headway in this regard.

1. i think that these two things a) the president's actions and b) the lack of subsequent attacks is much more coincidental than causal. it's the same crap as the insurance industry in this regard. how much are you willing to pay on the off chance that x will occur? most people pay shitloads on the off chance that something untoward will happen to their car, home or health. the president is more or less inept. i credit him with nothing of credit.

2. as far as patterns of terrorist attacks go, many of these other admittedly bullshit wars are glorified terrorism. and these wars have causality, most of which is the paranoid speculative market. if you can make money off it's natural resources or use it as a port to a country rich in those resources, why not bomb it into submission? why not prop up fascist dictatorships and train their armies to kill or disappear those whom the people have chosen? the american military is a predictable terrorism machine.



So I guess my question to the board is: What do you value more your safety or your freedom? And if you were President how would protect the citizens of America (your primary job) without inpunning the freedoms granted to Americans? What criteria do you use? What rules do you bend? What, as leader of the country, do you feel is more important intellegence and defense, or due process? How do you acheive both at the same time? I have heard many people condemn or applaud the President, but I have not heard anybody come up with better ideas. How do we protect ourselves against terrorist (who by nature work with spies and under covert covers) without subjecting Americans to legislation which violate their civil liberties?

Where do you draw the line?

there are some worthy questions here, but what interests me at the moment is the positioning of the president as Protector and Saviour. is it the president's "primary job" to protect?? i need to re-read the job description, cause i don't remember. this isn't sarcasm, i don't remember. but even before 'to protect' must be 'to represent' which is a much larger issue. if the marked voice of the people is for the president to take 'protective' measures, certainly that is his duty. i can't think of a president who has actually endeavored to represent the people in a non-patriarchal/paternal way. i don't need another goddam daddy, i need someone to listen, understand, and assimilate the disparate wills of the people of this country into only so much policy as necessary. i don't need them to 'know better than me' as an excuse for sideswiping the population into dangerous trends in international and fiscal policy. hell, i might be happier if they would just acknowlege their bias a bit more explicitly. might be.

heh heh. i get time, i will get off my personal soapbox and look at your specific questions again.

[professor booty]

I think that W. has been effective to some extent in using scary methods and the atmosphere of fear in holding back the more radical elements of our own country, but it seems obvious to me that we have a huge challenge in using fear to stop radicals in other countries who are ready to blow themselves apart for their cause. We americans fear more and respond better to his tactics most likely because we have more to lose.

W. as a mouth for the leadership of this country has the job of convincing people that they are safe enough to keep working and shopping. much like bangg said, he is an insurance agent selling "peace of mind." While this peace comes at the expense of others' lives, as long as it doesn't happen in our own back yard, people will keep paying for it.

This peace of mind is not W.'s to sell, and if you look around you and reflect, you will most likely see that real peace of mind is something that people do not have back. Take a look at any of the natural disasters that happened this year (and manmade ones like the budget deficit) and you will see that long-term security can never be guaranteed through governments acting like parents. It requires individual discipline and participation of many people, something that has withered in our democracy.

As to the second Ammenment, I think it is important to have a populace who knows how to keep, use, and respect the power of weapons. I got a BB gun as a child and shot two blackbirds dead before I realized that I was not respecting the power that little air gun gave me over another being. I think we need more of the self-discipline in our society along with the right to bear arms to promote real security. Can you imagine the terror we could unleash on ourselves if we promote arms without self-restraint?

These thoughts are my musings. I appreciate any and all responses to them. Thanks JVO for bringing another interesting discussion.

[MsAnthrope]

One positive thing that we can say about Pres. W. is that since 9/11 (and aftermath) there have been no more terrorists acts on American soil. I remember shortly after believing that we were going to have to become accustomed to these type of attacks and that our safety would never be guarenteed again. But really that hasn't happened. Because there have not been any follow up episodes, I feel as safe and secure now as I did before hand. In many respects I think the Pres should be credited for this. Unlike the million other bull shit wars that America has declared (drugs and poverty for instance) we actually seem to be making some headway in this regard. The problem is now to determine what actions the President took to ensure America's safety, and what, if anything, have we as American's given up for our own safety.

How safe did you feel in 1997, four years after the initial World Trade Center bombing? I felt pretty "safe," as safe I do now, whatever that even means. And we didn't declare a "war on terror."

I guess that is the important question. Also if you are a law abiding citizen, you probably are willing to give up liberty for safety, since you have nothing to hide anyway.

As a pretty much law abiding citizen (especially moreso in my old age) and a person who, more importantly, respects the idea of law, I'm less willing to give up these liberties. Since I actually care about them, and take the time (although I guess it doesn't require much effort) to abide by them, I want to ensure they are protected. The whole "contract" is bullocks if only one side has to abide.

Also for what do you think a President will receive (or should receive) harsher criticism: a major terrorist act which kills thousands of America citizens? or to violate the civil liberties of a few dozen foreign nationals or suspicious America's who may have ties to terrorism?

Another attack would not be, directly, the president's fault, as he doesn't get to sign Executive Orders for terrorists to attack, but he has done more of his share to provoke those who, five years ago probably wouldn't have. On the othe hand, he is able to, and has, bypassed legal mechanisms in order to violate civil liberties. I say guilty on both counts.

By attacking us, they are making us much more like them. The reason why they hate us is because of our freedoms (and other reasons), so if we curtail our freedoms we are doing exactly what they want us to do.

I don't know if I think that "they" hate us because of our freedoms, exactly. If America had gone about doing this freedom thing without infringing on the rest of the world, would we be in this situation? I don't know. I don't mean to say that we shouldn't be involved in the global community (if anything it might be nice if we were more involved a lot of ways). Do "terrorists" really care if I have to take my shoes off in the airport? Or more to the point, if Bush is listening in on my phone conversations?

This even goes beyond terrorism. For years Democrats have been trying to slowly elliminate handgun ownership, despite the fact that this right is the 2nd right given to us as Americans. Certainly this country would be much safer if there was not an opportunity for ordinary people to buy guns, but it would mean sacrificing the 2nd Amendment. Is that a fair trade off? What about the millions of law abiding gun owners who have never done anything wrong? Is it right for us to sacrifice their liberities, as written in Bill of Rights, just because we don't personally care about them?

There's nothing in the constitution that says every person gets to have a handgun. "The right of people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed." The constitution also says no one is denied a vote based upon previous conditions of servitude, but plenty of states don't allow their ex-felons to vote. I'm not saying I've settled the issue, but the constitution is game for some interpretation (especially given that times may have changed a bit - the British aren't coming anytime soon).

So I guess my question to the board is: What do you value more your safety or your freedom? And if you were President how would protect the citizens of America (your primary job) without inpunning the freedoms granted to Americans? What criteria do you use? What rules do you bend? What, as leader of the country, do you feel is more important intellegence and defense, or due process? How do you acheive both at the same time? I have heard many people condemn or applaud the President, but I have not heard anybody come up with better ideas. How do we protect ourselves against terrorist (who by nature work with spies and under covert covers) without subjecting Americans to legislation which violate their civil liberties?

Ideally the president would be able to do both - keep us safe without breaking our own laws. That's why we have civil liberties in the first place. When we're attacked by somone within our borders the system doesn't go to shit. Timothy McVeigh's actions didn't lead to random searches of rural white people... but woo boy we've got some militias in the US. Northern Michigan can be a scary place.
This paranoia has set in that bad people want to get us and we have to kill them first. If I hear Bush say that the terrorists want to kill us and take away our freedoms one more time.... aahh. It's like a poorly written movie. The world isn't that simple, and it's insulting that we have a president who trys to convince us it is. "You're either with us or against us" ? What the fuck is that?
In my humble opinion, the scary part of the reign of Bush II is not that he's an idiot (because he certainly isn't) that has done things many of us condemn as unconscionable, but that he does it with this public brazenness that says "You don't like what I'm doing? Fuck off, I'm the President."
It's an entirely new attitude that brushes aside this whole idea of democracy. It promotes apathy towards the system because it's obvious that a dissatisfied populace has no means of redress.
Anyway, what would I do? Well, I would have paid attention to the reports coming out of two separate CIA offices that said "listen Bush, I think there are some terrorists learning to fly airplanes." I would have paid attention to reports that terrorists might be thinking about using airplanes as weapons. I would READ THE NEWSPAPER! I would not fire senior members of the administration that had worked on terrorism issues for decades. I would spend less time on the ranch and more time trying to clean up our intelligence operations. And then maybe a major catastrophy could have been avoided, we wouldn't be talking about this "war," and I wouldn't feel like telling people I was from Canda when I went to Europe.

[/i]

[JVO]

WOW!!! Some really great comments, although I am reminded how incredibly Liberal (and I don't mean that as an insult) everyone on this site is. Seems like I am always supporting the Conservative position, despite the fact that I am as "Middle of The Road" as they come. Also, let it be know, I have never voted for Pres. Bush and am not a supporter of him or a majority of his policies. I voted for Nader in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, still I find that the extreme left wing supporters are just as deluted and cold blooded as those on the right. I suspect this is the reason so many people don't vote or care about politics.

Anyway some responses:

BT writes:

"1. i think that these two things a) the president's actions and b) the lack of subsequent attacks is much more coincidental than causal. it's the same crap as the insurance industry in this regard. how much are you willing to pay on the off chance that x will occur? most people pay shitloads on the off chance that something untoward will happen to their car, home or health. the president is more or less inept. i credit him with nothing of credit."

I really like the Insurance analogy and for the most part agree with its pertinance, but I do strongly disagree that the President (and Home Land Security, CIA, FBI et. al) actions have had no effect on the lack of terrorism on US soil. We never hear about the successes that these agencies have, only their failures. I heard a report on CNN that during 2002/2003 there were over 35 terrorist plots that were snuffed out by the Federal Government. There are literally thousands of military and law enforcment agents who have dedicated the last 4 years of their lives to stopping terrorism in the U.S. They are willing to risk their lives for the safety of our country. To say that their efforts are meaningless and that the lack of terrorist activity is merely "coincidental" is an insult to all they do everyday. And as Commander and Chief, all of these agents and departments report to the President of the United States. So their successes are his successes and their failures are his failures.

BT writes:

"but what interests me at the moment is the positioning of the president as Protector and Saviour. is it the president's "primary job" to protect?? i need to re-read the job description, cause i don't remember. this isn't sarcasm, i don't remember. but even before 'to protect' must be 'to represent' which is a much larger issue."

In the oath of office the President swears to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Art. II Sec 1 of US Constitution) The Constitution also gives the President the authority to be Commander and Chief of the United States Military. So I guess you can ask what is the mandate of the military? For me the military is put in place to protect the people and interests of the United States. If you agree with this interpretation, then you must agree that as Commander and Chief of a branch of the government dedicated to protecting America, the President does have a Constitutional mandate to Command in such a way that he/she believes protects America and our interests. In fact, this is one of the very few mandates that the President does have according to the Constitution.

btw, no where in the Constitution or the Presidential oath does it say anything about representing the people (although maybe it should!). Representing American's is the mandate of the House and the Senate not the President.

BT writes:
hell, i might be happier if they would just acknowlege their bias a bit more explicitly.

I could not agree with you more!!!!!!!!!!!

Professor writes:

"I think that W. has been effective to some extent in using scary methods and the atmosphere of fear in holding back the more radical elements of our own country, but it seems obvious to me that we have a huge challenge in using fear to stop radicals in other countries who are ready to blow themselves apart for their cause."

I think fear is one of the very few methods that actually work in stopping terrorists. Certainly the suicide bombers are not going to care about a proportional response to their terrorist acts, but the one who gives them the orders will. If I am a terrorist leader, and I know that if one of my lackies blows up a building on American soil, that America's response will be an all out attack on my country and if I am lucky I will spend the rest of my life bouncing from cave to cave (and if unlucky I will be killed or tried and killed) I think that will have some effect on my actions. I am not a supporter of the war in Iraq, but I am a supporter of the war in Afghanistan. I am sure that all terrorists took note, that if they commit terrorism on American soil that crazy ass Bush will bring hell to them and everyone they know. This policy is designed to stop the Bin Ladens of the world, not the doopey kids who do his dirty work.

Oops boss here, back to work...more to follow...

ok, I'm back.

Prof writes:

"This peace of mind is not W.'s to sell, and if you look around you and reflect, you will most likely see that real peace of mind is something that people do not have back. Take a look at any of the natural disasters that happened this year (and manmade ones like the budget deficit) and you will see that long-term security can never be guaranteed through governments acting like parents. It requires individual discipline and participation of many people, something that has withered in our democracy. "

I agree with all of that. As long as we are mortals, and a majority of us believe in dogma that teach that there is an "end of days" approaching, there will never be peace of mind. I doubt that since the first day a monkey walked on two legs, that humanity has ever experienced peace of mind. That is part of what makes life so exciting.

MsA writes:

"How safe did you feel in 1997, four years after the initial World Trade Center bombing? I felt pretty "safe," as safe I do now, whatever that even means. And we didn't declare a "war on terror."

I don't think the bombing in 1997 and the acts in 2001 are anywhere close to being the same thing. The intent might have been the same, but in 1997 less than 6 people were killed (or something like that?!?!), in 2001 over 4000 people were killed along with a coordinated strike which destroyed or partially destroyed 2 of our National landmarks using our own airplanes. Perhaps if we did declare a "war on terror" after 1997 (instead of bombing two asprin companies), 9/11 would never have happened. What do you think we should have done in response to 9/11? Say America is an evil place and we deserve to get bombed? Do you think it was wrong of us to hold the terrorists in Afghanistan accountable for their actions? Do you think that would have actually stopped the terrorists?

MsA. writes:

"As a pretty much law abiding citizen (especially moreso in my old age) and a person who, more importantly, respects the idea of law, I'm less willing to give up these liberties. Since I actually care about them, and take the time (although I guess it doesn't require much effort) to abide by them, I want to ensure they are protected."

I completely agree with you!!!!! Once more, I don't understand how anybody could disagree, yet when I speak to people (especially older people) their response is always, "the only people who should care are the ones who we should be monitoring". I guess freedom doesn't mean as much to American's as it did to our forefathers.

MsA. writes:

"Another attack would not be, directly, the president's fault, as he doesn't get to sign Executive Orders for terrorists to attack, but he has done more of his share to provoke those who, five years ago probably wouldn't have. "

I think it would be his fault, just as 9/11 was his fault (and Pres Clinton's fault). Certainly he may have provoked others to commit terror, but there haven't been any terrorist acts since then (at least on American soil). Also, we have killed or imprisioned hundreds of KNOWN terrorists in Afghanistan, and the ones that we have not got are on the run and cut off from their resources. We have also sent a clear message, that any act of terrorism will be met with overwhelming and unstoppable force. Violence, unfortunately, is one of the few languages that terrorist understand. So I don't buy the arguement that we have created more terrorists than we have elliminated. I guess time will tell which of us is right. (probably a little of both)

Ms.A writes:

"I don't know if I think that "they" hate us because of our freedoms, exactly. If America had gone about doing this freedom thing without infringing on the rest of the world, would we be in this situation?"

Certainly there are many, many reasons why "they" (aka terrorists) hate us, but I contend that our freedom is one of those reasons. "They" (aka terrorists) believe in a society in which husbands have the right to violently rape their wives whenever they choose. A society in which it is illegal for women to learn how to read. A society that mandates the exact length a man must grow his beard. A society in which children are sent to Hammas where part of their education is to hate all those who disagree with them (especially American's) and are taught how best to kill mulitple people with easy to find items, yet are not taught about literature, music, or world history. A Society where law and religion are the exact same thing. "They" (aka terrorists) see America with our Madonna and Baywatch as the Devil sent to tempt their young with our sinful lifestyle and open acceptance of differing opinions. That is one of the many, many reasons they (aka terrorists) hate us. We are a disgrace to everything they believe in.

Also, it was only after we were attacked in World War II that we became interested in world events. We stayed out of these events, even though we knew that Hitler was rampaging his way across Europe, taking over our allies, and killing 7.5 million jews, as we stood by and did nothing. In Japan, we did nothing, while our enemy who without provacation attacked us, stockpiled weapons and boats that were solely created to destroy us. (btw both of those countries, Germany and Japan are now our allies.) Now I am not saying that our foreys into world politics have always been fruitful or just <in fact, particullarly in Saudi Arabia, we have really made a deal with the devil for our own (and our allies) selfish reasons.> But, it we were to crawl back inside our shell, and go back to the good old days of isolation, it would only be a matter of time before we were attacked and sucked back into another World War. The world is way too small a place, for the world's only superpower to remain isolationists.
I agree that it would be better if we were involved in many more ways. Or at least if the other ways that we were involved were better advertised. America gives more in foreign aid, than every other country in the world put together.


MsA. writes:

"There's nothing in the constitution that says every person gets to have a handgun. "The right of people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed." The constitution also says no one is denied a vote based upon previous conditions of servitude, but plenty of states don't allow their ex-felons to vote. I'm not saying I've settled the issue, but the constitution is game for some interpretation (especially given that times may have changed a bit - the British aren't coming anytime soon)."

Of course you are correct that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect ownership of handguns (I am not sure if handguns were even around back then), but the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amend to protect ownership of handguns which are less than 10mm caliber and are no more than semiautomatic. (US v. Miller and US v. Cruikshank). Now I am not a gun owner, nor do I particularly give a damn about the issue, but the Supreme Court has outlined the rules pretty closely. Also the Constitution does not specifically give a woman the right to an abortion either. It is only by the interpretation of the US Supreme Court that this right is protected (Roe v. Wade). Also the 2 Amend. was not created to protect individual citizens against the British. It was created to protect citizens from each other and from a tyranical government. According to our forefathers, if our Government becomes oppresive and does not represent the will of it's citizens, we have an obligation to revolt against this government. The right to own guns is a way to remind the goventment of their obligation to the citizenry of America.

MsA. writes:

"If I hear Bush say that the terrorists want to kill us and take away our freedoms one more time.... aahh."

Wow, I am not sure how to respond to this. I agree with you that everything that Bush says is simpleminded and often stupid, I must say I do agree in principle to the statement above. On 9/11 the terrorists choose to attack the World Trade Center (an incredibly important financial arm of America and office building to 10,000's of American citizens), the Pentagon (the headquarters of our military) and the Capitol Building (the Center of our government). This was an obvious attempt to decapitate our 3 pillars of stregnth; Finance, Military, and Goverment. If this isn't a clear indication that terrorists want to kill us and take away our freedom, I don't know what is. Clearly they may be justified in some of their hatred toward us (won't hear bush say that!), but their goal is to destroy America. Now we are using this as an excuse to attack Iraq for sure. And in no way do I agree that we should be doing this, but I am not sure you could argue that terrorists aren't trying to destroy America, when the attacks on 9/11 were so obviously an attempt to do just that. If you seriously wanted to destroy America, want better targets could you choose?

MsA. writes:

"In my humble opinion, the scary part of the reign of Bush II is not that he's an idiot (because he certainly isn't) that has done things many of us condemn as unconscionable, but that he does it with this public brazenness that says "You don't like what I'm doing? Fuck off, I'm the President."
It's an entirely new attitude that brushes aside this whole idea of democracy. It promotes apathy towards the system because it's obvious that a dissatisfied populace has no means of redress. "

I agree with you that Pres Bush drives me crazy with his certainty, but that is the reason why American's like him so much. American's like strong leadership. That is why Kerry had no chance of winning, and why Gore lost to somebody who was clearly not as experienced or educated. With GW you know exactly where he stands on every issue, and he will never waiver despite public pressure. American's like and respect that. The only candidate the Dems had who shared those traits was Howard Dean, and he unfortunately could not solidify his base.

Also I am not sure it is fair to say that we have "a dissatisfied populace". We had a chance to get rid of Bush and we voted not to. So obviously a majority of Americans support Bush and his policies, or at least support him as a leader. And although his popularity has waned in recent months (which happens to every second term Pres since Washington) he still has the support of a huge amount of the population and Congress. I am not happy about this, but it remains true nonetheless.

[bangg trimm]

BT writes:

"but what interests me at the moment is the positioning of the president as Protector and Saviour. is it the president's "primary job" to protect?? i need to re-read the job description, cause i don't remember. this isn't sarcasm, i don't remember. but even before 'to protect' must be 'to represent' which is a much larger issue."

In the oath of office the President swears to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Art. II Sec 1 of US Constitution) The Constitution also gives the President the authority to be Commander and Chief of the United States Military. So I guess you can ask what is the mandate of the military? For me the military is put in place to protect the people and interests of the United States. If you agree with this interpretation, then you must agree that as Commander and Chief of a branch of the government dedicated to protecting America, the President does have a Constitutional mandate to Command in such a way that he/she believes protects America and our interests. In fact, this is one of the very few mandates that the President does have according to the Constitution.

btw, no where in the Constitution or the Presidential oath does it say anything about representing the people (although maybe it should!). Representing American's is the mandate of the House and the Senate not the President.

hmm. i hear your point in regard to representation being the mandate of the legislative branch. but if the president is execute the "will of the people" as legislated by the senate/house, does that not logically imply his duty to represent by extension? dubya, fucking represent!


Professor writes:

"I think that W. has been effective to some extent in using scary methods and the atmosphere of fear in holding back the more radical elements of our own country, but it seems obvious to me that we have a huge challenge in using fear to stop radicals in other countries who are ready to blow themselves apart for their cause."

I think fear is one of the very few methods that actually work in stopping terrorists. Certainly the suicide bombers are not going to care about a proportional response to their terrorist acts, but the one who gives them the orders will. If I am a terrorist leader, and I know that if one of my lackies blows up a building on American soil, that America's response will be an all out attack on my country and if I am lucky I will spend the rest of my life bouncing from cave to cave (and if unlucky I will be killed or tried and killed) I think that will have some effect on my actions. I am not a supporter of the war in Iraq, but I am a supporter of the war in Afghanistan. I am sure that all terrorists took note, that if they commit terrorism on American soil that crazy ass Bush will bring hell to them and everyone they know. This policy is designed to stop the Bin Ladens of the world, not the doopey kids who do his dirty work.



terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear


"I think fear is one of the very few methods that actually work in stopping terrorists. "
"I think terrorism is one of the very few methods that actually work in stopping terrorists. "

fighting fire with fire?

i think that it is at least possible and useful to also consider terrorist acts as symptomatic of something larger, for example the inability/difficulty/lack of desire in trying to understand and live as one species on this planet, OR
the long term effects of economic disparity, global power games, and racism OR any number of other, greater (albeit abstract) problems. this line of thinking is the same that started the penitentiary system, which only works to isolate some offending person long enough to break them of whatever is considered wrong with them. it could be just as viable to try to deeply listen and understand what they feel they lack (material, psychological, emotional; concrete or abstract) and to see if this lack can be provided for by society. the former method processes people into good and bad and removes the problems of society from the conscience of the average citizen; the latter looks to a more systemic/holistic view of behavior, which i philosophically favor.

"bitch, we all guilty" he was heard to remark as he drove out of sight,
"happy new year to all, and to all, a good night"



ps. lest there be confusion, i am extremely grateful to hear both your ideas, JVO, and your responses to those of others.[/b][/quote]

[slam]

We have also sent a clear message, that any act of terrorism will be met with overwhelming and unstoppable force. Violence, unfortunately, is one of the few languages that terrorist understand. So I don't buy the arguement that we have created more terrorists than we have elliminated. I guess time will tell which of us is right. (probably a little of both)

i simply don't think violence is going to solve this problem. you simply can't kill all the terrorists. for every 'evil-doer' we off, we're going to probably turn a handful of his friends, uncles, cousins, brothers, nephews, etc into someone that hates us even more. it's a cascading effect.

america always has this terrible habit of fighting the symptoms of social issues, instead of the causes. we fight drug use by punnishing the dealers and burning crops instead of treating the addicted and giving our youth proper education. we fight crime by locking people up instead of trying to deduce and change what led them to the crime in the first place.

by dropping untold armament on a country, killing civilians or whisking them off to detention centers for years at a time leaving their families to think they're dead, you're not going to win the "hearts and minds" that are the real battlefield in this 'war'.

Certainly there are many, many reasons why "they" (aka terrorists) hate us, but I contend that our freedom is one of those reasons. [...] We are a disgrace to everything they believe in.

i really disagree with that. i can't see someone sitting around saying "damn, those americans, always speaking ill of their president and not being arrested for it, and moving from city to city without the need of papers... i'm going to fucking blow myself up and take some of them out with me." it's not our freedom that they hate, it's our culture, or how we choose to make use of our freedoms.

Also, it was only after we were attacked in World War II that we became interested in world events. We stayed out of these events, even though we knew that Hitler was rampaging his way across Europe, taking over our allies, and killing 7.5 million jews, as we stood by and did nothing.

i'm pretty certain that the full scale of the holocaust was never known to America until we had liberated a number of the concentration camps. yes, what hitler was doing was bad, but i don't think anyone knew exactly how evil it really was.

On 9/11 the terrorists choose to attack the World Trade Center (an incredibly important financial arm of America and office building to 10,000's of American citizens), the Pentagon (the headquarters of our military) and the Capitol Building (the Center of our government). This was an obvious attempt to decapitate our 3 pillars of stregnth; Finance, Military, and Goverment. If this isn't a clear indication that terrorists want to kill us and take away our freedom, I don't know what is.

the loss of the world trade center, while terrible, was not catastrophic. if you wanted to hit our financial institutions, the new york stock exchange would have made a hell of a lot more sense. but then, that building isn't very large, and wouldn't be much of a show.

similarly, we all saw how ineffective a single plane was against the pentagon. and the military is far too decentralized for that to have made much of an impact. we all know that the important shit is really buried underground these days, anyways.

no one can say for certain where the last plane was heading. congress, perhaps, or even the white house. but it seems obvious to me that these attacks weren't truly meant to destroy america. no, you'd have to attack some key infrastructure to come close to that goal. these attacks were merely symbolic. all of those targets have a very, very high symbolic value.

al qaeda was showing off. they were provoking us. they were simultaneously guaranteeing themselves thousands of new recruits ("look what we did to the americans!") while all but forcing us into sending our troops over to their part of the world, where they can attack us much more easily. why should they come attack civilians over here all day when they can lure our troops closer to them? this way, they even have the added benefit of being able to weaken our international alliances and prove how ineffectual our military can be when it comes to asymmetrical urban warfare.

we took the bait, hook, line, sinker.

[JVO]

HMMMM! I am wondering if there is a way to seperate this discussion away from Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan. I completely agree (as many of you know) that our war against Iraq was based on lies and fraud. I do not think that we should have ever attacked Iraq, nor do I believe that we will ultimately achieve our goal. I also agree that we probably have created terrorists in Iraq that may not have been terrorist before we attacked. So, for now, let us divorce the issue of Iraq because I think we are all on the same page.

As far as Afghanistan goes, what reaction do you think the US should have had in response to 9/11? Was it wrong for us to hunt Bin Laden? Was it wrong for us to attack the ruling power who attacked us (for whatever reason). Is it anyone's contention that we should not have attacked Afghanistan? From the responses that I have read it almost seems like many people feel that the terrorists were justified in their attacks on our civilians? As I understand it, the main reason Bin Laden ordered the attack on 9/11 is because the U.S., and almost the entire world, were asked by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to come in and help liberate/protect the area from Iraq's aggression. Bin Laden pleaded with Saudi Arabia to allow him and his band of fighters to come in and do what they were asking us to do. The Saudi and Kuwaiti leaders did not trust Bin Laden and were not even sure if they had the firepower to acheive victory against Iraq. Therefore they asked us to come in and help them. The United States did exactly what they were asked to do and showed amazing restrait (perhaps to our own folly) by not simply taking over Iraq in 1992 when we had the entire world behind us. This is the specific justification given by Bin Laden as reported in the 9/11 commission report. Therefore weren't we justified in our reaction to being bombed?

Slammy writes:

"i simply don't think violence is going to solve this problem. you simply can't kill all the terrorists. for every 'evil-doer' we off, we're going to probably turn a handful of his friends, uncles, cousins, brothers, nephews, etc into someone that hates us even more. it's a cascading effect. "

So again I ask, what should we have done if not retailiate? Issue an apology to Bin Laden for coming to the aid of an ally who requested our support? Issue an apology to the UN for the US involvement in Saudi Arabia? If destroying the leadership and infrastructure of terrorists groups who sit around and plot killing Americans is not the answer what is? Peace talks?

Slammy writes:

"america always has this terrible habit of fighting the symptoms of social issues, instead of the causes. we fight drug use by punnishing the dealers and burning crops instead of treating the addicted and giving our youth proper education. we fight crime by locking people up instead of trying to deduce and change what led them to the crime in the first place"

I agree with all of that, but again in relation to terrorists, what could we possibly do to help fight the symptoms of a society whose hatred is mandated by their religion. A society who place more worth and importance on cattle than they do on women. I remember the times of Apartied (sp?) in South Africa. Every African American leader, every black person in the world cried about the horrible injustices suffered by Africans in South Africa (and rightly so!!!). There were demonstrations in every part of the world crying about the misery that native Africans were being forced to endure at the hands of the South African Government. The discontent reached such a level, that every democratic country in the world put trade restrictions on South Africa, and even the Olympic Committee (who has a history of racism) banned South Africa from appearing at the Olympics. My question is where are all the women at???????? The Africans in South Africa lived in heaven compared to the conditions that women face in the Middle East (at least in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia). Women are property to be used and discarded however their men see fit, yet I hear no outcry from the women of the world. No women's group are petitioning the UN, no women's group are holding rallys to raise awareness. Why do the world's women not care about the deplorable conditions of their sisters in the Middle East. If Africans were being treated the same way as women in the Middle East, there would be rallies going on everyday, yet the woman are doing nothing. Where is Pat Schroeder, Gloria Steinman, Hilliary Clinton and Susan Pelosi? How can they sit and do or say nothing while their entire gender has had to live under the most oppresive conditions that this world has seen in centuries? Sorry that is kinda off the subject, but it is something that has always bothered me.

Slammy writes:

"you're not going to win the "hearts and minds" that are the real battlefield in this 'war'.

How do you propose we win the hearts and minds of people who are taught from an early age that we are the devil?

Slammy writes:

"i really disagree with that. i can't see someone sitting around saying "damn, those americans, always speaking ill of their president and not being arrested for it, and moving from city to city without the need of papers... i'm going to fucking blow myself up and take some of them out with me." it's not our freedom that they hate, it's our culture, or how we choose to make use of our freedoms."

I agree that it is our culture and how we choose to make use of our freedoms that the terrorists hate. We choose to let women vote. We choose to allow people to worship in any way they see fit. We choose to have a volunteer military. We choose to do what we believe is in the best interest of ourselves and our allies. We choose to accept differing opinions. We choose to allow people to pick who they are going to marry on their own. We choose to give equal rights to all people regardless of their race, sex, or creed. We choose to let people decide where they are going to live and what they are going to think. I think that was my point. Their religion (and I don't want to say this is true of all Muslims or Islamic people because IT IS NOT, I am only talking about the extremists) teaches that every thing that is not their belief is evil. This goes for Christians, Jews, Athiests, Gays, and Women. Terrorist is to Muslim and KKK is to Christian.

Slammy writes:

"we took the bait, hook, line, sinker"

So what should we have done?!?!?! Say oh, bummer and walk it off? Go and pray for peace? Talk about an impeachable offense. If you attack Americans without provacation, you are going to die, or spend the rest of your life on the run. In the wake of 9/11 even the most dove loving peachnicks in Congress were for attacking the terrorists. What do you think we should have done instead? If we did nothing, the terrorists would think that we are weak and gutless, and they would be absolutely right.


BT writes:

"fighting fire with fire?"

Good point, but what is a realistic alternative?

BT writes:

"ps. lest there be confusion, i am extremely grateful to hear both your ideas, JVO, and your responses to those of others."

Me too BT!!!!!! I must confess sometimes I will take a position that I don't agree with just to press someone on what they believe. Hopefully, at least we will all be able to clarify our own position in these discussions. I really am not interested in convincing anybody that I am right, goodness knows I am as big an idiot as anyone else in the world, but I like to hear what people think so that I can better understand all the sides of an issue.

Must be the Libra in me.

[MsAnthrope]

WOW!!! Some really great comments, although I am reminded how incredibly Liberal (and I don't mean that as an insult) everyone on this site is. Seems like I am always supporting the Conservative position, despite the fact that I am as "Middle of The Road" as they come. Also, let it be know, I have never voted for Pres. Bush and am not a supporter of him or a majority of his policies. I voted for Nader in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, still I find that the extreme left wing supporters are just as deluted and cold blooded as those on the right. I suspect this is the reason so many people don't vote or care about politics.

Gee, there is so much going on here, I don't know if I can handle all of the expert quoting techniques that would be necessary to do this right.
Firstly, I think it's funny that you mention the incredibly liberal leanings of the responses... I often find myself saying the same thing. Maybe this is grounds for a different post, but I remember how shocked I was when for the first time (just last year) I met someone who "wasn't sure" what she thought about evolution/natural selection vs. creationism. The next thing I thought was "Jesus, I'm 25 years old... more than half the country feels like she does. Have I been living in a cave?" Of course I had been living in the cave of academia. God, that sounds retarded.
Anyhow..reading over the stuff I wrote, I'm surprised at how left-leaning I sounded. Let's see..

Certainly there are many, many reasons why "they" (aka terrorists) hate us, but I contend that our freedom is one of those reasons. "They" (aka terrorists) believe in a society in which husbands have the right to violently rape their wives whenever they choose. A society in which it is illegal for women to learn how to read. A society that mandates the exact length a man must grow his beard. A society in which children are sent to Hammas where part of their education is to hate all those who disagree with them (especially American's) and are taught how best to kill mulitple people with easy to find items, yet are not taught about literature, music, or world history. A Society where law and religion are the exact same thing. "They" (aka terrorists) see America with our Madonna and Baywatch as the Devil sent to tempt their young with our sinful lifestyle and open acceptance of differing opinions. That is one of the many, many reasons they (aka terrorists) hate us. We are a disgrace to everything they believe in.

Also, it was only after we were attacked in World War II that we became interested in world events. We stayed out of these events, even though we knew that Hitler was rampaging his way across Europe, taking over our allies, and killing 7.5 million jews, as we stood by and did nothing. In Japan, we did nothing, while our enemy who without provacation attacked us, stockpiled weapons and boats that were solely created to destroy us. (btw both of those countries, Germany and Japan are now our allies.) Now I am not saying that our foreys into world politics have always been fruitful or just <in fact, particullarly in Saudi Arabia, we have really made a deal with the devil for our own (and our allies) selfish reasons.> But, it we were to crawl back inside our shell, and go back to the good old days of isolation, it would only be a matter of time before we were attacked and sucked back into another World War. The world is way too small a place, for the world's only superpower to remain isolationists.

I guess I should confess ignorance... I'm not well versed in Middle Eastern culture or religion, but my assumption is that the extremes of Islam are not practiced by a majority of Muslims, much like the extremes of other religions. But I guess you're just talking about extremists, so I guess that makes sense. It just seems to me that the more the rest of the world tells you that your faith is evil, the more extreme a moderate, but faithful person might become.
I think I fell victim to that old fallacy of equivocation. The short response is I think I might agree with you, but I'm still not quite sure.
After re-reading my response, I think I know what bothers me. It was a little over a century ago that this country still had government sanctioned slavery. Just 60 years ago we imprisoned people because of their ancestry. Of course I don't think that because we're imperfect the world shouldn't strive for something better, but we're just a couple of hundred years old here. Something is... unsettling... about our chastising the seat of civilization. That's all, just unsettling. There's a good article in last week's (I think) nyt magazine. Sort of on the topic of culture dynamics. Not really on this topic, but anyway..

I don't think the bombing in 1997 and the acts in 2001 are anywhere close to being the same thing. The intent might have been the same, but in 1997 less than 6 people were killed (or something like that?!?!), in 2001 over 4000 people were killed along with a coordinated strike which destroyed or partially destroyed 2 of our National landmarks using our own airplanes. Perhaps if we did declare a "war on terror" after 1997 (instead of bombing two asprin companies), 9/11 would never have happened. What do you think we should have done in response to 9/11? Say America is an evil place and we deserve to get bombed? Do you think it was wrong of us to hold the terrorists in Afghanistan accountable for their actions? Do you think that would have actually stopped the terrorists?

There's no argument that the '97 and '01 attacks were very different. But a war on terror? What does that even mean? I was down with invading Afghanistan (does that sound particularly callous? Yikes). But the war on terror has gone way beyond a response to the '01 attack. I don't think any state is evil. Afghanistan, America or Iraq. I don't even know what evil means but I can't stand hearing the president use it over.. and over... and over...

MsA. writes:

"If I hear Bush say that the terrorists want to kill us and take away our freedoms one more time.... aahh."

Wow, I am not sure how to respond to this. I agree with you that everything that Bush says is simpleminded and often stupid, I must say I do agree in principle to the statement above. On 9/11 the terrorists choose to attack the World Trade Center (an incredibly important financial arm of America and office building to 10,000's of American citizens), the Pentagon (the headquarters of our military) and the Capitol Building (the Center of our government). This was an obvious attempt to decapitate our 3 pillars of stregnth; Finance, Military, and Goverment. If this isn't a clear indication that terrorists want to kill us and take away our freedom, I don't know what is. Clearly they may be justified in some of their hatred toward us (won't hear bush say that!), but their goal is to destroy America. Now we are using this as an excuse to attack Iraq for sure. And in no way do I agree that we should be doing this, but I am not sure you could argue that terrorists aren't trying to destroy America, when the attacks on 9/11 were so obviously an attempt to do just that. If you seriously wanted to destroy America, want better targets could you choose?

That segway was a total set-up. I'm good. These vague mantras wisk people beyond support of a military attack to capture criminals and prevent another attack. They strike directly at the worst traits of scared individuals: nationalism, vengance and if applicable racism. "Some people think brown skinned people can't be free like -" what was it that Bushie was going to say? Like "us"? (That speech has been re-quoted so many times.. if I had the patience for video, I'd look it up, but ... he may have said "can't live in a democracy.." something to that effect).
Anyhow, playing up to fears is not honest. Bush knows that. Libby knows that. Cheney knows that. Powell knows that. I think that's the reason those statements ("Bad people want to kill us" etc.) make me so angry.

I agree with you that Pres Bush drives me crazy with his certainty, but that is the reason why American's like him so much. American's like strong leadership. That is why Kerry had no chance of winning, and why Gore lost to somebody who was clearly not as experienced or educated. With GW you know exactly where he stands on every issue, and he will never waiver despite public pressure. American's like and respect that. The only candidate the Dems had who shared those traits was Howard Dean, and he unfortunately could not solidify his base.

I've been known to say that, given the chance (and maybe under different circumstances) I'd much prefer to get drunk with Bush than Kerry - or god forbid, Gore. I'm not surprised that people like him. And it's not really surprising (I wouldn't think) that many people vote for who they like; why not? But I don't think it's fair to say that with Bush you know exactly where he stands. I get pretty upset when people say he's stupid. It's such a superficial way to avoid any issues. I think he knows exactly where he stands and what he wants...and he knows what to say, like any politician, left or right. I think he is riding the wave of public opinion (waive...!more equivocation, or a clever pun? maybe neither). I mean he tells people he's from Texas? What's up with that? It's because most of the country isn't down with rich folks from Connecticut.

Also I am not sure it is fair to say that we have "a dissatisfied populace". We had a chance to get rid of Bush and we voted not to. So obviously a majority of Americans support Bush and his policies, or at least support him as a leader. And although his popularity has waned in recent months (which happens to every second term Pres since Washington) he still has the support of a huge amount of the population and Congress. I am not happy about this, but it remains true nonetheless.

Not that it makes much difference I guess, but just over 50% of eligible voters cast a ballot in '04. I don't know what that means; maybe it mean's we've always been dissatified, as it was the highest voter turnout since the 60s. But like I said, I have come to accept the fact that I live in some sort of sheltered cave.... so perhaps the 25% of eligible voters that chose Bush really are representative of a majority of the country.

Oh my god my eyes are tired. I know I ignored some stuff.. I'm backing down from that gun stuff. (Although I will say quickly that I don't understand why anyone needs a legal/constitutional right to an abortion any more than a legal right to have a tumor removed. I think this issue is only a in the realm of politics insofar as our politics are soaked in religious nonsense. And also, I think an armed militia to protect us against a tyrannical government is just as archaic an idea as an armed militia to protect us from the Brits. Could a city full of automatic gun-wielding sharp shooters even really stop an attack by the US army? Just sayin. Maybe that is what's happening in Iraq? I don't really know what the point of this parenthetical is.)

Woah. Anyhow. I spent my day at a trade show about biological management of invasive aquatic plants. This was much more interesting. Thanks. Good night.

[MsAnthrope]

Slammy writes:
"we took the bait, hook, line, sinker"
So what should we have done?!?!?! Say oh, bummer and walk it off? Go and pray for peace? Talk about an impeachable offense. If you attack Americans without provacation, you are going to die, or spend the rest of your life on the run. In the wake of 9/11 even the most dove loving peachnicks in Congress were for attacking the terrorists. What do you think we should have done instead? If we did nothing, the terrorists would think that we are weak and gutless, and they would be absolutely right.

I had another impeachable offense in mind... lying in an official address to the public? Is there any oath involved in the State of the Union address? Probably not, but can the man really just say whatever he feels like? I mean, apparently, yes, but give me a break! Ha. Poor Bush. I don't mean to be so harsh. Yes I do. It just seems like for every act of his that can be justified, he has also acted in the polar opposite direction.
I'm really going to sleep now.

[JVO]

I don't even bother with the Quote thing anymore. Clearly, I am not smart enough to work the damn thing!!!!

MsA. writes:

"The next thing I thought was "Jesus, I'm 25 years old... more than half the country feels like she does. Have I been living in a cave?" Of course I had been living in the cave of academia."

There are many times in life that I have felt the exact same way. Oh well, at least Plato would be proud that we accept our distorted position.

MsA. writes:

"After re-reading my response, I think I know what bothers me. It was a little over a century ago that this country still had government sanctioned slavery. Just 60 years ago we imprisoned people because of their ancestry. Of course I don't think that because we're imperfect the world shouldn't strive for something better, but we're just a couple of hundred years old here. Something is... unsettling... about our chastising the seat of civilization. That's all, just unsettling. There's a good article in last week's (I think) nyt magazine. Sort of on the topic of culture dynamics. Not really on this topic, but anyway.. "

I completely agree with that, particularly considering how ignorant the US is about cultures different from ours. I was watching a show the other day where this woman was giving a tour of a church to these people from England. When they arrived at a stained glass window the woman told the Brits, "Since you are from England, you probably have never seen stained glass windows." I just about started to scream at the TV.

MsA. writes:

" What does that even mean?"

It means that Pres Bush conned Congress into allowing him to declare war on whoever and for whatever he wants too.


MsA. writes:

"I've been known to say that, given the chance (and maybe under different circumstances) I'd much prefer to get drunk with Bush than Kerry - or god forbid, Gore. I'm not surprised that people like him."

Yes, I completely agree. I think the same is true with Bill Clinton. I can just picture the two of them sitting next to each other at a strip club dolling out $100's to a harem of stripers having the time of their lives.

MsA. writes:

" mean he tells people he's from Texas? What's up with that? It's because most of the country isn't down with rich folks from Connecticut."

Since he was the Governor of Texas and owned the Texas Rangers, I am ok with him "being from Texas". The one that I don't understand is Hilliary Clinton being from New York. Are you kidding me?

MsA. writes:

"Although I will say quickly that I don't understand why anyone needs a legal/constitutional right to an abortion any more than a legal right to have a tumor removed. "

Excellent point!!!! Do you think the same could be said for Prostitution?

MsA. writes:

"Anyhow. I spent my day at a trade show about biological management of invasive aquatic plants. This was much more interesting."

Cool!!! Actually, that sounds incredibly boring to me, but I bet if I went I would have been completely fascinated.

[slam]

MsA:

"I get pretty upset when people say he's stupid. It's such a superficial way to avoid any issues. I think he knows exactly where he stands and what he wants...and he knows what to say, like any politician, left or right."

i really, truly think that bush is not very smart. what has he ever done to show his intelligence, other than being elected president, which i think he had as much to do with as Ford did. right man, right place, right time, with all the right friends. sure sure, i think cheney is smart, and rove is a damn genius, and i'd imagine that most of the others in the white house are really quite capable. but i don't see bush as intelligent. i'd be curious to hear why anyone disagrees.

bush got through life by having an incredibly wealthy, intelligent, and powerful family. one day, karl rove met him, recognized his pedigree, and realized he could take this kid far. now he's ridden him right to the top.

how many times have you heard bush speaking and thought to yourself "holy fuck, what did he just say?" i'm not saying that intelligence = good speaking abilities, but holy crap, that man has said some damn stupid shit.

MsA:

"I had another impeachable offense in mind... lying in an official address to the public? Is there any oath involved in the State of the Union address? "

the State of The Union is delivered before congress, so i guess technically he'd be lying before congress. but anyways, yeah, ain't going to be any impeachments while the repubs control congress.

JVO:

"So what should we have done?!?!?! Say oh, bummer and walk it off? Go and pray for peace? Talk about an impeachable offense. If you attack Americans without provacation, you are going to die, or spend the rest of your life on the run. In the wake of 9/11 even the most dove loving peachnicks in Congress were for attacking the terrorists. What do you think we should have done instead? If we did nothing, the terrorists would think that we are weak and gutless, and they would be absolutely right. "

at the time, i was for bombing the sin out of afghanistan. but now, as i've seen the results of that action, and grown perhaps a little wiser, i don't think that was such a good idea. i am, in general, a bleeding-heart pacifict commie, and mostly disagree with war in any form. but damn, i was angry, and i believed bush had to do what he thought was best for the country. but mostly, i just wanted revenge.

obviously, we couldn't just 'walk it off' or 'pray for peace'. you know i ain't no hippy. we were, in essense, trying to destroy al qaeda and capture osama, correct? and which of these goals did our toppling of the taliban and bombing of afghanistan accomplish? because that's just it, al qaeda is not a country. terrorists do not have territory. you can't just simply start taking over cities and somehow wipe them off the map.

one thing we could do would be to take some of that money we spent on the war and invest heavily in homeland defense. i mean real, real money. going-to-war kind of money. i'm of the opinion that, when fighting terrorists, the best defense is a good defense. invest crazy cash into the cia, the nsa, the department of homeland security (which bush opposed for quite awhile, lest we forget) and special ops forces. maybe even place a massive bounty on osama's head.

but the real step is to get people from wanting to join al qaeda in the first place. why did those saudi hijackers hate us? most of them were well educated, from middle income families, and lived in a country that is a long time ally. is it because of our policies in the middle east? well, ya know, if our policies in the middle east are driving thousands of young men to attempt suicidal attacks against us, maybe we should look at some of them. i don't mean that we should 'give in' to their demands or anything, but we should at least consider whether these demands are reasonable.

if a man stands with a gun to your head and asks you to stop raping his wife, well, is he in the wrong?

has anyone else ever read the transcripts of osama's speeches? it's hard not to agree with many of his points, and at least be envious of how well-spoken he is compared with our Beloved Leader.

[professor booty]

[quote="MsAnthrope"][quote="JVO"]After re-reading my response, I think I know what bothers me. It was a little over a century ago that this country still had government sanctioned slavery. [/quote

I was thinking about this too. If you look at the wealth and power that America has developed in its short history, quite a bit of it has come from the enslavement and mistreatment of others. Although we got rid of slavery, we did not give up the strategy of exploitation, but rather expanded it on a national and multi-national scale. We have made many advances for a more free and equal society in our own country in terms of allowing women, immigrants, minorities, and even gay cowboys to get a piece of the old white straight propertied male class' action.

The business model that America started on faced a problem with the abolishment of slavery. To put it bluntly, if we [the wealthy] can't use the blacks as our expendible labor, who will be our niggers? We have continued to see minority groups get paid less than the old guard, despite the freedoms and progress that the terrorists supposedly hate. To get the kind of growth and return that many people expect in this wealthy nation, I would argue that large corporations (with their largely souless, morally bankrupt drive for profit above all else) are always looking to make someone else their work horse and they have repeatedly gone oversees to make other peoples and their resources the the new exploitable machinery of their wealth.

What does this have to do with the war on terrorism and our response to 9/11? Is it possible that as the super power that has been hanging onto this power and wealth while strutting about as the champion of all free people, we cannot see our own hypocritical actions? Are there people that our companies and our government (funded by our dollars) have through their greed made into niggers, to be employed by their enlightened corporate plantation owners?

I know this sounds very inflamatory and it places blame on our entire country for the devastation of the world. That's some heavy shit. I am not arguing that we are the only ones to blame, but for the many places where American businesses have created sweatshops or ripped the resources out of the ground or dumped toxic wastes or invaded for the control of oil, we as a country are the MOST OBVIOUS TARGET for their anger.

Many of us get only a small taste of this wealth since it tends to stay at the top, but we are the safe harbor for some of the wealthiest people who have made the poorer people of the world their cash machine. Many of these poor may not understand the complexity of their misfortune, but the can see which nations are on top. Some of them try to come to our country to participate, because it feels mighty good to be as rich and free as an American. Others may see our behavior in the world as virtually unstoppable unless brought to moral justice. There is great personal power in using one's religious faith to do this. Some religious approaches have successfully used non-violence, but others adopt the more violent aspects of their faith. It is also often the case that the wealthy on either side will use the poorer people in their ranks to fight each other (our army grunts vs. those who have suffered a loss(often a family member or a hope of a real future) at the hands of Western nations).

These thoughts may make me sound like a raging commie. I am not arguing that we need a communist government, but rather I am asking that we look deeper into why we continue to be a target of terrorist violence and why the war on terror will be one that will not end for some time. My thoughts on the issue have their roots in the ideas I have put into this post, but I don't want to close my mind to others. I would encourage all of you to continue exercising your freedom to post on this board to argue other ways of looking at how to really make a change in the war on terror.

Professor Booty


I would argue that we as a culture have not escaped our history of building wealth on the backs of others. Our lifesWe have the freedom to buy so many different things that poor people in other countries have made for pennies.

[professor booty]

I used a racially sensitive term in the above post that was replaced automatically with "hahahahahahhahahahaha." That word was nigger, but I will misspell it as negger so that you can know it. I was not trying to be racially inflammatory and was using that word to designate anyone that is used as dispensible labor without individual value or worth as a fellow human being.

I find it strange that of all the crazy shit we've said on this site, that one word has been the only thing I've seen smacked down.

*Class, please discuss how this sensitivity to the word "negger"[sic] is related to its use in the above connotation in the larger discussion of "Why Americans don't like to talk about where the money comes from?" Bonus points will be given if you can figure out how to get around the censors!