Gore Accuses Bush Administration of Ignoring 9/11 Warnings

OF COURSE they are. What has been demonstrated time and again is that the American people have a very short memory. The further away we get from 9/11/2001, the more people will rail against increased security. Flash me that Gallup poll about a week after the next attack.

 

OF COURSE they are. What has been demonstrated time and again is that the American people have a very short memory. The further away we get from 9/11/2001, the more people will rail against increased security. Flash me that Gallup poll about a week after the next attack.

Or perhaps immediately after attacks, people are more likely to think emotionally rather than rationally. As the event gets further away, people return to a position based on the brain instead of the heart.

After all, immediately after 9/11, many people thought we should detain all Arab-Americans, wanted to bomb mosques, kick them out of the country, etc. That's all emotion-driven. Over time, people start thinking from their brains again.

 

...or...they are more likely to think about short-term survival than long-term ideals. Self-preservation seems pretty darn rational to me.

 

Exactly.

Major--

The fallacy in your argument is that you assume that those who are willing to give more to the social compact in exchange for security aren't thinking clearly. Don't you worry pal...my brain is just fine. If my view becomes enacted and I'm wrong, you'll never know. You'll just call me overly emotional or crazy. If my view is not enacted and I'm right...then you'll have a few thousand tons of debris to clear out of another American city. That's the problem...this is serious stuff. Please don't insinuate that I'm a nut because I am willing to put up with inconveniences in order to give us the best possible chance that another attack will never occur.

 

Are you accusing me of being a nobody? Of not being a real person? Shame on you Max, you are better than that. To bring me into this with no provocation proves that there is nothing worse than a conservative lawyer who lives in Texas and watches the Rockets.

Oh, the fury! I fear that my bbs psyche has been irrepairably damaged so that I must be castigated to the lower bowels of depravity that is the fantasy forum.

Do not look upon rimmy with eyes that are cloaked in night.

How the mighty tremble when confronted by reality. A great conservative mind must now lie in quiet hibernation awaiting the Spring morning of Better Days.

 

No, that's not the bottom line. Why is it that whenever proponents of aggressive foreign policy run out of salient arguments, they always fall back on a variation of " Well, your point is not valid in the real world, get out of your ivory tower, etc.." That's just another way of saying " You're wrong because you don't agree with me, irrespective of the logical basis of your point. Your point doesn't count in the 'real world', because what does count in the 'real world' is defeined by me and people who agree with me.

And then when it is pointed out that a lot of other people don't agree with that 'real world' perspective, it's dismissed as losing sight of priorities...Virtually every military expert in history, from Sun Tzu to Clausevitz agree that the more a decision to go to war is based on anger/revenge, the worse a decision it is. Reason over emotion is the point here...but I guess you would know more about it then the experts. They must not be in the real world either.

 

No. That's a more terse way of saying: that which works in theory does not always work in practice. That adage has proven true in business, sports, etc etc etc Why would the application of that adage to security be such a foreign concept to you. That's all people like Max and myself are getting at.

Now stop being so arrogant in your feeling that you are so much smarter and wiser than those with whom you diagree. Then we may be able to have a meaningful debate.

 

1) While I agree with the adage, I fail to see it's application as being relevant here. The basis for dismissing my points as being theoretical is subjective, and IMO misses the point.

2) How am I being arrogant?!?! My arguments are dismissed as trivial or unrealistic, without any support but that statement in itself, and I come back and point out that there are many experts in the field who have said exactly what i have said, and that's being arrogant and assuming I'm smarter? It would be more acceptable if I just said " You are wrong becaue I say so"!?!? That would be considered less arrogant!?!?! That would be the grounds for more meaningfull debate!?!?

 

OK...so you accuse people of saying that you aren't being realistic simply because you disagree and insinuate that your point is the only logical one being bantered around and that is not arrogant exactly how?

 

We're taking 2 points off for exageration...

 

No, of course not... but you are Nobody's Fool.

 

The fallacy in your argument is that you assume that those who are willing to give more to the social compact in exchange for security aren't thinking clearly. Don't you worry pal...my brain is just fine. If my view becomes enacted and I'm wrong, you'll never know. You'll just call me overly emotional or crazy.

The fallacy in your argument is that you assume that people were thinking perfectly rationally immediately after 9/11. Did you see the polls after 9/11? One showed that a majority of Americans had no problem with internment of Arab-Americans. Do you think they changed that view because (1) it was based on emotion or because (2) they've forgotten 9/11? I'd argue the former.

You seem to think security is "less important" primarily because we're moving away from 9/11. I think civil rights are more important because people are starting to realize how ridiculous it is to justify taking away civil rights because of fear.

America has a history of doing stuff like that (Japanese internment camps?) and we always look back and say how ridiculous and unjustified it was. What makes you think this would be any different?

 

The problem comes in when you have two competeing courses. Short-term solutions may presage long-term ruin and one has to guard against becoming too wrapped up in the moment to see all the possibilities, both short-term and long-term.

 

Once again...I have not insinuated that my point was the only logical one...I was responding to the " Not in the real world" responses, whose arguments were to simply state that my views were not grounded, but that theirs were. That is arrogance. I was not accusing people of saying that my arguments were unrealistic simply because I disagree (!?!?), I was doing so because they had said things like " real people don't live in the academic world ", and stating that my views were based on the unrealistic expectation that life is a " fair proposition ",and finally pointing out that my position was based on " theory ", whereas it should be centred on what works in " practice "...If my intepreting these statements as saying my argument is unrealistic is arrogant, than how would you explain them? I think that subjectively applying the standard of what is and isn't realistic by virtue of whether or not you agree with it is arrogant, and dismissing someone else's position by just telling them to get in the real world is very, very arrogant.

 

I really don't care what you were responding to. You said that those who hold security over civil liberties to ANY extent were thinking irrationally and insinuated that they don't care about what makes America different than any other place on earth. We need to strike a balance...because I'd like to have the best chance to remain alive to enjoy all those freedoms.

 

Bush=loser
The world is coming to an end

 

You have your life, and your freedoms. If the two are in conflict, you must risk one to protect the other, and I guess you and I disagree about which is more important to protect, and which is more worth risking. In an ideal world you can arrive at a compromise, but when it comes to morality and freedom, there is a reason the word compromise has a negative connotation.

And I feel that your opening sentance in the above thread was dismissive, rude, and yes, arrogant. I don't feel that I have ever addressed you in a similar fashion, although I do occassionally fall victim to the temptation of sarcasm, and I don't feel that 'speaking' to me that way helps further the meaningfull dialogue you say you are seeking.

 

MacBeth,

Whether it was the:

American Civil War

Events on the European Continent leading to the start of WW I

December 7, 1941 leading to U.S. joining WW II after reluctance prior to that date

bin Laden using the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to prompt his war against the U.S.

U.S. reaction post 9-11

there seems to have been some revenge/anger/frustration fueling at least one party into action. The ability for a President/Prime Minister/Dictator/bin Laden to inspire/lead their people/citizens/followers does seem to require some emotional basis (desire to settle accounts). The U.S. was slowly edging towards involvement in WW II, but the events of Dec 7, 1941 accelerated the process.

 

As expected, mango, you present an interesting and intelligent argument. However, the point isn't that no wars do get started over anger, etc., they obviously do, but that they shouldn't. ANd the ones you have cited are, for the most part, perfect examples...The events leading up to World War One are a perfect example..Yes, hunger for power and prestige, fear, anger, and stubborn pride were primary causes for the War To End All Wars...and their cost was almost incalculable. And what was the benefit? Sun Tzu says that anger and wounded pride can pass with time, or find resolution in unexpected places, but that war and death are irreversible. The consequences of World War One, one of which is arguably World War Two were almost entirely in the defecit column. Accounts may have been temporarily settled in the minds of some, but the negative returns on that investment are still out, and will likely never be fully known. Yes, a leader can ride the crest of an emotional wave and lead a people into war, but a more responsible leader at the helm will avert those dangerous and costly waters if at all possible. Don't go to war if you don't have to, but never do it out of anger.

December 7th...The United States didin't declare war on Germany, but only on Japan. And that was in response to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour, as we all know.What is less known, however, is that while that attack was a calculated risk on the part of the Japanese to give them time and room to acquire the resources they needed to feed their growing imperial aspirations, the decision to go to war against the United States would almost never have been contemplated had it not been for the Japanese anger towards the American sanctions, and what they saw as 'interference' in Japanese affairs in Asia. Was acting on that anger a wise move on the part of their leadership? And while Truman has stated that the decision to use the Atomic bomb was made out of a desire to save the lives of American soldiers, ( and less well known because of a fear of the Soviets joining the US in the Pacific war if it went on much longer...), he also admitted that the decision was made easier because of the remaining anger over Pearl Harbour...