You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #: P.S. I agree that there was no "right" war for retaliating against 911 attackers, [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-27-13 05:07 AM
Original message
P.S. I agree that there was no "right" war for retaliating against 911 attackers,
Edited on Mon May-27-13 05:19 AM by No Elephants
any more than there was a "right" war for retaliating against the 1993 attack on the very same World Trade Center.

As a nation, Afghanistan had neither the money nor the infrastructure to attack us or even to "sponsor" an attack on us. Probably still doesn't, though the pockets of the Karza family and their thugs might. But, after 911, we certainly gave many Afghanis and Iraqis a desire to retaliate against us and we all but created Al Qaeeda in Iraq. Add that to our attacks elsewhere in the Middle East, our arming of Israel since the 1940s, our infiltration of American mosques and the stupid talk of Americans about Muslims, etc., and it is small wonder people believe we are warring against Islam.


If there had been a "right" war for 911 against any nation, Saudi Arabia would have come closest, but even that would have been wrong.

So, we simply changed the definition of "war," with the AUMF.

The "War on Terrorism" is a lot closer to the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty than it is to a war of nation(s) against nation(s), which is the only kind of "war" the Framers contemplated. Something does not legitimately become a "war," as the Framers understood the term, simply because you dub it a war.

Even the actual war in Iraq was about "regime change," something one nation has no business doing to another under international law. If another nation took out our President we would know instantly that no nation has any business taking out our President.

But, when it is a nation the size of Idaho that most Americans in 2001 could not have found on a map, meh.

It's good to be the world's only super power. If you define "good" as the ability to do whatever you want, no matter how evil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC