Gore Accuses Bush Administration of Ignoring 9/11 Warnings

MacBeth,

Present day Europe seems quite settled (Balkans excluded), but there is/was a huge difference in mindset in regards to revenge/emotion/anger post WW II versus post WW I. Is it weariness of war, the Marhsall Plan or something else which has changed the mindset of countries such as Germany, France, Italy etc? The Continent experienced Napoleon, Franco-Prussian War, WW I and WW II..........but something seems to have quelled the desire for revenge that existed previously there. Some attribute it to economic prosperity......but most seem to accept borders and economic situations that were previously irritants.

 

Mango...I didn't address all of your points in the last posts, so I'll pick up where i left off...

re: The Civil War. I think that the Civil War would probably qualify as a politically justifiable war, at least from the North's point of view, as there were clear political objectives, and frankly very little sentiments of anger on their ( Northern States) part at the beginning. Most felt resigned and apprehensive, but thought it would last only until the 1st battle.The hatred and anger that did come were mostly results of the war, not causes. There was some anger/resentment on the part of the South, and you can argue that their actions were precipitate as a result. But the North achieved it's two stated aims, ie maintaining the Union and abolishing slavery, although the cost was heavy.

The point that Sun Tzu and Clausevitz were making isn't that war itslef should never happen...far from it, they both made thier livings as professionals in the field. Their point was that there are good and justifiable reasons to go to war, and bad and unjustifiable ones, and that anger and revenge are amongst the worst and least justfiable. They were both advocates of war being left to those who understand it, especially when it comes to whether or not to do it in the first place, and both believed that too often it is left in the hands of those who don't understand it, and everyone else pays the price for their emotional misjudgments...Sort of like the phrase that it is the politicians who start wars, and the generals and soldiers who fight them.

 

Europe in the 2oth Century was witness to more devastation and death as a result of war than any region of the world had seen in any previous 5 centuries of warfare combined, and as such it could be argued that they have suffered from the most extreme case of war weariness ever known. That, combined with their being largely paralyzed by being caught in the middle during the Cold War, and the lack of new and potentially appealing political ideologies being tried out as was the case before World War Two, as well as the much wiser post-war treatment of Germany by the victors, and including the positive repercussions of the Marshall Plan which, whatever it's anti-Soviet motives, might have been the United States finest hour, and the deterant of Nuclear Arms would probably be the best explanations for the relatively peacefull state of present day Europe. It probably won't last forever.

 

In terms of practicality, I disagree with your opinion of the overall sentiments of Americans, but respect your intention and desire for security. However, with respect to morally, I again state that we must see differently abouyt which is more important, your freedom or your security, if one risks the other.

I also want to apologize for my sarcasm which, although it has it's place in less personel spheres, is really disrespectfull in discussions of political and moral differences. I was upset at what I felt was dismissive and subjective rationalization, but that hardly excuses me for lowering the bar.

 

I agree with most all points except the last one is puzzling:
<i>
It probably won't last forever.
</i>

If we define the scope of Europe from Great Britain to Russia......I am unable to project the country/region that will try to gain power over other parts of Europe.

Most countries/regions have had their time at the top and seldom return after their demise:

Greece,
Rome and the Italian Penisula
Northern Europe (Vikings)
Moors (Muslim push onto the Continent)
Spain
France (Napoleon)
British Empire
Germany ( 19th century to 1945)
Russia

I am unable to identify a likely candidate that would have:

The economic power to fuel a strong military
Population mass
Motivation (anger/revenge/frustration/greed)


Doesn't the integration of countries into NATO & the EU serve as a means to reduce the motivation factors that sparked past conflicts on the Continent?

 

France, the Italian Penninsula, and Germany have all had more than one kick at the can each, as have Austria and Turkey. In terms of the criteria you are citing, there are several which might have the 1st 2, and the 3rd can come quickly...Re-united Germany, Russia once it gets some semblance of order, France, etc... I'm not suggesting that I see the danger as imminent, just innevitable, based on history. oh, and NATO and the EU are probably fairly impermanent functions whose principles have been variously tried before, most notably under Metternich and his Congress system.

 

The problem is that this statement assumes that we are making these risk decisions for ourselves. Were we the ones making these decisions, we'd be making them for others. We'd be making them for everybody. Sure we can say that we'd risk our lives so that we didn't lose one single scrap of freedom (regardless of how minimally intrusive it may be).

It becomes a much more difficult decision when you are not making it for yourself alone. It is difficult when you're making that decision for: the guy tossing pizzas at Mamma Ricotta's in Charlotte...the single Mom selling tickets at Pacific Theaters at The Grove in L.A....and for the cadet polishing the statue of Lawrence Sullivan Ross at Texas A&M.

It is for this reason that I suggest a balancing of interests. You see in our Declaration of Independence, the right to "Life" comes before all else...even "Liberty." I am NOT saying to toss liberty out the window...quite the contrary. I suggest making rational and reasonable concessions which will increase the chance that innocent life is not taken the way it was on 9/11 ever again.

In the end, you and I may be the ones left standing...mourning the loss of any of the hypothetical persons I listed above...and I'd hate to be the one who made the security decisions, coming to the tardy realization that for those who had no choice in these matters without life...all the liberty in the world is useless to them.