The problem is that Bush never finished the job and Obama retreated afterwards. It's the same as if after we defeated Nazi Germany in World War 2 we just left and let the Nazis rise again. Part of the job was taking out the Mullahs of Iran. We should have done that but we didn't so now they have funded the insurgents that are taking over Iraq.
I met a girl in graduate school who had the misfortune of being at an airport which was attacked by Palestinian terrorists. She told me "they don't deserve anything". Truer words were never spoken.
The response to 9/11 should be rage. A year after 9/11 Eric Fettman in an OpEd called Where's the Anger (New York Post 8/29/02) wrote:
...what has happened to our anger?
The acute rage, the white-hot fury that nearly all Americans felt in the immediate aftermath of the horrifying murders of 3,000 people seems to have dissipated.
And, with it, the resolve that saw Americans united on the need to utterly demolish international terrorism...
I'm sorry, but I don't want to see mournful processions and bagpipes playing "Amazing Grace" over and over. I want to see a rekindling of the unrestrained anger we once felt...
Yes, taking drastic action on the basis of unrestrained emotion can be dangerous. More often than not, it's necessary to step back a bit and gain some perspective.
But it's just as dangerous when the pendulum of emotion swings to the opposite extreme - and we forget what and why we are fighting.
If the Turks unite with Egypt in attacking Israel which is quite likely Israel may not win and if Israel loses that's the end of Israel. Turkey may not get along with Assad but if there is war I'm sure Syria would participate as would Hezbollah and Hamas with their vast number of rockets some of which are probably armed with chemical warheads.
All the Tea Partiers want is that we don't spend money we don't have. The hostile reaction of the left is astonishing and teaches us a lot about the left. They want to spend money we don't have and demonize anyone who gets in the way of their destructive agenda
The questionable assumption in this article is that the unjust measures to save the economy discussed by Mr. Ahlert really will help. The money used to save the economy has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is from honest people who are productive enough to make the money. Taking their money away will hurt the economy perhaps more than bailing out the banks will help it. The ostensible reason for no money down loans imposed by our government was to make housing affordable to the poor. Well dropping housing prices is making it more affordable, unfortunately vanishing incomes is making affordable houses less affordable but taking money away from people who are productive simply makes their incomes vanish as well. The government's role should have been to enforce justice all along. Than the current situation would not have happened. Enforcing injustice is not the answer.
I think John Lennon was thinking along the lines of if people didn't live for heavenly paradise they wouldn't do things such as engage in Jihad for virgins in paradise and wouldn't put off enjoying life today for promises of heaven tomorrow. I think Mr. Sayet believes that without religion or the threat of hell people would be immoral but the truth is that there are plenty of immoral religious people and moral secular ones. Also Mr. Sayet seems to think that living for today does not mean not being concerned about tomorrow.
You forgot the study of homosexuals in vietnam. That really helped the economy!
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Contraption