remember 9/11

[NedimNapoleon]

RIP to both the victims of 9/11 [WTC] and the Chilean 9/11.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

While I do not know for sure what HK's motivation for this thread's title were, I do suspect that trolling was not very far out of the picture. That said, it has provided for a lively discussion.

Here's why you're wrong on that count:

You have a tiny penis? What's your email address? I have some e-mails I've been getting lately that you may be interested in I'll forward to you. You can thank me later. Apparently you can add INCHES to your MANHOOD!

Why would I be mad? A big penis == happiness. Have you not gotten the email in your inbox yet?

meh, just a history degree from the University of Washington over here, 3.7 GPA.
Where did you get yours?

(My penis is also bigger than yours, guarantee it)

um, yeah, I meant some of our more well known red white and blue closet islamaphobes.

At various points in this thread, genuine discussion has been crowded out by incessant trolling. The title, timing and OP set this thread up for it and it's only going to get worse.

Back to discussion:

What the United Kingdom?

Or are we not important enough any more to be remembered as the only European power that didn't surrender or declare neutrality in WW2?

The Battle of Britain was a monumental feat of heroic resistance that should be remembered for it's great significance. My point isn't to demean the actions of other countries in that or any other wars. It's simply to point out that the US isn't an evil empire, and as a corollary to that argument that the US played the biggest role in ending WWII overall.

Would the UK have won the Battle of Britain without lend/lease, American volunteers and the many fighter aircraft we sent over?

Want to know something offensive?

American: We lost 256,000 soldiers in WW II!!
Russian: We lost 10,000,000+ soldiers, and inflicted about 6 times the casualties upon the Germans on the eastern front as the US did on the Germans and Japanese combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WW2.gif

American: we single handedly won WW II... ...and don't you dare even say anything about our 3000 people killed!!

The Soviets played a huge part, as I noted. Could they have survived without our assistance and intervention? I think not. Look how far the Nazis pushed into Russia - without the Americans and the British fighting them on the other front, I don't think the USSR would have prevailed. You also can't underestimate the massive amount of material we sent to the USSR.

My first real actual date with my girlfriend was 9/11 2001. We went out to dinner last night to celebrate her putting up with me for 11 years.

I'm sorry for my insensitivity

My mom's birthday is 9/11. What's your point?

As I've said many times before, the offense that is taken isn't about the subject of the OP. It's the deliberate timing and the misleading title, coupled with all the America sucks and my-penis-is-bigger arguments that this thread was clearly intended to provoke. That's all this thread was intended to do.

I hope you can tell that some of us are happy to talk about real issues, but that clearly wasn't the point of this thread.

Dude, don't get me wrong, of course American liberation and France and subjugation of nazism provided peace. My point is that that peace was in itself temporary. And although it was groundwork for the circumstances that could produce the coal & steel union, it was not instituted by Americans. It was Germans and Frenchmen that were tired of fighting with each other. So thankyou for that, then we can make perpetual peace ourselves.

The peace wasn't temporary...we kept a lot of soldiers in Europe and West Germany (with our allies) to make sure it wouldn't be temporary. And then stuck around to ensure that the USSR didn't gobble up Western Europe for lunch. Was that in our interests? Of course! Does that make it bad? No.

You are also seriously downplaying the fact that the French and Germans would not have gotten tired of fighting each other without intervention of the kind that actually followed WWII. Well, they would have stopped fighting, because Germany probably would have won. In any case, as I've noted, history shows your assertion is clearly wrong because:

When have the Europeans ever stopped fighting and got along in a permanent, meaningful way before WWII?

What? I didn't complain. D:

You said it was half implemented by the US as if we were under some obligation to do more to put back together countries that attacked us or even our allies. That we did anything of the sort is unprecedented in world history.

There's a difference between formal power and real control. The Marshall plan was instigated in order to secure allies against the USSR. Conquering Germany under a democracy wouldn't have secured them as an ally. I'm not sure you understand modern politics of influence and power. (Not to be rude.)

Tell me, did our 'real' control of Western Europe post-WWII end up being a bad thing for Western Europe? Or did the endless wars stop, the economy boomed and Europe moved closer to integration as never before?

Besides, what you suggest is that we sought to keep 'real' control over Europe long-term. Do we still have that control, in your opinion? Was our prevention of the USSR formally controlling Western Europe a bad thing? I think not.

Let's take Afghanistan. They're under Russian attack and USA recognizes this could be a problem. USA lends training and help in order to ensure that communism doesn't spread into the country. In return, they will unformally have the allegiance of the US. And if they don't behave like an ally, you invade them to have them know their place and install a freaking provincial warlord as a president elected under corruption. Iraq was also supported by the US until Hussein didn't behave. What did you do then? Invade the place, remove the guy, "install democracy". That's the modern equivalency of imperialism and I'm unhappy you don't recognize that. And much of it was in my lifetime.

Afghanistan is a terrible example. For one, they didn't stop 'behaving like an allly' (and they never were our ally in any case), they harbored and protected terrorists who attacked us. If the Taliban had given up Al Quaeda as we demanded after September 11, I suspect the history of the war that followed their refusal would have been vastly different. On Iraq, myself and the majority of Americans regret the whole thing and wished it never happened. There was a mindset of the American people (Under attack! Keep the terrorists from getting WMD's!) that allowed us to be so easily baited by the lies (intentional or otherwise) that drew us into the war. It's a shame the war happened and we're neither happy about it nor do most of us deny that it was a huge mistake.

Also, Iraq and Afghanistan are different from WWII and post-WWII Europe in many obvious ways. I've written enough here and put enough faith in your intellect that I don't feel the need to restate or list them for you.

As I've previously stated, I recognize the follies of American foreign policy and the terrible things we've done. But we aren't an evil empire, and we have done quite a bit to make the world a better place directly and indirectly. Even when doing things that 'make the world a better place' were in our own national interests, does that necessarily make those actions bad?

Sure! But much of the Marshall help had the extra benefit and incentive that you simply ensured that American businesses gained foothold in the European markets. It was not a humanitarian support system, it was an intricate system of giftmaking and rebuilding in order to ensure allies against the Soviets with the added benefit of helping your businesses. And note, I'm not complaining about the Marshall plan! I'm just saying it was much more a political movement than a humanitarian one. And yes, I do like Coca-Cola.

I bolded the sentence I wrote above, because that is also my rebuttal to this paragraph. Gaining a foothold in European markets also meant Europeans gained a foothold in American ones. We aren't that protectionist.

I really fail to see how this was bad at the time or in the present in retrospect. Our money helped rebuild the continent, and the new open markets helped the US and Europe's economy thrive afterward. It was win-win, whereas you simply say we did it to further our own self interests (and I'll concede this was largely the case) and was therefore bad, while ignoring all the positive aspects of the Marshall plan and the economic openess that followed. That is the part I really object to.

Even if that were true, village and gold. Or another metaphor would be the irrationally abusive partner in a relationship: "Why do you cry? I know I beat you up, but look at all these nice things I bought you. Cars and furniture. That will also make up for when I beat you up again. Stop complaining, you're expecting too much. There there, I see you calming down. Let me protect you. I won't beat you up again."

And then you beat her up again.

Really? We're the abusive husband of the planet? Do you not give any credence to anything I've posted that shows this isn't always (or even mostly) the case?

I mean, when you write things like this, you are just asking for a knee-jerk USA#! reaction that will shut down all purposeful dialogue.

You say you feel offended? Sorry for having your shoes get dirty when you stomp on your neighbours' flowers.

I do pay respect for the sacrifices of Danish soldiers in Afghanistan, and I do feel sorry for the families that have to endure the losses of their kin and the friends that will never see the faces to begin with, but I will not support that war.

EDIT: If I had a friend die in that tower, I would not find it proper spending the holiday mourning my country. I would spend the holiday mourning my friend and the rest of my time trying to prevent that from happening to other people.

Well to be honest, it wasn't your country that was attacked, it was your friend. I'm sorry for your loss and I hope that I haven't trampled on your feelings with my posts. That was not my intention.

As for preventing that from happening to other people, that's almost the whole point of our war in Afghanistan and our relentless pursuit of terrorism around the world. When was the last time Denmark drone-bombed a terrorist camp anywhere?'

Yes, I know, Iraq is the obvious exception to what I just said about pursuing terrorism. I hope you know that most Americans didn't support the war when the lies were uncovered or even for most of the duration of that war. Many of us wish it hadn't happened and that it had ended far sooner.

 

[Crezth]

@god king: Pinochet was a badass, don't know what you're talking about.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

dude, i got an lp with his last radio speech lying around here somewhere.

Lying around in your basement?

at least nobody was celebrating any murders until now. i cant believe what you did to my thread...

There are a bunch of ways you could have started an honest discussion about the Chilean coup or even American mis-adventures around the world. The way you chose to bring it up was stupid.

 

[holy king]

no. it was eye catching.

 

[warpus]

Provocative

Having said that I'd get annoyed and probably emotionally involved if you used a Polish tragedy anniversary for your own unrelated agenda.

Then again, if the agenda was to point out Polish atrocities that happened to fall on the same day, I wouldn't be as butthurt about it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Provocative

Having said that I'd get annoyed and probably emotionally involved if you used a Polish tragedy anniversary for your own unrelated agenda.

Then again, if the agenda was to point out Polish atrocities that happened to fall on the same day, I wouldn't be as butthurt about it.

But I think we can agree this won't happen. I'm sure it's way more fun to troll Americans than Poles. (Random aside, as this just occured to me, is 'pollack' [however it's spelled] a perjorative?)

 

[Bugfatty300]

Actually Poles do get a lot of grief on this forum.

 

[warpus]

But I think we can agree this won't happen. I'm sure it's way more fun to troll Americans than Poles. (Random aside, as this just occured to me, is 'pollack' [however it's spelled] a perjorative?)

Yes it is. 'Polak' on the other hand isn't.

And hey, it was a hypothetical. People love talking about Poland on these forums so you can't fully rule it out

 

[NovaKart]

meh, just a history degree from the University of Washington over here, 3.7 GPA.
Where did you get yours?

(My penis is also bigger than yours, guarantee it)

I don't think I've ever seen someone mention his penis size in a discussion here. Interesting but I don't see how that's at all relevant given the topic.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes it is. 'Polak' on the other hand isn't.

And hey, it was a hypothetical. People love talking about
Poland on these forums so you can't fully rule it out

Is Pollack an actual pejorative or are you making fun of my spelling?

I haven't seen any Polish discussions yet.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This seems appropriate for both this thread and the one in the Chamber:

Where Were You When They Built the Ladder to Heaven?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My mom's birthday is 9/11. What's your point?

More a silly reaction to the similarly silly statement: Nope. We do have a monopoly on 9/11. ("we" in context is America)

Which really is odd when you think about it. When you claim monopoly on 9/11, you shouldn't expect foreigners to care. But you do expect just that. It's not your tragedy. It happened in your country, but it's not your tragedy. If you think that 9/11 was a tragedy that only impacted America, I have news for you.

I do think you set the stakes a little high by accusing HK of trolling a nation. My guess is he merely wanted to set an expectation by the title and then put people on the wrong foot. But I could be wrong and he's just being a pillock.

Anyway, happy belated birthday to your mom.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

More a silly reaction to the similarly silly statement: Nope. We do have a monopoly on 9/11. ("we" in context is America)

Which really is odd when you think about it. When you claim monopoly on 9/11, you shouldn't expect foreigners to care. But you do expect just that. It's not your tragedy. It happened in your country, but it's not your tragedy. If you think that 9/11 was a tragedy that only impacted America, I have news for you.

I do think you set the stakes a little high by accusing HK of trolling a nation. My guess is he merely wanted to set an expectation by the title and then put people on the wrong foot. But I could be wrong and he's just being a pillock.

Anyway, happy belated birthday to your mom.

I was being super sarcastic about monopolizing 9/11. I'll use smilies next time I say something silly.

I truly do think Holy King meant this to be a troll thread (and trolling a nation was meant as sarcastic hyperbole). You may not agree, but there is ample evidence for it being that/intended to be that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was being super sarcastic about monopolizing 9/11. I'll use smilies next time I say something silly.

See, now you're putting me on the wrong foot by using a smilie, but not saying anything silly.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oh boy I need to get better at this posting thing!

 

[warpus]

Is Pollack an actual pejorative or are you making fun of my spelling?

I haven't seen any Polish discussions yet.

No, I'm not. "Polak" in Polish literally means "Male Polish person" (Polka is the female equivalent)

"Pollack" is the perojative. The two words are so similar that a lot of people get away with being bigoted jerks, but in the end the WAY you say it is what's important. On an internet forum of course I would avoid the use of the latter, unless you want to come across as a bigot.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No, I'm not. "Polak" in Polish literally means "Male Polish person" (Polka is the female equivalent)

"Pollack" is the perojative. The two words are so similar that a lot of people get away with being bigoted jerks, but in the end the WAY you say it is what's important. On an internet forum of course I would avoid the use of the latter, unless you want to come across as a bigot.

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Quackers]

I'll give this thread 9/11 for trolling.

 

[Borachio]

Can I just ask something? And really I don't intend to be provocative (well not much), but I would like to know: why do you (generic you) think that Al Quaeda did those attacks on the WTC?

What do you think they hoped to gain by it?

And what, for that matter, does Terry Jones hope to gain?