<$BlogRSDURL$>

9.12.2003

I had thought that I would not discuss 9.11 again but I was wrong.

I had little reaction to 9.11.03, to be honest. The anniversary of a date has little to do with the reality of a given situation; it's just another day. I still think we're at war, though, though some may disagree with this proposition. Our fight against religious fanaticism is a tough one because I think it's going to be hard to balance doing the necesssary killing abroad while not massively expanding the government at home. Bush is certainly not a small-government kind of guy, and although I am reasonably comfortable with our actions abroad I am unhappy about his domestic policy generally.

I thought that what little network coverage I saw was poor in that it was maudlin and domesticated. Of course, I think that the networks -- if they're going to commemorate the event at all -- should show nothing but New Yorkers throwing themselves out of the WTC towers, and reruns of the towers collapsing. That's what happened, and failure to perceive reality of what happened is a dangerous act. Showing piles of blood, bone and gristle which used to be people who worked at the WTC would also have been a good option. I realize that this might inflame people, but then again I think that inflaming people about this is a good thing. That way when the next terrorist hits, we'll have less compunction about dropping a few strategically-placed nukes. Of course, if/when another major U.S. city gets hit badly enough (say with a nuke or a major chemical weapon), I think that
that is what will happen anyway. I think Saudi Arabia is a great place to start, followed by Syria.

Domestically though Bush is a mess. I don't share blind loyalty to the Republicans, especially given the expansion of the gov't and the ineffectualness of some of these expansions . . . homeland security is a joke, and people getting on planes are only marginally more secure from terrorists than before 9.11. I am also unhappy about federal prosecutors poaching anti-terror laws to further non-terror ends (in much the same way RICO laws were used against non-racketeers). Unfortunately, I don't trust the Democrats either, partially because I think that they lack the resolution to fight a war like the one we just had in Iraq, or to respond appropriately if/when the next big terrorist attack happens. As I said, the only appropriate thing to do in that event would be a Roman-style asskicking, complete with large bags of salt to sow for when the radiation died down . . . and the Democrats don't have the guts to do that. They whine about "root causes," "understanding," and other nonsense. I think that it's less important for us to understand our enemies than for them to understand that they'll be turned into ash indiscriminately if/when 9.11 part 2 happens. Terrorists understand one thing and one thing only, and that's brute force. If we have to kill innocents to get our message across, that's the way it goes. The Japanese got the message in WWII and haven't been anything but pleasant ever since . . . maybe the nuclear corrective is just what radical, militant Islamists need to understand. Hell, I'd put a nuclear bomb on Paris if it meant no more terrorist attacks in this country.
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?