News The war on terror, self defeating or a neccesity?

[LightbulbSun]

I don't think the act of war alone is self-defeating. The stream of enemies is endless and taking a pacified stance towards them only gives them the advantage.

Look at American history alone, does the American Revolution war strike to anyone as a meaningless war? What about the Civil War? I think the grounds for going to war is what determines whether the war is just pointless or if it's justifiable.

First of all, I don't think we should define this as a 'war', but more so an operation. A war has opposition. Has Iraq shown any unified opposition? None whatsoever. The day we bombed Baghdad they were pretty much immobilized.

Secondly, while the Iraq operation has been a disaster at the very least we killed a dictator. What kind of long term effects that has is remained to be seen, but if you want to put some sort of meaning around this operation well there it is.

Obviously Osama Bin Laden is still out there and Al-Qaida is still functioning, and if we ever catch Bin Laden I think the consensus on this war will shift. Catching these guys is not a piece of cake.

Do I support the Iraq Operation? No. We've already done what we needed to do. Do I think we should be fighting terrorism with war tactics? Yes.

 

[denverdoc]

How about a John Dower? Where was the Meiji-era Japanese history? Or maybe a Dale Earnhardt Jr. or Peyton Manning. Who on the 9/11 commission was looking out for NFL and NASCAR fans? I mean c'mon, Congress and the President convened the Commission to independently investigate the attacks and make recommendations pertinent to the attacks. It wasn't put together to recommend some form airline lawsuit liability, negotiate with the FDNY unions or NYPD PBA reps to determine proper payouts, or make rulings the admissibility of scientific evidence in a court of law. It existed solely to enumerate a public record of facts and make recommendations therefrom.

I think you missed my point--this was more about having some deep thinkers who owe no political allegiance to anyone. Feynman came to mind because of his brilliance in the shuttle disaster investigation and his dogged determination to not let biz as usual in washington carry the day.

 

[mheslep]

I felt the 911 was wanting in several key areas, many of which have been enumerated elsewhere in great detail. Perhaps it was bipartisan, but I would have greatly preferred a Richard Fetnmann or two. Where was the science?

Originally Posted by Pelt
How about a John Dower? Where was the Meiji-era Japanese history? Or maybe a Dale Earnhardt Jr. or Peyton Manning. Who on the 9/11 commission was looking out for NFL and NASCAR fans? I mean c'mon, Congress and the President convened the Commission to independently investigate the attacks and make recommendations pertinent to the attacks. It wasn't put together to recommend some form airline lawsuit liability, negotiate with the FDNY unions or NYPD PBA reps to determine proper payouts, or make rulings the admissibility of scientific evidence in a court of law. It existed solely to enumerate a public record of facts and make recommendations therefrom.

I think you missed my point

I believe the reply was exactly on point to the first post. I'm a Feynman fan too esp. of his Roger's commission work, but he's gone, he was once in a generation, this is not his field (foreign affairs, covert intelligence, law enforcement) and I think he would have been the first to say so. A more useful criticism would be forwarding the name of someone still walking around that you believe the commission needed.

--this was more about having some deep thinkers who owe no political allegiance to anyone. Feynman came to mind because of his brilliance in the shuttle disaster investigation and his dogged determination to not let biz as usual in Washington carry the day.

There were several scholarly people on http://www.9-11pdp.org/about/bio_kojm.htm" as well as the appointees. Not every commission can have Nobel laureates, though it doesn't need them for success. It does need qualified, impartially minded people.
Kean and Hamilton were both long retired. I don't see where they owe any 'allegiance'. If you mean no political connection at all, well Feynman voted too and I don't see how one recruits national security experts by excluding everyone with any background in the government.