Hmm... Were you now.. Ok..
You betcha. We were warning the FAA for years about the threat of the fanatics and specifically flying airplanes into buildings. The Trade Towers were even on a high priority list. But the FAA did nothing but yawn. They wouldn't lift a finger to merely change the FAA policy of letting hijackers into the cockpit.
As for the 17,000 homicides, how come MSM isn't posting their names every night?
They should, but as long as we're killing ourselves we don't seem to mind so much. Even McVey wasn't that big of a deal, i.e., we didn't go out into his wacky world of survivalists to root out the extremist philosophy. We're not about to declare the KKK a terrorist group. When's the last time you saw Congress set up some committee to pay survivors of drive-by shootings in SE DC?
It's a good question [How will you know when you "win"?]. And any answer will be subjective and dependent upon the perspective of each person.
That's the beauty of saying ... we'll tough it out; we'll win the war on terror; we'll win the war in Iraq. Everyone has a different answer, if they have an answer at all. But everyone wants to "win" and you can rally most of the public by chanting "We're going to win." It's like a damn Redskins/Cowboy game. Go Skins; boo Cowboys.
But I would like the threat to be reduced to the point that it, once again, can reside within the jurisdiction of statuatory law enforcement, and not the Department of Defense.
And you're going to do that by blowing up huts and instilling fear [respect?].
My personal view is that it will be "won" when it's apparent that the ideology is firmly shoved to the extreme fringes of the political spectrum and not perceived as a viable alternative to other ideologies (namely democracy and accountable government elected by the people).
I'm not sure that our government is accountable. In theory it may be, but not in practice.
IMO, the reason that the country is divided over issues of foreign policy, among other things, is because our Government fosters the division by never admitting the whole truth. As one old example, Vietnam. It's been over for three decades and we can't agree on what happened. We can't agree on whether we won or lost; whether it was a mistake to begin with; whether the bombing of Cambodia was legal or illegal. The Vietnam Conflict spanned three Administrations. Who was held accountable?
It took the US Government 60 years to admit that the detention of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII was a mistake. And that had such little attention I doubt that more than a fraction of the US even knew it happened. Who was held accountable for the incarceration of Japanese Americans?
Has the US Government acknowledged that supporting Pinocet was a mistake or is the position of the US Government that it was the right thing to do under the circumstances? Who was held accountable?
Has the US Government acknowledged the blowback of teaching/encouraging jihad against the Soviets by the Afghans? Who was held accountable?
How about the terrorist organizations that want to overthrow the Iranian government? Not such bad terrorists; we'll give them safe harbor in Iraq. Of course, that's different.
Human rights violations in Iran are terrible; human rights violations in Saudi Arabia aren't so bad. Well maybe the Saudis do public beheadings, cut off hands and feet as punishment and do more than their fair share of human trafficking, but they are our friends and friends are loyal to each other regardless of what they do. Give that Saudi a kiss. Besides, if the Saudis do become our "official" enemies we can tell the people about the beheadings, so the fact may come in handy one day. But for the time being the toughest we'll get with the Saudis is to have Condi do a flyover and complain that women should be able to drive. [Which might be the one good idea the Saudis have. :o)]
jttmab |
