9/11 Effects and Aftermath

[ltcoljt]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Which side is the one of the bad guys ? You mean believing the war would be even worst for the Middle East ? I'm sorry to say so, but we still not have any answer to that question...

Now that the war has been done, we just have to make everything to see things getting better. We are far from it now.

I suppose you don't think there was ever a link between Saddam and terror. And if you did you still wouldn't think that America would have been justified to take military action.

I am just mystified by the things you have said in this thread. As an American, your opinions and thoughts are alien to me and my culture.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I think that first moment, when the whole planet saw Saddam being checked for fleas, was the personal 9/11 moment of many Arab/Muslim heads of state. Every single one of them thought the same thing at the same time: That will just as easily be me if I ever dare to oppose the United States or Israel.

 

[ltcoljt]

The biggest story of the week was overlooked in the hubbub of Saddam's capture. The attempted murder of Mubarak.

This is where the real battle against terror is being fought. Scary stuff.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I suppose you don't think there was ever a link between Saddam and terror. And if you did you still wouldn't think that America would have been justified to take military action.

I am just mystified by the things you have said in this thread. As an American, your opinions and thoughts are alien to me and my culture.

There was not only links between Saddam and Terror... Saddam WAS Terror !!! By the way, you can't believe how much I'm glad Saddam is now arrested.

The only thing I meant by that is that this war against Iraq was an over-risky move and should not be considered as an example to follow. It seems that for now it worked well, and I'm glad about it, however, we can't say it wouldn't have been wiser to have another politics to fight against terrorism.

Let's take an example. You have a friend who is in huge debt. To pay them, he finally decides to play to a little game : He shoots himself with a gun containing only one bullet. You made everything to avoid him to play to that game because you care of him, but he didn't listen to you. And when he fires his gun, nothing happens... he won. When you know that he finally played to the game, you yale at him because it was an insane thing to do... however, you're still very glad to know he's still alive and moreover without any debt anymore. Would you then consider you were wrong to be opposed to him on the first place ?

 

[ltcoljt]

Marla,

I am just trying to understand what you do not seem to grasp about America. What do you think would happen if these attacks on America continue. Suppose that OBL successfully attacked a US nuke facility. Killed maybe 500,000 Americans. The result would be something to the tenth power of the response we saw to 9/11.

Terror hawkers are making a terrible mistake if they really thing that attacking the US will result in a shift in public opinion that will in turn force America to abandon Israel. And Israel is really what it is all about.

If terror continues on its present course then the only possible conclusion is the removal, one by one, of every government that has supported Islamic terrorism. Do you think for one minute that the US will not do so?

It is pointless to speculate otherwise, it will happen.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Which side is the one of the bad guys ? You mean believing the war would be even worst for the Middle East ? I'm sorry to say so, but we still not have any answer to that question...

Now that the war has been done, we just have to make everything to see things getting better. We are far from it now.

During WW2 the Soviets were the "good" guys, after WW2 the Soviets were the "bad" guys. Does that make it any clearer?

 

[Marla_Singer]

ltcoljt, It's funny how you distort reality. If we were against the war in Iraq then it automatically means we were supporting terrorism and we were against Israel ??!!?!

Listen to me. I'm someone who wants EVEN MORE THAN YOU to see terrorism disappearing. And when I say "more than you", it means "more than you", not "as much as you".

The war against terrorism is a war in people's mind and nowhere else. Terrorism is dangerous once it's supported by any opinion. Terrorism is dangerous because of opinions. I always considered the best way to fight terrorism was to support democratic moves in the Arab World such as what we're seeing in Algeria. I'm not saying everything is perfect in Algeria but it's by far the arab country which is the closer to Democracy. Actually, Algeria is a democracy... the little problem is that the 2nd biggest party (fundamentalists) is forbidden.

As Truman gave back hope, peace and prosperity to Western Europe, I always considered the thing to do for the Arab world was the same. And that's why I was opposed to the war against Iraq, because we weren't giving any hope to the arabs, we were humiliating them once again.

So I say again what I mean, now that the war had been made, there's no other choice than to change it into a way to give back to iraqis hope, peace and prosperity... I didn't wait very long to think that. I thought that since Bush's declaration of war. I'm part of the people who were thinking that since war occured, then France had to take part of it whatever they've said before. Only because since it's done, we must do everything to make it work.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
ltcoljt, It's funny how you distort reality. If we were against the war in Iraq then it automatically means we were supporting terrorism and we were against Israel ??!!?!

Listen to me. I'm someone who wants EVEN MORE THAN YOU to see terrorism disappearing. And when I say "more than you", it means "more than you", not "as much as you".

The same as Nazism did not disappear by appeasing Nazis, terrorism will not disappear by appeasing terrorists. When you become so afraid of an enemy that you are not willing to fight him in his own backyard then you might as well start asking for terms because he will shortly be in yours.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The same as Nazism did not disappear by appeasing Nazis, terrorism will not disappear by appeasing terrorists. When you become so afraid of an enemy that you are not willing to fight him in his own backyard then you might as well start asking for terms because he will shortly be in yours.

The fact that the fight against terrorism should be won on the opinion doesn't mean we shouldn't fight terrorists. However, kicking Saddam's butt because we're running after terrorists is like being humiliated at school and avenging this on our younger brother.

I'm not saying that because I think Saddam has no link at all with terrorism in general. Just because getting him doesn't end terrorism. You must be more than tough against terrorists but you must also give to the opinion an alternate vision of the future in which they don't feel they are losers. If you don't do so, each terrorists killed will be replaced by two new terrorists joining the groups.

Now I won't be here to answer before 7 hours since I have some duties. I'm mad about it because I find this chat very interesting...

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Getting any terroist or terrorist supporter does not END terrosim, each such action does degrades their ability to conduct opperations.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
kicking Saddam's butt because we're running after terrorists is like being humiliated at school and avenging this on our younger brother.

I'm not saying that because I think Saddam has no link at all with terrorism in general. Just because getting him doesn't end terrorism.

Exactly, and more to the point, it doesn't do diddly about the terrorism that most concerns the U.S. Kicking Saddam's butt may turn out to be good for Iraqis in the long run, despite the Bush administration's idiotic reconstruction "plan". It just won't be good for Americans.

While the U.S. focused on Iraq, which had chemical weapons (big whoop) and a dead-in-the-water nuclear program, North Korea completed some actual nuclear weapons.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
The fact that the fight against terrorism should be won on the opinion doesn't mean we shouldn't fight terrorists. However, kicking Saddam's butt because we're running after terrorists is like being humiliated at school and avenging this on our younger brother.

I'm not saying that because I think Saddam has no link at all with terrorism in general. Just because getting him doesn't end terrorism. You must be more than tough against terrorists but you must also give to the opinion an alternate vision of the future in which they don't feel they are losers. If you don't do so, each terrorists killed will be replaced by two new terrorists joining the groups.

Now I won't be here to answer before 7 hours since I have some duties. I'm mad about it because I find this chat very interesting...

Ahh....real life calls. Iraq, if handled properly, can serve your alternate vision plan quite well. It rids the people of a tyrant who oppressed a large Muslim population and offers the opportunity for them to experience a democratic government under the protection of other democratic governments. If Saddam's reign had ended by his natural demise the chances are the country would be left with no other future but theocracy.

 

[cgannon64]

Sept. 11th made me much more interested in world affairs.

Sept. 11th totally ****ed with my dad's head considering he worked there for about 10 years, it was his first big job, and he knew maybe 30 people who died. In fact some of them had the option to leave but thought it was just a small fire and kept on working.

Sept. 11th is the driving force in every political debate, whether actual or imagined (as in: because of Sept. 11th we need more security - real - and because of Sept. 11th we need to attack Saddam - imagined.)

Sept. 11th put my city's and country's economy in the crapper, but its recovering now.

Sept. 11th temporarily put 100,000 New Yorkers out of jobs, and probably much less than that (but still a large number) in the long term.

I could go on and on...

 

[Constantine]

Are you expecting Canadians to invade Washington sooner or later ?

Dont worry it will happen.

 

[MattE]

Marla, you asked when has America been attacked on its own soil, I simply answered, no need to ack like a d**k about it. Asking when during the 19th century America was attacked isn't classed as the future incase you didn't know that already.

Please tell me MattE why it's so important for you to ruin my post only by such a stupid thing ? Moreover, I was talking about the future. Are you expecting Canadians to invade Washington sooner or later ?

Ruined your post? You asked a question I answered it.

I guess a little contravoursy never hurt anyone.

Anyway back on topic. With this whole Iraq thing. Everyone says how going to Iraq and not finding WMDs was a big mistke and all those inocent Iraqis died etc. In the end I believe it was worth it. Many Iraqi defectors have said that WMD did exist in Iraq at the time, and we all know Saddam wasn't afraid to use them again. We removed a tyrant from power and even though civies did died in the long run many will be saved because he is out of power.

We probably should've done something about Nth Korea first though.

Reading over this post I just realised that this probably isn't even related to the topic sorry.

 

[carlosMM]

America was seeing itself as a country which could never be attacked on its own soil.

MattE, you no read Marl's post properly

OWN soil, not anything the US happened to claim at some time.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Sir Eric
Hey MattE, you need to find a new school with new text books.

c'mon, he does live in sydney. not exactly the most progressive of places.

Originally posted by ltcoljt
I suppose you don't think there was ever a link between Saddam and terror. And if you did you still wouldn't think that America would have been justified to take military action.

links between saddam and terror have already been established. although that was only palestinian terrorists which don't effect the US at all.

I am just mystified by the things you have said in this thread. As an American, your opinions and thoughts are alien to me and my culture.

if that is the case, then it's very, very worrying.

 

[MattE]

I'm not going to carry on with this America being attacked and stuff anymore because people don't get what I'm saying and I come out looking like the dumb one. Even though I'm right...

c'mon, he does live in sydney. not exactly the most progressive of places.

Please... maybe you didn't notice but Canberra is the biggest hole on earth, your practically apart of N.S.W

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by MattE
I'm not going to carry on with this America being attacked and stuff anymore because people don't get what I'm saying and I come out looking like the dumb one. Even though I'm right...

that's a good one. I might have to use that one myself sometime

Please... maybe you didn't notice but Canberra is the biggest hole on earth, your practically apart of N.S.W

just living here atm. i'm a melbourne boy hence my mockery of Sydney is well justified

 

[MattE]

Melbourne!

Hey I was just wondering, have you guys down there in Melbourne seen the sun yet or is it still as dark, rainy and sh*ty as usual?

I guess I like Victoria more the S.A though