Posted on 09/09/2002 8:58:42 AM PDT by epluribus_2
What if instead of 24 hour coverage of two enterprise buildings in flames/crumbling, the world was fixated on the smoking remains of the seat of the government of the United States, and it the fiery end of the central control of it's armed forces? This WAS the original plan, was it not? There was a credible threat to Air Force One, too but the others are confessed targets. Would the prime minister of Germany be hemming and hawing about how America has no right to unilaterally preempt potential terror plans of Baghdad or would Canada's Cretien be saying how he must have proof that Saddam not only has but intends to use WMD? Would there be "BUSH KNEW" protests by semi-illiterate DU types or would the DNC be plotting strategies in how to "counter" the political threats of Bush successes in the war on terror? As we remember 9/11 - we need to find someone in the cube to the right or left of us and tell them to WAKE-UP, WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE ARE AT WAR. We have been for a long time only we haven't been fighting back until 9/11. Democrats who still are bent on dividing this country, trying to scare seniors and children about the dangers of Republican rule need to do a reality check about the world we are living in. They want to talk about Enron (but might not really want to go there) but should spend some time this week pondering a country with No-Senate, No-House, No-Supreme Court, a military in (hopefully temporary) disarray, marshall law, internment camps, rationing, long lines for fuel, and prolonged fear. Then ponder and remember that we are lucky. We are strong. We have wise leaders. We have brave men and women in are armed forces. But the rainbow is behind a storm cloud now and the Bridge to the 21st century lies in a crumbled ruin - we can't go back to 9/10 ever again.
Clinton's happy use of remotely controlled flying bombs to hit things such as a TV station, designating it as a legitimate target because, in his view, it was spreading pro-Serb propaganda in Serbia caused us to lose much of our moral high ground when confronted with terrorists - try to explain them why we call them terrorists and we call ourselves 'good guys'. (Incidentally, this was exactly the logic McVeigh used to justify his target during his own 'war' on the U.S. gov't.)
The various congressmen, senators and other cheerleaders hailing our hitting the TV station and other civilian targets in Serbia projected a rather 'evil' face of Uncle Sam to the world. I can still remember Sen. McConnell happy but disgusting comments on how we would hit the Serbs' electrical, fuel distribution and water networks and cause them to wake up in the morning dark, cold, hungry with no TV.
As for the 'what if' question, there is no question that the other 'governments' would have supported us more if our gov't aparatchicks were hit instead of ordinary people. They really hate to see 'the officials' hurt.
Probably.
I ask this second question because I think we should be just as severe with retaliation for unsuccessful attacks as we are for those that do succeed. Just because Richard Reid failed, doesn't mean we shouldn't respond as though he succeeded. We shouldn't be giving the terrorists a break for incompetence.
WARNING:
It is dangerous to be right,
when your Government is wrong!
I think we should be just as severe with retaliation for unsuccessful attacks as we are for those that do succeed.
I agree.
I never got the logic of giving less prison time to somebody convicted of attempted murder than we do for murder.
We should not be rewarding somebody who is evil, just because they are incompetent as well.
I think we should be just as severe with retaliation for unsuccessful attacks as we are for those that do succeed. I agree.
I never got the logic of giving less prison time to somebody convicted of attempted murder than we do for murder.
We should not be rewarding somebody who is evil, just because they are incompetent as well.
I absolutely agree. I have long believed that someone who attempts murder should not get off just because a trauma surgeon is able to save the life of his victim. Also due to the ability modern trauma surgeons to save lives, many of the intended murder victims are left with serious disabilities and paralysis. I especially think anyone who attempts murder of elected office holders should be given the death penalty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.