9/11 Images

it's not like people don't remember, and didn't think about it during the day. And FWIW, I still saw images yesterday. Not as much as in past years, true, but it was more inline with the images I normally see for things like Pearl Harbor.

From my point of view, the images weren't thrown in our faces over and over again, as you seem to want. they were done tastefully, just like other footage. If you want to sit there all day viewing a bloodbath, be my guest. I'm sure you can find tapes of the day somewhere.

Me, I'd rather raise a toast to those killed and rededicate my commitment to helping others.

 

it's not like people don't remember, and didn't think about it during the day. And FWIW, I still saw images yesterday. Not as much as in past years, true, but it was more inline with the images I normally see for things like Pearl Harbor.

From my point of view, the images weren't thrown in our faces over and over again, as you seem to want. they were done tastefully, just like other footage. If you want to sit there all day viewing a bloodbath, be my guest. I'm sure you can find tapes of the day somewhere.

Me, I'd rather raise a toast to those killed and rededicate my commitment to helping others.

 

"That is why showing those images of those planes is that much more important."
I agree it is important. But still important, even if you believe it is far less important, is to "remind" us of the cost of war. Neither image discussed is pleasant, and the use of both should have much care and tact. Peppering either image everywhere is distasteful.

"He said he'd strike specific AQ targets within Pakistan's borders"
"that is not an act of war? are those targets human or can they be instruments of war or instruments that could harm or kill?"

No, it is not an act of war. It's a slap to Mushy's image/supremecy, but it would not invoke full on war with Pakistan. We buy too many of their goods and provide them aid.

BTW, I view Obama's statements as grandstanding and somewhat empty as a threat. The hope is to motivate more action on the part of Pakistan so we don't have to. You make it sound like only democrat's do this. We use the same tactic with Iran, justifiably so (but not warranting invasion).

 

"That is why showing those images of those planes is that much more important."
I agree it is important. But still important, even if you believe it is far less important, is to "remind" us of the cost of war. Neither image discussed is pleasant, and the use of both should have much care and tact. Peppering either image everywhere is distasteful.

"He said he'd strike specific AQ targets within Pakistan's borders"
"that is not an act of war? are those targets human or can they be instruments of war or instruments that could harm or kill?"

No, it is not an act of war. It's a slap to Mushy's image/supremecy, but it would not invoke full on war with Pakistan. We buy too many of their goods and provide them aid.

BTW, I view Obama's statements as grandstanding and somewhat empty as a threat. The hope is to motivate more action on the part of Pakistan so we don't have to. You make it sound like only democrat's do this. We use the same tactic with Iran, justifiably so (but not warranting invasion).

 

"Do you support our use of force to attack targets of importance to us located in sovereign countries? Again, do you refer to human targets and or their instruments of death and destruction?"

Do you? That's what you've proposed for Iran.
I don't answer unanswerable questions that paint complicated diplomatic gray areas as either or questions, and I wouldn't expect you to either.

What are the specific circumstances? What is the potential benefit to be gained vs. what is the possible collateral damage? What is the possible internation response? Come on David, stop using useless black or white posturing, you're smarter than that.

 

"Do you support our use of force to attack targets of importance to us located in sovereign countries? Again, do you refer to human targets and or their instruments of death and destruction?"

Do you? That's what you've proposed for Iran.
I don't answer unanswerable questions that paint complicated diplomatic gray areas as either or questions, and I wouldn't expect you to either.

What are the specific circumstances? What is the potential benefit to be gained vs. what is the possible collateral damage? What is the possible internation response? Come on David, stop using useless black or white posturing, you're smarter than that.

 

Again, you misread my point and try to redirect to a black and white hypothetical.

What is the target? What's nearby? Who would react both in support and in retaliation? Who provided the intel and how is their credibility? And most important, what would Dr. B. do?

 

Again, you misread my point and try to redirect to a black and white hypothetical.

What is the target? What's nearby? Who would react both in support and in retaliation? Who provided the intel and how is their credibility? And most important, what would Dr. B. do?

 

HA, ha, oh that's rich.
Discussion of military attacks and complexity and Pollyanna thinking is an oxymoron.

 

HA, ha, oh that's rich.
Discussion of military attacks and complexity and Pollyanna thinking is an oxymoron.