What do you remember from September 11?

Post Reply New Topic

That miss didn't even hit the right planet.

I didn't say 9/11 was right, or should be appeased, and I suggested MORE troops should have been committed to Afghanistan.

Please point out the Chamberlain correspondence, if you can.


The terrorist threat should be dealt with in proportion. Currently it is absorbing far too much media, public and political attention, and way too much funding, compared to the things that are killing people prematurely in their hundreds of thousands, which don't make the news in the same way.

A hundred Americans were killed today.

By Americans driving cars.

Not news? Matters less? (Matters just as much to those involved!) Sorry, if you want your death remarked by the world, and reacted to, you'd better die in some newsworthy style.

Takfiris and Caliphatists are not now nor have they ever been confined to Afghanistan. The unique geography of Iraq is essental for an effective regional base of operations in that region to prosecute a protrated(read decades long) war. Additional if an effective stable capitalistic republic can be established in Iraq, it will change the dynamics for dealing with Iran, Syria ,Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and if this region changes the dynamic of the reminder of Muslim World changes. The Caliphatists see Iraq as a figuritive Sudatenland to cede it would be Chamberlainesque indeed.

Economic as well as military imperialism?

"We demand you become a liberal democracy" is a statement neither liberal nor democratic.
The ideal outcome for the West may not correspond to the wishes of the Iraqi people.



And to behave in a way which makes it easy to be defined as the oppressing enemy could be to achieve the very outcome feared. (that was the result of appeasement in the 1930's, agreed, but it's quite possible to fall off the other side of the horse.)

The Sudetenland parallel is an interesting one. Given the tripartite (at least) nature of Iraq, and that the current international borders do not match ethnic or faith divides, there is potential for demands and conflict there. Both with the affinities of southern Iraqis with Iran, and with the split Kurdish population in the north-west. That is, so far, quiet.

Staying with the 30's the failure to adequately support the Weimar republic was terribly costly. But part of that was fear of Communism. (And that repeated itself...!)

What's the monster that might chase us into the arms of its antithesis this time?
Clumsily reacting to terrorist extremists, could we alienate the entire Islamic world?

I have not mentioned empire at at all. Capitalism and Republican government are the only economic and governmental systems consistent with individual liberty.

Even, for the purposes of argument, granting that, to impose capitalism and republican government against the wishes and tradition of a population is certainly not consistent with liberty. And will be seen as such. The act of an imperator.

And is only the right sort of democratic vote to be allowed? What has followed the election of Hamas by the Palestinians has been instructive.

Apparently, I write one thing and your read another. I have not suggested anything be IMPOSED anywhere. Any government established in Iraq wil be established by the Iraqis...what I said was if a capitalistic republic was established... Where is there any mention of any imposition? Also, democracy is bad the vote for Hamas is a good illustration, that is why I specifficy used the word REPUBLIC.

"if an effective stable capitalistic republic can be established in Iraq"
Is noticeably different from "...if Iraq establishes a stable capitalistic republic."

I'd take the first to hint at outside influence, at the very least, in a region with an extensive history of puppet regimes and rulers sponsored if not actually "bought".

"Democracy is bad": I'm afraid that again betrays a reluctance to let people choose their own paths.
Yes, a republic which constitutionally sets up musts and mustn'ts overriding a simple democratic majority can be seen as superior. It takes democracy one step beyond legalised mob-rule.
But unless you ARE into imposition, you wil have to wait for that to be arrived at by the people concerned, with nohing more than suggestion and persuasion by external forces. I've seen no suggestion that the election of Hamas was unconstitutional or was anything other than free and fair.

I don't hint. Perhaps a dependent clause wae omited"by the Iraqis".

Democracy is tantamount to mob rule...see James Madison and Federalist number 10 and this quote from Tytler.\ to pretty well sum it up:

I am prepared to keep US troops in Iraq until Iraqi troops can effectively quell any sectarian violence so that the new government can become established and the people of Iraq can truly decide just what sort of government and economy they want. My bias is for a republic and a free market economy because i believe both institutions promote individual liberty and I see a frre I raq as an Ally against the Caliphatists ant Takfiris.

I'm not disagreeing with that (I wonder what proportion
of those working for "more democracy" and worrying about the "democratic defecit" realise what they are asking for?) In practice some sort of constitutional effect is usually found to be in place, due to tradition, or religious values, if not formally arrived at.

I also agree that NOW there is little alternative to working towards the best Iraqi government that the Iraqis can form. And that this is going to cost hundreds of soldiers their lives.

But I believe that the second Gulf war was launched illegally, and on pretext. That can be argued, but worse, in realpolitik terms it has increased, not eased, the world situation with respect to terrorist violence. It was a distraction, and a deflection of massive resources. There was no need to invade Iraq THEN.

I hope "Iraqi troops can effectively quell any sectarian violence so that the new government can become established" but a fair proportion of the military IS sectarian.



I share somewhat your bias, (but note that a free market is not a fair one) only on Winston Churchill's ground, that the alternatives are worse.

I see the best ally against extremist Islam to be moderate Islam.
If we alienate that, which I believe we have been doing, then we are heading to a catastrophic clash of civilisations (some argue that there is no moderate Islam.)

The terrorists need to be delicately separated from their hinterland of passive support and sympathy. Currently I think we're breeding more enemy than we're destroying.

I am taking a long view on this matter, decades maybe a century or more. I am not overly familiar with Islam, but it will be essential to separate religion from the INSTITUTIONS of government while allowing the free practice of religion within the nation. I do not know if Islam is compatable with that concept.

I suspect America only achieved this by accident, seeking principally to avoid the domination of government by one Christian denomination over against others. I'm not at all sure the founding fathers had witchcraft in mind, when thinking of freedom of religion.

Islam does not easily admit of the secular state or, in practice (notwithstanding certain verses in the Koran), freedom of religion. Leaving Islam for another religion is subject to severe penalty in many states. I'd get in trouble openly practicing my beliefs, or inviting people to join with my worldview.

Like the conditions of a republic, only more severe, the truth of the Koran would be taken to outweigh any democratic vote, some truths being held not to be subject to public opinion.

If that is true, then it might become irreconciliible, but Turkey as an example of a pedomininently Muslim nation seems to have truck a balance albeit a non/democratic/republican balance, it is at least a balance between secular and religious law. My thought for Iraq in specific is that many mistakes have been made on many levels since the fall of Saddam, but paramount amoung them is the botion of the top down design of the government. By that I mean, there was a rush to establish a national government before there were mayors and regional governors etc...that is upside down. likewise. the idea of developing an export based economy...oil...is also upside down...a domestic economy should be developed first...you don't shoot your customer... Just my rambling thoughts...is the US to blame fo all of this?...maybe not all, but certainly some, because we are so damned impatient.

I had to be at work at 3 am on the 12th. I left my house around 1 because i could not sleep. Could not get away from the pictures on TV. I needed gas. What I saw next scared me 10x worse than what I saw on TV. Out of 5 gas station in a realitivly small town, only one had any gas left, sighn said around $5 a gallen ( I only had 3 and was already running on fumes. People were fighting with the clerks, each other. Physically fighting, as in throwing punches over one lousy tank of Gas. like one tank would change much even if the gas related "panic" had even been justified.
The people in the most expensive, gas guzzling vehicals seemed to be the worst.
Of every thing I saw and heard that day , somehow I missed the news comentary that even hinted at the need for such panic. Yet somehow an entire town ( apparently others as well ) decided that they all needed one last"cheap" tank of gas at all costs. Is that all it takes ???? GOOD FREAKING GREIF!! !! !! The NT"s think we are the "damaged"ones?!?!?! !? I am starting to think that If we just mess with them alittle every once in a while they just might destroy themselves and we can get on with the bussiness of evolution.

I'm from Mexico. I was 15 and I was at high school. That day I had a computing and programming class. The teacher arrived late to the class, and he inmediately turned on the TV (that classroom had one), In the news, they pass a lot of times the video at the moment when airplanes crashed, first one and then the other. But I was a little distracted, like in other planet, It takes me like one hour to understand the real situation

I don't know. I found out on the news, though. And as for unpatrotic, well:

Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country.

See, one's own country. Not my own country.


Hang on...that means according to G.W.B, I'm you-know.

I was at my house as it was a school day. School had just started a few days earliar and I had just started at a new school. my mom had woken me up like any other day, and the TV was on and she was crying (because she's from new York) and such. It was about 7:00 in the morning. when we got to school everyone was in a panic.