9/11
Posted: 11 Sep 2011, 17:58
Never should we forget
We don't have much chance.....Garbageman wrote:Never should we forget
Absolutely.Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Also remember the millions of victims in Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam and Iraq.
RIP all...
IZ.
My thoughts exactly. It's like a new Chili Peppers single. Milked out and rammed down your throat until you get enough of it.Gollum's Cock wrote:We don't have much chance.....Garbageman wrote:Never should we forget
More of a realist, IMO.Garbageman wrote:It should have been a huge lesson but maybe I am a pessimist.
I have to say, in hindsight, that this is certainly not a question that kept ME busy. Then again, foreign politics is not my forte, I only consider results of good or bad politics, the 'what if's are for those that care about such things...markfiend wrote:I wonder what would have happened had W not been appointed president. Would Gore in the White House have handled things differently from Shrub?
No. I don't think so. There was broad agreement about Afghanistan on the left and the right, and the Democrats were supporters of the war in Iraq until it became politically expedient to oppose it ("regime change" in Iraq was Clinton/Gore policy as well, and for the same reasons. The strategic calculus regarding the use of force changed after 9/11). Among Democratic legislators, Dennis "Frodo Baggins" Kucinich is the major exception to this. He's a principled man. Usually wrong, mind you, but respectably and consistently so.markfiend wrote:I wonder what would have happened had W not been appointed president. Would Gore in the White House have handled things differently from Shrub?
You mean like they did when the Commies were the bad guys?million voices wrote: Wouldn't it have made more sense to have supported local opponents of the bad guys with dosh and weapons rather than go barging in to another unwinnable war
YesJeremiah wrote:You mean like they did when the Commies were the bad guys?million voices wrote: Wouldn't it have made more sense to have supported local opponents of the bad guys with dosh and weapons rather than go barging in to another unwinnable war
Yeah, that's pretty much what I think too. Maybe Carter would have handled it differently, but no president since...sultan2075 wrote:No. I don't think so. There was broad agreement about Afghanistan on the left and the right, and the Democrats were supporters of the war in Iraq until it became politically expedient to oppose it ("regime change" in Iraq was Clinton/Gore policy as well, and for the same reasons. The strategic calculus regarding the use of force changed after 9/11). Among Democratic legislators, Dennis "Frodo Baggins" Kucinich is the major exception to this. He's a principled man. Usually wrong, mind you, but respectably and consistently so.markfiend wrote:I wonder what would have happened had W not been appointed president. Would Gore in the White House have handled things differently from Shrub?
Nor has Obama handled these things terribly different from W.
So that in another 15 years' time, when the guys they gave the weapons to are the new bad guys, we can play the game again?million voices wrote:YesJeremiah wrote:You mean like they did when the Commies were the bad guys?million voices wrote: Wouldn't it have made more sense to have supported local opponents of the bad guys with dosh and weapons rather than go barging in to another unwinnable war
some really sick heads are responsible for this tragedyemilystrange wrote:just leave the politics aside, just for a few, and pay respects? things don't need analyzing 24/7. sometimes, heart is needed, not head.