You haven't seen a real drama flick until you've seen WW3. It's even more dramatic when you realize that it ain't a movie.
If they are as good as their word, they'll do nothing. They simply won't interfere. I'm actually in email contact with someone in the PRC heirarchy (someone low on the pole, admittedly) right now and it appears that they'll play ball. Normally, I wouldn't trust them any further than I could throw 'em, but in this situation they actually seem willing to stand back and let us work.
Treeman I heard a second hand quote attributed to Colin Powell of something to the effect that we will end any nations that do not cooperate. I hope that nuclear arms aren't being contemplated. I also just saw the ticker say that they are recalling 50,000 Army reservists. It looks like the build up is beginning.
Wow Treeman, good read. Maybe you should submit it to Hollywood or Tom Clanc, although Clancy tries to stick to more realistic scenarios. While we're at it why don't we go to Africa and Asia and South America and other parts of the world, kick butt and make them behave. Why not go and kick butt in the old Yugoslavia and make them all get along with each other,too. I think India and Pakistan are disputing Kashmir--only a billion or so folks to set straight there. How about Sierre Leone and Nigeria while we're at it. Columbia, too. Let's pretend that we can do this without millions of American casualties. Or perhaps you envision nuking them all? We'll all just have a happy ending.
That was an Assistant SecDef who said that. It is accurate. Nuclear weapons will not be used unless someone uses one on a US city, which is highly unlikely. Expect this to be a conventional war, with possible CBW use (chem/bio) by the enemy, in which case we will probably not respond in kind (with WMD) due to our reluctance to inflict civilian collateral casualties. If they hit our troops with CBW we would normally nuke them, but considering the sensitive matter of a coalition, we probably will remove that capability via normal means. Unless, of course, we can nuke them and not get caught - like Libya's chem factory. The spike weapon is apparently extremely difficult to detect from space...
Ok, let's see....You agree that we're not perfect, you don't want war, but now is not the time for a retrospection on the government. We need to be united in a time of crisis, or else we are doing what the terrorists wanted, and we are hippies if we disagree, is that about right? I'm really trying to be accurate, not sarcastic here, for the purposes of my response, so if I misinterpreted you, I apologize... Ok, about our imperfections and now not being the time. Ok, when is the time? When do you analyse your government, and it's decision to go to war? Afterwards? Before the events leading to the war have happened? When? Now is EXACTLY the time for thought rather than automatic approval.If we stand behind whatever our country does 100%, and refuse to consider the merits of it's position because it's a time of crisis, when will any war ever be stopped or reconsidered? Were Nazi's not often convicted at Nuremberg despite the fact that they were often " just following orders"? And that was in a time when people had less access to what was going on then we do now.Wars rarely begin without a crisis, and if a crisis is an automatic cause for carte blanche approval of a government's actions, then what is a responsible government? THe thing is, the process in place was set up to prevent just that kind of authority being in the hands of the executive branch which you seem to be happy with. Bush cannot go to war without approval by the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, whose vote on the subject is supposed to represent our measured, considered opinion, not an automatic rubber stamp. What would be the point of needing Congressional approval if we are all supposed to shut up and get in line in any moment of crisis? Or are you suggesting that the Constitution is just a formality? How do you know what Bin Laden wanted? Have you spoken to the man? Maybe what he wants is for us to respond like the "imperialist aggressors" he keeps telling people we are.Maybe he wants us to attack and kill civilians of the country he's living in thereby making him and his cause more popular in the region. Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that he wants us to do something different than we are right now,or he wouldn't have done anything. I f what he wants, as you suggest, is for us to behave like nothing happened, why did he do anything in the first place? A person who likes the sea to be calm won't make waves...Or maybe, just maybe, Bin Laden had nothing to do with this, and those responsible would be more than happy for us to pin it on him, go attacking innocent countries and/or peoples, and that way gain untold numbers of sympathizers and supporters for their cause while costing them nothing...Do you see why thought before action is better than afterward? If our government isn't perfect, but we automatically support them in crisis, doesn't it follow that we will inevitably engage in unjustified or unwarrented wars? And wouldn't wasting our young men in such a war, not to mention the "enemy" and the civilians wars always destroy, be just as much a waste of the innocent lives you mentioned as would be killed in a terrorist attack, if not worse?
Tom Clancy came on minutes after the first WTC building collapsed and said he couldn't have imagined such an attack... You appear to have failed to grasp the significance of my assessment: we ARE going to go to Africa, Asia, and S. America and make them behave. And if they don't then they will be attacked. I'm not sure you've grasped the significance of this event - the world has truly changed, and something never before seen in history is being created - a REAL world coalition against an evil enemy. All 5 of the Permanent UN Security Council members - USA, Britian, France, Russia, and China - all the world's great powers are for the first time since WWII united in their resolve. They are all going to cooperate. Articler 5 of the NATO charter has been enacted for the first time in history. The EC has united in its first unanimous vote. The UNSC also had a unanimous vote. This has never happened before. We've got a clear green light to strike back, and strike back hard. And we're going to do it on every continent on the planet. Like it or not, that is what is going to happen. And frankly, I really don't care at this point who likes it or not.
Treeman -- I read, appreciated, and took seriously your first post. World War III. Jesus Christ what a depressing, horrible, horrible thing. I hope and pray that it does not come to this. But if it does, I believe that we will be fighting the good fight. To the 'Others' (I don't mean that offensively)-- I won't pretend to understand all that went in to giving Israel to the Israelis vs. the Palestinians. I don't know who came first in the land which is now Israel, but the Israelites were there in one form or another thousands of years ago. There are sites in Israel which are holy and precious to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Who are we to say who gets what? For whatever reasons, Truman and the US government recognized Israel as a sovereign nation in 1948. The atrocities the Jews suffered in WWII probably had something to do with it. But, whatever the reason, Israel is our ally, and I will support my country in their support for Israel. I may not know all of the technicalities that were involved in the above paragraph, but what I do know is this: Everyone has been conquered at some point in time. Even before the USA was the USA, when we all were part of our ancestral homes, wherever that may be, we were conquered. I am of the British Isles by heritage: English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. The Normans conquered the Brits in 1066 (I think), and the Romans conquered them long before that. The Brits then turned around and conquered each other back and forth over hundreds of years. In the last 200 years, the world has changed so much, and gradually become more and more enlightened, and the boundaries have been drawn for the nations of the world. I also know that the United States of America has been the most responsible nation in trying to broker peace in the Middle East. And most of the Arab countries support us and our allies, save a few hostile nations. Places like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. have been absolute hotbeds of fighting for centuries. For the most part, we have looked the other way while these nations blow the hell out of each other on a constant basis, even playing a passive role when they have attacked and bombed our ally of Israel. Yes, I know we've offered arms and support throughout, but we've never offered the full might of our military capabilities. We've played the sides to the best of our advantage, to be sure. That is what any sensible nation would do. We supported Israel, our ally, and at the same time worked tirelessly to broker peace between them and the PLO, we supported Iran in its war with Iraq (or vice-versa; I can't remember who vs. who in the Iran-contra scandal), we supported Kuwait when Iraq invaded it, and we supported bin Laden and Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union. Certain people and countries hate us and want us dead, while their Arab brother nations have remained our allies. This leads me to believe that the more civilized nations over there, like Saudi Arabia, are rather tired of the constant bickering and fighting, otherwise they would have stepped in and done something, one way or the other. At the very least, the would have severed their ties to the US. Everything I've read has alluded to this.....and their reluctance to attack a fellow Arab and Muslim brother nation. Finally, the rouges have done something about it. They hate us for what we did to the PLO, but what were we supposed to do? Nations MUST have allies in all parts of the world, especially in parts of the world that hold resources that are precious to the economy of the entire planet (read: oil). World politics is very much a popularity contest, but a very important popularity contest it is. Even the most popular people can't always make the most popular decisions. You know the old adage: You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Sometimes one is forced to do something for the good of the whole, even if it pisses off a few pieces of that whole. What happens when there are 3 children at recess who want to play on 2 swings? Being children, either one will bully the other so that he gets the swing, or they likely will fight over it. Perhaps a teacher or a parent steps in and plays the peacemaker so that they share the swing for maybe 5 minutes each. Its a decision that works, but that doesn't mean that all 3 children are likely to be happy about it. Maybe the child who was initially bullied gloats over the fact that, in a sense, he won. And the bully may retaliate later, either against the bullied child, or maybe against the peacemaker, or maybe against both. I'm not about to sit silently and blame US foreign policy on this atrocity. I not about to sit here and say, "Well, what happened was evil and horrid, but they had a reason for doing this; look at our foreign policy!" Say it if you will, but don't expect the majority of Americans to like what you have to say or even like you anymore. The vast majority of us understand that this must be answered in blood and war. As horrid and upsetting as that is, it is the only language that some people understand. And for the last time, none of us want innocent blood to be spilled. And I still say you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Treeman, I'm sorry I don't believe you. The whole world has not really changed that much. The fab 5 are not going to roam the world kicking butt and living happily ever after together. We are going to punish the terrorists who did this act, but that's about it. Given dubya trying to compete with Dad, and his desire for a Wag the Dog type distraction from his overrall fecklessness we might try to knock out Sadam Hussein, but I doubt it. If we do it won't change much in the way of terrorism. I guess it will allow Iraqi children to eat and achieve our purpose of conquest for cheap oil, though.
treeman, The US has been leaning hard on Pakistan to cooperate: <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/13/pakistan.us.bush/">Bush administration puts pressure on Pakistan</A> A Fox News blurb said that the Islamabad airport was being closed for planned military equipment movements. Charlie Rose had a too short discussion with Fouad Ajami and he stated that the time for pinprick counterstrikes was over and the entire world was watching for US actions. The debate is about to shift from whether the US will do something to how drastic the military actions will be. As far as the military actions that you suggest: Afganistan is something that I can agree on with the others doubtful because without direct linkage to Sep 11 events, it will be harder to justify. Would Ellington Field be used for staging military equipment for overseas deployment because an unconfirmed story reports that it is being prepared for that. September 11 was the date that Hudson discovered Manhattan. Mango
Dammit man, have been living in a f*cking HOLE??!!?? The world is changed FOREVER due to the attacks on September 11! "The fab 5 are not going to roam the world kicking butt and living happily ever after together." This has been all over the news.....or don't you get TV in that hole you're in? Read Treeman's post here: "All 5 of the Permanent UN Security Council members - USA, Britian, France, Russia, and China - all the world's great powers are for the first time since WWII united in their resolve. They are all going to cooperate. Article 5 of the NATO charter has been enacted for the first time in history. The EC has united in its first unanimous vote. The UNSC also had a unanimous vote." We are going to punish the terrorists who did this act, but that's about it. You might want to tell us where this hole you're in is. I know of a few on this board who might want to hide with you. The United States has declared war on Terrorism, and the nations who harbor, supply, and protect these terrorists. Given dubya trying to compete with Dad, and his desire for a Wag the Dog type distraction from his overrall fecklessness we might try to knock out Sadam Hussein, but I doubt it. If we do it won't change much in the way of terrorism. I cannot believe the audacity of this statement. Thousands of people are dead, national landmarks have been attacked and destroyed, Congress votes to give $40 billion to the effort of rebuilding and preparing for war, twice what the President asked for, and you're accusing him of trying to compete with his father. Shame on you. I guess it will allow Iraqi children to eat and achieve our purpose of conquest for cheap oil, though. Yeah. Thats it. Its all our fault that Iraqi children are starving to death and getting sick. Yeah, its all our fault. It has nothing to do with the fact that we imposed the restrictions we did due to the fact that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, murderous tyrant. No, it has nothing to do with that. Get a grip glynch. And stay in your hole.
Lynus, I'm writing specifically to you you because you're the only person I was really arguing with that I respect much, anymore. Probably DaDakota as well for the most part, but I don't think I want to aruge on that front anymore. I want you to know: I in no way think that the US "deserved" the attack. I do think that we've created resentment. But what happened is like getting shot for shoplifting. Believing that the US could have done things to prevent this in no way diminishes my anger and horror at the action. I wouldn't have objected to them making complaints in the UN, for instance. On balance, I think the US is a good nation. Maybe even the best. Certainly, no other major power has been as beneficent with its power than America. Much of what we do is humanitarian, good, and selfless. You seem very stringent in your support of the Israelis. Here are some facts: 1. Israel taxed Palestinians but denied them citizenship and voting rights. 2. Palestinians were limited to less than 1/2 the access to electricity as the average Israeli 3. Only two wells have been dug in Palestinian territory since the creation of Israel. Dozens have been dug in Israeli inhabited regions. Israelis use more water than any other country in the Middle East. Palestinians were unable to use as much as the others. 4. Palestinians were deprived of adequate education. Their tax funds were in essence robbed, and given to Israelis in the form of social services. 5. Palestinians were limited in economic development and opportunity. Government contracts were almost impossible for them to procure. Should we have supported our allies in these actions? Is there a point when moral repugnance overcomes loyalty? I believe so. None of our actions justified terrorism. But I can understand the anger.
Apparently no one paid attention to this one when I posted it earlier - just a brief rundown on the Israeli-Palestinian history over the past half century. Since there appears to be some confusion/misconception about the US's complacency in Israeli evil, I think a few people ought to read it... Really just a quick history lesson for those who don't know it: The state of Israel was created in 1948 as a result of the first declaration of the United Nations, at the urging of Britian (who had issued the Balfour Declaration in the '20s, which designated that the Zionists, or Jews seeking an Israeli state in Palestine, be allowed to have a state). The UN chose the second most dangerous place in the world for Jews at the time - Palestine, the Jews having just come from the most dangerous place in the world, Nazi Germany. There have always been Jews in Palestine, but they were a minority until 1948. Before that they lived in Kibbutzes (little fortress-like towns), and had always had to fend off attacks by Arabs who wanted their water, land, women, money, food, etc. Mostly water. Well, when 1948 rolls around and all these European Jews arrive in Palestine, the various Arab states decided that they didn't like the idea and immediately declared war on the newly declared Jewish state. Israel had no army, but it had the Haganah (Kibbutz defenders who excelled at guerilla tactics) and many veterans who had recently fought in WWII. But they had no weapons... So the US comes in and gives the new Israeli Defense Forces some surplus WWII weapons, and a long history of arms supply to Israel is begun. The Jews won that war, and got to create their state. The various Arab states vowed to destroy Israel one day. In 1956 Egypt, Saudi, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan again attacked Israel, hoping that the support from the Soviet Union they were getting would be enough to get them over the top this time. They were wrong. The US and Britian had recently built the Suez Canal, and wanted to protect it from Soviet domination, and again supported Israel. The Arabs lost again. In 1967 the Arabs again massed for an attack, but the Israelis found out about the deployment and launched their own preemptive counterattack. This war took only 6 days, and until Desert Storm was the most successful war in mideast history. The Israelis captured alot of territory - the Gaza Strip from the Egyptians, the West Bank (Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. It is this territory that is currently being fought over with the Palestinian intifada (uprising). In 1973 the Arabs attacked again, and Israel almost lost. The Israelis even armed their fighter-bombers with nukes, but they beat back the ground assault before they had to use them. But they nearly nuked the Arabs. Ever since then, no one has wanted to attack the Israelis militarily. (the Israelis have about 100 +/- nukes) In 1982 Israel invaded southern Lebanon because Islamic militants were launching terrorist attacks into Israel from that crumbling state, and that has set the tone for the last 20 years. No one will attack the Israelis militarily, because they have one of the finest armies in the world. But the various Palestinian organizations (Hamas, PFLP, PLO/Fatah) and their support groups (namely Hizbollah) have become adept at terror tactics... Last year, before Sharon was elected as Prime Minister of Israel, the Israelis had agreed to give back the occupied territories and allow the Palestinians to create their own state. The Palestianians responded with more terrorist attacks, and here we are... History lesson over, so on to current matters: we have recently begun to remove our support for the IDF/Israel, but this attack will change all of that. They have always thought (rightly) that we are what's preventing them from destroying Israel, because of our military aid to that country. We've also prevented the Israelis from committing genocide against them. But the scenes of them dancing in the streets... They have lost all support that we were in the process of giving them. If you've been watching the news, you'll remember how Yassir Arafat's face was ghost white and he was shaking - he knows what's about to happen, and he's scared sh*tless. The Israelis can now kill as many Palestinians as they want, and we don't care - we've got other things to worry about farther east, in Afghanistan.
Mango, I personally expect it to be pretty much limited to Afghanistan and Iraq as far as large scale military offensives go. Like I said before, I think most of the others (other states who support terrorism) will probably agree to some degree of cooperation or another, and that cooperation will be significant. Such cooperation in itself will probably require small scale military engagements at various points, though, as the occupants of these camps and their close supporters are not likely to willingly give up. In those states, we would probably classify it as either a "police action" or a "punitive mission", depending on circumstances... Yes. Ellington would be used. I am not in Houston right now, and if you in fact see increased activity in that area, it should be apparent that something big is about to go down.
I don't think that you or anyone else thinks that we "deserved the attack." And as for us "creating resentment," I won't say that I disagree with you. I know full-well that some have reasons to hate us, but your analogy of "getting shot for shoplifting" is ludicrous. However, I don't think we could have done anything here to prevent this, short of 1)selling out our allies, or 2) finding out about the attack in advance and stopping it with force. I appreciate your 1-5 of Israeli vs. Palestinian.....I didn't know any of that. But I still want to hear the other side of that argument. So maybe Israel did some reheprehensible things; those things you listed are terrible...but WHY did they act in that way? We cannot just say, "Oh, you're being unfair," and just drop our support of Israel. Like I said before I won't pretend to know the minute-by-minute discussions of everything talked about at each and every Middle East Peace Summit. All I know is that we've done a lot, all that we really could, and left the rest up to the Middle East. Israel would have certainly fallen if we took away our support. You said, "None of our actions justified terrorism," and I absolutely believe that, and I stand beside my country because of this and I support the USA in going into all-out war to completely, absolutely, and utterly stamp out terrorism whereever it may exist.
I think you underestimate the power of the poll. As well as the power of American anger when it is aroused. Whatever you may think about Bush, he is an American to the core. I personally have some issues with the man (I naturally lean Democrat), and I thought any joke I could get my hands on about him was funny 4 days ago, but I must say this unequivocally: I am so glad that he is here now and not Gore. He is the right man in the right (wrong) time. He has an excellent staff - a fact which cannot be overstated, and his father to tell him what he should do (one of those items being "I should have gone all the way in 1991")... But as I said, you underestimate the power of the poll. Last I checked Gallup there was 92% support for a decisive military response. Absolutely overwhelming - the best any prez can usually hope for is 48%. When asked if attacking other countries to stop terrorism should be done - still 62%. Absolutely overwhelming. Never underestimate the power of the poll. But as I said earlier, you can believe it, disbelieve it, argue it, against it, lament it, whatever. It IS going to happen. It sucks, and this will probably be a shi*ty war, and Americans are going to die, and enemy civilians will probably die... But there's just no way around it at this point. Unless you feel comfortable in a world where assholes crash fully loaded 747s into skyscrapers...
Lynus: IMO, we supported Israel because: 1. they treat their own people well (and that's an underrated national trait with places like Afghanistan out there) 2. We needed a stable ally in an area where we feared Communist domination. 3. Holocaust guilt (very natural) 4. At the time when decisions were being made, I believe there were far more Jews than Moslems in the US. Diaspora had led to a very large Jewish population in the US, where anti-Semitism was relatively (and I use that term losely, it existed here, too) weak IMO, #2 is the most important part of the equation. And I'm not even sure if it was a mistake. After all, the Soviet Union was insidiously attempting to dominate the region. We did need to maintain a presence. But that came at the price of being unable to censure Israeli policy substantially. I don't think it's all or nothing - we didn't have to abandon our alliance. Instead, I think we should have given aid to Israel contingent upon improved conditions for Palestinians. One of the major problems was that Israelis barely outnumbered Palestianians. If the Israelis gave the Palestinians the vote, then they would lose considerable power themselves. They were unwilling to do this. And they did have some good points: afterall, they were surrounded by hostile powers. To them, it would have seemed like making the enemy fellow citizens. But that doesn't change the fact that Palestinians were essentially treated like African-Americans in the US after the Civil War, but prior to the Civil rights movements. I hope you understand what I mean, now... I'm CERTAINLY not saying the US earned this.
haven: You present some pretty good points. Surprisingly, they're all pretty accurate by my estimation (most Americans couldn't point to "Palestine" on a map if asked, and then explain what they were supposed to be pointing at). You do understand the situation, and that makes it so much easier to discuss... Four days ago I was calling for the US to put troops in the occupied territories - I simply saw no other way to get them to stop killing each other. Such an action would have been completely legal, as the UN has mandated that troops be put there in previous resolutions. We've always resisted that effort because we weren't willing to do it ourselves, but those who were were hostile to our intentions. We have two main interests in the ME: protecting the oil supply and protecting the Suez Canal. Israel has always made both of these possible, and without both lines our economy would not be what it is today (even sagging, it dwarfs everyone elses). Without Israel, and considering who would likely sit astride these two lifelines, we would be in serious trouble. But you hit on the humanitarian reason that we hav protected Israel as well. We will not allow the Arabs to commit a genocide against them. We have never intervened militarily against their enemies during their wars - never, not once, not even in '73 when they were nearly overrun. But we have at the same time always tried to restrain them from committing genocide upon those who desire to see them die. We brokered the only peace accords existent between Israel and any muslim nations - Egypt and Jordan. Those deals would not have happened without US pressure on Israel. Until Sharon was elected, we were well on our way in brokering a comprehensive peace deal (excepting Iraq and Iran) - securing Israel's borders and therefore removing from them any excuse to attack the Palestinians. Or oppress them. But the suicide bombers kept coming, and kept coming, and Barak (who should have been the "great peacemaker") was elected out and Ariel Sharon (who is a war criminal) was elected in... In short, we have tried. We have tried hard to bring peace in the ME. We cannot be blamed for their failures.
Jag, Let me explain to you one last time why you were dragged into this or better yet give you quotes from this thread: Haven: "I'm confused as to the purpose of this thread. If it was to argue that we should punish the terrorists. Well, nobody disagrees and other threads say the same thing. If so, you wasted our time. If you meant the thread as a general condemnation of Palestinians, Moslems, etc... then you commited a generalization. The title of the thread certainly implies this, since most of us are arguing for compassion for civilians. So, either way, this thread shouldn't have been started." Lynus: "Jesus, get a grip. I've read so much here in the last two days blaming US foreign policy and how we brought this on ourselves. The US has certainly not always been an angel throughout its history, but we are RIGHT to be angry, and we are RIGHT to retaliate. Terrorism of this magnitude calls for nothing less than war. Haven, I am unsure of your particular stance, so I don't mean to single you out, but those who have blamed us and our foreign policy for this should be ashamed of themselves. Get some ******* patriotism. This purpose of this thread is not to generalize Palestinians and Muslims or any other Arab. The purpose of this thread is to make people realize exactly what kind of a person and group we may be dealing with." Haven: "Isn't it more shameful to be incapable of being truthful? Metaphor: If a child steals a cd player because a parent brought them up poorly, and the clerk shoots the child and the parent, everyone is at fault. The clerk, obviously, did the most evil action. But the child was wrong to steal and the parent was wrong to neglect his sense of ethics. That's what I think the current situation is like. The US has supported Israel even when they were far worse to the Palestinians than the British ever were to us... they walked out on a conference on racism when the rest of the world (including our allies) were there, we've killed countless civilians in foreign wars. We did it for what we thought was right. We were wrong sometimes. But what happened in NYC is worse. However, I'm not going to pretend it happened in a vacuum. You say I need patriotism. I say you need a grasp of objectivity." Lynus: "The US can never do any right with people who take this stance. If the US had supported Palestine all these years instead of Israel, and Israel was behind all of this, these same people would be condemning the US for not supporting Israel. Certain nations are friendly to the US. These nations are our allies. We support our allies. Just about every civilized nation in the world from NATO to Australia to Great Britain to Russia to freaking Communist China has pledged its support to the United States. Funny how Russia supports us, when we supported Afghanistan during its war with the Soviet Union. I am shocked and ashamed of those who say we had this coming." Manny Ramirez: "Lynus: thank you for saying this. I have for the most part been reading the last couple of days the posts and threads here and not really responding, but I'm getting more than a little annoyed about people saying that the US had this coming. You may not agree with our foreign policy, but certainly you agree that innocent people did not deserve to lose their lives. Yes, people in this country have a right to voice their opinion, no matter how much others disagree with it. But what Lynus said about patriotism is so true. Five years ago maybe even up to two years ago, I took this country for granted. If this had happened back then, I probably would have shrugged my shoulders and thanked God that it didn't happen to me. In other words, I wouldn't have been so upset about this like I am now. What changed my attitude? About a year ago, I went to DC for the first time in my life for a work-related seminar. One day after class, me and the guy who went with me went sightseeing. We saw the Jefferson Memorial, Vietnam War Memorial, Korean War Memorial, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and later Arlington National Cemetary. Let me tell you something: reading some of Lincoln's words on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial and seeing JFK's eternal flame at his gravesite in Arlington with always a crowd around stirred up some patriotism in me. Or better yet seeing the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or seeing the whole city from the front of the Robert E. Lee House stirred up some patriotism in me. I could go on and on, but I think people here get the point. I will go back to DC some day when it's not work related and visit the White House, the Capitol, and other things that we missed. It definitely changed my life forever. Sadly, there are people who just don't get it. I'll never forget seeing a person continue to keep walking when the National Anthem was being played one night at a high school football game. You could just tell that people wanted to beat the crap out of this guy for doing this. People that burned the flag is another example of this. I am almost to the point of saying that if you felt that the US deserved this attack and that innocent people deserved to die, then I want you out of this country. I am tired of the US giving handouts to people who don't give a damn about it." Haven: "quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm getting more than a little annoyed about people saying that the US had this coming -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, you obviously haven't been reading carefully. Nobody has said these things." Manny Ramirez: "Haven: you act like I was specifically talking to you when I've never mentioned any names at all. So, to me you are the one who needs to read more carefully. I think somebody here say that you are Muslim and I'm not blaming all Muslims for this attack and I'm not saying that we need to eliminate all Muslims. Only an uneducated idiot would think something like this. Hell, when I was in grad school, one of my best friends was a devout Muslim from Pakistan. Any religion is going to have extremists that are going to make uneducated people think that the whole religion is like that. Unfortunately, not everybody in this country has the privilege of being educated like you and me. I'm sure there are many Arabic Muslims who have been brainwashed or uneducated and feel that every American or Westerner is out to get them. It goes both ways. But the reason I bring all this up is that I at least, am not in favor of radical measures against Muslims. I'll repeat that so it's loud and clear: I am not in favor of radical measures against Muslims. The whole point of my previous post was that I was agreeing 100% with Lynus. I'm sorry but to me there are people who have been posting here the last couple of days that I would love to see them express their viewpoints to the President of my company, which is a huge Defense Contractor, Senior Vice-President, and Director of Business Operations. All of these gentlemen are either retired military or have ties to the military. Better yet, explain your views Haven to some of the families that lost loved ones to this event. I know some people love to argue (I work right next to a guy like that), and it's your right to feel this way. That's one of the greatest things about this scapegoat of a country called the United States. Unlike all these other countries that are run by dictators, despots, and puppets of religious groups, people like you can say these things and not fear that you are going to get shot. Funny how many people forget about that. Funny how many people forget all the things that America has done for them. Are we perfect? Of course not. I am sick and tired of my country being made a scapegoat and being painted as an "evil" country when that simply is and never will be true. I am sorry for being so emotional, but I have never experienced an event like this in my life and I hope I never will have to again. We have a member who we have no idea if he's alive in mc mark. What do you think would go through his mind if he read some of these posts? Do you think he would say, "Yes, the US was asking for trouble because of our friendship with Israel?" Or how about almu, ROCKET RICH NY, or VecseySux? I am sorry and I mean no disrespect whatsoever to Mark McGriff, and if one of the admins wants to remove this part of my post or this post completely then I understand. My point is that in this country, at least in my eyes, people stick up for each other and when one of your own is a possible victim, you don't even try to rationalize why this happened other than it's a terrorist act. To say or imply that the US had something like this coming because of our friendship with Israel is something that is really insensitive and incendiary. Haven, you have not said that you felt that the US had this coming, and other people have said the same. However, the tone and attitude smacks of that viewpoint. You're not crazy to come out and say it, but the more you defend your viewpoint, the more other people like myself are going to believe that you might feel that way. Until mc mark is accounted for can we all here realize how terrible this tragedy is and not make excuses for it other than it was an act of terrorism? Before people here go crazy and ballistic, please read this post at least twice and think before you post." Haven: "quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haven: you act like I was specifically talking to you when I've never mentioned any names at all. So, to me you are the one who needs to read more carefully -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, I was speaking for anybody you could possibly accusing. Nobody has said any such thing. Why don't you prove it? You can't. Come back and paste a response." Manny Ramirez: "Dude, you really don't want to go there ! If you really read my post (I said twice and you probably didn't read it once), then you would know that I said that people here did not come out and say it directly but they implied it. You want an example? Here's one from FD Khan in the thread started by Da Dakota: " Then I give examples of how people here have posted about the resentment whether by our foreign policy or history that other countries or people have for the US. I will continue this post in the next one..sorry for this one being so long.
Previous post continued: Jag, I'm sorry that I quoted all those threads, but I wanted to show you the build-up to this thing. Yes, you didn't say foreign policy, you used the history of Bin Laden. However, it's obvious, even you and I can agree on that, that you stated or implied that there was some resentment of the US here. All I ever was trying to say is that now is not the time to look back at the history of Bin Laden or the history of our foreign policy. No s*** that we have pissed people off. We don't need history lessons about that at this time. Show some respect for the victims and their families. Going on and on about the history of why people resent us makes it sound like that you condone these acts of terrorism. You are entitled to your opinion and all, but please understand that others are a little emotional right now and although you might mean well, don't take it personal if people here are not interested in Professor Jag's history lessons. That's all I was trying to communicate, man. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut, but I reached my breaking point last night. What's funny is that if you met me last week, you would be surprised that I have reacted like this. I am not a violent person. I don't get into arguing about politics. This is completely out of character for me. Yet my life was changed forever on September 11, 2001, and I may start taking a hard stance with those who take this country for granted. I am not saying that you have--I'm just giving you a background of what I'm feeling. Let me ask you something: are you still in school or do you have a job or what is your employment status? I have worked the last year and a half for a defense contractor. Our biggest customer is the US Government. You can say that I have been brainwashed and yes I don't agree all the time with what our govt has done in the past, but I think that you'll find that once you get out in the real world that your views and attitudes may change.
