Wondering about true American character

[grampster]

Lately, I've been wondering about what Americans really believe....what they really stand for...or against. Or have we become so "Balkanized" with our political correctness and laisez faire attitudes that we actually do not stand united as Americans anymore? I guess the last presidential election prompted this process of thought when I was looking at the red/blue map and how close it was and the demographics that were apparent. It seems the debate since than, presented by our "leaders" and as reported by the media is that Americans are divided and getting further apart. Rather than being united and disagreeing about certain things, we are actually becoming polarized. There is a difference. Is this the true meaning of "diversity" that is so widely requested that we "celebrate"? Have we become so diverse that we don't stand for any one thing anymore?

The above information coupled with the fact that only about (in presidential elections) half of the eligible voters actually do so, how would Americans act or what would we demand if another terrorist strike would happen?
9-11 was an event that staggered ones ability to grasp it. Since then, it appears we have shunted this monumental affront to our sovereignty and security aside. We listen to politicians trivialize that act by accepting dialogue from the opposition party that seemingly treads near the line that gives aid and comfort to the enemy by demonizing the present administration and our response to being attacked by picking nits on who the enemy really is.

So, I guess my question to you, my fellow THR denizens: What do you think the public outcry would be if in the next few weeks or months, the Islamo/Fascists touched off another event that supercedes 9-11.

Would our country then stand united and wholeheartedly support stamping out terrorist cells wherever they may be? Or.....would we turn tail and run....withdraw and seal ourselves up inside our borders and flinch at every shadow while wringing our hands. Or is there another option?
Would the American people actually throw out of office the administration that seemingly has drawn a line in the sand with respect to our response or reaction to terrorism, because we got attacked again? I wonder..........

I'm interested in your thoughts. As a gun related aside, would Americans begin to re embrace our culture of firearms or would there be another round of blame the inanimate object?

grampster

 

[Apple a Day]

IMHO the pundits will have a field day. It will all get spun whichever way the network whom is being watched will want it go get spun.
The Democrats will shriek that Bush isn't getting the job done. Clark may become the dem frontrunner.
The Bush gov. will deign itself more power, to protect us, it will insist.
In middle America people will buy more guns and ammo. If the attack is carried out on foot then stores will be emptied.
In the Peoples' Republics, politicians will push through more restrictions... once again for the protection of the peons and mostly from the deprivation of their existing, longstanding state governments.
I can't help but feel that if some religionut were to walk into a Starbuck's in L.A. and light off a dirty bomb that some folks, for whom this has been nearly a completely theoretical exercise, would start to wonder about where they stand. In a way, I am praying that no one hits Hollywood because they would spend the better part of a year milking it for ratings and merchandising to an extreme even Tupac Shakur's handlers never dreamed of.
Ignore me, I rant sometimes.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Interesting question. I believe the US has become far too political correct. The current mentality is that we must not say or do anything that may, however remote, offend the sensitivities of some person, group, race, country, etc. (excluding firearms, the NRA, Christianity and the Republican party, of course). We can't even use common sense and scrutinize young arab men boarding airliners more than we do 60 year old grandmothers. So granny gets strip searched and the people that meet the profile of every terrorist crashing planes on 9/11 gets waved through security because we might offend them if we look too closesly.

In regards to terrorist attacks, I believe the average American has too short an attention span. Following 9/11, there was a massive closing of the ranks by Americans. Gone were the Whites, African-Americans, Native Americans, etc. We all became Americans and patriotism was back in style. The only people that had anything negative to say were the far left journalists like Dan Rather that couldn't bring themselves to wear an American Flag lapel pin.

Gradually, the different groups started drifting away. We have now reached a point where even the democratic presidential contenders are claiming their vote to go after the terrorists and nations that support them didn't really mean we should use violence to go after them. The democratic front runner is basing his whole campaign on the fact he voted against going to war.

Another attack, especially one with more casualties, would again bring everyone together with the goal of getting the persons that caused it. The only catch is they'd better get them fast or we'll just be back to arguing among ourselves again, blaming the government for not preventing the attacks and blaming the government for invading our privacy by trying to gather information to prevent the attacks.

 

[spartacus2002]

Bin Laden's plan is for the US govt to become so much like a police state that the US citizens semi-revolt, and demand we quit sticking our nose into the Arabs' business.

If things get any more oppressive here at home, I expect to see some kind of soft revolution as people realize (a) there is a difference between loving your country and trusting your government, and (b) they're mad as hell and they aren't gonna take it any more.

I mean, how in the hell can you tell 8 million foreigners taking jobs from American here in the US "we'd rather you have the job than unemployed Americans" and THEN in the same week say "we're gonna spend BILLIONS to go back to the moon."

 

[critter]

Of course, the general public is too PC and wimpy to stand up like the USA used to.

There is only one way to win ANY war and that is to use everything we have with no holds barred and NOTHING off limits and POUND the enemy to pieces till they come on OUR ship and sign an UNCONDITIONAL surrender like they had to in WWII.

The PC's, wimps and bleeding hearts have politically precluded us winning ANY war since then and that mentality will probably continue indefinitely. It is a sad state of affairs.

 

[Maimaktes]

Well, it's one thing for the govenment to wage war on the sort of people who actually attacked us on September 11, and who still menace us -- the real, live whirling wahoobies and jumpin' Jihadists who have declared a holy war on us.

It's quite *another* thing for the government to declare war on the *American people* at large and upon their rights, under the *guise* of a "war" on *very* broadly and vaguely defined "terrorism," and to treat every *American* who is not some sort of armed government employee as a "potential terrorist."

That's when you get things like the disgraceful January 11, 2002 airport detention of the octogenarian WWII flying ace and Congressional Medal of Honor winner, General Joe Foss. The newly "professionalized" TSA airport security goons, who knew no more American history than they knew of the English language, were going to confiscate General Foss's Congressional Medal of Honor because it had some sharp corners on it. They thought it was some sort of "Ninja throwing star" or something, and that the 87-year-old war hero was going to hijack the plane with it. General Foss has since mercifully "gone west" (passed away) before having to live to see how much *worse* it has gotten, and how much farther down the road toward the sort of tyranny and police state barbarism he fought against that we have since descended.

Maimaktes

 

[BowStreetRunner]

"Get down! That 87 year old has a medal!"
I never quite understood how any non-insectoid being could consider a medal of honor a weapon

 

[Fred Thompson]

Bowstreet,

It was that the TSA employee had no idea of what the C.M. H. was and

what it stands for. He(?) just knew by watching all those ninja (snicker)

cartoons that it HAD to be on of those deadly throwing stars that can

travel thru tree trunks.

He needs a long lesson on the medal and the sacrifices it requires.

 

[Oleg Volk]

TSA things I've observed ranged from "bored on the job" to "respect my petty authority" types. The lot of them ought to kill hemselves out of embarrassement, but they aren't decent enough to do us that favor.

 

[Art Eatman]

My take is that the majority of our population has the same character as in the past. It is only a relative few in key positions who advocate "national wimpiness". People who have gone into the media, into the NEA, into politics in general. These people are of course skilled in the use of words to sway public opinion insofar as voting in elections, which is why we wind up with the sorts of sleazoids who infest our legislatures and the Congress.

Insofar as an ever-lower percentage in the turnout of eligible voters, various studies have shown a growing attitude that their votes wouldn't matter; wouldn't affect the issue of "evil" vs. "lesser evil".

Art