AutoJC Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Excelent commentary by Onkar Ghate Why is it that this bogus commission isn't investigating the most obvious problem with America dealing with terrorism? The 9-11 commission thinks that 9-11 could have been prevented with better intelligence. Problem is, American interests have been attacked since 1979, when Iran fell to the fundamentalists and the American Embassy was stormed. Look to the 9-11 commission to come up with the wrong conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 That commission is nothing but a political sideshow. Every single administration since Carter owns its share of responsibility for getting us to 9-11. Carter, especitally, not only started the process by allowing our embassy in Iran to be taken over -- with no consequences accruing to the perpetrators. Reagan bombed Lybia, but he also allowed the murder of United States Marines, who he placed in harms way to begin with, to go unpunished. Instead, he ordered his men to turn tail and run away. His other major action in Lebanon is still being paid for by the Israelis: he saved Arafat's bee-hind, "persuading" Israel to allow him back in the country after Lebanon kicked him out. By calling off the Gulf War before the job was done, Bush Sr. left us with 12 years of terrorists' assaults on this country and its citizens, and left us with a 12 year drain on the military budget, equipment and men. And the craven Clinton? Well, we all know what bubba was doing while our embassies burned and a ship of the line in the US Navy sank into the water in Yemen. I won't even mention Somalia because it makes me weep to think of it. If they are interested in looking at our intelligence apparatus, they don't need to do it for all the world to see. The citizens are NOT going to hear any of the important stuff anyway. It's a mere sop to the unserious anti-American, anti-war mob, and it does nothing but give comfort and hope to the enemy. Of course, we mustn't pass up one more reason for pompous politicos to preen before the cameras. (Sorry. I've been watching too much C-Span. It does terrible things to my prose.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 And, of course, the actual responsibility belongs to those who planned and carried out the murder of our citizens and the destruction of our property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 The 9/11 commission -- like so much else in Washington -- is a demonstration of the disasterous consequences of the primacy-of-conciousness error. The whole exercise is an attempt to determine the content of various people's minds at various times -- while ignoring the reality that we have been attacked repeatedly and done virtually nothing about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 The 9/11 commission -- like so much else in Washington -- is a demonstration of the disasterous consequences of the primacy-of-conciousness error. The whole exercise is an attempt to determine the content of various people's minds at various times -- while ignoring the reality that we have been attacked repeatedly and done virtually nothing about it. I agree with you, AisA. There is, however, a more profound reality, and that has to do with reshaping America's foreign policy. The way I see it, the following factors shape America's foreign policy. 1. Its role in the United Nations, where America, by its commitment, must participate in forceful actions to "ensure worldwide peace," committing extensive military might. Alternatively, America must try by its commitment to participate in diplomacy (i.e. appeasement) to try to fend off potentially explosive situations. 2. Its role in NATO, where America, by its commitment to this treaty, must participate in forceful actions to "ensure worldwide peace," committing extensive military might. 3. Its commitment to minor treaties where it acts practically as "mercenary" to protect the interests of those countries which cannot afford to arm themselves with any semblance of a military force. 4. Its commitment to defend countries which are threatened by Communism. 5. Its commitment to defend corporations who choose to do business in hostile countries and expose themselves to peril. To sum it up, the defense of America's own interests becomes less of a priority than the above mentioned factors. One word- Altruism The 9-11 Commission will do nothing to change this woefully misguided foreign policy. That's why it's bogus and will ultimately fail in its "mission." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 I agree. The hideous result of altruism is that America dare not appear to be acting strictly in her own interests. Hence the sickening spectacle of not being willing to take action against threats until we build a "coalition", i.e. until we prove that the proposed action is really in someone else's interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Altruism, as an overt foundation for our foreign policy, was first made explicit by Woodrow Wilson. When he took this country to war in Europe, he made it plain that we had no vital national interest to protect. He was the one who put such terms as "fighting for other's self-determination," "making the world safe for democracy," and other such idiotic and altruistic (is that a redundancy?) concepts into the national vocabulary. FDR took it to the extreme of feeding and arming Soviet Russia. The consequences of that short-sighted policy include 40 years of "cold war" and NATO. Because of NATO, we have spent those forty years paying for the defense of "old Europe." We're still in Kosovo, another war being fought with no national interest or security goals. Of course, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" says it all. We can't force ourselves to admit when we are completely justified in taking action even now. The opening salvo of the war against Islamic fascists took place in Afghanistan, but the war really opened up with Iraq. It is disgusting that we have tried to justify our actions by resorting to altruistic motives. The liberation of the Iraqis is a nice side-effect, but it ought not be used as the cause. It is this equivocation that allows others to come back and ask why we haven't gone into Rwanda and other like places where tyrants rule. And they are justified in doing so by our own stated premise for taking action. Making it clear that we do what we do in our own national interest would put a halt to all this sort of irrelevant BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 "Fight my war for me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invictus Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 I am writing an essay for my International Relations class about this very subject. I'll post it when it is complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Well, I just had to come back to this topic after watching the preening peacocks soar to crap on Dr. Rice today. Isn't there something about "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy written down somewhere? The Dear Leader in NK has already stopped the talks, stating that he would rather wait until after the election. The dregs of Iraq, Iran and Syria are making their push for civil war and power in Iraq by emmulating Mogadishu. All they see is the division spawned by the likes of Kennedy -- who is calling the uprising "Bush's Tet." (Of course, the military won the Tet offensive; it was the civilians who subsequently lost the battle and the war.) This vicious political play is giving our enemies hope and killing our soldiers. This is obviously a show trial. It makes me want to spit on every creature seated on the dais. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 A simple thought on the matter of whether we could have prevented 9/11. In Spain, their terrorists have been bombing and/or threatening the bombing of trains for years. Spanish authorities have on numerous occasions (as I understand it) averted train bombings. Therefore, they had the knowledge and training to deal with a specific form of threat. Yet they were still subject to the most recent bombing. Our knowledge and experience in dealing with what happened on 9/11 was far less. If terrorists are willing to die for their goal and be patient in it's planning, it's not unreasonable that we would not be able to prevent their actions. Nor does blame have to be placed anywhere other than on the terrorists shoulders. Our review should be more focused on developing plans to minimize their opportunity to carry out other plans and/or possibly prevent the same. VES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 As Dr. Rice stated, the terrorists only have to get it right once, we have to get it right every time. This is why we must not attempt to fight a defensive war, but must go on the offensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.