Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

So, Did America Overreact to 9/11?
TCSDAILY ^ | 15 Feb 2007 | Lee Harris

Posted on 02/16/2007 12:33:58 AM PST by neverdem

Did America overreact to 9/11?

This is a question that is much in the air today. Consider, as one example, the essay that recently appeared in the Los Angeles Times written by David A. Bell, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins. The title of the piece is "Putting 9/11 into perspective," and its by-line reads: "The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting." But does "history" in fact tell us any such thing?

Simply put, Bell's argument goes as follows: There have been wars in the past, global wars, in which millions have died: 50 million, for example, in the Second World War. On the other hand, if you compute the number of Americans who died on 9/11, and "even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism," this yields only 6,500 dead Americans. Then, as a way of putting this figure into perspective, Bell says that "we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in car accidents."

There is a bit of history in this argument, though the number of people who died in World War II is not exactly a trade secret of historians; but where exactly is Bell's logic? For example, let us suppose a man comes into your house and shoots your favorite dog in cold blood. You explode in rage and fury, whereupon a calm Professor Bell appears to inform you that during WWII whole families and their dogs were brutally murdered, or that in America thousands of dogs are run over by cars each year. Now both of these facts are true. No point in trying to deny them. But does either of these facts put "into perspective" the wanton killing of your beloved pet? Upon hearing Bell's recital of these indisputable facts, would you immediately say to him: "How right you are, Dr. Bell, and how wrong I was to fly into a rage over the killing of a single statistically insignificant dog. Thank you for putting the matter into perspective for me."

If a madman chops your hand off, will you be appeased if he tells you, "Well, be grateful. My previous victims, and there have been hundreds of them, had both their hands and both their feet chopped off. You are lucky, indeed, that I was so merciful." Would his words persuade you to take a detached view of your detached hand?

When a person or a group suffers an unprovoked attack, their first thought is seldom, "Let's put this into perspective." Instead, there is an adrenaline rush of outrage and anger, and this automatic reaction has been programmed into our species by what Charles Darwin called the universal struggle for existence. The famous Fight or Flight response has been designed to assure our long term survival. One may well die fighting or perish by fleeing; yet both responses are far more conducive to survival than waiting for a professor to put the attack into "historical perspective" four years after it occurred. It may be true that others have suffered even more outrageous attacks than the one you have suffered. But what's that to you? The only attack that concerns you is the attack that you must immediately defend yourself against. You must respond now, or never.

Professor Bell argues that the 9/11 attack did not genuinely endanger our national survival, and that the terrorists lack the capacity to "threaten the existence of the United States." Now if by this Bell means that they cannot kill us all, or even more than a few thousand at a time, then history seems to have proven him right—at least, so far. But what Bell overlooks is that in the struggle between human groups, it does not require a threat to the survival of the whole group to activate the Fight response. Far from it—groups begin fighting for reasons that strike outsiders as trifling or absurd. Is this irrational? To professors ensconced in the comfort of a university no doubt, but not to those who have to exist in a dog-eat-dog world.

The inmates of any jailhouse know that even mildest acts of aggression must be instantly and firmly challenged. If you are a newcomer and another inmate demands that you give him your candy bar, the worst thing you could possibly do would be to try to put the incident into perspective. You cannot say, "Well, it's only a candy bar, after all. No big deal," because, in this context, your candy bar is a big deal. It means everything. If you hand it over on demand, then you have also handled over your dignity. You have thereby informed not only the inmate making the demand, but all the other inmates watching you give into his demand that they too can all walk on you at any time. They too can take from you anything you have. They too can make you their flunkey or slave.

Of course, in defending your candy-bar, you may have to risk your life. But it is absurd to say that you are risking your life "only" for a candy bar when you are in fact risking it to maintain your autonomy and independence. The danger in such a situation is not overreaction, but, paradoxically, the failure to overreact.

The same principle applies to groups, tribes, and nations. If any group wishes to preserve its dignity and autonomy, there will be times when it is forced to act like the inmate defending his candy bar. In terms of a cost analysis, this kind of "overreaction" will seem utterly irrational. Is the candy bar really worth risking your life over? But to you, the refusal to take this risk involves a loss that cannot be measured by statistics—namely, the loss of your status as an independent moral agent that others will be careful not to push around or walk over.

Professor Bell wants us to believe that history tells us that America overreacted to 9/11. What history tells us, on the contrary, is that men have repeatedly gone into brutal and bloody wars over the moral equivalent of mere candy bars. The casus belli of the Franco-Prussian war was the fatal Ems telegram. The First World War began with the murder of a Crown Prince. The American Revolution began with a tea party.

It is far too early to be invoking the august judgment of history on America's response to 9/11; it may well turn out that the USA, instead of overreacting, failed to react strongly and forcefully enough. 9/11 as an act of unprovoked aggression is without parallel, and those who celebrated it throughout the Muslim world did so with complete impunity. In the eyes of our enemy, our failure to respond immediately and indiscriminately to the attack has not been chalked up to our humanitarian zeal, but to our weakness. Like the inmate who hands over his candy bar without protest, those who were watching us for our reaction to 9/11 may be drawing conclusions about us that we did not intend to convey to them, and that are not in our long-term interests.

Lee Harris is author of Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; ivorytoweridiot; leeharris; liberalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 02/16/2007 12:34:02 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We didn't do jacksh**. Case Closed.


2 posted on 02/16/2007 12:37:32 AM PST by Dallas59 (Case Closed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thankfully someone put this pompous, arrogant ass Professor (read: no real world experience) Bell's comments into the context they deserve.

No, Professor Bell, had we "overreacted", a large portion of the ME would be one large glass parking lot right about now, and people might actually be able to park there in a few hundred years.


3 posted on 02/16/2007 12:38:48 AM PST by OCCASparky (Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

"Did America overreact to 9/11?"

No.


4 posted on 02/16/2007 12:38:54 AM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Wanna see over reaction? Suspend tenure for this ivory tower fool and you'll see over reaction!

This prof. is another uesful idiot for the left.


5 posted on 02/16/2007 12:46:44 AM PST by ChiMark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Internment camps were always an option. NOTHING! Nothing could be considered an "over-reaction" when your country is successfully and brutally attacked. With the right approach and less PC BS (thanks to the ACLU, dems and a country filled with appeasers) America could still dominate under Reagan's "Peace through Strength" montra. Not any longer. We're proving ourselves time and again, to be no different than France or Germany. The latest antics from our new "leadership" in Congress in respect to Iraq, will leave us vulnerable to attacks for generations to come. Dangle the "Overreacted Crowd" by one leg from 90 stories for a minute. Let's see what their reaction is then.


6 posted on 02/16/2007 12:57:31 AM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChiMark

Uhh, the last paragraph. He agrees that we didn't do enough.

'It is far too early to be invoking the august judgment of history on America's response to 9/11; it may well turn out that the USA, instead of overreacting, failed to react strongly and forcefully enough. 9/11 as an act of unprovoked aggression is without parallel, and those who celebrated it throughout the Muslim world did so with complete impunity. In the eyes of our enemy, our failure to respond immediately and indiscriminately to the attack has not been chalked up to our humanitarian zeal, but to our weakness. Like the inmate who hands over his candy bar without protest, those who were watching us for our reaction to 9/11 may be drawing conclusions about us that we did not intend to convey to them, and that are not in our long-term interests.'


7 posted on 02/16/2007 1:03:08 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman (Fatigue makes cowards of us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Move along. Nothing to get excited about.

"The List" of Islamic Terror Attacks for the past 3 Months

8 posted on 02/16/2007 1:05:57 AM PST by TigersEye (Copperheads are infesting our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Well 9/11 was a Zionist plot...

(It's true! I read it on the WWW)

Hindsight is 20/20. I bet Pf Bell never had AQ on his radar before 9/11.


9 posted on 02/16/2007 1:07:22 AM PST by endthematrix (Both poverty and riches are the offspring of thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FLOutdoorsman

I think everybody is going to overreact to this article. lol


10 posted on 02/16/2007 1:09:56 AM PST by TigersEye (Copperheads are infesting our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

no, half the country has 'under'reacted


11 posted on 02/16/2007 1:11:03 AM PST by tina07 (In Memory of my Father - WWII Army Air Force Veteran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

IF ANYTHING WE UNDER REACTED. LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DIEASE.


12 posted on 02/16/2007 1:13:34 AM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Since Damascus, Tehran, Kabul, Riyadh, Mecca, Cairo, Beirut and Baghdad are still intact, we obviously didn't overreact.


13 posted on 02/16/2007 1:15:33 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Haley Barbour/John Bolton 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

In WWI 8.5 million people died from direct combat action. And all that was triggered by the killing of a single prince in Sarajevo. By that standard, if 3,000 were killed on 9/11, we would not reach WWI's ratio until 25.5 billion people die. And there's only 6 billion of us on earth.


14 posted on 02/16/2007 1:35:46 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Professor Bell argues that the 9/11 attack did not genuinely endanger our national survival, and that the terrorists lack the capacity to "threaten the existence of the United States."

What a typical moronic liberal Dem overview. No wonder the jihadist enemy was jumping for terrorist joy when those appeasing pinko schmucks won the last election. G-d help US!

15 posted on 02/16/2007 1:48:52 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is Never Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
KKK-Byrd, Kerry, Clinton, planned it all,
with Bush-43 as the fall guy.

Skull and Bones! FOREVER! and EVER!

AAAAARRRGGGH!

16 posted on 02/16/2007 1:55:09 AM PST by MaxMax (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting."

IMO, the US didn't overreact. If anything, the US showed considerable restraint.

These whining 'academics' would have really been in a tissy if I were the President, I would have had nucs raining down on Afganistan within minutes of discovering who was responsible. There is no way I would have let that camel-humper escape.

17 posted on 02/16/2007 1:55:28 AM PST by CrawDaddyCA (Paul/Tancredo 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
18 posted on 02/16/2007 2:05:13 AM PST by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
terrorists lack the capacity to "threaten the existence of the United States."

This is true and bears repeating. To say otherwise is to insult America.

But we still needed to kick their ass under the candy bar principle.
19 posted on 02/16/2007 2:07:02 AM PST by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Professor Bell argues that the 9/11 attack did not genuinely endanger our national survival, and that the terrorists lack the capacity to 'threaten the existence of the United States.'"

Bell's argument is self-contradictory. The terrorists would, in fact, have the capacity to destroy us if not for our willingness to resist. Bell and other pacifists would argue against any use of force in response, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. This is because his arguments are not proportional; they would be equally valid or invalid regardless of what level of force were used. This uniform rejection of force would invalidate the superior strength that leftists invoke as a reason not to use force against terrorism. According to leftists, we shouldn't fight back because we are too strong to be threatened, but we are so strong only because we do fight back.

20 posted on 02/16/2007 2:37:55 AM PST by atomic conspiracy (Rousing the blog-rabble since 9-11-01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What should be put into perspective is the 3000 dead in this war so far.

If the media were following each car crash victim the way it follows each of the war dead, we'd have Americans afraid to leave their homes.

There are approx. 40,000+ deaths on the highway each year.


21 posted on 02/16/2007 2:50:25 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bell is arguing that a response on the scale of the World War 2 Soviet Union would be unjustified. Nobody to my knowledge has alleged that our response rises to that level. He does not compare the responses at all, he merely invites the inference that they are somehow equivalent or proportional, which makes them excessive in light of what he claims to be a smaller threat.
Since our response is demonstrably not equivalent to Stalin's response to the Nazi invasion, Bell's analogy is absurd on its face. It is miserable and deceptive logic, a smart man aiming a message at a stupid and pretentious audience. He certainly has them pegged, but I give his presentation an "F."


22 posted on 02/16/2007 2:52:05 AM PST by atomic conspiracy (Rousing the blog-rabble since 9-11-01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
What should be put into perspective is the 3000 dead in this war so far.

And exponentially more have been wounded. I'm not saying they might as well be dead, but their lives have been irreparably damaged by combat in Iraq. A lot of those wounded would have been killed even 15 years ago, but for the advances of emergency medicine.

Is it worth the cost? Yes - but only if we're fighting to win, and fighting a war we can win. I'm not convinced of either.

23 posted on 02/16/2007 3:03:07 AM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Nope.

America under reacted before 9/11.

After 9/11 Bush did what we should have done long ago.

I'd say we've also under reacted to the threats of radical Islam since 9/11. The rest of the world has done next to nothing.


24 posted on 02/16/2007 3:09:07 AM PST by Reform4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We continue to under-react. Death by a thousand cuts. That's our punishment for failing to see the enemy for what it is and act accordingly.


25 posted on 02/16/2007 3:15:59 AM PST by TADSLOS (Iran is in the IED exporting business. Time to shut them down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"o point in trying to deny them. But does either of these facts put "into perspective" the wanton killing of your beloved pet? Upon hearing Bell's recital of these indisputable facts, would you immediately say to him: "How right you are, Dr. Bell, and how wrong I was to fly into a rage over the killing of a single statistically insignificant dog. Thank you for putting the matter into perspective for me."

Ah, then I might consider to turn and shoot the guy who shot my dog and the good prof as well. Amen.


26 posted on 02/16/2007 3:19:33 AM PST by gakrak ("A wise man's heart is his right hand, But a fool's heart is at his left" Eccl 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; RedRover

And exponentially more have been injured in car crashes.

The point is that we can make it seem like a horrendous bloodbath if we control the media. Without that control we don't have that option.

Why?

Because there are 300,000,000 people in this country. That means that to date a death in Iraq has touched 1 out of 100,000 people. That would be like getting a movement going because 3 people in a town the size of Cincinnati, Ohio had had tragedies in a 4 year period. It ain't gonna happen.

Not without the media playing it for all it's worth, that is.


27 posted on 02/16/2007 3:22:56 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Not by a longshot.


28 posted on 02/16/2007 3:59:28 AM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Proffesor Bell is liberal egghead who wouldnt know reality if it hit him between the eyes.
Its a shame the 9/11 planes didnt hit his ivory tower


29 posted on 02/16/2007 4:01:35 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think that we should have left Iraq alone and let them continue defying the UN Security Council Resolutions that had been put in place from the begging of the cease-fire in the spring of '91 through to late 2002, just before we resumed combat operations. After all, we were sending the wrong kinds of peaceful messages during this time frame. In fact, maybe we should not have interfered in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the first time around -- because, well, you know, that's their business and let me just stay here, in America, and champion social justice cause for human rights issues at the nearest university with my cup of Starbucks.


30 posted on 02/16/2007 4:15:01 AM PST by LowCountryJoe (I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Dear Lee Harris,
Did America over-react?
Are you complete nuts?
What if I walked up to you with a Loiusville Slugger and belted you in the teeth?
Would you be pissed? Would you have any teeth left?
You you want to come after me?
Of course you would you moron.
9/11 was an unprovoked and surprise attack on the United States. It have to be met with retaliation.
We can't rest until every terrorist in the world is DEAD!


31 posted on 02/16/2007 4:16:55 AM PST by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The author sums up my sentiments in the last paragraph. Or as my wife likes to say, "Why can't we just bomb them all?"

Had we reacted to the Iranian hostage taking outrage more forcefully and brutally there would have been no 9/11.


32 posted on 02/16/2007 4:19:14 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (When I search out the massed wheeling circles of the stars, my feet no longer touch the earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

DAVID A. BELL
ANDREW W. MELLON PROFESSOR IN THE HUMANITIES
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Curriculum Vitae (updated May, 2006)
Department of History phone: 410-516-7578
The Johns Hopkins University fax: 410-516-7586
3400 North Charles Street e-mail: dabell@jhu.edu
Baltimore, MD 21218 web page: www.davidbell.net
EMPLOYMENT
Johns Hopkins University, Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities (2005- ).
Johns Hopkins University. Professor of History (2000-5).
École Normale Supérieure (Paris), Visiting Professor (March, 2005).
Johns Hopkins University. Associate Professor of History (1996-2000).
Yale University. Assistant Professor of History (1991-96).
Yale University. Lecturer in History (1990-91).
The New Republic (Washington, DC). Magazine reporter (1984-85).
EDUCATION
Princeton University. Ph.D. in History, 1991. Thesis advisor: Prof. Robert Darnton.
Thesis title: "Lawyers and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Paris (1700-1790)."
Princeton University. M.A. in History, 1987, with grade of "distinction" on general
examinations.
Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris). Foreign auditor in History (1983-84).
Harvard University. A.B. in History and Literature, 1983, magna cum laude. Phi Beta
Kappa.

If you do a little research you will find that Bell's main study has been France. It's no wonder he's arguing for capitulation.


33 posted on 02/16/2007 4:33:27 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Did America over react? Lets go with the short answer. No!!

Did America show a measured, even response? Lets go with the short answer. Yes!!

34 posted on 02/16/2007 4:35:34 AM PST by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; Valin; King Prout; SJackson; dennisw; ...
Lee Harris:

...One may well die fighting or perish by fleeing; yet both responses are far more conducive to survival than waiting for a professor to put the attack into "historical perspective" four years after it occurred. It may be true that others have suffered even more outrageous attacks than the one you have suffered. But what's that to you? The only attack that concerns you is the attack that you must immediately defend yourself against. You must respond now, or never.

...Is this irrational? To professors ensconced in the comfort of a university no doubt, but not to those who have to exist in a dog-eat-dog world.

...If any group wishes to preserve its dignity and autonomy, there will be times when it is forced to act like the inmate defending his candy bar. In terms of a cost analysis, this kind of "overreaction" will seem utterly irrational. Is the candy bar really worth risking your life over? But to you, the refusal to take this risk involves a loss that cannot be measured by statistics - namely, the loss of your status as an independent moral agent that others will be careful not to push around or walk over.

...It is far too early to be invoking the august judgment of history on America's response to 9/11; it may well turn out that the USA, instead of overreacting, failed to react strongly and forcefully enough. 9/11 as an act of unprovoked aggression is without parallel, and those who celebrated it throughout the Muslim world did so with complete impunity. In the eyes of our enemy, our failure to respond immediately and indiscriminately to the attack has not been chalked up to our humanitarian zeal, but to our weakness. Like the inmate who hands over his candy bar without protest, those who were watching us for our reaction to 9/11 may be drawing conclusions about us that we did not intend to convey to them, and that are not in our long-term interests.


If you are not familiar with Lee Harris, take a time to read some of his classics -- the following articles are the reason why I started paying attention to what Lee Harris says. I am sure you will find these articles interesting :

Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology By Lee Harris (FR post)   "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," (original)

The Clausewitz Curse (FR post)             The Clausewitz Curse (original)
Given our uncertainty, what alternative does this, or any, administration have? 

 Our World-Historical Gamble  (FR post)           Our World-Historical Gamble (original)
The collapse of the liberal order and the end of classical sovereignty.

 The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing  http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html

America-bashing has sadly come to be “the opium of the intellectual,” to use the phrase Raymond Aron borrowed from Marx in order to characterize those who followed the latter into the twentieth century. And like opium it produces vivid and fantastic dreams.

His book:   Civilization and Its Enemies : The Next Stage of History

Lee Harris: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-leeharris/browse  His articles at the TechCentralStation are archived here: http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=218


Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

35 posted on 02/16/2007 5:56:52 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The title of the piece is "Putting 9/11 into perspective," and its by-line reads: "The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting."

This guy is a moron! Or does he simply believe that the problem with Islamofacism has been solved, and we are now more safe than we were before 9/11? In fact, IMO the world is a much more dangerous place, as our very existence as a part of western society is being threatened. This is so because we have failed to react with the force necessary. Our failure to use our technology to achieve a decisive victory is the real problem.

36 posted on 02/16/2007 6:13:04 AM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What a stupid question!


37 posted on 02/16/2007 6:22:42 AM PST by Cymbaline (I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stres)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It was the biggest underreaction in the History Of Civilization and continues to be so at our own peril.


38 posted on 02/16/2007 6:25:34 AM PST by word_warrior_bob (You can now see my amazing doggie and new puppy on my homepage!! Come say hello to Jake & Sonny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tina07
More like, that half of the country you're talking about certainly did overreact. They overreacted with their knee jerk blame America first.
39 posted on 02/16/2007 6:27:19 AM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

You surely mean prof Bell and not Lee Harris who says that if anything we did not react enough.

Please re-read.


40 posted on 02/16/2007 6:37:36 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The crying shame of it is if you were to treat anyone promoting Bell's thesis as they deserve to be treated it would most definitely be considered "over reaction," and punishable by law.


41 posted on 02/16/2007 6:38:51 AM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Simply put, Bell's argument goes as follows: There have been wars in the past, global wars, in which millions have died: 50 million, for example, in the Second World War. On the other hand, if you compute the number of Americans who died on 9/11, and "even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism," this yields only 6,500 dead Americans. Then, as a way of putting this figure into perspective, Bell says that "we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in car accidents."

I wonder if the good Dr Bell considers this a bad thing that (so far) America has "only" lost 6,500 people?

Can you imagine the outrage if Ameica was taking the number if casualties we did in WWII?

America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846

(Do the math)


42 posted on 02/16/2007 6:47:53 AM PST by Valin (History takes time. It is not an instant thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

You might try reading the WHOLE article, before commenting. I know this is a radical idea, but give it a shot..you might be suprised.


43 posted on 02/16/2007 6:51:17 AM PST by Valin (History takes time. It is not an instant thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cymbaline

Unfortunately it is the belief of one major American party, huge part of American population and probably majority of all the world. So, this stupidity does require a proper response - a counterargument in this info-war we are in. Lee Harris supplies good ammunition here.


44 posted on 02/16/2007 7:00:04 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
No. We under-reacted. We needed large, radioactive craters to get the message across about the consequences of attacking us and we failed to do so. Kabul and Kandahar in Afghanistan were really, really good candidates, too.
45 posted on 02/16/2007 7:02:23 AM PST by Little Ray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FLOutdoorsman

The last paragraph is the opinion of the author of the article, not the professor.


46 posted on 02/16/2007 7:03:31 AM PST by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Valin
You might try reading the WHOLE article, before commenting

Or at least get past the headline.

47 posted on 02/16/2007 7:10:32 AM PST by murdoog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
Agree.
On occasion I've read that Russian reaction to seizing of one of their Embassy's...as we were humiliated with in Tehran, would have been an ultimatum...withdraw in a reasonable or sooner time or we'll level your Capitol.

Same goes for whomever was responsible for the Beirut bombing in '83. Hez? News came across as we were coming home from Mass.

12th General Order for MSG..."Walk My Post From Flank To Flank and Take No S**T From Any Rank"
48 posted on 02/16/2007 7:24:09 AM PST by Gunny P (Gunny P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
Agree.
On occasion I've read that Russian reaction to seizing of one of their Embassy's...as we were humiliated with in Tehran, would have been an ultimatum...withdraw in a reasonable or sooner time or we'll level your Capitol.

Same goes for whomever was responsible for the Beirut bombing in '83. Hez? News came across as we were coming home from Mass.

12th General Order for MSG..."Walk My Post From Flank To Flank and Take No S**T From Any Rank"
49 posted on 02/16/2007 7:24:39 AM PST by Gunny P (Gunny P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky
No, Professor Bell, had we "overreacted", a large portion of the ME would be one large glass parking lot right about now, and people might actually be able to park there in a few hundred years.

Yes, that would have been an overreaction. IMHO one mushroom over where Kabul had been if the Taleban hadn't surrendered Ol' Slimey Ben Rotten within 72 hours would have been a measured reprisal, and would have saved lives on both sides.

50 posted on 02/16/2007 7:40:40 AM PST by magslinger (Ask Dad. He'll know. And on the off chance he doesn't, he'll make up something good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson