Thoughts on the 5th Anniversary of 9-11

08-24-06 | Former Dodger

[Former Dodger]

Dear Editor,

Perhaps I missed the point of your "9-11" survey, but the results will probably be skewed due to the polarized nature of the country's politics. If people were to really - read OBJECTIVELY - answer the poll the results would probably prove to be quite a bit more positive for the administration.

Do I feel safer today than 5 years ago? A loaded question, and somewhat biased in its wording. No, how could anyone feel safer with the "Sword of Damocles" hanging over our heads. We were made VERY aware of our own vulnerability on that infamous day, and the awareness will always be with us. We have had to adjust our lifestyles and accept the fact that no matter what we do, short of annihilating the enemy, we will always be somewhat vulnerable to such an attack. Additionally, Oklahoma City was seen as an aberration, when in reality it was the opening salvo of the terrorist attack on American culture, and deserved equality with the '93 WTC bomb. This is the new face of war: cowardly and deadly.

We ARE safer than 5 years ago, though we may not feel so, but that safety is deteriorated everyday by those among us whose hatred for the president and his party color their every decision. Their collective attempts to save our country may well end up damaging it more. A similar blind hatred is what drove John Wilkes Booth and his cronies to assassinate the great president Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

Please note: I am not saying that those against President Bush wish to murder him, however, political assassination is not helpful to a country at war.

Ah yes, the WAR.

The War on Terror is a global conflict, by its very nature it has to be, and the players in it are from all cultures, races and religions. There are no gray areas, Switzerland has to choose a side this time, so to speak. Afghanistan was the first step, Iraq was a necessary second step, similar to the situation in 1941 when we declared war on Japan, and Germany declared war on us: the Japanese had attacked us, not the Germans, but we went after them with a vengeance because they were a part of the problem.

Saddaam did not order the attack on the WTC, but he did nothing to stop it. He was given a free pass in 1991 when he should have been taken out and the world paid for it. Whether or not WMD's were found is irrelevant, there was enough time, transport and advance notice to move them elsewhere (hello Syria), so the Inspectors would come up empty.

The bottom line is that a mass murderer and destabilizing influence in the region was removed, the people of Iraq are slowly coming around to understanding their new freedoms, and much of the rest of the world, including many here in the US, are standing around and clucking their tongues at what a DISASTER it all is.

The Iraqi people have suffered the most, and much of it due to the malevolent actions of OUTSIDERS: the so-called insurgents from Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., the Americans, British and other multi-national forces are dying for the IRAQIS, to try and keep them from being repressed by those who would love to create another Taliban-like state.

Could the war have been better managed Of course, ask the honored dead of ALL wars whether that is true, it is WAR not CHESS, people die.

Is it an honorable mission that our troops are on? Yes, but the perspective needs to be changed, the view of those at home needs to be uncluttered by the bias I see creeping in. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the press to tell the entire story, all the truth and to remain completely objective when relating that story to those of us here at home. In World War II American soldiers summarily executed German prisoners caught fighting out of uniform, either in civilian clothes or disguised as Allied troops: this is OK under the Geneva Convention. However, some Allied troops also executed Waffen SS and Death Camp guards because they were horrified at what they saw: this was illegal, should they have been arrested? They weren't, rightfully so. I am not trying to say that Abu Ghraib was OK, it wasn't, and the US Army is better off with those idiots behind bars, but did the press have to go after it so gleefully?

I am not going to change anyone's mind by this, the lines have been drawn and are near impossible to remove. Sometimes I feel that AMERICA is close to another Civil War because of the polarization and lack of civil discourse beyond the "talking points" of the major political parties. Isn't it time that reasonable discourse, with complete objectivity, TRIES to raise its head again.

By the way, I am an INDEPENDENT voter, and I try to listen to all sides, perhaps it would help if many others did that.

[billybudd]

But that's precisely the issue - where do we focus our attention? I'm arguing that there is too much focus on Islamic terrorists, who do *not* present a great threat, relative to other threats such as, say, China. Also, you are conflating Islamic terrorist groups to Islam as a whole, which is way off. If Islam poses a threat, it is in the form of state actors such as Iran, who have the resources, money, and manpower to cause damage on a regional basis at least. So far, Bush is soft on Iran, so I see all the bluster about "terrorism" as kind of cover-your-a$$ fluff that doesn't really accomplish much.