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

That is not always the result though. Are you really going to try to make the case that the Balkans would have been better off without intervention?

Or all of Europe for that matter (think 1945).

Oh for petes sake- whoever he is- we are predators - we kill - it happens - it will keep on happening- we kill them- they kill us- screw the reason why - religion, expansion, whatever- it is our nature- is there justice? Justice is defined by the current set in power as victory is written by the victors- clean your blades and get ready for the next round of blood letting- sleep in between - makes no difference- another day, another war -

If that was true, there would not be the clean up and rebuilding efforts in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Troops would have gone in, overthrown the respective governments, and pulled out as in the first gulf war, leaving the locals to clean up.

We would not have intervened in the balkans... we would have just let them kill each other regardless of consequences or sanity.

Forgive my asking, but are you an American or a Russian? I inquire because half of Europe was doubtless delighted to be liberated by Marshal Zhukov and his armies, but probably less appreciative of the next 40 years than their liberators might have hoped.

Sigh... even where they were liberated by the Russians and then subjected to Russian rule, do you really believe they would have been better off under the Germans?

Besides, this thread is in the context of 9 11, so it should seem pretty obvious that the perspective would be US/Western Europe.

No, I don't believe that at all. The point I seek to make is that "We liberated you from a fearful tyranny" isn't the end of the story; it doesn't serve as a particularly good response to complaints, be they from Poles or Iraqis, about what conditions are like after the liberation.

The point was very well made, I though, in Animal Farm, where Snowball and the other propagandist pigs' knock down argument is always, "But surely you don't want Farmer Jones back again".

American (and combat veteran Gulf War II). I would not say that Marshal Zhukov actually "liberated" Eastern Europe. The guiding principal of Field Marshall Heinrici's "defense" of Berlin, was to gain time for German refugees to flee west and surrender to American forces. He did this himself after a brilliant defensive campaign against the Russians.

USSR and Western Allies came very near to turning WW2 into WW3 as Germany folded.

Russian Imperialistic ambitions continue to cause strife to this day. Refer to the ongoing combat in Checnya and the brutal invasion of Georgia. And of course they had a major role (along with reunified Germany) in the terrible war in the former nation of Jugoslavia.

But of course the USA is the "Evil Empire".

No nation can truly liberate another nation. At best they can provide an opportunity for self liberation.

We must all free ourselves in the end.

Allow me to interject. As Americans, I feel we have been spoiled because no official war has ever been fought on our soil except for our own Civil War. (And of course the bombing of Pearl Harbor.)
All over the rest of the world, people are living--or have lived--in terrifying occupation, oppression, etc. where the deaths of non-military citizens was part of the order of the day. Yet we have ONE act of terror against us, and we think we are entitled to MORE justice than anyone in any of these other countries? Why? Because we're a superpower? That's the same reasoning Rome gave for crucifying criminals and England gave for the Middle Passage.
If we want justice, we must stop the whining against one act of terrorism committed here and start thinking globally. Justice begins in the heart of each person; it is not done by waiting around for someone else to do it for us.

Absolutely. However, once that opportunity for self liberation has been made there is an interim period where some sort of security must be provided......otherwise all that liberation is in vain. Liberating a country is so much more than simply ousting the regime. Some symbolance of order must be maintained during the transition period. Ideally the liberated country quickly takes the role of security over for themselves. Unfortunitly, lately, the liberated countries have been slow to take on their responsibilities.........Afganistan and Iraq for example. So, what is the alternative? Walk away? Stay longer than you wanted? Walking away will almost definitely lead to a situation equal to or worse than the original reason for "liberating" the country. Staying creates polical strife in the country who has taken the responsibility on themselves.

How long did we stay in Japan and Germany after World War 2? Was it worth it? How long did we stay in Korea? Is it worth it? How long did we stay in Kuwait? Was that worth it? We didn't have to fight again in Japan, Germany, or even Korea.........we did in Kuwait/Iraq.

Some cultures are not as responsible as we would like them to be. They are slow to take on personal responsibilities. Much of that slowness can be blamed on simply not knowing how to accept the rights (and responsibilities) of fending for themselves. So we cannot just walk away.........we have to help get them in a position to "free" themelves.

Allow me to counter your interjection..........I, too, am an American. Saying we have not had to fight a war on our soil since the Civil War is missing a great big point. It is not because we are a "Superpower" (though during the Cold War that did have some level of deterence). It's because of our culture. We tend to make friends of our neighbors, accept other cultures, welcome fellow human beings, embrace freedom. Until very recently our geographical location on the earth made evasion of our soil very difficult. And a very strong sense of pride in our ability to take care of ourselves..........all did more to insulate us from envading foes. 9-11-01 changed all that forever..........we were asleep at the helm. That ONE act of terror does entitle us to seek justice. It was a direct attack on this country..........with more on the horizon unless we seek justice for it. We cannot shrug our shoulders saying "well the rest of the world endures it so me must take it too". That will surely guarantee we will suffer attacks again. We are not whining........we are fighting an unconventional war that is more dangerous to our survival than any other conventional war we have ever participated in. We do not know how to fight a war using civilians as targets.............yet we must somehow get in the minds of the enemies who do. Not an easy task. Merely sucking it up saying "well we only lost 3000 innocent civilians and the rest of the world has lost many more" is not the answer. The answer is to stand up and fight...........we didn't start this war but we are in it. Lay down, and you're defeated.

WW II is also a problematic example for another reason, of course. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Germany invaded Russia first, not the other way around.

You can spin the results anyway you want, but the facts are the facts. It was not a matter of Russia suddenly deciding to liberate Europe, but a response to German aggression.

Not to mention Ireland.. finally at peace after how many years? In the Balkans, western occupation forces have replaced east bloc occupation forces, but the region is still policed...

(Oh, I know I am going to regret this . . .)

Just a couple of quick thoughts.

Comparisons of Afghanistan and Iraq/Kuwait with other 20th-century conflicts and their aftermaths seem to me to have some limited utility, but it needs to be remembered that we are pretty close to comparing apples and oranges here. The differences in historical context, cultures, and causes are immense. The Middle East is not the Balkans; Iraq is not Nazi Germany. Simple comparisons that don't take into account these really enormous differences are bound to result in a pretty significant degree of distortion.

My issue with the US response to 9/11 is partially ethical, and partially practical. In terms of the former, I would ask whether that response was really commensurate with the nature of the attack. How many innocent Iraqis and Afghans have died as a result of these wars? Hundreds of thousands, by even a conservative estimate.

My practical question relates to the form of the response. Was opening a conventional war in these countries really the "right tool" for the job? I think it could easily be argued that the US is trying to hammer in a nail with a spanner here: it just isn't going to do what they hope it will do.

I don't have a great deal of patience with those, on the other hand, who argue that the US brought this upon themselves. I deplore much of American foreign policy, and I think that US politic and military involvement in the Middle East and Afghanistan certainly set up the conditions for what happened, and are making it that much more difficult to resolve these conflicts peacefully. But to suggest, as some have, that the US "had it coming" stinks too much of the old "blame the victim" game. And, for me, the true victim of 9/11 wasn't the US: it was the 3000 innocents who died in the two towers. And yes, there IS a distinction between those two.

In the final analysis, ethical considerations aside, I think that wars are self-perpetuating. WWI created the conditions for WWII; victory in 1945 simply set up the Cold War, and the myriad of smaller but still bloody conflicts that that spawned. The US support of the Taliban during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War are further cases in point. War begets war.

Officially your governement (or your nation) lost so far around 5000 (if not more) young men alone in the second Iraq war. The WHO gave out additional a number of 223.000 dead civilians there so far (and counting).

About Afghanistan I have no numbers found on the fly, but it could be a similar scenario.

I have not the impression that it is a clever and smart kind of "police-work" to bring someone or a group of criminals "to justice" if a government decides to answer the loss of 3000 people with an additional loss of maybe the double amount of own people and maybe a quarter million of totaly unguilty people somewhere.

And it is not over. Some sources say, that your population is losing 25 soldiers every day and the new Iraq-police forces losing 33 people every day...

These numbers are taken from only official sources.

Inofficial sources or speculations talking about over 73 000 lost soldiers since Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan (all three wars together).

Not to mention the high number of serious injured/crippled soldiers and traumatized soldiers and the countless additional killed and injured civilians in the both countries.

Just by the mathematics it looks kind of inadequate how the efforts to bring a few responsible criminals to justice are increasing only the numbers of dead bodies in/from 3 countries in result.

In light seen, the response to the attack of 9/11 caused much much much more victims than the attack itself.

As an european I am only an observer or news-reader - and the numbers may vary, depending on the seriousity and truth or not truth of some sources, but all in all appears a picture that is telling kind of evidence that there is an inadequate sort of hunting criminals ongoing.

I am sure not against sorts of adequate efforts to bring actors and manipulators to justice, but I think it should be in this way adequate that the relation is somehow balanced and done careful/thoughtful and within the ethical system of a democracy.

But these are just my thoughts.

Iraq should not be considered as related to 9 11 because it isn't. 9 11 was used as an excuse to invade based on false data.

Iraq has been overly villified. This is not to say there were not serious issues with Sadam's regime, or that overthowing him wasn't neccessarily for the best, but the case for doing so was weak at best.

Afghanistan is another matter. There was a direct link there, and there is a valid arguement that if the US did not decide to go where certain members of the administration preferred them to go (Iraq), Afghanistan would be a lot less of an issue.

There are some similarities between the middle east and the balkans though. Like the nations in the Balkans, most middle eastern nations were formed artificially, out of convenience to foreign powers.

There is a lot of legitimacy to your analysis, but there is still the point that if there was no intervention, there may have been additional attacks. Note that arguement only applies to Afghanistan, not to Iraq.

In Iraq, you need to compare the lives lost with the total lives saved (if any) from the regime change. Depending on how long the regime would have lasted on its own before something more enlightened replaced it, it could well be worth the lives lost, even the civilian losses. As we will never know how things would have developed without invasion, we will never be certain of that answer (although if Iraq reverts to something brutal again in the near future, it would be pretty safe to say the attempt was a failure).

Well, ok . . . You're right, of course. But I was talking, above all else, about the justification for war. If the justification was simply to further America's geopolitical position in the region, we'll agree that that is pretty unconscionable. But if accept either of the more attractive justifications, that it was a response to the threat of terrorism and/or to liberate Iraq from Saddam -- as most did at the time -- then my original argument kicks in: the means were incommensurate, and the tool the wrong one. Yes, Saddam is gone, but ordinary Iraqis are hardly better off as a result, and the loss of life has been, and continues to be, appalling. And, the entire war may have ironically turned the country into a spawning ground for future terrorists.


This simply evades my argument. You seem to be arguing that if the US had focussed on Afghanistan, instead of being diverted by Iraq, then the former would have been pacified by now. But I am arguing that a military response, even a more powerful one, is simply not the way to get this done. If want to resort to comparisons, the obvious one is Vietnam. Or previous attempts to pacify Afghanistan by the British and the Russians. Moreover, I must still insist, on an ethical level, that the suffering and loss of life that the Afghanistan war and occupation has caused is incommensurate to the cause of the war.


Sure. But the cultural differences are far more important, in some respects. The Balkans are white, European, and largely Christian: they share values with the US to a FAR greater degree than the populations of the Middle East.

There won't be any justice till the tin foil hat brigade and trolls stop bombarding everyone with their photochopped conspiricy bullcrap.

Best thing you can do for places like Iraq and Afganastan is fence them off, stop shipping guns in and let them kill each other with pointy sticks and sharp things till they get enough common sense to stop listening to the religious idiots they are following.

Most of them won't be so quick to kill when they have to do it close up, bloody and personal with risk to themselves instead of bombing and sniping each other from a distance.

I don't see how "who started it" has much to do with anything. The USA didn't "suddenly decide to liberate Europe," either -- there was the little matter of Pearl Harbor, was there not? And, indeed, the course of the war in Western Europe might have gone rather differently had Germany not invaded the Soviet Union -- the German Sixth Army wouldn't have got itself wiped out at Stalingrad, for one thing, and thus some 841,000 Germans and other Axis soldiers would have been available to cause problems on the Western Front (and that's just the Battle of Stalingrad, not the whole war on the Eastern Front).

Nor do I see that it has much to do with my point that the fact people may well have good reason to be grateful to their liberators -- no matter why the liberators decided to intervene in the first place -- is by no means the end of the story; "If it wasn't for us, you'd still be suffering under so-and-so" isn't a whole answer to criticisms of how things are managed after the liberation.

Keep in mind that I do not agree with the decision to go into Iraq. I merely accept that there was an arguement to be made in favour of going in. It was not the arguement that was used (until after the fact) and the invasion was made with an overly optimistic exit strategy. Nevertheless there is a valid arguement that it may still turn out for the best. History will only be able show if it was a collossal failure. It is unlikely if it will every be clearly if it really was for the best.



There is a difference here, though.. the Taliban were unpopular, whereas the Russians were brought in to quell a popular rebellion. Vietnam was similarly a popular uprising. Regardless, 9 11 was an actual attack, regardless of the fact it did not use conventional military force.

Also, there is no equivalent to China ready to send massive troop numbers in to bolster the Afghans. The only possible ally Afghanistan has is Pakistan, and they are at least nominally opposed to the counter-insurgency too.



Are you sure? The closest to ethnic clensing in the middle east is Saddam's treatment of the Khurds, and even there the Khurds were fighting both Iraq and Turkey for independance, often engaging in terrrorism themselves. Common faith does not equate to common values. Ireland is essentially entirely Christian, but look how long it took to acheive peace there? Moreover, it is not a common faith in the region. There is a strong ethnic muslim population.

Frankly the primary reasons for intervention were likely proximity as well as the fact there was evidence of ethnic clensing.

We may be on friendly terms with our neighbors but we are NOT on friendly terms with many other nations around the world. And yes, the fact that we are a superpower IS something of a deterrent, but it may also be our geographical location in the world. As far as welcoming fellow human beings, the time of mass intake of refugees from other countries is long gone (see southern border patrol--I don't know about you, but if I were trying to go into Canada and some mounties were pointing guns at me on the border, I would not consider Canada a "friendly" place to go....).
Your viewpoint is standard of many Americans--justice for the U.S.--and no one else. As far as I am concerned, in the battlefield, the U.S. hasn't done anything heroic since WWII--and even then we only went in after the Japanese military bombed the hell out of part of OUR country. It was not altruism that provoked Roosevelt to join the Allied forces, but rather economic necessity.
For the record, I did not say that we should "lie down and take it" because other countries do. That would be silly. What I'm saying is that in general we don't seem to take notice of the turmoil of the world as a whole until something like Pearl Habor or 9/11 happens. Overall as a nation we don't think globally. We are just as self-centered as Rome and England were in their heydays, and having a "Homeland Security" that suspects anyone and everyone indiscriminately won't change that, no matter what sort of fairy tale we'd like to construct to believe otherwise. Or were the forefathers just joking around when they said "Give me liberty or give me death!"? We've made a mockery of their intent, and I for one find it highly disturbing.

Oh, the Mounties don't have guns . . . just these adorable little riding crops. And they SINGGGGGGG!!!

LOL