September 11, 2001 – Thoughts on an Anniversary

[bush_cheney2004]

A good slogan, perhaps, "a leader, not a liar"? (Gore, IMHO is a notorious liar).

Doesn't matter to me....all great presidents are skilled liars. President Bush was forced to rise above his calling by circumstances created by prior administrations...such is any president's fate. When dealt so many lemons....one should make lemonade.

[sharkman]

Are you his Mommy? Because I was addressing him, not you; and unless he can't answer for himself and needs you to do it for him, I'll keep addressing him for back-up to his claims, thereby expecting a response from him, not you.

Uh, no, but I see you are ramping up the childishness. Did you stamp your foot a lot as a kid or something? It's gettin' old around here.

[Guest American Woman]

What's getting old around here is the accusations people get away with as they jump in to 'defend' a poster who was simply called on his claims.

To update and get back on subject.

Bush_cheney2004 made a claim. A claim that the U.S. "laughs" at the notion that it defends democracy, and is not obligated to live up to others' claims that it does. As I pointed out, there's a good reason why people perceive us as defenders of democracy, citing the Iraq war being called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as an example. I asked him why that is, if we do not claim to defend democracy, adding that I agree that we don't, thus pointing out the hypocrisy of our nation. He chose not to comment. On the issue, that is. Which says it all.

My country is not the defender of democracy that it claims to be and others can see that all too clearly.

Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[sharkman]

Thank you for losing some of the attitude, but please understand I wasn't defending cheney or his position.

On your comment, there is an aspect that neither you or anyone not in upper levels of the administration will ever see. There are many efforts and strategies that the press know nothing about, that are efforts to achieve goals for the U.S. government. Unless you can be privy to ALL of the efforts your government makes, commenting on merely what you know is at best an inaccurate analysis.

I believe your government defends its interests, some of which include young democracies and some which do not.

[Guest American Woman]

My "attitude" remains exactly as it has been. I repeated exactly what I've been saying from the beginning. In the future, I suggest that you contact Greg or Charles if you think I have an attitude problem, especially in regards to another poster, rather than selectively throwing about accusations. I know you don't like what I have to say, but I have every right to say it.

And fyi, everyone here comments on "merely" what they know about, including bush_cheney2004 and yourself, yet you chose to tell me that such comments are "at best an inaccurate analysis." Here's a fact. I make it my business to be informed. I'm more informed than most. So if you see my "analysis" as inaccurate, I suggest you provide some proof/rebuttal -- other than some sort of insinuation that there's proof that I'm wrong but we'll just never see that information.

Bottom line. There is nothing inaccurate about my analysis. America looks out for America, while trying to project the image of a defender of democracy. That's why the Iraq war was named "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Bush couldn't have cared less about the Iraqi people prior to (naming) the war. He cares about America's image as we go about getting what we want, which is why he so hypocritically called it what he did.

Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Bottom line. There is nothing inaccurate about my analysis. America looks out for America, while trying to project the image of a defender of democracy. That's why the Iraq war was named "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Bush couldn't have cared less about the Iraqi people prior to (naming) the war. He cares about America's image as we go about getting what we want, which is why he so hypocritically called it what he did.

President Bush did not "name the war"....such a notion is hopelessly naive and reflects little understanding about how such operations are planned and executed. For very practical reasons from ordering fresh milk to radio frequency assignments, operations are organized for the various CINCs under a common operation name that is pervasive for all aspects of assigned forces, chain-of-command, ROE's, contingencies, etc., and in this case, coalition forces from other nations. This continues in the tradition established during the invasion of Panama in 1989, with the added purpose of extracting political and propaganda value. It is no coincidence that the US Congress passed legislation similarly called the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)".

The naming effort and motives are explained well here:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/113497_opname21.shtml

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying all along. According to your link:

The runner-up name -- "Operation Desert Freedom" -- was nixed because it didn't send the message that America's intent is to liberate the Iraqi people.

As if America's intent was ever to free the Iraqi people. What a crock.

Bush is our Commander in Chief, so don't expect me to believe he doesn't have a say in military matters. He hypocritically refers to the war as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" without objection, so if "others" peceive America as a "defender of democracy," it's because America makes every effort to make sure we're seen that way. That was the point I've been making. To quote Bush: "America has entered a fierce struggle to protect the world from a grave danger and to bring freedom to an oppressed people." So whether he actually named the war all by his lonesome or not is a moot point. He's a hypocrite who is making our nation out to be a hypocrite. That's the issue.

Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying all along. According to your link:

As if America's intent was ever to free the Iraqi people. What a crock.

No, I did not confirm what you have been saying. I answered a question, adding far more detail to the issue than you.

Bush is our Commander in Chief, so don't expect me to believe he doesn't have a say in military matters. He hypocritically refers to the war as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" without objection, so if "others" peceive America as a "defender of democracy," it's because America makes every effort to make sure we're seen that way. That was the point I've been making. To quote Bush: "America has entered a fierce struggle to protect the world from a grave danger and to bring freedom to an oppressed people." So whether he actually named the war all by his lonesome or not is a moot point. He's a hypocrite who is making our nation out to be a hypocrite. That's the issue.

No, that is your issue. Sharkman was correct....the answers to your questions never satisfy, so you add your own icing to the agenda, really not caring what the answer is at all. That is why many of your "questions" will go wanting. Nothing you have stated adds anything to that which is not already known, as if you have "discovered" a secret dodge in naming Operation Iraqi Freedom.

You/we have lived in a "hypocrite" nation for all/most of our lives...so what does that make us? ...Americans (and still proud to be)

[Guest American Woman]

You/we have lived in a "hypocrite" nation for all/most of our lives...so what does that make us? ...Americans (and still proud to be)

Finally you comment on the actual issue: The fact that America is a "hypocrite nation" and as such, it's not "others" false perception/expectation that we defend democracy, but an image that is put out there by our country. And while you apparently are ok with that and think that's "makes you American," it is not what makes me American. It's not what I support, excuse, endorse, or otherwise accept. I'm not saying we have to be/should be the defenders of democracy, but we sure need to lose the dishonesty and quit being amazed when people question our dedication to defending democracy; calling us on our hypocrisy. Of course presenting a 'holy attitude' when it is knowingly false, as well as false in practice, is going to rub people the wrong way. When we claim to be killing people because we are striving for 'their good,' and others know that is not true, how do you expect them to react? how is our killing innocent civilians any better than anyone else killing innocent civilians?

[bush_cheney2004]

Finally you comment on the actual issue: The fact that America is a "hypocrite nation" and as such, it's not "others" false perception/expectation that we defend democracy, but an image that is put out there by our country....

...When we claim to be killing people because we are striving for 'their good,' and others know that is not true, how do you expect them to react? how is our killing innocent civilians any better than anyone else killing innocent civilians?

Again with more questions from the person who proclaims to be more informed than most. Let the record show that "we" have killed plenty of people before, civilains and combatants alike, and the world cheered. They have done the same. Why is our subterfuge concerning "democracy" any better (or worse) than another nation's rightgeous reason for killin' and mayhem (Canada slaughters people for "human rights" and "responsibility to protect"...go figure)? Your obsession with Iraq would be better served with an Iraqi-on-Iraqi body count.

The presented image is exactly as designed going back to at least Teddy Roosevelt....iron fist in a velvet glove. But any thinking person should know better than to believe in Fairy Tales.

Edited September 16, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

*I* have the answers. I know our killing innocent civilians is no better than when our innocent civilians are killed. I was asking you to explain how it's better, because that's the way our country presents it; "collateral damage" or those killed in a war for the 'good of democracy' is somehow morally superior to our innocents getting killed, and you seem to constantly be defending it.

My "obsession" with Iraq is in reality caring about what's happening in the world. That you would refer to it as an "obsession," as if there's something wrong with my concern, is bizarre.

But make no doubt about it. We are quickly losing world trust (or in your words, belief in "fairy tales.")They see through the illusion that we trying so hard to present-- the illusion that are fighting for the Iraqis' freedom. They see past the lies, and they are angry. And when a whole lot of people get really angry, the result isn't good.

Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

*I* have the answers. I know our killing innocent civilians is no better than when our innocent civilians are killed. I was asking you to explain how it's better, because that's the way our country presents it; "collateral damage" or those killed in a war for the 'good of democracy' is somehow morally superior to our innocents getting killed, and you seem to constantly be defending it.

You have nothing but the crushed naivete of a child...more than happy to live and prosper in the wicked USA while exclaiming shock at the reality of our not so humble rise to being the most powerful goddamn nation on the planet.

My "obsession" with Iraq is in reality caring about what's happening in the world. That you would refer to it as an "obsession," as if there's something wrong with my concern, is bizarre.

Then you are wasting time here....best get thee to SubSaharan Africa at once, as they have been dying by the MILLIONS for years. Or is that George Bush's fault too?

But make no doubt about it. We are quickly losing world trust (or in your words, belief in "fairy tales.")They see through the illusion that we trying so hard to present-- the illusion that are fighting for the Iraqis' freedom. They see past the lies, and they are angry. And when a whole lot of people get really angry, the result isn't good.

No, only the uneducated ever believed in such Fairy Tales. Don't you know that post secondary history and political science courses revealed the truth long ago? As for the rest, let them be uneducated and angry at the same time.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't give a crap about the U.S. being the "most powerful goddamn nation on the planet." I don't need that to be happy and prosper. I prefer honesty to shoving illusions down peoples' throats ... and then having people uttering in complete shock when they kill us "why do they hate us?"

No, it's not Bush's fault that people are dying in Africa-- which is why I concern myself more with Iraq, because that IS his/ my nation's fault. That IS something that could have been prevented but for our actions. You really needed that explained to you??

But sure. Let those engaged in terrorist activities be angry, eh? Why try to do something about that, when it's so damn easy to drop a bomb on other innocents in the name of/illusion of protecting ours-- while pretending we're morally superior, and being shocked when people don't buy that, either.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't give a crap about the U.S. being the "most powerful goddamn nation on the planet." I don't need that to be happy and prosper. I prefer honesty to shoving illusions down peoples' throats ... and then having people uttering in complete shock when they kill us "why do they hate us?"

Obviously, nor do you have a clue how it got that way. Therein lies your disillusionment....you want to enjoy all the benefits but not the "disadvantages".

No, it's not Bush's fault that people are dying in Africa-- which is why I concern myself more with Iraq, because that IS his/ my nation's fault. That IS something that could have been prevented but for our actions. You really needed that explained to you??

No, they were dying before then as well. Saddam's purges, Iran-Iraq war, Gulf War I (much killin' blessed by the UN to "free" Kuwait), UN sanctions, no-fly zone bombings, and Desert Fox. Did you raise hell for all of these too?

But sure. Let those engaged in terrorist activities be angry, eh? Why try to do something about that, when it's so damn easy to drop a bomb on other innocents in the name of/illusion of protecting ours-- while pretending we're morally superior, and being shocked when people don't buy that, either.

Haven't you heard? Nobody is innocent....we kill unborn babies for breakfast!

Edited September 16, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Are you truly not getting what I've so clearly saying? I'm saying I would enjoy living here even if we weren't the "most powerful goddamn nation on the planet." And I most definitely don't approve of lying and deception to acheive that status. Yes I've lived here and enjoyed it, but at the same time, I've done what I can to try to right the wrongs. And I'll continue doing that. And here's what you don't seem to get. I could have been born in any number of countries and enjoyed what they had to offer. Does that help you see that I don't have the need for my country to be all powerful? I don't even believe in one Super Power. I believe in a balance of power, which is why I admire our constitution.

As for the sanctions against Iraq, yes. I did disapprove of, speak out against, and sign petitions against them. Obviously Saddam wasn't hurt by them, while the innocent Iraqis were.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you truly not getting what I've so clearly saying? I'm saying I would enjoy living here even if we weren't the "most powerful goddamn nation on the planet." And I most definitely don't approve of lying and deception to acheive that status. Yes I've lived here and enjoyed it, but at the same time, I've done what I can to try to right the wrongs. And I'll continue doing that. And here's what you don't seem to get. I could have been born in any number of countries and enjoyed what they had to offer. Does that help you see that I don't have the need for my country to be all powerful? I don't even believe in one Super Power. I believe in a balance of power, which is why I admire our constitution.

As for the sanctions against Iraq, yes. I did disapprove of, speak out against, and sign petitions against them. Obviously Saddam wasn't hurt by them, while the innocent Iraqis were.

Oh please...spare us...this is really not about you and your passionate feelings either way. Do you think "signing a petition" means a damn thing? Did you go to Palestine and stand in the way of an IDF Caterpillar D-9 to be crushed to death? Ever been arrested for non-violent war protest? What have you done besides live and thrive in the very evil you rail against?

The USA is for 300,000,000 people...NOT JUST YOU. They come from all over the world, and continue to come despite your revelations about evil incarnate. You can have your say, but so can everybody else...they vote with their feet, dying to get in to the Promised Land. Economics trumps virtue.

Edited September 16, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Ummmm, yeah. I'm quite aware that this country isn't just for me. I'm also aware that there are many among the 300,000,000 people who feel as I do. There are many who do not feel as you do; they do not think economics trumps virtue.

As for what I've done in my life, it's none of your business. I don't have to prove and/or defend myself and my values/actions to you. But yes, I do think signing a petition means more than doing nothing. If you don't think so, then why don't you just shut up and say nothing about how YOU feel?

You seem to be so angry whenever I express my views. Here's a newsflash. I will never stop expressing my views and I will never stop trying to right what's wrong in America.

One final thought. Not everyone in this world wants to live in America, and sometimes those who do find out for themselves that the illusion is quite different from the reality.

Edited September 16, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Ummmm, yeah. I'm quite aware that this country isn't just for me. I'm also aware that there are many among the 300,000,000 people who feel as I do. There are many who do not feel as you do; they do not think economics trumps virtue.

I don't care what they (or you) say or feel....I only care about what they DO. Look around for the past 200 years and economics wins the day over heartfelt crocodile tear sob stories like yours.

Go sign another internet petition....you'll feel better. Meanwhile, I will check the price of my Halliburton stock:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=hal

One final thought. Not everyone in this world wants to live in America, and sometimes those who do find out for themselves that the illusion is quite different from the reality.

...and they still love it!

Edited September 16, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

So you believe everyone who has moved to America loves it. Talk about naive and believing in fairy tales.

I get that you care about money more than you care about people, but I have faith that the majority of Americans don't feel that way, so I'll contiune to do what I can to change the direction of our country, as will others like me. So brace yourself. Changes will come about, of that I'm sure.

[bush_cheney2004]

I get that you care about money more than you care about people, but I have faith that the majority of Americans don't feel that way, so I'll contiune to do what I can to change the direction of our country, as will others like me. So brace yourself. Changes will come about, of that I'm sure.

Sure...that's what people like you said in 2004 too!

[jbg]

When we claim to be killing people because we are striving for 'their good,' and others know that is not true, how do you expect them to react? how is our killing innocent civilians any better than anyone else killing innocent civilians?

Woh there.

Any war involves the death of innocent, and not so innocent parties. Japan is a far freer and happier country than it was in the 1930's and 1940's. The transition, involving a war with the US and Australia, was a b*tch (not sure if Canada was involved in that theatre).

[sharkman]

My "attitude" remains exactly as it has been. I repeated exactly what I've been saying from the beginning. In the future, I suggest that you contact Greg or Charles if you think I have an attitude problem, especially in regards to another poster, rather than selectively throwing about accusations.

I tend to not tattle. It smacks of childishness. If you can't handle criticism this is the wrong forum for you.

And fyi, everyone here comments on "merely" what they know about, including bush_cheney2004 and yourself, yet you chose to tell me that such comments are "at best an inaccurate analysis." Here's a fact. I make it my business to be informed. I'm more informed than most. So if you see my "analysis" as inaccurate, I suggest you provide some proof/rebuttal -- other than some sort of insinuation that there's proof that I'm wrong but we'll just never see that information.

So it's your business to be informed, eh? Do you really believe that there is no information or data that is kept classified? Then you are also naive.

Bottom line. There is nothing inaccurate about my analysis. America looks out for America, while trying to project the image of a defender of democracy. That's why the Iraq war was named "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Bush couldn't have cared less about the Iraqi people prior to (naming) the war. He cares about America's image as we go about getting what we want, which is why he so hypocritically called it what he did.

Your analysis is inaccurate because you aren't privy to ALL of the information. You make very bold statements about things you know little about. You hate Bush. We all get it. *yawn*

Edited September 17, 2007 by sharkman

[moderateamericain]

So the fight continues in an effort only to give the fight meaning? Is there an actual goal that can be accomplished in Iraq or is it a situation where there can be no solid conclusive "end," and thus no way to "win" and by continuing with the current strategy the people involved are just refusing to accept the reality of the situation?

Of course, Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists under Saddam. It was the playground of a dictator, but one that was largely impotent in strength due to the sanctions against him. Now that Iraq is functionally a failed state, terrorism thrives there, just as it does in other failed states like Afghanistan.

The main difference between your approach to fighting terrorism and mine is that you seem to be advocating a war of attrition here (ie: "[iraq] gave us a chance to kill as many extremists as we can") and I'm advocating the strategy of Containment.

I think 9/11 proved why a war of attrition is unwinable by the US - For the few hundred thousand dollars spent and the efforts of 19 hijackers the US has had to spend trillions on two wars, two occupations, and spending on homeland security and intelligence. That and the fact that, if you believe this is a war between the US and all the world's Muslims (which you suggest at the end), considering how much trouble a nation of 26 million is giving the US, what makes you think the US can handle 1.5 billion people?

Not the same thing - Germany attacked American Allies, and then its Ally (Japan) attacked the US directly - meaning Germany was the aggressor against the US, and the US could not guarantee its own safety until that regime was gone, meaning it HAD to occupy Germany to eliminate the threat. Once there, it made the great decision to make sure the mistakes of WWI's Treaty of Versailles weren't repeated - it's main purpose was to improve the lives of ordinary Germans, so that they could never be duped by someone like a Hitler again and establish economic links as well.

Iraq on the other hand, posed no threat to the US or its allies when the decision to invade was made, Saddam was, like I said earlier, weaker than he'd ever been before. The invasion and occupation was entirely unnecessary, and has diverted much, much money and manpower away from critical missions like rebuilding Afghanistan (I believe the last figure I saw was only about 3% of the money needed to rebuild Afghanistan has been spent).

Well, if you condemn the actions of the Shah, for example, and aren't happy that the US installed him there, than you probably also should be upset that the US is supporting a another autocratic leader in Mubarak in Egypt. It's not as if this pattern of supporting unpopular dictators who are Western-friendly has stopped.

Do you really think this is a war of religions? Really? No its not a war of religion its a war of Ideology. The idea that religion can dictate policy (See Islamic controlled governments vs Secular Democracy) and separation of church and state

It's one thing to be emotional when a tragedy occurs, it's another to let emotion guide your response to that tragedy.

It's like deciding to go avenge a loved one's death out of anger and loss, rather than assisting the police to nab the suspect.

See the problem with you is, you let the government handle what is ultimately your responsibility. Justice for a loved one who is killed at the hands of another is my responsibility. Sure, Ill let them try and handle it the civilized way but if the man or woman gets off on a technicality but is guilty as sin (Ex. OJ Simpson) He wouldn't live very long I can assure you that. We have a responsibility to are families first, before any sense of civic duty. I will help the greater good only when my family is satisfied first.

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Sep 16 2007, 03:57 PM)

When we claim to be killing people because we are striving for 'their good,' and others know that is not true, how do you expect them to react? how is our killing innocent civilians any better than anyone else killing innocent civilians?

Woh there.

Any war involves the death of innocent, and not so innocent parties. Japan is a far freer and happier country than it was in the 1930's and 1940's. The transition, involving a war with the US and Australia, was a b*tch (not sure if Canada was involved in that theatre).

We didn't start the war with Japan and we most definitely didn't claim that we were dropping bombs on them for the good of the Japanese civilians.

So I repeat. When we claim to be killing people ("collateral damage" is supposed to make it sound better) for their good, and others know that is not true, how do you expect them to react? How is our killing innocent civilians any better than others killing our innocent civilians?

Edited September 17, 2007 by American Woman

[jbg]

We didn't start the war with Japan and we most definitely didn't claim that we were dropping bombs on them for the good of the Japanese civilians.

True, but many said the US oil embargo of Japan had something to do with it.

So I repeat. When we claim to be killing people ("collateral damage" is supposed to make it sound better) for their good, and others know that is not true, how do you expect them to react? How is our killing innocent civilians any better than others killing our innocent civilians?

We don't claim to be killing them for their good. Only that idiot General Westmoreland said something like that, 40 years ago. What we're saying is that things that are being done for the benefit of Iraqis overall do involve some casualties.

Big difference.