9/11 Anniversary..will there ever be justice?

Its hard to argue that the US bullied Afghanistan significantly though.. they supported them considerably vs Soviet occupation. It was more of the US being a convenient scapegoat that could be used in rhetoric designed to distract from the Afghan government's own excesses. 'We are oppressing you cause its their fault'... essentially.

Well, actually... the spanish and British and French are... ; )

Excepted it was NOBODY's business to go there, what about, china?, cuba? etc?

It's all about business, there was resources there and the US government thought they might aswel go plunder.

I believe I was a pirate in a former life.. I get so excited when someone says plunder... augh argh me matey. Hoist the flag! Its time for the booty!

Oh thats right.... And France's 18 billion dollar nuclear and infrastructure investment in Iraq that they lost.

Hello sweet Kyrah

You are leaving out another important consideration. The administration became convinced (by a combination of bad advice and gullibility) that it could be a quick, inexpensive, relatively consquence free war, including the belief they were enforcing a UN mandate and therefore would not recieve much criticism.

China would not be cheap and likely would be unwinnable. Even Cuba would be more clearly unpopular, and now that Castro is out of the picutre, the US feels it can negotiate there. Oil is a motivation for war in the middle east, but that also skews the cost analysis.

As for it being nobody's business, Sadam's regime was not exactly nice. It is a dangerous precident, but there is a case for overthrowing it for legitimate reasons. They did need better timing though and a better exit strategy (well they needed to *have* an exit strategy), but there was a case to go in. Justice is not always achieved for the right reasons, but that does not mean it isn't justice when it is achieved.

Didn't O'sama pretty much own the Taliban??I thought a lot of the acts against the U.S had to do with the Saudis turning to U.S protection and pretty much casting O'sama offer out the window.O'sama feeling it was no place for outsiders to be protecting..Something along those lines..
That after being cast out of Saudi he pretty much bought the Taliban ..

This is just ruff memories of things i read in the past so i'm sure i am off a bit on some of the details so forgive me if i am..It's just a ruff short version..

Exepted itsnot justice, it's basically entering a foreign country uninvited and by force.

How would you react if China decided to invade USA?

Big business only exists because of big government.

Okay, I'll play along and pretend you don't know what terrorism is:

Terrorism is the deliberate attacking and killing of civilians with the intention of inducing fear, intimidation or social disruption in a population to further a political agenda.

If you are a pacifist who merely wants to oppose war as such and wants to equate the two, I can respect that position though I disagree with it, some wars being necessary.

If, as it appears, you are still pursuing the old anti-Bush political agenda of the Fashionably Left, you are not only wrong - the US targeted military targets and went to a lot of effort to minimize civilian casualties - but even worse, you are hopelessly out of date. Iraq is basically over, and so is the Bush Administration. Haven't you heard? The new Cause is Afghanistan and therefore the Obama White House. Nancy Pelosi says so. Get with the program. Next you'll be telling us you're still a Marxist.

There is something that has always bothered me when it comes to things like stepping into other countries business..
This is more about the U.N. than anything really..The U.N felt the need to be in Rwanda when tensions were high..but felt the need to pull out when tensions got to the point that people were about to be slaughtered..Why would they get involved if they never intended to help in the first place when times got real bad?

They pull out and 800,000 people in Rwanda are chopped up or shot and killed or worse.
What are they here for if they can't be around when it counts?
I watched a movie that was made from people on both sides of a certain incident called shooting dogs..Sure it is only a movie but it really impacted me and made me actually sick to my tummy..

A church where people ran to for refuge from the mobs was protected by the U.N presence..The mob surrounded the place but they would not go in because the U.N was there..then the U.N was ordered to leave..

knowing what would happen the second they left they pulled out anyways..
what good are they if they can't stick around to help stop something so drastic as that..a worst case act is about to happen and ..whoops we gotta go now but good luck to you all..
hope you make it through the genocide.

To me genocide would be something that i would think more support would be brought in for than to just let it happen..

why is it ok to save kuwati but not Rwanda? I guess is my point..I don't know if it is even related..i just know it is something that really bothers me on how we pick and choose who needs saving and who doesn't..

Umm no.

The Taliban was concerned with consolidating their hold in Afghanistan. They did allow Al-Quaeda shelter, but after 9/11 they asked for evidence that Osama was involved before they turned him over. They also offered to turn him over to a 3rd party nation. The US refused both to provide evidence and the offer of a 3rd party taking control of Osama. The US had given aid to the Taliban until June or July of 2001, until the Taliban put the nix on a natural gas pipeline.

A sane immigration policy would have nipped the threat of Afghanistan in the bud.

Perhaps it's time for a history lesson concerning our beloved seventh President of the United States.

Will justice ever be achieved for the events of 9/11? That question might be answerable if someone could put a definition to exactly what justice is for that event. If the getting and ridding the world of the people who actually carried out the events (can I call it an attack?) then justice has already been served........those people died along with the 3000 others. If getting or ridding the world of Osama Bin Ladin is the requirement then the answer will be maybe.......depends on our policital will to do what is necessary to achieve that goal. And if the conquering of nations or countries who support and enable the people who planned the attack of 9/11, then that is probably no.........I don't think any civilized country would be willing to undertake such a mission. Basically, I believe the question asked is unanswerable........there is no definition that defines what needs to be done to determine when justice is achieved.

Terrorism and war are similar in definitions. But quite different in their implimentation. Terrorism generally targets civilians to instill fear in the hopes that the government of the targeted civilians will give in to whatever it is that the terrorist demand. War targets the government's infrastructor to acheive the same goal. We (the Unitied States and the, so called, western countries) have been on the recieving end of a terrorist war for quite a number of years (begining in the 70's I believe). The response to those attacks by the West was never effective.........the reason being that there was no consequences to be had by the attackers. Talk is cheap, consessions are signs of weakness, and allowing liberal uses of definitions to cloud the events only provides excuses for both the attackers and the targets. As time passes (nearly 40 years now) no one can even agree on anything. We have people blaming the attacked for what has happened to them (it's somehow their fault for not conceding enough in the past to the demands). We have people blaming the government of the attacked for haveing complicity in the attacks for political or financial gain (the US wants the resources of the countries involved in the attack). We have people who say that the person (as if one person is the entire reason for the attacks) is solely responsible and only that person should be the target of any response. Then we have people who claim any response other than words of condemnation is equal to the attacks put on them by the attackers. But, I hear little about people defining what occured for what it was..........it was an attack, an act of war (using terrorism as a method). There is no single country, regime, group, or person responsible. It's a belief in a way of life that embraces that method to achieve their goals. That cannot be changed with killing one (or even 100) leaders of groups with that mindset........it cannot be changed with the defeat of one (or any number) of countries or regimes that harbor that idiological thought.

It took many years to get where we are now. Many years of little or no response to acts of war perpetuated against us...........allowing the legitamacy of the terrorists to grow in the minds of many. Those many people are spread world wide.........gives no "target" or focal point to aim our responses at. It's going to take as many years (or more) to arrive at any "justice" for events like 9/11.........if ever. Meanwhile any country has to protect itself from terrorists (no matter if domestic, foriegn, a nation, a group, or an individual). Talk, fingering pointing, excuses, ralating to events of 200 years ago, etc will not stop the attacks from being planned and, eventually, carried out. You have to learn or decide what the definitions are and stop with the creative use of words to further you particular point of view. The act of war and the act of terrorism has been blurred by such liberal use of the language. As long as that blurring is allowed, the longer this war will drag on.

A day is 24 hours long. However, if you narrow your definition to a day is only the hours of sunlight and the rest is night you can put a pretty convincing argument up to successfully redefine the definititon. But, then we get the arguments of dusk and dawn in the mix.......gets complicated. Over time the definition of day is meaningless......no one has the same definition to work with. That is what has happened to the definition of terrorism, it's cause, it's justification, it's legitamacy. Until we can arrive at a definition, the war will wage on. And justice will never be achieved.

Not to mention half-a-million-odd dead in Iraq.

Appalling.

Again, depends on why and how it was handled. The question is, will there be more or less justice in Iraq when the dust settles, and will the change be worth the cost?

If China under its current regime invaded the US, it is unlikely that there would be more justice in the US as a result, but if China ever was governed by a more enlightened regime, it is possible that their invading the US could be for the best.

In other words, it is a complex question and can only be answered on a case by case basis.

Note that I am not a fan of the US invasion of Iraq. I think the timing is bad and it has been very much mishandled dating back to the Kuwaitt war. The approach currently taken with China does seem to be working.. slowly, and if anything, invading Iraq has set back peaceful efforts to acheive change drasticly, by condoning force over diplomacy.

Perhaps, but part of that consolidation involved scapegoating the west and blaming their troubles on foreign powers. They are not the first nation to do so, but that does not make it right. Would they have accepted any evidence sent? Not a given. Perhaps it should have been tried, but more likely it was offered expecting the US would not take it. As I understand it, the '3rd party nation' was Pakistan, which is hardly a true third party in that the Taliban have strong representation in that nation too.

I seem to recall some involvement in the demise of Native Americans at the hands of Spain, England, Portugal, Holland, Russia and France as well. Same countries that were responsible for "colonizing" much of the known world.

If China attempted to invade the USA, it would lead to the total destruction of China's capacity to conduct warfare. Folks forget sometimes that conventional warfare is only one of the tools at our disposal. At this time, no other nation on Earth has the nuclear capability to wage a successful campaign (if there is such a thing) against the USA.

Terorism: The Murrough Federal Building Bombing which was a vile act perpetrated upon innocent people by one of our own interestingly enough.

War: Using a National military or their gear(missiles) on another nation.

I am not fool enough to think the two have not collided before and an act of Terrorism be considered an act of war by the people committing it. It all ocmes down to perceptions.

Er..

does it occur to anyone else that this thread might have been started as an act of forum terrorism with an incendiary grenade tossed in through the window of RA?

No?

Ok, carry on.

--
Aes

It's an example, it doesn't mean that because "boohoo we have the biggest army" you guys can just storm in other countries because they aren't compatible with your vision of what's "good".

When one spit upward all day long, one shouldn't be surprised when their spit comes back in their face now and then.


THe whole "live and let live"

The counter-arguement to that is of course, is 'live and let die' better? When you have the economic and military strength, is intervention always bullying as opposed to rescue?

I'm sure the peoples of the world who live under occupation, with their infrastructure destroyed, their culture eroded, their sense of national identity in tatters, thank the US for freeing them.

Yeah......."live and let live". But, occasionally in life it comes down to "live or die". When a group of terrorists want you dead and no words are going to convince them to change their minds what are you going to do? "Live and let live"? I don't think so. Nice words.......but nice words will not keep you alive with what is going on in this world at the moment.

I have a hard time understanding some of what's being said here about us being as bad or worse or that we brought the attack of 9/11 on ourselves. Because we want resources of other nations? Well, that's true..........however we pay for those resources. It's called world trade.....it makes the world go round. Think of the countries that support terrorism and give them safe haven. Where is the money, goods, or other compensation for those resources we desire going? To their populations? Those countries are poor...........yet this country pumps millions into their economies (and other countries in the world do the same). Our good faith in the governments of such countries is turned against us.........we are devil. We rob and rape their land. And they shout to the world about how evil we are so we deserve the terror sent our way. If you believe that you really don't know much about life. Utopia is a dream and possibly a goal to strive for........but ignoring the real hard facts of life in a real world will never get you there. That will likely kill you.

"Live and let live" is a two way street.