Did conservatives ever say mea culpa re:nationbuilding?

Here's what I can't understand....and please don't start the firestorm back...let's see if we can keep this logical and keep the venom out of it...

Why would anyone here doubt or diminish the role 9/11 might play in a foreign policy strategy? So much changed in the American mindset that day. We were left with 3,000 dead (roughly). These weren't 3,000 men and women who volunteered for military service. These were 3,000 who just decided to get up and go to work that day. And they were targeted merely because they were American civilians. How does that not change everything...particularly things related to foreign policy if we believe there are other nations sponsoring this sort of thing? And how many of you would be blaming the President like crazy if another event happened in the days following 9/11?

I totally understand the concerns about the Patriot Act and personal liberties. That the effects of 9/11 are over-inflated if they start tearing away at our personal liberties. And I'm with you...I just might not define some of the liberties in the same way you would. But, nevertheless, I'm with you. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD...SO LET'S NOT GET OFF ON THAT TANGENT!! We're talking about nationbuilding.

The President said during the campaign that nationbuilding was a bad idea...there is no doubt he said that. And again, America and the world seemed very different to us pre-9/11. After 9/11, we're realizing that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are locked at the hip. We've known the Taliban to be, at the very least, oppressive. But now it appears they have some role in 9/11, even if it's merely through loose affiliation. So we dismantle it...and all its support systems for Al Qaeda. What's the alternative to nation-building at that point?? Leave Afghanistan in chaos? Of course we have to help set up a government for those people...hopefully, a government that is more respectful of individuals.

Flexibility is a good thing. The most valuable component in any system is the one that's the most flexible. The ability to meet the needs of an ever-changing environment. The President's approach pre-9/11 to a post 9/11 world would have been wrong. So you change. I think it's as simple as that.

But I'm somewhat disturbed that someone could just flippantly post "9/11" as an indictment for the administration or for anyone...that using it as reason for policy is somehow folly. Try to remember what it felt like that day...try to think about how your confidence would have been shaken if on 9/12, another terrorist attack would have followed...and then another...and then another. I don't think we can diminish the importance of 9/11. We remained uncommitted in WWII before Pearl Harbor...Pearl Harbor changed everything, ultimately changing America's role in the world. 9/11 changed everything.

 

Nice post MadMax.

 

That's not MadMax. MadMax doesn't capitalize the words at the beginning of sentences. It's an imposter.

 

i do when i try to think things through first! most of the time i shoot from the hip...like...uh...now!

 

I am outraged by these remarks. Batman, this is much less a political commentary and much more of an expression of internal frustration by you and many other far left liberals. 9/11 was a tragic event. Thousands of innocent civilians lost their life, by no fault of their own. For you to refer to this horrific day in American history as "a wonderful gift" is beyond offensive. Your intense jealousy of the credibility and support Americans give the Bush Administration has driven you to extraordinary lengths. Your frustration stems from the large divide that exists between your extreme beliefs and those accepted by the majority of Americans. This frustration is exacerbated by the successes that the Bush Administration has presided over. This is truly a demented view of America that you espouse, Batman. It disgusts me.

If you would like to talk policy, other than through your usual baseless demagoguery, I'm all ears. If you have a problem with protecting Americans from terror by making minor sacrifices in people's lives, please share that with the group. If you have a problem with diminishing the threat that terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan pose to the United States, please share that with the group. If you have a problem with stimulating the economy by returning Americans' hard earned dollars back to Americans, please share that with the group. Otherwise, please continue to live in your fantasy world of frustration, denial and cynicism.

 

BJ, you sound pretty bitter. The Bush Administration isn't the one labeling people unpatriotic, it's certain factions of the American public. Maybe that's who you should be protesting against. Fact is, when you're on the minority side of a controversial issue, you're always going to feel like the one who's being picked on.

 

How can anyone be convinced Gore would have gone into Afghanistan? Bill Clinton urged the nation to not "over-react" after the 1993 WTC bombing. He never even went to the site. Everyone knew this was the work of Arab terrorists. LIke Clinton before him, Gore would have lobbed some cruise missiles from the Gulf after 9/11.

Since the operations in Afghanistan, where is the "storm of airplanes" promised by the Bin Laden and his cohorts? The military campaign has these terrorists on the run, and they are unable to coordinate large scale attacks against the US homeland. I don't see the need for Bush-bashing, when he has protected our country from terrorism that Bill Clinton refused to do anything about.

 

Funny how 3,000 is a big number when it's American civillian casualties but when it's 3,000 Iraqi civillian casualties it's easily dismissed as "collateral damage" or called a successful display of our military's precision.

 

Funny how you blame the US for the Iraqi civilian casualties when in fact it was Saddam ordering his troops to fight in mosques and in hospitals and schools. Do not forget that the US went to *extraordinary* lengths to avoid civilian casualties in the war in Iraq. This cost the United States dollars and lives. Terrorists intentionally target civilians. For you to equate the motives of the US Armed Forces with the motives of terrorists is disgusting.

 

Wow you said disgusting twice in the same thread. And you said outraged too. And you said you didn't get emotional.

I wasn't equating or even talking about anyone's "motives".
i just find it ironic how one number is portayed as large in one situation and how the same number is portrayed as small in another.

dropping bombs on marketplaces and neighborhoods and shooting hotels isn't exactly what I'd call extraordinary lengths.

 

Sparing critical bridges, hospitals, power plants, transmission grids, and refineries *is* going to extraordinary lengths to protect the Iraqi civilization. These are all "1st day" targets in a war with a combatant who is not going to these lengths. All of the smart munitions that were used in the war were designed *specifically* for the purpose of avoiding unecessary collateral damage. Billions of dollars were spent by the United States to develop and employ these weapons -- all in an effort to save Iraqi civilians' lives. There were isolated incidents where the US was forced to drop bombs in civilian-populated areas, because that is where Saddam stationed his prized troops and weaponry. The weapons finds that the US has made since the combat ended has proven this to be true.

 

Also, the marketplace bombing was probably Saddam attacking his own people, and the Hotel attack was likely an Iraqi RPG.

I am not saying that we didn't makes mistakes and accidently kill innocents people, I am just saying those two events have not positively been determined to be our fault.

 

TJ, shut up and spare your moral outrage.

Republicans b****ed because democrats called for military action in countries that didn't directly benefit the U.S. Boofreakinghoo.

This is another example of democrats being called p*****s because they don't jump at the chance to use a military that they never joined(hello Bush administration, johnheath, TJ, etc).

People who question Bush are called unpatriotic, but I think our founding fathers would label these people the most patriotic of all, given the repeated ommissions of truth that this administration is so fond of. Our founding fathers were against a big brother type of government in case you missed it. This administration is not doing much of anything that benefits the american people.

Be comfortable knowing that our favorite suburban schools are the easiest targets in america for terrorists to attack if they were so inclined. Hope you sleep better now.

 

where did you get that idea from me? 3000 dead anywhere is just awful.

but please understand the difference. the 3000 dead in the WTC attacks were TARGETS. that is a huge distinction.

but your post doesn't relate much to the topic at hand. i'm hoping it will stay more on topic to avoid these kinds of emotional outbursts.

 

wow...that's pretty callous, heretic. great placement for a smilie.

 

Right on MadMax. Even if we killed 3,000 innocent civilians, it wasn't intentional like the attacks on 9/11 were. While I think any loss of innocent life is horrible, there is a clear difference here.

 

I think you guys set a dangerous precedent when comparing cilvilian casualties from military combat, to cilvilian casualties from terrorism. If the terrorist attack an army base, and kill 100, no one is going to say it is alright, because they attacked a military target. The illegimatcy of terrorism results from the fact that they don't represent a soverign nation.

 

then the colonists who rose up in rebellion and ulimtately founded this country were illegimate? i don't see that distinction.

you're absolutely right...if terrorists attack an army base and kill 200, will mourn those deaths. but there is a sharp difference between targetting a military target and targeting a sidewalk cafe, complete with children. huge, huge, huge difference.

 

Yes, we should only go to war with nations that threaten us.

What a novel concept.