Time man of the year

[Vagabond]

But I want the award!

[Guest Wilhuf]

Yes, Bin Laden is a man, of flesh and bone, just like anyone else. I think the basic disagreement here is whether or not a 'Man of the Year' should have a positive effect on the rest of the world. This really isn't much of a controversy, seeing how, as was said numerous times, the Time 'Man of the Year' has not always brought about positive change to the world.

 

It has been suggested that Al Qaida's terror prompts an evaluation of what could have provoked such deeds. I seriously question the extent to which Al Qaida's actions have helped the world 'evaluate itself', and change itself for 'the better.'

 

Let's be clear on a few things: Al Qaida and Taliban were not born of 'the repressed.' Rather, they prey on 'the repressed.' Al Qaida was created by an extremely wealthy Saudi construction magnate (Bin Laden). Taliban are essentially a creation of the Pakistani government and fanatic opportunists. Some of the Al Qaida suspects who led the terror cells had college degrees, enjoyed jobs, and were married with children, enjoying fairly domestic lives in the US and Germany. Hardly the stuff of a 'hard luck story.'

 

Both Al Qaida and Taliban manipulate the poor and uneducated for their own ends, which primarily consists of killing Americans for the sake of killing Americans. Sadly, it appears that part of our 're-evaluation' now must be an assessment of how trusting of each other we really should be.

 

If anything, Al Qaida's terror has simply reaffirmed that established, organized military force is an effective means of imposing change, and that terror is not. I doubt Al Qaida's deeds will have permanent effect. Someday there will be new towers over lower Manhattan, and the Pentagon repaired. Al Qaida will be extinct.

 

The real positive changes brought to Afghanistan will have been implemented not by Al Qaida or Taliban, but by the US, the international coalition, and the future government and people of Afghanistan.

 

It's clear that selecting Bin Laden as Man of the Year will complete the primary objective the award was designed for: to generate controversy.

 

Controversy is a form of publicity, and as they say in the biz, any publicity is good publicity. It is interesting that terrorism itself is based on this concept. Although terror rarely leads to positive outcomes, as Al Qaeda are now coming to understand at Tora Bora.

 

Personally I would have picked Condoleeza Rice, the US National Security Adviser as 'Person of the Year,' not only because of her background, but certainly because of her role as a leader of national and international security during this conflict.

[OnlyOneCanoli]

Well, MJ got his wish. Rudy Giuliani named TIME's 2001 Person of the Year.

 

I really don't agree with their choice if it was selected in the traditional manner. But I'm not going to restart that debate.

[bsbuckeye21]

On the good side of the battle, and dealing with Prostate cancer. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

 

Personally, I think Bush was more involved and did more this year. But oh wait - he beat tubby beard boy out of office.

 

And I'm with Canoli about who should be man of the year, but then every narrow-minded American will boycott Time for it. And this doesn't make anyone any more or less patriotic, either.

[matt--]

They were also considering the citizens of New York as the People of the Year.

[Vagabond]

Oddly, I think another underrated candiate for Person of the Year, is Jim Jeffords, the Republican who defected to become an Independent. The subtle changes resulting from his leaving the Republican party, and the re-alignment of power in the Senate, will likely have far more reaching effects on our daily lives than anything Rudy has done this year. Essentially, every debate that occurs in the Senate that presents an obstacle to Dubya's agenda is a direct result of Jim Jeffords.

[Wilhuf]

I nominate the manual punchcard voting machine as machine of the year 2000!

[Morpheus4873]

IMO Osama Bin Laden should have gotten the award. He is the man that had the most impact on the world this year, not the mayor of NY. Please also keep in mind that we are not looking on how much good or bad the person did, but how much impact it had on the world.

 

Too bad that TIME magazine gave into the preasure of the american public. IF they did not want to pick Bin Laden because of fear of public backlash, then they should have not picked anybody this year instead of picking somebody that the people will be happy with.

[Mafia_Jabba]

So don't say they backed down from pressure or anything. Do you know the circumstances? No. ok...

 

Juliani saved lives and was great under pressure, and in my opinion deserves it above all. Bush could have also recieved it for ACTING upon the tradegy and not letting it go, for mobilizing the largest investigation ever and having the most affect, more so than Bin Laden on international political standpoints. Juliani became an icon for brave leaders and I believe it was a good choice.

 

And I'm with Canoli about who should be man of the year, but then every narrow-minded American will boycott it

 

 

At least we have the ability to boycott, at least we will not be persecuted for such, and at least we are free to make the attempt.

 

And I believe everyone on this planet should be happy that the strongest military force fell into the right hands. A country of justice, peace, and liberty. Imagine if another country, such as afghanistan for instance would have such, or the early 20th century germany, or another. Thank god my friends, thank god.

[Darth_Lando]

Time Magazines meaning behind 'Man of the Year' can definitly fit Bin Laden.

 

However the wording of the title brings profane thoughts to my head. I can even see some toothless dusty crazed killers dancing in their caves holding up Time magazines cover with Bin Laden and cheering he is "Man of the Year".

 

This is the problem people are having with Time magazines choice. People using the same vocabulary but different dicitonary.

 

Perhaps Time could change their wording of 'Man of the Year' to something that doesn't trigger a gag reflex when people like Bin Laden make the cover to stare at us while we are standing in line at the grocery store.

 

After all, if you aren't muslim he wants you dead. Even if you are muslim on his side or not you still can die cuz in jihad it is permitable to kill Muslims. But now I am getting off topic.

 

And I understand it is just my opinion cuz there are people who like what Bin Laden stands for and what he has done. There are people who smile when innocent civilians are killed. There are people who think the people in the WTC had it coming to them because they were American. And they weren't American they were from all over the world. But why waste time preaching to people who smile or rationalize the shedding of innocent blood? They are already on a different path going in an opposite direction from most of us.

[wardz]

so I think we can conclude that we dont like Bin Laden at all and that it is just the ambiguous (sp) wording of "Time Man Of The Year."

 

You can be man of the year and still not be liked, its the impact you made... lets leave it at that.

 

 

 

wardz

[Mafia_Jabba]

ok...I will...