a quibble

[Carolyn Garner Siscoe]

I disagree about the threat of new terrorist attacks being overblown.
The bombings in Bali and the Philippines indicates that the threats are
very much alive.
 Carolyn

Michael Eisenstadt wrote:

> Byron,
>
> a quibble about one part of your argument. i dont
> believe 9/11 was preventable by ANY secret service
> and, further, I doubt the total destruction of the
> twin towers was even anticipated by the bombers.
> it was a kind of accident (that the buildings came
> down) apparently based on the fact that the strength
> of the buildings to resist collapse was comprised
> by bad design factors.
>
> and further that the danger of new terrorist attacks
> is way overblown.
>
> Mike
>
> Byron wrote:
> >
> > One of the more obvious things about the arguments, so
> > to speak, for dragging us into a horrific mess in the
> > Middle East, is their circular nature.
> >
> > This is clear, even as we are now moving our planes
> > closer to North Korea.
> >
> > The Eye of the Hurricane: what is it?
> >
> > Is the motive of the Bush Administration for a war in
> > the Middle East simply political?
> >
> > 2.
> >
> > Is it really guided by the bizarre plans for creating
> > a Middle Eastern Empire (and perhaps even a wider
> > empire, if you listen to their really wild remarks)
> > pushed aggressively by the neoconservatives, many of
> > whom occupy leading positions in the Bush
> > Administration?
> >
> > A similar set of quasi-academic and altruistic
> > Wilsonians played a role in the process by which the
> > United States was trapped into a costly war it could
> > not win or would not win in Vietnam.
> >
> > The "idealists" provided over-the-top "visions" of how
> > we would reform, democratize, and purify Vietnam.
> >
> > Their vision of "doing good around the world and
> > especially in Vietnam" got a highly ethical sendoff
> > with our sponsorship of the assassination of the
> > elected leader on "our side" in Vietnam, Diem.
> >
> > Some of these same visionaries played a role in actual
> > evil committed in Vietnam, such as when we destroyed
> > peasant villages and moved the inhabitants into prison
> > camps, to "protect them"... and build democracy, no
> > doubt.
> >
> > But although they fashioned some of the more grotesque
> > events in Vietnam, the Wilsonian visionaries served a
> > primary purpose: they helped to provide a "good
> > intentions" justification for our involvement in the
> > Vietnamese quagmire.
> >
> > It may be the same, today.
> >
> > The neoconservatives may be doing little more than
> > providing window dressing for an Iraqi war planned for
> > other motives: it is hard to tell, just as it is hard
> > to find any consistent motive.
> >
> > But given that the neoconservatives occupy several key
> > positions, the Bush Administration may actually be
> > planning the unthinkable: sinking the United States
> > into an incredibly expensive and disastrous folly:
> > nation building, "hegemony", in the Middle East.
> >
> > 3.
> >
> > But there seems, at the center, to be a vacuum: and
> > this may explain the erratic, bungling, belligerant
> > fashion by which the Administration pushes war.
> >
> > Whether a kind of "no nothing" jingoism is making one
> > incompetent decision after another; whether a bland
> > delusion that "God wants this"--and perhaps wants a
> > U.S. propelled Armageddon; whether a blundering desire
> > to assert U.S. power for reasons that vary from day to
> > day: it is hard to tell.
> >
> > What is clear is that this approach has achieved the
> > usual degree of success with popular opinion, which
> > calls for war with the enthusiasm of a crowd at the
> > Wide World of Wrestling.
> >
> > In the early days of war, jingoism and rabble-rousing
> > is easy to achieve.
> >
> > 4.
> >
> > What is clear is that a great deal of the public does
> > not clearly see that
> >
> > (a) Iraq is, remarkably, no threat to the United
> > States at all;
> >
> > (b) that we are planning a war of unprovoked
> > aggression;
> >
> > (c) that Iraq has no connections to nine-eleven and
> > none to Al Qaeda;
> >
> > (d) that the overthrow of Iraq, a secular
> > dictatorship, poses great risks of further
> > strengthening  Islamic fundamentalism (perhaps in
> > Iraq) ...
> >
> > In short, that wars, costly and with harsh
> > consequences for civilians of the conquored country
> > and the lives of the victors, require a kind of
> > warrant which is nowhere to be found in this sad
> > story.
> >
> > To the contrary.
> >
> > A war in the Middle East is not only not required by
> > nor serves U.S. interests, but is likely to be harmful
> > to U.S. interests.
> >
> > And starting a war which is *not* required by our
> > miitary, security, and long term interests is a
> > separate folly, all by itself.
> >
> > 5.
> >
> > It is also clear that the public does not perceive
> > that this Administration, which was at the time
> > already planning a war in Afghanistan, dropped the
> > ball in 2001.
> >
> > An apology is called for, if not impeachment.
> >
> > The Administration's act of omission in 2001 is made
> > all the worse because it has repeatedly shown by word
> > and by deed that it is not attempting to protect U.S.
> > soil from future disasters.
> >
> > Instead, as it pushes for war, the Administration is
> > diverting its energies from fighting terrorism, from
> > protecting U.S. soil, from the problems in Korea and
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > ===================================================
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/