REMEMBER: THIS IS WAR

[philby]

[quote]Remember - This Is War!

Along with mourning & homage, Sept. 11 demands anger


WASHINGTON - Whenever I hear Sept. 11 referred to simply as a tragedy, I wince. The San Francisco earthquake was a tragedy. The Johnstown Flood was a tragedy. Hurricane Andrew was a tragedy. A tragedy is an act of God. Sept. 11 was no act of God. It was an act of man. An act of war.
Yes, Sept. 11 occasioned many tragedies - many terrible deaths, many terrible injuries, many terrible sorrows. These tragedies elicit a deep compassion and a shared grief. Which is why this Sept. 11 will be a day of compassion and grief; of sorrow and remembrance; of celebration, too, of the courage and sacrifice of the heroes of that day.

But we would pay such homage had the World Trade Center and the Pentagon collapsed in an earthquake. They did not. And because they did not, more is required than mere homage and respect. Not just sorrow, but renewed anger. Not just consolation, but renewed determination. And not, God help us, "closure," that clarion call to passivity and resignation, but open-ended action against those who perpetrated Sept. 11 and those who would perpetrate the next Sept. 11.

The temptation on any anniversary is to just look back. But on Dec. 7, 1942, the country did not just look back on the sunken Arizona. It looked forward to the destruction of Japan.

Mourning alone cannot fully honor the murdered. Justice must be done as well. The dead of last Sept. 11 cannot be adequately honored unless we remember not just that they died, but at whose hands they died. It means remembering that Sept. 11 was a declaration of war, a war we did not seek but one we cannot avoid.

We would like to avoid it. We are tempted to see the war on terrorism as, variously and alternately, won, unwinnable, tangled, indecisive, self-defeating - anything that takes away its immediacy and its urgency.

It is a healthy instinct in the American soul. Despite the current braying of Europeans and Arabs, Americans are quite averse to war. We have a history of doing what we can to avoid it.

It took three years for the United States to enter World War I. It took a surprise attack to get us into World War II. As for the Cold War, we refused even to face its reality until it had been going on for two years.

After getting burned in Korea and Vietnam, America reverted to form. If Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait in 1990 and if we had not been dragged kicking and screaming into Kosovo, we would now be celebrating the Thirty Years' Peace.

It stands to reason. A continental nation protected by vast oceans and friendly neighbors has no great desire to go abroad in search of monsters. This is why when Osama Bin Laden and radical Islam declared war on the United States in the 1990s, we ignored it. We ignored the declaration as we ignored the provocations - the first attack on the World Trade Center, the embassy bombings in Africa, the attack on the Cole.

After each outrage, a grim President would declare himself aggrieved and pledge not to rest until those responsible were brought to justice. A few FBI agents would then be dispatched to Yemen or some such, a few cruise missiles would land in some desert, and soon he, and we, would return to our repose.

Sept. 11 was different. Yet so deep were these pacific habits of thought that in the first hours high administration officials reverted to the old language of crime, pledging to bring the killers to justice.

It soon became clear, however, that the challenge of radical Islam was a matter not of law enforcement, but of war. President Bush's address to Congress nine days later ratified that truth. This time we would not just "bring our enemies to justice." We would "bring justice to our enemies." This was war. We would engage it.

This proposition was too obvious for anyone serious to protest. No one serious did. The war in Afghanistan enjoyed breathtakingly broad national support.

Yet here we are a year later, and things are different. It doesn't feel like war. The very su

[Gvac]

So do I. Who wrote it?

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/animatedgvacsig.gif>

Another PanterA Masterpiece

[philby]

I edited it above.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/Philby.jpg>
sig pic ltrooster THANKS

[Gvac]

Thank you, Philby! Krauthammer is one of my favorite editorialists, and he's nailed it once again.

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/animatedgvacsig.gif>

Another PanterA Masterpiece

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, but why can't we go to war with the right people? We're getting ready for this ainine charge into Iraq, while playing buddy-buddy to Saudi Arabia? Where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists from? Who's wealthy citizens rather openly fund Islamic extremist groups? Where do most Al Queda recruits come from? Oh, that's right, Saudi Arabia...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[ChickenHawk]

I also agree with that article
100%. We should be as insecure
and pissed off now as we were
on September 12th, as we
wondered what would happen
next. I'm all for turning saudi
arabia into a parking lot.


"I have to return some
videotapes..." -Patrick Bateman

[ChrisTheCop]

I also agree 100%. I'm not too familar with the writer, but he speaks my language. My September 11th 2002 wish is Bin Laden's head on a stick. THEN we can move on to our other goals.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/chris_the_cop.jpg">

[PamR&Ffan]

Chris, I agree with you...let's finish him before we go on. <P>

[Patches]

Whatever happened to going after any country who sponsors terror, harbors terror, etc.? Whatever happened to the Axis of Evil? We took out the Taliban and that's a good start but we have to do more. F all these liberal Eurobastards who turn their backs on us when it really comes down to it! We are the biggest, the best and the strongest, and we don't need anybody, so let's start acting like it! <P>

<IMG SRC=http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/patches.jpg>

Patches...Your Football Fantasy.
Thanks a mil to ShelleBink for pic help and SilentSpic for hosting!

[TheMojoPin]

Whatever happened to going after any country who sponsors terror, harbors terror, etc.?

Like Saudi Arabia? Who is Iraq harboring? A lot of bad moustaches, and that's about it so far. Let's go for the real enemy. Some PR war against Iraq? Grand, great, good, way to accomplish dick. Hey, Russia has an assload of nukes they MIGHT use against us...should we invade them next?

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[HordeKing1]

This is an example of Bush doing NOTHING to combat terrorism.

All of the terrorist were from Saudi Arabia yet Bush still plays footsie with them. We should take over their oil fields (built with US money by the way) and bomb the rest of the country so much that all the sand turns to glass (and we can find more oil!)

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

[furie]

All of the terrorist were from Saudi Arabia


no, half were saudi's, the other half were egyptians.

And I too agree totally with that article. he articulated what the media SHOULD be saying.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfersea.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<a href="aim:goim?screenname=furie1335&message=You_are_Number_6">IM:Furie1335
</a>
<marquee behavior="alternate">"Faith is believing what you know isn't true" Arthur C. Clarke
</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

what the media SHOULD be saying.

The MEDIA, as in MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS, shouldn't be "saying" anything. They should report the news and facts as is and let the public make up their own goddamn minds. Otherwise, it's "1984".

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[furie]

that article comes from "The Media". The media doesn't just report. There are such things as editorials. And it is this faceless, formless entity that decides what editorials we read.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfersea.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<a href="aim:goim?screenname=furie1335&message=You_are_Number_6">IM:Furie1335
</a>
<marquee behavior="alternate">"Faith is believing what you know isn't true" Arthur C. Clarke
</marquee>


This message was edited by furie on 9-9-02 @ 3:39 PM

[Patches]

And it is this faceless, formless entity that decides what editorials we read.


Yes and no. While it's true it's true that it is only a handful of old white guys in suits controlling the thousands of mainstream media outlets in this country, there are lots of websites and publications out there catering to the far right and extreme left. The problem is when people only see or read one angle on an issue, either out of laziness or an unwillingness to educate themselves, and take what Peter Jennings (Disney) or Tom Brokaw (GE) tells them as 100% fact/truth.

<IMG SRC=http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/patches.jpg>

Patches...Your Football Fantasy.
Thanks a mil to ShelleBink for pic help and SilentSpic for hosting!

[Knowledged_one]

I think in order for us to get the go ahead with the attack on Iraq we should stick by our with us or against us approach. If France and Germany dont want to help, then we should stop sending them intel about possible attacks. I know that sounds cold blooded to let their innocents die, but war is hell. And maybe if France or Germany were attacked in a manner we were they would be more then eager to join in any battle.
And remember everyone, although we make it out like we get alot of our oil from the middle east a majority of our oil comes from venezuela and colombia. So if Saudi doesnt want us to invade iraq why did those pussies ask for our help against iraq when the took kuwait, its such hypocrisy. I say F**k everyone but Britain who is with us no matter what (Tony Blair is actually getting heat in his own party for supporting the U.S.)
Let other suffer and watch them come crawling back to us for help in ridding the world of another person overseas.

Eat a Bag of Dicks

[philby]

If you read the nypost, daily news and the new york times on a daily basis(as I do) you will find the widest variety of opinions imaginable(pick up a free copy of the nypress or the voice also).
Soon you will find a middle ground that you can identify with. And you can keep tabs on what all sides are thinking.

Saudi Arabia is the true enemy.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/Philby.jpg>
sig pic ltrooster THANKS

[Yerdaddy]

And maybe if France or Germany were attacked in a manner we were they would be more then eager to join in any battle.
Both countries have troops in Afghanistan and are in full cooperation with the war on terrorism. Canada lost four troops in Afghanistan, Turkey is taking over the leadership of the peacekeeping forces there, and neither country supports invading Iraq. It's a mistake to take opposition to an invasion of Iraq as a sign of not supporting the war on terrorism. The two have almost nothing to do with one another. That's why Brent Scowcroft wrote this op/ed:
[quote]Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts.

BY BRENT SCOWCROFT
Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.

That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities--notably the war on terrorism--as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.

That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail--much less their actual use--would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.

Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.

Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive--with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy--and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Midd

[Recyclerz]

Saudi Arabia is the true enemy. <P>
The true enemies are those ignorant f***s who believe that medievel Islam is the one true religion and are willing to kill innocents to force others to submit to their will. Unfortunately, they are spread out all over the world making them tough to defeat in the traditional military sense. <P>
I agree with Philby (& the others) that the leaders of Saudi Arabia should be held to account, but Bush & Co. appear more worried about the oil market than in defeating Islamic terrorism. <P>

You're only young once but you can be immature forever!

[TheMojoPin]

The media doesn't just report. There are such things as editorials.

What purpose do editorials actually serve, in print or on TV? It's just a bunch of talking heads saying "I feel this way, and you should too!!!" Gimme my news as news, dammit.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[NewYorkDragons80]

Saudi Arabia itself is not the enemy, but there are a good amount of Saudis that are our enemies. I don't know how wise it would be to go to war with them even if the government was as hostile as an Iraq, Iran, or a Libya.

Here's a story I saw on 60 Minutes last week: In the 1970's a Pakistani man started the rumor that American and Israeli troops were marching on Mecca. Within hours, thousands surrounded the American embassy in Pakistan and after all was said and done 2 Americans and 2 Pakistanis were killed. This was a simple rumor, imagine what the truth could do?

Look, if we want to get to the root of terrorism, we can find it in Saudi Arabia. But, the bulk of the reason the WTC is not still standing is bin Laden's anger towards Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. They are pissed enough about that, what do you think they will do when the US conducts operations in their land? What we need to do is move our air base to Qatar ASAP.

The Saudi Royal family needs to go, but so do the Iraqi and Iranian regimes. Frankly, the dismantling of the Saudis is less feasible and far less rewarding than the overthrow of Saddam and the Ayatollah. If we can foster moderate and democratic regimes in the Middle East, their influence may be enough to bloodlessly topple these monarchies.

All we as civilian Americans can do is embrace renewable energy sources and invest in their advancement. I can't tell you how overjoyed I was to hear that Long Island was considering wind as a possible energy source.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

[TheMojoPin]

All we as civilian Americans can do is embrace renewable energy sources and invest in their advancement. I can't tell you how overjoyed I was to hear that Long Island was considering wind as a possible energy source

Preach on, brother!

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Knowledged_one]

Tree Huggers renewable energy is so inefficient and so unreliable its insane. Plus who cares we die in 80 years and then we become part of the earth and then in 100 million years we become oil. See its a win win situation

Eat a Bag of Dicks

[NewYorkDragons80]

NYDragons- Anti-Choice Conservative or Tree Hugger? :)

There is enough wind energy in the midwest to power all 50 states, Guam, the Marshall Islands, the US Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Right now, the reality of that situation is distant, (and we should really turn our immediate focus on the 48 contiguous states anyway,) but renewable energy is terribly inefficient TODAY. Like I said, we need to invest time and money into these energy sources so that we will have clean power, as will our children.

I don't know what's efficient about American civilians dying because we lust after a dirty and dangerous energy source.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-10-02 @ 4:38 PM