1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why no AQ attacks? Maybe ... because of Bush?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Lyman_Bostock, May 30, 2008.

  1. It's the Democrats fault.
     
  2. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    The Americans also knew who and where they were.
     
  3. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Oz is right. The King's soldiers were here. And given technology in the 1700s, the British threat and the British attempts to control so many aspects of colonial life, is easily equal to some of what we face today.

    Whether the comparison is wholly applicable or not, one thing is very certain. It's easy to take away freedoms. It's next to impossible to regain those freedoms taken away.

    Once they're gone, they're very likely gone for good, because once the government justifies taking them away, how do you convince the government the threat is gone?
     
  4. GoochMan

    GoochMan Active Member

    This article is how the 'war on terror' will ultimately be won. We can't beat a nationless state with a millitary force designed to defeat a nation-state.
    Killing Bin Laden will be a great moment, and should be a primary goal. But don't believe for a second that his death will mean the end of jihadism or terrorism.

    The solution has to include the people turning against that extreme view of Islam.
     
  5. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    I accept that there is a certain amount of danger inherent to being a citizen of a free society. I would rather have the freedom than the security.
     
  6. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    That's probably the best point, I guess.

    I remembered a Jefferson quote I first read when I visited his memorial a couple years ago that I think applies here. If I've taken it out of context, let me know.

     
  7. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Oh, and sorry for the threadjack -- although I think it's better than the thread.
     
  8. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Nobody's plumping for isolationism, here.

    Pearl Harbor got bombed, and the declaration of war got fast-tracked, toot suite, on our side. Folks sometimes overlook how long it took us to get involved in WWII,
    given the sustained unpalatable conduct by the Germans, and just how much
    isolationist sentiment there was in the U. S. Guys like Lindbergh and Henry Ford were huge Hitler admirers, and we had to get past all that, and fast.

    9/11 demanded a response, obviously. But a large part of the sustained debate is whether we should have looked to deal with Al Q with greater precision, rather than setting up the Iraq straw man focus to justify our crude adventure in that country, while underserving other regional efforts -- not to mention essentially giving OBL a pass to remain ambulatory. "Dead or alive" . . . yeah, right. He's part and parcel of the Saudi royal family, and you're going to move heaven and earth to take him out, right, W?

    Uh, uh.
     
  9. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    To build on Lyman's and the article's initial strawman...

    Any president we have would very likely have taken somewhat similar intelligence and security steps in the wake of 9/11. So by that theory, then, wouldn't ANYONE as president have prevented future AQ attacks?
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It is as applicable as ever. We are nothing without our principles. And we lose any moral authority we think we have, when we abandon those principles out of fear or in order to bully people by denying them liberty.

    That was true when it was the Alien and Sedition Acts--many of our founding fathers were around to see that and Franklin would have felt the same... or when we were interning Japanese-Americans... or when it was the HUAC and McCarthyism... or when it is Guantanamo Bay and the NSA's wiretapping of people. We will look back on some things we have been doing with the same sense of regret we have when we look at other times in our history that we have abandoned our principles.
     
  11. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    You forgot about the Tories.

    One of Washington's generals was ultimately captured while out drinking because of them. Tories weren't always "known."
     
  12. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    I believe they may think differently about citizens possessing assault rifles, too, but that's a threadjack for another day.

    No no no no no no no no no no.

    Gore would have surrendered, and you would be living today in the United States of Islam.

    [/yawn]
    [/old_tony]
    [/Lyman_Bostock]
    [/Evil_Bastard_(aka_Chris_L.)]
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page