Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001

[GostHacked]

Same here. I saw clips of ceremonies all over the world, read about ceremonies all over the world - including Canada, and to insinuate the U.S.'s remembrance was politicized rather than a day of remembrance along with the rest of the world is insulting.

It's all politicized, no matter where the ceremonies were held. The attack sure as hell defined what kind of foreign policy the USA was going to get into. It was also a good time to put more scare into the general public.

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA !!!

[Army Guy]

I think that's an excellent question, and I have no idea. But that's totally beside any point I was making.

I think your piont was the US and UK actions and sanctions went above and beyond what is the norm, causing undo hardship on the Iraqi people...That is the orginal piont is it not cause hardship to everyone in that country so that the leadership is presured by the people into submitting....Or i'm i missing something....

Knowing full well that very few if any sancations work, why waste the time with them, unless they are made more severe as to force change....

The US and UK were primarily in charge of the sanctions. Hence the tootless objections by other member states (including a strong Canadian objection...formal and useless.

NO, the US and UK were the primary enforcers of the sancations...piont of order so was Canada involved in the blockade....so it could not be that strong of an objection.

The sanctions didn't hurt Saddam. They strengthened his hold over his own suffering people, thanks to the way the humanitarian component was intentionally subverted by the two most influential member states. The US/UK could have prevenetd much suffering as well...and simply by adhering to the proper mandates of the imposed sancions, rather than breaking them.

Why would they hurt Sadam, besides UN does not impose sanctions on a nation to hurt it's government leaders...they are meant to make the people suffer so they are forced to make change...Sadam was in the palaces drinking and eating the finest wines and foods from around the globe....no sanction would have worked again'st him unless it was tough enough....kind of like telling little billy go to your room...and he does not listen....and yet you know that already...but we blame the US for all those deaths caused by the sanctions....how much blame does Sadam and his government get....because i've yet to see many on this board drop any blame one other door steps just on the US...

Exactly. If the sanctions are to subverted, the rules broken, to cause more needless suffering among the Iraqi people...what's the point?

The piont is to force the people to make change....you say needless suffering, as it did not have an effect on Sadam...perhaps not, but you know as well as i do that any UN sanction has about as much effect as me telling you to go to your room....

[Zachary Young]

The events of 9/11 were blow back from American foreign policy. You cannot expect to go overseas and kill whoever you want without their being consequences. Or, in the words of Ron Paul

They're over here, because we're over there.

[CitizenX]

This is what I have been trying to say this whole topic, I posted this in the Ron Paul section but nobody replied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Xei97NQ8E

Listen to what he is saying...what would you do?

I'm a big Ron Paul Fan because he speaks the truth. I find it funny that nobody will respond to this video.

Where is the response from the right wing???

Edited September 16, 2011 by CitizenX

[GostHacked]

I'm a big Ron Paul Fan because he speaks the truth. I find it funny that nobody will respond to this video.

Where is the response from the right wing???

Because people like to put others in boxes. Paul's ideals are not a left-right thing at all. Personal freedom and liberty are not crazy left or crazy right ideals .. it should appeal to anyone who actually believes in freedom.

Don't forget there is a big difference between liberty and freedom.

[bloodyminded]

The "day of remembrance" was our day, done our way. Just as other nations did it their way. Your 'approval' is totally unnecessary.

Since I'm neither asking for nor demanding that anyone, including yourself, wish for my approval, there is no issue, and the universe marches on as it will.

[bloodyminded]

Maybe i'm not getting the same Sat coverage as you, but all the coverage i seen the entire day was about the Human aspect of it...in the west, in the middle east certain groups might see it as the day a blow was delivered to the US.....but here in America it is seen as mostly a day of rememberence like Nov 11.

Wrong. The NFL opener was about America's "brave response" to the crimes--which was specifically a point about military acton, which is inherently a politicized message. In case we missed the point, we watched soldiers on the field and revelled in a stealth bomber booming overhead. But no, that's just grieving and appreciating "the humanity."

The President proclaimed that the last ten years have shown that "we hold fast to our freedoms." He didn't elaborate, but no doubt drone killings of innocent civilians is part of all that liberty-lovin.'

The point is that even if you agree with him, it is a politicized message, evoking nationalism and fear of the official Enemy of the State.

The Vice-President boasted that al-qaeda had "awakened a sleeping giant"--meaning, of course, that always peaceful America suddenly rose up to fight the good fight. A view which only drooling ignoramuses would even countenance.

Writers and pundits, both liberal and conservative, have spewed out inumerable little pieces about glorious This versus Evil That.

The Left-wing Mother Jones magazine lectured us that this was "a day when Americans of all stripes should have been giving thanks to both President Bush and President Obama for doing whatever it is they do that has protected us from a tragic repeat of the events of September 11, 2001."

However, raise a voice of criticism of the most powerful people in the world, or the violent policies of the National sEcurity State...and suddenly one is being "too political."

Alrighty then.

And my point wasn't even about the exact content anyway--I am only stating that the entire day was deeply, nationalistically politicized.

Second, Nov.11 is a politicized day, as well.

Hell, I'm not critiquing this in and of itself; I'm objecting to the idea that fervent, militaristic nationalism is somehow "apolitical" and "about humanity," and that dissent from the conventions are somehow inappropriate.

I'm sure if we look back far enough in history one could say that about every nation. As for pretending how we behave there is a major difference between western countries and say middle eastern countries....in every aspect there is no comparison...

The West has been intentionally and explicitly involved in, among other things, state terrorism, mass murder, and the overthrowing of demcracies to place compliant dictators in their place.

I don't know why people throw tantrums when this is pointed out. The historical record is clear enough, if one wishes to look. Rather than get angry at the actual perpetrators, you get angry at those who point at them????

There is a clear separation...NATO is restricted by the genva convention, and how it conducts warfare, it controls the conduct of their soldiers or holds them responable.... i don't recall any NATO nation cutting off girls hands to make a statement, or intentionally targeting civilians, limiting who gets an education, etc etc the list is long....

and while it might seem to you the separation remains dubious, great pains go into limiting cilvilian cas, and deaths...to the piont NATO soldiers lives have been sacraficed to limit civilian cas or damage to non military targets...But as in any war, civilians normally pay a higher price than the army.

Yes, in actual and direct military intervention, some effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. (Why do people always say "every effort," as if such a presumption can be known, or is even likely to be true?) But in the broader scope of international policy, we will support the subversions of democracy (which is supposed to be something we hold sacred...what a joke!); we will even materially supply mass murderers for the exact purpose of carrying out their mass murders.

If you wish to downplay this, be my guest.

Edited September 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....If you wish to downplay this, be my guest.

There is no need to "downplay" it at all...far larger and more significant than any NFL celebration is the continued support and economic livelyhoods perpetuated in such a system, even while protesting loudly as if to differentiate oneself from "warmongering rabble". The wars don't start themselves, and at their root we can find collective choices that guarantee more wars in the future.

So eat, drink, and be merry while you can, and may the best (worst) combatant win the day.

[CitizenX]

Because people like to put others in boxes. Paul's ideals are not a left-right thing at all. Personal freedom and liberty are not crazy left or crazy right ideals .. it should appeal to anyone who actually believes in freedom.

Don't forget there is a big difference between liberty and freedom.

I understand that "Paul's ideals are not a left-right thing at all". The reason I asked for a response from the rightists like American Woman, and bush_cheney2004 is because they seem to run from common sense.

Edited September 16, 2011 by CitizenX

[bloodyminded]

I think your piont was the US and UK actions and sanctions went above and beyond what is the norm,

They went above and beyond the very rules governing these very sanctions themselves.

causing undo hardship on the Iraqi people...That is the orginal piont is it not cause hardship to everyone in that country so that the leadership is presured by the people into submitting....Or i'm i missing something....

While we don't know what the criminals who intentionally caused the deaths of innumerable Iraqis were thinking, I too believe this is likely the answer: they wanted to increase the suffering of the people to compell them to overthrow their government.

Aside from the fact that this plan was a criminal failure, do you not suppsoe it raises questions about our grand humanitarianism and noble motives?

Knowing full well that very few if any sancations work, why waste the time with them, unless they are made more severe as to force change....

But they failed. They failed. That means all those people--possibly hundreds of thousands--were made to suffer and die for no good reason, except for the piolitical motives of the United States and the United Kingdom.

This is insupportable. I can't believe you're trying to justify it.

N

O, the US and UK were the primary enforcers of the sancations...piont of order so was Canada involved in the blockade....so it could not be that strong of an objection.

No, I take it in faith that Canada's stance was wishy-washy and sycophantic in the usual manner.

Why would they hurt Sadam, besides UN does not impose sanctions on a nation to hurt it's government leaders...they are meant to make the people suffer so they are forced to make change...Sadam was in the palaces drinking and eating the finest wines and foods from around the globe....no sanction would have worked again'st him unless it was tough enough....kind of like telling little billy go to your room...and he does not listen....and yet you know that already...but we blame the US for all those deaths caused by the sanctions....how much blame does Sadam and his government get....because i've yet to see many on this board drop any blame one other door steps just on the US...

Saddam should be blamed precisely for everything he did that was awful, and the list is very long.

The United States should be blamed precisely for everything it did that was awful.

What's the difficulty with this concept again?

The piont is to force the people to make change....you say needless suffering, as it did not have an effect on Sadam...perhaps not, but you know as well as i do that any UN sanction has about as much effect as me telling you to go to your room....

So your poin t is this: the UN Sanctions, to which the United States was principle architect, were inhernetly useless before they began (mayeb that's true, I don't know); so it's ok for the United Sattes to break all the rules, including thsoe it had helped set up themselves, specifically to make the people suffer more than they already had.

Further, it's not the US's fault that they behaved as they did; it's not as they're responsible for their own actions, or that anyone should criticize them for their behaviour.

Instead, we'll wag our fingers at the Official Enemy and say "the Devil made me do it."

That's an awesome get-out-of-jail-free card. They can do no wrong; everything is someone else's fault.

where can I get me some of that intrinsic justification?

[bloodyminded]

There is no need to "downplay" it at all...far larger and more significant than any NFL celebration is the continued support and economic livelyhoods perpetuated in such a system, even while protesting loudly as if to differentiate oneself from "warmongering rabble". The wars don't start themselves, and at their root we can find collective choices that guarantee more wars in the future.

Sure. I'm not diffeentiaitng myself from any rabble, warmongering or otherwise. I'm saying "politicized" doesn't mean "critical"; supportive ideas and celebrations are as politicized as are critical ones.

That's it.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm a big Ron Paul Fan because he speaks the truth. I find it funny that nobody will respond to this video.

Where is the response from the right wing???

I understand that "Paul's ideals are not a left-right thing at all". The reason I asked for a response from the rightists like American Woman, and bush_cheney2004 is because they seem to run from common sense.

Ummmm. I'm not "a rightest." But yeah, not agreeing with you and Ron Paul is to be lacking in common sense.

[CitizenX]

But yeah, not agreeing with you and Ron Paul is to be lacking in common sense.

You've seen the light congratulation.

[Guest American Woman]

You've seen the light congratulation.

Too bad you can't see sarcasm - or else think that it's oh-so-clever to respond to sarcasm as if it weren't. In either case, it's pretty pathetic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure. I'm not diffeentiaitng myself from any rabble, warmongering or otherwise. I'm saying "politicized" doesn't mean "critical"; supportive ideas and celebrations are as politicized as are critical ones.

That's it.

...and I'm saying it doesn't matter. Remembering all of your cheerleading for the "moral" perspective on Indonesia and East Timor reminds us that no such celebrations are required to achieve the very same objective, political or otherwise. You see, there really is no Santa Claus eiher, but he makes a fine mascot for consumer spending.

[CitizenX]

Too bad you can't see sarcasm - or else think that it's oh-so-clever to respond to sarcasm as if it weren't. In either case, it's pretty pathetic.

Damn I thought you really had seen the light.

Do you care to respond to this video, or are you going to run and hide from common sense as usual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Xei97NQ8E

[jbg]

Yes theres an awful lot to question. Like is borrowing trillions of dollars to finance our adventures in the middle east really in our best interests? How are we supposed to benefit from it, and is it working? What unintended consequences is there? Is it possible some of the "friends" we sponsor, enable, and empower over there today might cause big problems for us later? Is the GWOT in its present form sustainable or winnable? Is it working or making things worse? Is nation building the right way to fight it? Does western policy in the ME survive a cost benefit analysis?

Theres a whole shitload of questions that we should all be asking.

Part of that question is whether any Western countries besides Canada, the U.K. and Norway could operate their economies without access to Mideast crude.

[GostHacked]

Part of that question is whether any Western countries besides Canada, the U.K. and Norway could operate their economies without access to Mideast crude.

So, we go kill them and steal their oil so we can maintain this standard of living? While they are dying in the streets? No wonder they hate us for our freedoms.

[bush_cheney2004]

Part of that question is whether any Western countries besides Canada, the U.K. and Norway could operate their economies without access to Mideast crude.

Not at current GDP levels, and not even Canada, UK, or Norway, who benefit directly and indirectly from Mideast oil being distributed to a world market. Canada imports oil from Algeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, UK and Norway, depending on market supply and distribution, because it can't move or refine enough from west to east.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But they failed. They failed. That means all those people--possibly hundreds of thousands--were made to suffer and die for no good reason, except for the piolitical motives of the United States and the United Kingdom...

Missed this nugget....so what would be a "good reason" for hundreds of thousands to suffer and die? Just wonderin'....

[CitizenX]

So, we go kill them and steal their oil so we can maintain this standard of living? While they are dying in the streets? No wonder they hate us for our freedoms.

Ohhh that's the freedom that Bush was talking about. The Freedom to attack other countries that reduce their standard of living, or reduce corporate profits and world domination. Then yes they hate your freedom.

I notice that nobody wants to touch that Ron Paul video "Imagine". Whats up?

Edited September 16, 2011 by CitizenX

[bush_cheney2004]

....I notice that nobody wants to touch that Ron Paul video "Imagine". Whats up?

Imagine that Ron Paul is going nowhere in this election cycle. There...are you happy now?

[Argus]

My view at the time and still remains is that Chretien stayed out of the war mainly as a domestic political calculation.

That was always my view, as well. I had never observed that Chretien had any kind of overriding care or concern about the morality of doing ANYTHING so long as it was politically or economically profitable.

[maple_leafs182]

Imagine that Ron Paul is going nowhere in this election cycle. There...are you happy now?

To quote a great movie franchise that was based on a republic that too was under attack..."don't underestimate the power of the force".

[Argus]

All deaths were the consequences of the invasion, and were predictable...in fact, predicted.

Most of the deaths were the consequence of civil war - which was long predicted once Sadaam died or was overthrown. Think Yugoslavia once Tito died. The same was inevitable for Iraq and everyone knew it.

What you saw in Iraq with the slaughter there was what a civil war looks like with a couple of hundred thousand foreign troops doing their best to sit on the combatants.

Imagine what it would have looked like without them...