Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001

[Argus]

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???

He's a wack job.

[maple_leafs182]

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...

That wasn't a civil war, that was one country invading another country for their resources.

[Argus]

That wasn't a civil war, that was one country invading another country for their resources.

They didn't TAKE any resources, and they wound up setting up a government they didn't control. Pretty silly if it was about resources.

The actual war against the Iraq government didn't take long and didn't have that many casualties. Most of the casualties were Iraqi against Iraqi.

[jbg]

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.

How about we developed it, paid for it, made it of use to them?

Let me get this right. The Western oil companies went in and turned oil, above which camels traversed, into a valuable commodity. The princes of the Arabs living astride the oil made their own lifestyle even more splended than it was back in the days of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. The princes elected not to share the wealth fairly.

Western armed forces, from time to time, found it necessary to protect the property interests of the companies that developed the oil and engaged in other commercial activities. Also to protect their prosperity, which depended upon oil developed not by the camel-driving princes, but by Westerners.

This exercise in property protection somehow validates violent attacks on Western interests, people who have nothing to do with military efforts in the Ummah? Somehow there's a bit of a disconnect.

[maple_leafs182]

How about we developed it, paid for it, made it of use to them?

Let me get this right. The Western oil companies went in and turned oil, above which camels traversed, into a valuable commodity. The princes of the Arabs living astride the oil made their own lifestyle even more splended than it was back in the days of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. The princes elected not to share the wealth fairly.

Western armed forces, from time to time, found it necessary to protect the property interests of the companies that developed the oil and engaged in other commercial activities. Also to protect their prosperity, which depended upon oil developed not by the camel-driving princes, but by Westerners.

This exercise in property protection somehow validates violent attacks on Western interests, people who have nothing to do with military efforts in the Ummah? Somehow there's a bit of a disconnect.

Did you just copy and paste another post...

*Sigh*

Thousands of people are dead because of this. It is costing billions and billions of dollars, the US is going bankrupt, they can't afford these wars. The wars are payed for using debt, that debt leads to inflation which increases the cost of things like food and gasoline for the US citizens.

[bush_cheney2004]

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".

Hmmmm...looks like you are hooked on a number of American fairy tales...including Ron Paul becoming president of the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thousands of people are dead because of this. It is costing billions and billions of dollars, the US is going bankrupt, they can't afford these wars. The wars are payed for using debt, that debt leads to inflation which increases the cost of things like food and gasoline for the US citizens.

The US can always afford wars....it's the entitlement programs that go on forever that will bankrupt the country.

[maple_leafs182]

The US can always afford wars....it's the entitlement programs that go on forever that will bankrupt the country.

It is both.

And if you had to prioritize, why would you choose war over entitlements.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is both.

And if you had to prioritize, why would you choose war over entitlements.

Because wars have a beginning...middle...and end. I leave the math to you.

[maple_leafs182]

Because wars have a beginning...middle...and end. I leave the math to you.

Yes, but people are being murdered.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but people are being murdered.

Americans "murder" more of their own citizens than Iraqis killed in the war....and it really is murder...not your political fantasy.

Again...I leave the math to you.

Edited September 17, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

They didn't TAKE any resources, and they wound up setting up a government they didn't control. Pretty silly if it was about resources.

I recall the resources which were nationalized under Saddam were put up for sale and bought by western corporations. Canada did "well" in those rounds.

Can't find the link but here's something.

Link

[bush_cheney2004]

I recall the resources which were nationalized under Saddam were put up for sale and bought by western corporations. Canada did "well" in those rounds.

Yes, but don't ever say that Canada had anything to do with the Iraq War!

[maple_leafs182]

Americans "murder" more of their own citizens than Iraqis killed in the war....and it really is murder...not your political fantasy.

Again...I leave the math to you.

For the math, I agree with you on the entitlements.

As for killing people over there, the likely hood of them attacking your country with another terrorist attack has increased as a result of these wars, these wars are undermining your national security.

[bush_cheney2004]

As for killing people over there, the likely hood of them attacking your country with another terrorist attack has increased as a result of these wars, these wars are undermining your national security.

That really hasn't been our overall experience to date....haven't had a lick of trouble out of Japan, Germany, Italy, Serbia, Haiti, Cuba, Vietnam, or Chile. Don't forget Grenada!

Edited September 17, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[maple_leafs182]

That really hasn't been our overall experience to date....haven't had a lick of trouble out of Japan, Germany, Italy, Serbia, Haiti, Cuba, Vietnam, or Chile.

What about 9/11?

[bush_cheney2004]

What about 9/11?

What about it? Do you think Germans did it?

[maple_leafs182]

What about it? Do you think Germans did it?

[dre]

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.

No thats a false question, because they would keep on selling us that oil whether we exploded random dark skinned folks or not. They are completely dependant on selling us that oil.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, but people are being murdered.

Who's being murdered by whom?

[Guest American Woman]

Thousands of people are dead because of this. It is costing billions and billions of dollars, the US is going bankrupt, they can't afford these wars. The wars are payed for using debt, that debt leads to inflation which increases the cost of things like food and gasoline for the US citizens.

Thousands of people were dying before the war - thousands of people died on 9-11 and there were deaths at the hands of terrorists prior to 9-11. Saddam invaded Kuwait. What would have happened if he had not been stopped then? How many deaths would have occurred/continued to occur? What about the Taliban - what was life like for Afghans? How many would have been killed/maimed for not 'toeing the line?'

The thing I don't get is how people speak of the deaths due to the war as if things were bright and rosy prior to that. No deaths. No horrible living conditions. That's not the way it was - and the prognosis for the future was years and years of more of the same.

I didn't support the Iraq war and I still don't know if it was the right thing to do, but I sure hope it was. I look at their opportunity for democracy and think the outlook sure has to be more promising than under Saddam. Same with Afghanistan. I hope once the government becomes more stable that more girls will be able to go to school again and more women will have rights and life will generally be better for more people than it was prior to 9-11.

People speak of how we are now under greater risk of attack - and I think 'greater than on 9-11?' I doubt it. We were at risk then. To do nothing would embolden them. How could it not? There's something to the "paper tiger" mindset.

So yes, people are dying now. People were dying before. Hopefully now there will be an end to it. As things stood before, nothing would have changed and it would have gone on indefinitely.

[Sir Bandelot]

Life in Afghanistan was no different under the Taliban than it ever was. They, the Afghan people, want to live that way. If they don't, they would have changed things for themselves by now. But the fact that several empires have marched through their in the past 100 years or so and waged war on them did not help them to develop a better society.

I doubt that as many would have been killed by the Taliban, as have been killed now in this war.

In any case, what's been seen before as the typical pattern will now likely repeat itself. The war will come to an end, lots of people died and the place is even more in ruins than it was before the war. And life will be more or less the same. At least that's the sound of it coming from our leaders now, as the Taliban are once again being invited to participate in government.

Result? Negative, negative, negative. Want to improve things for the people of Afghanistan? An absence of war would probably be a good start.

[Guest American Woman]

Life in Afghanistan was no different under the Taliban than it ever was. They, the Afghan people, want to live that way. If they don't, they would have changed things for themselves by now.

You can't be serious. Have you even read what Afghans have had to say about it? Your 'reasoning' is ignorant at best. You're in effect saying the slaves "wanted to live that way or they would have changed things."

But the fact that several empires have marched through their in the past 100 years or so and waged war on them did not help them to develop a better society.

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that in this day and time, because of what happened in the past, the present Afghans will not build a better society? If so, your reasoning is once again flawed.

I doubt that as many would have been killed by the Taliban, as have been killed now in this war.

Had they rebelled en mass, they certainly would have. In fact, I think more have been killed by insurgents than by the coalition.

In any case, what's been seen before as the typical pattern will now likely repeat itself. The war will come to an end, lots of people died and the place is even more in ruins than it was before the war. And life will be more or less the same. At least that's the sound of it coming from our leaders now, as the Taliban are once again being invited to participate in government.

That's nothing but a pessimistic view. You base their future on the "typical pattern" of the past, yet we are speaking of different times, different people, a different government.

Your view seems to be that if attempts for better conditions/democracy failed in the past, there's no point in ever trying again because it's doomed to fail. Thank God everyone doesn't have that mindset. Nothing would ever change. Nothing would ever improve.

Result? Negative, negative, negative.

If you're describing your take on it, I would say that's totally accurate.

Want to improve things for the people of Afghanistan? An absence of war would probably be a good start.

Yes, because things were going so well before the war - and the prognosis for something better was so great.

[bush_cheney2004]

...People speak of how we are now under greater risk of attack - and I think 'greater than on 9-11?' I doubt it. We were at risk then. To do nothing would embolden them. How could it not? There's something to the "paper tiger" mindset.

This impeccable logic seems to escape some....the attacks were already in progress....WTC was truck bombed in 1993. The US was even targeted from Canada. 9/11 increased the scale beyond the point of tolerance and routine law enforcement.

[Sir Bandelot]

Doing the same failed things over and over again, leads to the same failed results.

And history teaches us that. We learn from history about the root causes of things, why things are the way they are now. We're partly responsible for what happened in Afghanistan beginning with the British empire, then on to supporting, training and arming Mujahideen against soviets, which helped to give power to the Taliban and even create terrorist training camps.

If I am pessimistic, it's only because I read the news.

"I think our fundamental security interests in Afghanistan are that the country not become a base for terrorists to attack us or our allies and that the country not become a base for destabilizing its neighbors and especially Pakistan. Those are the two interests the President has articulated for Afghanistan. The second is the more important of the two.

Neither require the end state that the Bush Administration was aiming at. We could accept a substantially less centralized Afghan state and we could accept some legitimate legal and political role for the Taliban in the governance of that less-centralized state as long as we assure that Afghan territory is not used to destabilize Pakistan or attack us."

America must negotiate with the Taliban

The US Presidents speech which followed shortly after echoed these points.

Many of us who knew the history of Afghanistan when the war started knew that it was being done in angry retaliation for 9/11. Not for the express purpose of making Afghanistan a democracy. The US was content to leave Afghanistan under Taliban rule for ten years after the soviets pulled out. But if you recall, GWB wanted them to deliver Osama bin Laden. And when they didn't, it was off to war.

It leads me to conclude, those ideals of improving things for the people in Afghanistan, noble though they appear to be were just an excuse to placate the US public into supporting the war. And lots of people bought that line. But lots of others said no, it was impossible as we've seen so many times before. They will resist any attempt of an outside, particularly western or non muslim forces to change their society. And now the movement is toward cutting our losses, pull out and accept a minimum result. But even the Taliban will not be gone, we are forced to concede they will have a hold on Afghanistan power.

This support also comes from the government of Afghanistan. And what I have said nd what the coalition/ military leaders are saying is, as long as they are not a problem for us or anyone else in the region, let them have it. It's what they want. Hard for you to believe, perhaps.