To: didjuneau who wrote (10833 ) 11/19/2001 11:05:55 PM From: tfrugal Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 O Happy Day, I agree with You as far as the oil not being the prime mover of events leading up to 9-11, but how did we get back to Clinton? He has a valid point, and it is not "about accepting responsibility for terrorist evil, because of anything anybody's forefathers did, because we are long beyond that and we are a different people", but that the examples/precedents from our own past undermine our moral authority. The US simply does not have that good of a record, especially with morality. Consider how we treated the american aborigines. We signed treaties when we were weak, broke them when we were strong. The treaty that we signed agreeing not to cross the Appalachian mountains couldn't have been agreed to in good faith. Research Tecumseh vs Harrison, read their words---the good guy lost. I say that as a American citizen, and as a resident of Indiana. Somebody lied, cheated and killed for gain, and we ain't talkin' about commies. Notice the origin of my state's name. How about the names of the surrounding states? Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois-- care to estimate the percentage of speakers of the languages represented in those names in those states? Try reading up on the trail of tears, the southern tribes ran plantations more efficiently than the whites, who had them removed. If you can't beat em, ship em out west. The documentation is there, and damning. My own lineage claims to have Choctaw in it. Turned out that during the shell game played to take most of Oklahoma BACK from the transplanted "injuns", settlers could acquire the Indian's titles. Poof, instant indians. I think it was this and a few "uncles" (think Crowbar in "Ma and Pa Kettle" flicks) that left that immpression on my pale, blue eyed Scotch-Irish romantic grandmother. I wonder if the folks on the rez TODAY can tell the difference between a reservation and a concentration camp. Explain to me the morality of the Louisiana Purchase. We paid Napoleon for the west? Contrast "westward ho" with "liebenstraum", other than the century attempted, what is the difference? How about Israeli settlers and American pioneers? Or South Africa's aparteid? Little House on the prairie with the Israeli settlements? Tough questions. They make me very uncomfortable. That feeling is different than one of self righteousness. Do not mistake it for "accepting responsibility for terrorist evil' that is a completely different matter. You missed the point. "Those who waste time on the backward guilt trip" How about "let them eat cake". History is written by the victor, and full of inequality. Many of us think that solving the inequality is the only way to solve the problem short of genocide. We are not wasting time, you are. You ignore history, which is time itself. OBL has been doing his thing for years, WTC was not an isolated incident, but one of many ever escalating terrorist acts against us. The pattern was there if we chose to look. The 'big picture' is the most important, no? A trend is stronger the more it repeats, wheather you ignore it or not. Wasting time is better than burying your head in the sand. We should not exclude anything just because it puts us in a bad light. I think the difference between 'us' and 'them' is how we treat them afterwards. Our recent forays into the world (post WWII) are where we started addressing the inequalities, and started making up for the 'sins of the fathers'. Look at the ones that we 'Marshall planned'--those are the successes. Western Europe, Japan, S. Korea all flourished with a transfusion of our blood. How many American jobs went to these competitors? Rebuilding the enemy in our image makes him a friend. Starving him keeps him your enemy. The US started out in the world with an ugly moral record. Our saving grace is what we did with it. The evil of slavery begat Colin Powell, Air Jordan and Tiger Woods. We didn't send them back, and the inequality is not all gone, but we are getting there. What good would have come from Denying our part in slavery? Why deny our 'might makes right' beginnings? "but the war on terrorism starts within each of our sovereign borders. It will be fought with increased support for democracy programs, judicial reforms, conflict resolution, poverty alleviation, economic reform and health and education programs. All of these together deny the reason for terrorists to exist or to find safe havens within those borders." Colin Powell. We don't make speeches like that without having been there, done that. Our authority and credibility comes from showing the world how we did it, warts and all. Or is it Triangulation is alive and well in the Govt today?