I wish we could draw a distinction between the mess we’re in now, as a country, and what was going on a few months maybe even a year after 9/11. But with everything becoming so muddled, it’s really hard to accurately look back and understand what was going on, then.
But as rational people, we know that Iraq and 9/11 have nothing to do with each other—and regardless if 9/11 even happened or not, there is an educated chance that, knowing the Bush admin—that we’d end up in Iraq anyway.
To stand idly by though as terrorists blatantly attack and murder people though, is a bit much. What kind of response would be considered not over reacting? (and this is trying to not include the Iraq debacle—all that aside)
Although interestingly enough, when the terrorist attacks in London happened—Brittan didn’t respond militarily.
I guess we can try to have a debate in the philosophies about appropriate response, but I know if some dude ran a plane into my house, I’d want to kick his ass.
I wish we could draw a distinction between the mess we’re in now, as a country, and what was going on a few months maybe even a year after 9/11. But with everything becoming so muddled, it’s really hard to accurately look back and understand what was going on, then.
But as rational people, we know that Iraq and 9/11 have nothing to do with each other—and regardless if 9/11 even happened or not, there is an educated chance that, knowing the Bush admin—that we’d end up in Iraq anyway.
To stand idly by though as terrorists blatantly attack and murder people though, is a bit much. What kind of response would be considered not over reacting? (and this is trying to not include the Iraq debacle—all that aside)
Although interestingly enough, when the terrorist attacks in London happened—Brittan didn’t respond militarily.
I guess we can try to have a debate in the philosophies about appropriate response, but I know if some dude ran a plane into my house, I’d want to kick his ass.