Jim

I saw the movie today and am still shaky from it. I've long believed that movies which portray actual historical events faithfully, without embelishment and without a political axe to grind make potent cinema. With United 93 there is no attempt to understand causes yet the movie treats all of the people as flesh and blood. For those that have seen the movie, what did you take away from the experience? Beyond the emotional wreck it made of me, hours later, I draw the following lessons: 1. We do live in a different world post 9/11. Now connections would be made instantly but at the time they were hard to draw even after one plane had hit the WTC. There wasn't even an ironclad method of protecting the nation's capital. There is no going back to the pre-9/11 mind set. 2. Victor Hanson's central thesis is correct. Hanson argues that Western citizen soldiers have dominated non-western military forces for reasons of culture - citizen soldiers, able to dissent, use initiative and subject to audit after the conclusion of a battle, are far more effective than conscripts, unable to bring new ideas to their leaders, use initiative and whose leaders are immune to consequences of failure. On United 93, ordinary men and women were faced with a surprise bloody assault by a group of men who had been trained for years to complete this one job. By the time the passengers could even begin to think of a response, the pilots were dead as was a stewardess and another passenger. The terrorists were locked in the cockpit and lowered the plan to a very low flight path and another terrorist had a very realistic looking fake bomb strapped around his stomach with the trigger in his upraised hand. The strengths of western culture Hanson describes became apparent. Leaders emerged, information was gathered, possibilities were discussed, and a decision was made. Weapons were gathered and even a pilot was found. I do not know how much of all of this is known for certain, but they even fashioned siege engine of sorts out of a serving cart to break down the cockpit door. We do know that they made it into the cockpit and could have succeeded. These were not larger than life heroes but were ordinary Americans from a tradition of freedom, dissent and individual action. 3. True believers are dangerous but not superior. When you see what the terrorists had to go through to make this happen, walk through the security at an air port, sit down with the people at the gate before entering that narrow air plane. All of the planning and training and, bluntly, courage, not to produce something productive but to destroy symbols and lives of their enemy. It would be a huge mistake to doubt the sincerity of their intent. On United 93, fanatic zealotry was confronted by free men and women taken entirely by surprise and with little military training. Ambrose pointed out that Hitler made the same mistake in believing the spoiled sons of democracy would fold before his fanatics trained from birth. I'm sure I'll think of more. It was a remarkable movie which I doubt I will ever see again. Once is enough.

A couple of interesting aspects of this thread: 1. Al Queda is often viewed as coldly rational in its calculations whereas Pres. Bush is often viewed as a bumbler. Al Queda only does what is "necessary;" whereas Bush takes irrational actions (e.g. infringing freedoms and taking huge political risks for no good reason). 2. Very few (okay, 1, to be exact) wants to consider the possibility that the NSA may have done some good in the war on terror.

These are all valid points; however, the motivation to do something, anything, would escalate when this group started taking very real hits. As far as their capabilities, it is possible that because of 9/11 we overestimate their abilities. It is certainly impossible today to imagine flight instructors not catching these guys, frankly, due to a bit of implicit profiling. I also think that the NSA program may have played a factor. If Al Queda was not aware of the program, we may have learned important information. If Al Queda was aware and stopped using modern communication, that would have an impact. Every organization today knows the value of cell phones and email in coordinating initiatives and if we reduced Al Queda to 1940s communications, that was a success. Buttressing this point was Pangloss' story about Osama's missive taking 19 days to deliver. Hard to see it taking so long if they were using modern communication technology....

"At all" is a bit strong. 9/11 could have been terrorism's 4-Minute mile. Once a barrier is broken and the entire world is shown what is possible, that barrier is often repeatedly broken again and again. Where something has been physically possible for a long time and then one person or group achieves that thing, it can become common place. I suppose they would say they are doing God's will.

Five years is an eternity if you are worried about a cruise missile coming down your chimney. I have to think that if they could have, they would have. They would be particularly keen to strike during Bush's watch. No one has answered my questing as to why they can't get into Mexico, penetrate the border with a bit of explosives and take out a soft but symbolic target (e.g. high school football game, middle American court house, etc.) It is hard for some to accept, but it is entirely possible that much has been done quietly right in the war on terror. That is a fair question but the "real" test is in results. It just strikes me as odd that Bush gets no credit for having kept US soil terror free for almost five years. I also think it is plausible that there would be a connection between the most sophisticated electronic monitoring program in the history of the species and this result. Condi does a pretty good job in this department. Europe simply did not like Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Of course, if he had not, we'd still be dithering with Saddam as he worked towards a renewed WMD capability, paid families of terrorists, sucked down oil for food profits to fund his efforts and maybe threw in another high level assassination attempt into the bargain. Libya might have nukes but, hey, facts never get in the way of a good case of group think.

Thoughts? Aside from the legal issues, I think they should let him go. I wore a crushed velvet multicolor tux in 1977 and had hair past my shoulders, so I could never criticize anyone for wearing something tasteless to a prom.

Not me so much as the rest of the country.

I don't know the history and agree it would bear research. My point is that with oversees immigration we always had the ability to shut off the valve. If we did not seek to control entry, that was a choice caused by our desire to fill sparsely populated areas. Maybe that's what we have been doing these last five years. Illegal immigration has increased by 25% yet business and politicians have had the ability to shut this down, with a wall, employer sanctions, etc. As a nation, we've allowed millions, including children, to come into this country with shadowy legal rights. This is the best argument I have heard for amnesty - Americans have and are permitting this to happen knowing that families will move here and put down roots. When they finally have had enough, and they will some day, we suddenly remember that they are illegal.

This is a good point but my question was raised by the US immigration debate. If it is so easy for 11-20 million people to get and stay here on an undocumented basis, why are we not being hit here in America? As we strike at them, I'm certain they want to hit us and, frankly, it wouldn't be that hard to take out a soft yet symbolic target. Certainly the spectacular attacks of 9/11 may have taxed their resources. I'm not so certain it explains complete inactivity. I won't give possible ideas as to what they could have done but its not that hard to imagine spectacular acts of violence which do not require the coordinated hijacking of four commercial airliners. Certainly, Afghanistan, has something to do with our good fortune thus far. I also think the policy announced immediately after 9/11 has helped, i.e. that the US would not distinguish between terrorists and the nations that give them sanctuary. I'm also wonder if the NSA program contributed. Yes, but they obviously still want to attack the US, particularly now. Unless they do not believe they can move agents into Mexico without our knowing, it wouldn't be that hard to come in through Mexico with a few explosives and then hit a soft, symbolic target. Doesn't this suggest that they may have gone low tech, at least to an extent of no one in the chain risking email of the video file, to avoid NSA monitoring?

No idea, really. It's been almost five years....

The immigration thread has me wondering why we have not been hit again. We have, by various accounts, 11-20MM undocumented people in this country. It isn't that hard to get in and it isn't that hard to stay here. I can see why terrorists have not been able to hijack plans but, let's face it, it's not that hard to think of scenarios where a few suicide bombers could make a very public statement. My theories are: 1. We have disrupted Al Queda at least to the degree that they haven't been able to implement a "Black Sunday" kind of scenario; 2. Al Queda doesn't want to start with what it considers small time acts, the stray bombers and less significant american events; and, 3. The NSA and other programs work. We are coming up on the five year anniversary of this event and I think we have to accept that there is some cause for our good fortune other than their good intentions.

My Country, right or wrong! J/k

As I think one of my posts stated, I've read between 14-20MM. Even at 14MM that was a 25% increase in five years, as I recall. The conservatism I was mentioning was bringing in relatives on a 1:1 basis. I do not see why it would be so limited. Right now it is a bit of a journey and I bet many families are not brought along. It is a stinging indictment of current policy that the number could be off by 9 million people.

With respect to prior immigration laws, the country did make a decision not to have quotas in the 1800s because we needed people to settle the frontier. However, we had complete control over oversees immigrants coming through Ellis Island. Only in three states, two of them being North & South Dakota, was the majority of the geographic area > 15%. If the 20 million number of current illegals is correct, that is 6.8% of the total US population of 295 million being comprised of illegal aliens. If we grant amnesty and the relatives who get in under US immigration law is even a 1:1 deal, we would be looking at 12.7% of the total population having been caused by illegal immigration. Obviously, this is going to be distributed heavily in certain areas and the distribution will be very different than what we had in 1870 from Irish Americans. This is only looking at the immediate and conservative impact of amnesty. Other numbers have been used which, to me, sound reasonable. I would think that these 14-20 million would, on average, want to bring in relatives on more than a 1:1 basis. Because Mexico is contiguous, there is a far easier movement of people than there ever was in previous American history. FWIW, I have no problem with 15% or 20% of our work force coming from legal immigration in a generation BUT (i) I want us as a country we have made the decision that we need these workers and invite them to come; (ii) I want control over who comes in for security purposes and (iii) I want the immigrants drawn from diverse backgrounds so that no one foreign country immediately influences American politics. I wouldn't want Denmark to have a quick 10% of the US population.

Great. I'm not a racist but my argument has "racist connotations." Okay, I'll settle for that small dirty bone and declare peace. You're still not listening. You are imputing the worst possible motives for my point instead of accepting the motivations I've given. There is no questions that Irish Americans are first and foremost, Americans. They came to this Country legally, applied for and received citizenship and, although they retain their ethnic identity, there is no question as to their primary allegiance. When they came to the "New World," there was no going back. Illegal immigrants, by definition, have not pledged allegiance to this Country. (I know that drives you nuts; sorry, I can't help myself now). Some of them might and others might not. Once legal, they will be able to go back and forth easily and inexpensively to their country of origin. This is something new. I have repeatedly said that we can talk about assimilation but what we are really talking about is whether any immigrant group, particularly illegals, owe a first allegiance to this C.... er... America. (Is that better?) When I see them waiving flags or naming a team, "Team Mexico" it raises a question that is not raised in your analogies. I admit this is anecdotal but I have a view of the change that is occurring that you do not. Let's be blunt about my concern: What happens when the majority of Texas, Oklahoma and other Southwestern states are controlled by first or second generation Mexicans and S. Americans? I gave you the percentages for Irish Americans in 1870 and nothing allowed then approached the levels that we could be facing with amnesty and then an influx of relatives. There are several concerns not raised by other examples: 1. America's melting pot has worked. It doesn't dissolve diverse cultures but it does value diversity. In large sections of the country we are not talking about importing diversity but creating a new majority. 2. America's culture, for whatever reason, has succeeded militarily and economically whereas Mexico's has not. Culture does matter which, again, argues for mixing in new immigrants in controlled numbers, not a wholesale substitution. 3. When entire sections of America are controlled by first and second generation newly legal immigrants, our ability to control future influxes will be destroyed. Politicians are already pandering to the new voters. When, not if, this occurs, the question of the primary allegiance of the new majority is not trivial. 4. As I said above, these immigrants will be able to go back easily to their native country. How do we know that they will put America first and foremost? Sure, prior immigrant groups favor their native country but there are going to be many huge issues with Mexico - primarily being an ability to limit future immigration. I hope you will note that none of these arguments has jack to do with with race. The most suspect would be the cultural argument but the only two books I've read on why western culture has succeeded do not have have racial explanations (J. Diamond & V. Hansen). Yes, but this isn't what I did. I wasn't questioning their intelligence, capabilities, ethics, willingness to work, lawful vrs criminal nature (except as it pertains to our immigration laws), morals, or anything else that typically has "racist connotations." I am questioning (and here i really mean questioning, not judging) their primary allegience. If they break the law to come, wave Mexican flags, refuse to speak the language to an extent that no legal immigrant group has heretofore (ever heard, press 1, for Vietnamese?), what non-racist measure do I use? For that matter, why should illegal aliens have primary alleigence to America? It is an important question and shouldn't not be deflected by playing the race card. Yes, raising the race issue can make us all more "careful with our evidence." I'm not sure that is a good thing, necessarily, if you want candid discussion.

The phrase "looks racist" is a dodge. Have the guts to say you think I am a racist, if that is what you are implying, or don't say anything at all. You say I "look racist" while ignoring every substantive point that I make regarding the difference between this wave of ILLEGAL immigration and the legal immigration of the past. The primary point I made - listen real close now, this isn't that hard - is that this wave is out of control. This group comes from a contiguous country and has gained almost insurmountable political power and, if we are going to put some limits as we have with EVERY other immigrant group in the past, the time to do so is now. Care to discuss the substance of what I said? Thought not. The only apt analogy you make is to that of the Confederate flag. It really is funny but you don't even realize you supported my point. It is an offensive symbol and I, for one, would never wave such a flag after some 600,000 lives were lost to make this one Nation - The United States of America. It harkens back to a time when America was divided. [if I was of your ilk, I would accuse you of being a confederate flag waiver and "looking like" you support slavery.] Playing the race card makes this issue untouchable and, if thinking people ever came to accept such lazy reflexive slander, loses control of our border. Of course, if that is what you want to do, fine. It's cynical and destructive and requires no thought but it just may work. You have no idea what is going on in the Southwest yet you make bald claims such as "almost all of these people want to become Americans." I have no idea if this is true and have repeatedly said that I only provide anecdotal evidence because I do not know of any scientific surveys. What is your evidence? If I Want to Capitalize Every Word I Ever Type For the Rest of My Friggen Life, You Are Just Going To Have To Live With It. Work On Your Reasoning Skills Before You Talk To Me About My Punctuation Habits.

Previous waves were at times driven by limited discreet events (e.g. potato famine, Vietnamese war). In all cases, because the countries of origin was separated by an ocean, the connection to that country was severed although the culture remains. The United States determined kit needed the immigrants and determined to let them come in. Neither of us was alive back in those days but, I suspect, having crossed the ocean the entire notion was to become Americans. Irish Americans, etc, but Americans. There was a commitment to this country not a foreign power. None of these waves threatened to become political self-sustaining. None were illegal. As I've posted before, the Irish were motivated by the potato famine and per the 1850 census almost a million US citizens had been born in Ireland. At the peak of the immigration in 1870, as you can see, in most areas of the country, the percentage of Irish was in single digits. With the lessening of immigration, the Country could then go about assimilating this culture into the "melting pot." When I see the Mexican flags waved, soccer teams named Team Mexico with the Mexican national colors, I have to wonder whether the objective is to join this Country or to simply benefit economically while retaining allegience to a foreign power. This issue is hardly discussed because to do so (i) alienates a growing swing political block and (ii) risks looking racist. If the United States does not act soon, then it will have lost the moral authority to remove them later. You can't live off of illegals for years and keep them second class citizens, denying their families the right to come to the country. Maybe we are to that point already but it's been a growing source of frustration and I'm at least glad the issue is finally being openly discussed If we do not make the rules clear and enforce them vigorously, be prepared to accept the full 14-20MM illegals plus their families. We are talking about a future fundamentally different from the legal immigration of previous generations. I wouldn't be as concerned if there was a realistic chance of halting the flow and giving the Country a chance to integrate these illegals lawfully into the country. I fear, however, that we are reaching an irreversible critical mass .

The problem is that Mexico is a continguous country and there is not nearly the pressure to assimulate or to, like Cortez, burn their ships when they come to the New World. It's hard to ahve an objective measure of assimiliation but living in Oklahoma, I'm not sensing an immediate need to assimilate. What I'm seeing is this group flexing its power waving mexican flags, calling their soccer team, "Team Mexico" and wearing the national colors of Mexico. Sure this is anecdotal but how do you measure this issue?