Friar Bijou wrote:
Did you forget what you wrote?
gbaji wrote:
I think it's a mistake to ascribe one motivation (revenge) for the actions taken by the US in the wake of 9/11.
I was responding the fact that you wrote that others are ascribing
a single motivation for the countries actions. An idea i think is silly.
That was the argument being made by Mr. Wright though. So I responded to that. So it appears we're in agreement.
Quote:
After re-reading my post it was weighted oddly. My bad.
Whew! Hey. It's not the first time I've totally misread someone's post (and will totally not be the last). It did seem like you were arguing that revenge really was the primary motivator, so I responded to that. If you meant something else, that's cool. I just wanted to try to focus on the fact that there are other, perfectly valid, reasons for taking actions beyond just going after the direct people involved in something (in your example, the people responsible for my sisters hypothetical death, and in the OP, the people responsible for 9/11).
As I said originally, that's way over simplifying things. There are a lot of different reasons for doing things. I think it's patently unfair to make assumptions about the motivations (perhaps, as I speculated because that's why *you* would do those things). Maybe to Mr. Wright, the only reason to do the things we did after 9/11 is out of hate and anger and a desire for revenge. But I don't agree with that assessment. Not even a little bit. If that were the case, then yes, something like invading Iraq makes zero sense (which again, points to the mindset and assumption of motivations by one group projected onto another). But if you're thinking in terms of addressing the underlying problems coming out of the Middle East, which largely stems from a social movement that is extremely enclosed and fosters great violence against anyone not in one's own identity group, then choosing to enact regime change in Iraq, with the hope of creating a more democratic and open society, is a massive step in the right direction.
One of the striking examples of this, which I made a point of back when it was new information, is this quote by Cheney:
Quote:
Tim, we can do what we have to do to ail in this conflict. Failure's not an option. And go back again and think about what's involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it's very, very important we get it right. If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what's at stake here. That's one of the reasons they're putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that's going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.
It was very interesting how differently liberals and conservatives interpreted this statement. Liberals interpreted this as Cheney insisting that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11 (still following the assumption of "getting back at those who attacked us" as the motivation). They even took the phrase "heart of the base" to mean that Iraq was somehow the heart of terrorist groups in the region. But conservatives looked at the whole thing and saw a completely different statement. He was speaking about addressing the whole region. Iraq is in the center of that geographical region. He makes it very clear that he's speaking of standing up a "good representative government in Iraq, that
secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or the United States". In other words, it's not just about Iraq. It's not just about Al-queda. It's not just about UBL. It's about trying to reverse the very social and cultural issues that are causing the terrorism movement.
This is what I'm talking about. Understand the reason why some people interpreted his statement one way, and other interpreted it in a completely different way, and you'll have a better insight into the differences in conservative and liberal viewpoints. It really is noticeable, once you know what to look for. And it really is that idea of whether we react to a specific problem with a treatment of just that problem (or instance of a problem), or whether we react by attempting to make changes that will prevent that same problem from occurring again in the future.
I'm biased of course, but I think the latter approach is better. But that's not really the issue here. It's just with understanding that there is a difference in mindset and that affects dramatically how we view a whole host of social, economic, and political issues.