September 11th - International/Domestic - Five years later
Okay. Time to repost the Topic of the Week.
Since it has been 5 years since the attacks on September 11th, 2001, what do you think has changed the most since then? Is there more that you feel should change? What action of President Bush has had the most impact post 9/11? Discuss.
Jesus, I feel like a geezer now.
I think that the lasting impression that Sept. 11, 2001 & Bush have had (together) is to prove that it's true that if you scare people enough they'll do anything you want. (Some Third Reich marshall or something said that- if you know the quote, could you help me out?)
We are afraid, and we're fighting a war because of it, but we have no reason to be so freaked.
If we burn her, she gets stuffed in the flames, crackle crackle crackle, which is a bit of a surprise if she's not quite dead. "I don't know what state you're from, but fornicating in the prep room is not protocol in California."
Killing nearly 3000 people in a vicious, methodical, deliberate, hate-filled attack that turned our own means of transportation and work into weapons...we have no reason to be freaked???????????????????? and one more for good measure?Originally Posted by CaptainBee
I think we have every reason to be freaked. Tell me, what SHOULD we have done if freaking wasn't the right path.
Should we have sat on our couches watching the buildings fall and simply think, "Well, those sort of things are bound to happen. Now, the real problem is I still don't know what to make for dinner."
I can still remember lying on my couch at home watching hour after hour of that horrible footage until finally, they played the video of the second plane hitting the south tower again and I broke down sobbing. It was the most gut wrenching sob of my life. I couldn't stop for hours. If you did not at least have some reaction at all, some "Freak out" you have no heart. And I have no problem saying that.
Please tell me that this is a simple miscommunication, because anyone who can say that we have no reason to freak out after that clearly does not remember 9/11, or has simply been made so cold as to make 9/11 a political "Phrase" instead of letting it live as the date of one of the most horrific dates in American History.
Nick Fox
PS: Yes, my grammar sucks right now, I am typing faster than I can think...but I think that everything is understandable.
Hmm. Good point.
I mean that we didn't have to go start a war over it. We didn't need our politicians to spend so much time talking about 'WMDs' and Saddam Hussein and somehow linking them to 9/11 long enough to make us believe that the world is out to get us.
I don't think that we need to fear as much as learn from it. So far, 9/11 hasn't been learned from. It has been used in speeches as a way to try to get us to support the war, which has absolutely nothing to do with it. Maybe Afghanistan did, but we're in Iraq now, and they still used 9/11 to get support for tearing into the Middle East.
If we burn her, she gets stuffed in the flames, crackle crackle crackle, which is a bit of a surprise if she's not quite dead. "I don't know what state you're from, but fornicating in the prep room is not protocol in California."
Saddam publicly supported actions and attacks against the US and he and the Baath Party provided funding to numerous terrorist groups. All of which seem to have an anti-western slant. Many of Al Qaeda's remaining top men, after escaping from Afghanistan went to Iraq because they saw it as a safe haven. And it is suspected that more are still there.
ON TOP OF THAT: can you honestly say that you think Saddam should have been left in power. I mean his rap rooms and mass murders weren't harming anyone, now were they? The fact that the UN is trying Saddam instead of acquitting him should tell you that he needed to be booted from power by someone, but since many prominent members of the UN had oil deals with Iraq they weren't about to bite the hand that fed them [oil].
So, should we have simply left Saddam in power...all things considered?
Nick Fox
PS: Give me Texas (Which is approximately the same size of Iraq), many many WMD's and ten years to hide them and you won't find them for years. That is exactly what Saddam had...he also had illegal weapons of mass destruction that were found including small supplies of warheads that we found. But those sorts of things never seem to make it onto the news these days.
PPS: It doesn't seem that you've come near the 9/11 commission report...please read it. It is long and boring, but quite informative.
Once again, I have to apologize for anything incredibly stupid I may have posted.
I'll try again later. This does not mean I will try to defend myself later. The products of a foggy mind are almost never defendable- at least, when that mind is mine. I'll correct myself later if I remember.
Thanx.
If we burn her, she gets stuffed in the flames, crackle crackle crackle, which is a bit of a surprise if she's not quite dead. "I don't know what state you're from, but fornicating in the prep room is not protocol in California."
Good news on that front! Its long and boring nature led a couple comic book illustrators named Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colon to modify it into a book called The 9/11 Report: Graphic Adaptation. It's the 9/11 report... in comic book form! How perfect (and how sad) for our society...
9/11 Report: Graphic Adaptation
I think that one of the biggest things that's changed since then is that we now know that we are vulnerable, and that security in airports needed a huge overhaul. Also, that we need to be more ready for biochemical weapons. Anthrax was used, but there's many more that we need to be prepared for.
On anthrax, I think what really brought this home to me, back in my Freshman year of high school, was an anthrax scare at my school. It kind of made me realize that everyone REALLY can be vulnerable.
Jesus, I feel like a geezer now.
Which were not Al Qaeda, right? And were not related to 9/11? I'm asking. Plenty of people here have an anti-western slant, as well. And in Canada. And Europe. And everywhere.And the response to that would be: are they better off? And stop tangenting.
You don't have to be a supporter of Saddam to argue that our actions regarding him have been misguided and have not increased anyone's quality of life.Darfur. Colombia. N. Korea. China. Plenty of other authorities out there perpatrating bad times. Even worse than crazy ol' Saddam. And they still continue to do so. Just because killing people is legal doesn't make it morally good. el oh el.Shouldn't we have been able to improve the quality of life by removing him? Have we? I'm asking.
@ Chewie:
-Support and funding went to numerous terrorist groups...including Al Qeada.
-Are who better off?
-I like being tangental, it's the way my mind works best.
-Who said that the quality of life would increase rapidly. The real world does not work that way. Even in a perfect situation, it would still take time to turn things around from the backwards state that Iraq was in, into a country with a higher quality of life. Look at East Central Europe; even though the countries there gained their freedom more than 10 (Closer to 15) years ago, many of them still have some of the lowest qualities of living of any country around the world, because the previous rule (USSR) had done such a number on their economies, media, and societies. Many of the countries in E.C.E. are still only considered fledgling democracies, or "small d" democracies. So, you and your 21st century mentality of instant change/gratification, while hopeful, are ultimately idealistic and horribly unrealistic.
-Yes there are other leaders out there that are just as bad as Saddam was (Give or take some maliciousness), but many of these countries have gotten to a point were they have now developed the ability to fight (on some scale) a modern war over some distance. We would potentially put many thousands, if not millions of innocent Americans' lives at risk had we chosen to go to war with them. Iraq still had some time to go before they could have provided a direct attack (Terrorist funding/supporting is an indirect attack). So, call it being proactive.
-It still stands that Iraq is better off not having him in power. The rape rooms are closed and they only people who still pose a threat there are extremists.
-Also note that TV doesn't show all the good that goes on over their. Like Survivor, the news is about sensationalism. I've talked with people who have fought in Iraq, or were part of the rebuilding, and they get upset/angry, that all of the good they have done, and all of the good they saw has not been seen by most of America.
-Quality of life has been raised but it will take time to raise it and keep it there.
-----------------------------------
Regarding what has changed:
The one thing that I think has changed is the American public's often misguided and misinformed interest in the government now. Before, our citizens were happy to go about living their lives with the occasional presidential address interrupting their favorite shows. Now, many more people have become overly critical of everything the government says or does, and I think a lot of it has to do with fear...the fear of the unknown. We know longer can guarantee that we will just have another day where we can "go about living our lives" so we are now on edge, and when the answers from the government aren't sufficient, that fear of the unknown is transfered onto the people in power.
Nick Fox
PS: This message tired me out...
PPS: Anyone with the stomach should find and watch the video of Nicholas Berg being beheaded. It will show you the type of people we are fighting in Iraq.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks