33
   

The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

 
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 03:35 am
@izzythepush,
I'm with you there, I really don't know either. I try to catch all the current PBS programs available, one of the recent ones was really good, but it left me of the same opinion, it's a rock and a hard place.
Our seek and destroy tactics are apparently effective but extremely bad for relations with the Afghani people. Who can blame them, no one wants a foreign military police state.
I'd forgotten about the British experience. The taliban certainly hasn't forgotten their experience, my fear is that left intact they will only grow stronger from this latest.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 03:41 am
@izzythepush,
I've heard a lot about that from time to time. If there's much truth at all in it, the whole thing was a failure of the first magnitude. Between that and the knee jerk reaction to Saddam's gum flapping ( which was nothing new) I am inclined to see a strong case for gross incompetence on the part of the Bush administration.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 03:59 am
@wayne,
It looks like we've reached a concorde. I can't think of one positive thing that Bush jnr did, and I'm not just saying that. Re Afghanistan there's Taliban and Taliban, some, actually most, are open to discussion. Those Al Qaida sympathisers are not as prominent as some would have us believe.

Memories are long in Afghanistan, they still talk about Alexander.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 04:08 am
@izzythepush,
You're right about the Taliban, I've been amazed at the film crews they've allowed in and how much they've allowed them to film. Maybe they'll decide Al Qaeda isn't in their best interest.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 07:45 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
If you go back to the start if this thread, George, you will read posts from US A2Kers which were possibly more critical than later non-US posters' views.

...

Is Tico calling them "a bunch of leftists", too?

Only if they're leftists.


msolga
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 08:30 am
@Ticomaya,
Selective quoting, Tico:


This is what I actually asked:
Quote:
...If you go back to the start if this thread, George, you will read posts from US A2Kers which were possibly more critical than later non-US posters' views.

Are you going to berate them, for their "shrill, self-righteous and hypocritical" posts, too?

Is Tico calling them "a bunch of leftists", too?

Or are your criticisms only directed at "foreigners"?
georgeob1
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 10:13 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Quote:
I do judge the criticism of foreigners on topics like this one more harshly than those of my countrymen. I don't think that is a particularly unusual reaction. Almost 3,000 of mny countrymen were killed on Sept. 11 2001, and I think you should have taken your expressions of political opinion somewhere else.


George, consider this:
What are something like Australian 1550 - 2000 Australian troops doing in Afghanistan, considering that we at not even a NATA member?

And considering that ordinary Australians have no beef what-so-ever with Afghanistan?

Do you think those troops would be there if the Australian government wasn't supporting US policy in Afghanistan, despite many Australians considering the war (which I consider an extended period of occupation) in that country is "unwinnable"?)

How dare you suggest that citizens of those countries which have supported misguided US policies in Afghanistan & Iraq somehow have less right to comment on "the war on terror" than Americans do.
Or anyone else, from any other country for that matter.


Unfortunately your typically shrill, hyperindignant response has nothing at all to do with my complaint. I don't question your right to be such a screeching harpie, I simply wish you would Take it somewhere else !
DrewDad
 
  7  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 10:17 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Take it somewhere else !

And you're calling other people shrill?

lulz
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 11:15 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Selective quoting, Tico:

Huh? I cut out your questions directed toward GOB, and in doing so I did not alter context one iota.

msolga wrote:
This is what I actually asked:
Quote:
...If you go back to the start if this thread, George, you will read posts from US A2Kers which were possibly more critical than later non-US posters' views.

Are you going to berate them, for their "shrill, self-righteous and hypocritical" posts, too?

Is Tico calling them "a bunch of leftists", too?

Or are your criticisms only directed at "foreigners"?


My answer is the same. My "criticism" is not directed at foreigners at all. Just anti-American leftists, wherever they may live. I'd criticize anti-American right-wing-nuts too, I just haven't seen any of them around here.
chai2
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 11:43 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Take it somewhere else !

And you're calling other people shrill?

lulz


seriously.

I obviously have no problem in calling someone an a$$hole, but I go by what their words are saying.

How can anyone tell if someone's voice would be shrill if they were speaking the words.

I can imagine olga finding offense in this, as I have when I've said something, writing in my mind in a calm voice, only to be called "hysterical" sounding.

That is such total bullshit. A person can't even defend themselves against something like that, because all you can say is "no I'm not", to which the name caller will reply "see, that proves it!"
wandeljw
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 11:51 am
@chai2,
sometimes, those characterizations apply to the choice of words in written language

please don't be mad at me, chai
chai2
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 11:55 am
@wandeljw,
what I can say wandel, is that I've never heard one man call another man "shrill" "a harpy" or "hysterical" here, nor have I heard one woman say it about another.

I have seen men say that to women.

I wonder if olga started an account as a man, and said those same words, if "he" would have been called shrill.
wandeljw
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 11:57 am
@chai2,
Well, I admit that sometimes my choice of words sound shrill.
chai2
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 12:04 pm
@wandeljw,
I wasn't talking about you specifically, and yes I realize you were attempting humor.

But it has been true that if a woman stands up for herself, showing her displeasure in the same manner a man would, she gets called shrill, he's commanding and in charge.

One ruled by hormones and where the moon is in the sky speaking without thinking, the other in control of their emotions and all words well considered, if wrong.

Screw that (she said in a clear calm manner)

Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 12:57 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
Thing is, I think most of the people who objected because it was the anniversary object to anyone ever challenging the politics of the situation and get similarly agitated at any time and always use it as an emotional bludgeon. But there are a few people who don't think or act like that who seem to be quite upset and I, for one, had no issue with silence.


I was talking about the national debate, not personal conversations. If someone has a huge phobia about cats then I might not talk about them, but that doesn't mean talking about cats is inherently unkind, it means this person has an issue with cats.

I don't think anyone should be overbearing about making people hear something they don't want to hear, and I'm perfectly fine with not talking about a political issue with a particular person for whatever their reasons, but my point is that this is not a sacred day where America gets a free pass from criticism.

As part of the national debate, I find it absurd that some people try to make criticism off bounds on this day, just like I found it absurd that they tried to use the start of the war in Iraq to silence criticism ("Opposing the war is one thing, but now that the troops are there you must support them").

But yeah, it goes without saying that if a topic is upsetting someone it may be kind to let it go, but I'm not talking about manners between interlocutors I'm talking about politics on a national level. I'm talking about how this commemoration is a political circle jerk that seeks to exclude any other narrative.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 12:59 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
What about simply out of respect for the thread author's intent? This single thread (not the entire forum) and for only one day (the actual anniversary)?


I'm not talking about thread etiquette, I'm talking about the national political debate. I do not think that criticism of America needs a day off on this anniversary, I do think that being a considerate interlocutor is a generally good thing.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 01:23 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I don't want to be a pest, but you originally posted about my request for this thread. I thought that we were both talking about thread etiquette.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 01:33 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:
America changed dramatically with ww11 and may never see a return to an isolationist mentality.


I strongly oppose isolationism. But that is not the only alternative to warmongering.

Quote:
It is a complete fabrication to say that America supports the subjugation of other peoples, America's stance has always been to support stability.


No it isn't a fabrication, the US has a very long history of supporting tyrants who are corrupt in that they we have them in our pockets. Sure, the motivation isn't to subjugate them, that is just a means to and end.

Quote:
Perhaps America's policies are misguided, whose to say?


Perhaps the hundreds of thousands of people America has killed? America doesn't like it when people kill their people and other people feel remarkably similar about that kind of thing.

Quote:
However, it is untruthful to paint a picture of some uncaring beast that cares nothing for the suffering of other peoples. That is simply not the case.


I'm not trying to anthropomorphize America into some evil villain. I think America is a great force for good in many ways, but also a great danger to the world with its militaristic foreign policy. When its policies are heartless this does not mean the country is, there is no evil genius pulling the strings, it's just the product of many different forces in the political system, including the insular worldview and the apathy of Americans (many of the people here on this forum supported the wars that America waged in response to 9/11, hundreds of thousands of people were killed by their misguided support).

Quote:
America has felt a great responsibility for the prevention of any further nuclear conflict, and our policies reflect this concern.


This is just a very small facet of American foreign policy, in the last decade hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by America for different geopolitical concerns (less noble than preventing nuclear war).

Furthermore, I find it a bit naive to say that America's great responsibility is to prevent nuclear war. There is not a nation on earth that has done more to make nuclear war probable than America. Not at any time in history. Through each phase of the evolution of nuclear weapons the US was the most likely to start the nuclear war and the one that engaged in the most nuclear brinksmanship and nuclear sabre rattling.

Just to take two recent examples:

1) The North Koreans developed nukes only after America put nukes on the Korean Peninsula. Remember how America went apeshit over the cuban missile crisis? Same thing, and like that crisis too America was the first to put the nukes in someone else's back yard (too few Americans know this but the Russians put the missiles there as a reaction to nukes the US had placed near the USSR and the US quietly removed them as part of the agreement to remove the missiles in cuba).

2) During the bush administration the US escalated the nuclear arms race by withdrawing from treaties with Russia, and by calling for the development of tactical nukes (the so-called "bunker busters") in a very worrisome development (tactical nukes are much more "usable" and this is a development that inches towards more use of nukes, not less).

The US is not some noble knight keeping nuclear holocaust at bay, it's the entity with the most responsibility for creating that possibility and the one that took the most initiative and agression in the nuclear arms race from day one.

Quote:
It is easy to sit back and point the finger at America without looking at the bigger picture. I'll be the first to admit, America has committed many acts that I am not proud of, but the motive has never been the evil many would like to portray.


To you this has to be emotive, good vs evil. To me, this is like describing a dry piece of toast. I'm not trying to indict it as an entity, just saying it's dry.

There is no bigger picture that justifies the hundreds of thousands of people America kills in unjust wars. There is no bigger picture that makes invading Iraq make sense. That is just wishful thinking.

Quote:
Remember, we didn't invent this ****, war, but we did invent the most horrible weapon yet known and we can't take it back.


So? What does that have to do with America's penchant for killing people. How is that related to the hundreds of thousands of people America has killed in the last decade? This isn't at all about some noble guardianship of the nuclear club.

Quote:
War , oppression, genocide, murder, will continue like it always has, with or without America. We bear no responsibility for that.


You can't be serious. This is like responding to being accused of murder with saying that violence will always be with us. I have not made the accusation that America invented violence and it's a deflection to argue as if I had as whether or not war is an American invention says nothing at all about the charge that America has a penchant for war.

Quote:
Regardless of what you might wish to believe, our leaders are not the callous war lords they are often portrayed.


I'm not the one making emotional caricatures of them. I think Bush is a great guy, nice fellow with tons of class. Happened to also believe it was a good idea to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people. I'm criticizing the whole killing hundreds of thousands of people thing, not his personality.

Quote:
America has not looted Japan nor Germany, neither have we looted South Korea or the middle east.


America does TONS of great things. But again, this is like responding to an accusation of murder with "I gave a lot to the Salvation Army when I was a kid". What does that have to do with whether or not America's militarism is just?


Quote:
Hate-mongers the world over foster that mentality for their own ends.
We may not be very good at it, but we really are trying to give the world a better life.


I think it's silly to think that America is an evil or a benign beast. It's millions of people with conflicting interests. But I will say this, I think it's even sillier to think that America's about giving the world a better life. I'm sure that many Americans want this, and economically it often aligns with America's own interests but no American government has ever had a serious priority to improve the the lives of the world, it's always been improve the lives of Americans first and if we have time for charity (and Americans often give generously) then that's fine.

Thing is, many of the time the things America does to improve the quality of the lives of their citizens it comes at a cost to someone else. America is competing on the global stage wayne, and competing very well. History has never seen a greater military, economic, or cultural power. This comes at the cost to others (such as lost economic activity), I see nothing wrong with this, as long as we compete fairly but to pretend that we are some great eleemosynary nation is silly.

In the competition between nations, history has never seen a competitor like America. And America didn't get there by playing Mother Theresa.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 01:37 pm
@roger,
Your "my country right or wrong" mentality is far more popular world wide than putting humanity first.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2011 01:41 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
I wonder if olga started an account as a man, and said those same words, if "he" would have been called shrill.


He has dismissed arguments from males with the "shrill" characterization as well. It's an incredibly forceful intellectual argument, I can see why he is fond of it.
 

Related Topics

Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero - Discussion by Phoenix32890
9/11/01: Mary Pope and Eurodiva - Discussion by Miller
Lights over Manhattan. - Discussion by Frank Apisa
The truth about what really happened in the USA - Discussion by reasoning logic
9/11 - Discussion by Brandon9000
America At War - Question by blueveinedthrobber
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 07:01:14