September 11th, 2001

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

We give medals and accolades to military REMFs who spend their careers behind desks

Have you been in the military? Do you know the process by which service members recieve awards?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>I would just like to take a quick tangent and ask if you have something against the "reply" tags? This crazy arrow>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sh*t is just....well...


I dunno, ask Bill Von, he does a different version of it. I see various people doing it - I like it / deal with it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What do you think debates are based upon?


You just opened Pandora's box. Debates are about issues, attacks are about personalities, traits, appearances, opinions, etc.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your value system is guiding you to the line of thinking you're expressing.


But I could have the most awesome, most fucked up or somewhere inbetween value system and it doesn't affect the issue of Iraq, the economy and the debt. You bringing my value system into it is a typical cheap and meaningless distraction from the issue, or as tehy call it, an ad hominem.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am exploiting that...and you're doing the same with mine.


Not at all, I'm pointing out your tactics of avoiding issues for the most part and focusing on values and opinions.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I disagree. Where you see an erosion of credibility I see as a quiet acceptance and a ground swell toward our line of thinking.


What erosion of credibility? Who's? Credibility issues only have an bearing in cases where there is discourse or treaty, so I'mnot sure where your vagueness is going. Oh, and credibility for running the economy...well, history as evidence, the Repubs have negative cred based upon empirical data over 20 of the last 28 years.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Elections in France, Germany and possibly in the UK soon display that


Show what, something about credibility? You need to support your assertions with evidence, not your opinion, but independant evidence.


>>>>>>>>>>If the world were really so pissed off at us, the circumstances would be far worse.


What situation? The civilized world still wants to stay on our good side, as well our economy is active even if our dollar is shit, so peopel have an interest here, but you seem to think we've turned some corner.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The reality is that in the political arena, these spectators are glad we're keeping the fight hot. It's not an environment of pseudo-peace in the 90s that fermented the worst attacks in our history.


911 was a collaboration of decades of hate against the west. GHWB started it, pissed off OBL, Clinton and the CIA did nothing to shore up our homeland, your fascist cokehead did nothink in 8 months, he was too busy offloading $$$ to corps as well as taking the entire month of August off, so who is really to blame? Did Chimp in Chief move toward tighter security? NO, yet you have no issue blaming Clinton. It was really American apathy, decades of it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.That's what it is about. You can tie religion into it too. These attacks on the west aren't over minor disagreements. This is the kettle boiling over on issues which you and I (everyone really) take for granted. It's about values, faith, money, power...all of it. I for one, am not willing to see our country just sit aside and take second fiddle. That is not what we are built upon.



Values are subjective, that word is what you hear at a Nazi (Republican) convention. They use the word so they be the, "decider" on what value he wishes to use that moment. A Christian has values that don't allow for abortion, a hippie has values that allow for drug usage, this values word is pathetic, subjective and meaningless; it's fodder for the guilable and naive.

The values that founded this country were of slavery, racism, classism, chauvenism (sp) and other attrocities. Whst do you think about values now?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>These terrorists are exploiting our freedoms and somehow, those against this campaign think that we'll be left alone if we do nothing and mind our own business. The 1990s are proof that is false.

No, are they exploting Sweeden's freedoms? No, because Sweeden doesn't fuck in their business. We have enabled other bad guys to interfere in our business by way of apathetic security and our interference into their business.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>These guys are cowards.


And so are we and all the superpowers. When did we ever fight a formidable enemy? We fight proxy wars and destroy small countries. We also tested nukes in the South Pacific for 46 to 58 destroying several communities. Shall we talk Japanese-American internment? How about dropping 2 nukes on primarily women and children to "persuade" the men to stop fighting. The list goes on, but we have done plenty of cowardly things - of course you won't see it that way, the US never does wrong.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've seen them with my own eyes, and I guarantee you that they question their "faith". This is part of the long road I mentioned.


Faith? Who cares about that in this context? Again, yoiu keep making this about them, this is about OUR reaction to their BS.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're acting like it was the US that started this.


Mr. Ambiguity, do you mean 911 by, "this?" If so, it's been a series of counterattacks, which is what the Iraq War is about. Of course you won't see it that way, as the US is here to save the world and we only do positive things.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The top came off this brew during decolonization after WWII.


Is that your way of saying our ever-so-justified rle in the Palestinian War..... nice, ornate language.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.It was somewhat contained during the Cold War, proxy/localized.


Right, we would just destroy other nations, so it was no biggy.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial adjustment out of the Cold War was quiet, and I'll admit, it was looking good. We know that is not the case though.


And then Iraq invaded Kuwait, we interveined and forgot to bring up our security, that was teh whole issue. We can't blame anyone else for our pathetic security but us.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Really, when did you go over there?


I'been all over teh South Pacific at various WWII sites, does that mean I automatically trump you since you have not? Being a military member, current or present, I have a hard time finding objectivity, same as with a cop. Do you think ANY innocent civilians were killed, or are yiou going to keep your ambiguity and Socratic methods intact.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you really think if we tuck-tail and leave, that there will be peace? Do you really believe that? Fair enough if you do, however, having seen what I've seen, I don't agree with you.


I think if we quit spending our great-great-great-great-great grandkids money, shore up our security and get out that we will have the best chance. So are you the guy that stays at a bar fight for which you can't possibly win, just to get your ass kicked to show you tried? We have to constantly reevaluate our position and make adjustments, rather than sticking to ignorance-based ideologies that we can never leave. Lookat VN, see how long ignorance won-out?


>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it does. It addresses the issue of surrender and disarmament you're advocating.


I'm not advocating disarmament on either side, I'm advocating spending our resource on ourselves exclusively.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And do you think they gove a shit about who's admin is in control?

I don't care what they think. I do care about who's running things based on how they're going to react. President Clinton did nothing. Nothing. A few cruise missiles here and there and let three chances to get bin Laden on a silver platter slip through his fingers.

And your Chimp in Chief did????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? FUCKING NOITHING BUT GO ON VACATION AS HE WAS OFFLOADING THE COUNTRIES WEALTH TO CORP AMERICA.

[Gawain 0]

Look. Just admit that we disagree, but you see the error of your ways...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Look. Just admit that we disagree, but you see the error of your ways...

The minute you send me a pic of you with your armband

I'm pro-military, I'm a vet, but the critique I have is that we fall into this concept that there is a military solution for everything. There's a time for it and a time for discussion. We certainly need to cut it in half and work on our social systems, foreign relations, etc.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

How about dropping 2 nukes on primarily women and children to "persuade" the men to stop fighting. The list goes on, but we have done plenty of cowardly things - of course you won't see it that way, the US never does wrong.

Dude, that's just ignorant. Have you ever read any of the history behind that decision? The only way we were going to stop the Japanese was an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Even the most conservative estimates showed that it would have resulted in more civilian deaths than resulted from those bombs. AND of course, we'd have lost Americans. You people live in a fucking dream world.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[airdvr 210]

I'm pro-military, I'm a vet

Tell us about your service.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

How about dropping 2 nukes on primarily women and children to "persuade" the men to stop fighting. The list goes on, but we have done plenty of cowardly things - of course you won't see it that way, the US never does wrong.

Dude, that's just ignorant. Have you ever read any of the history behind that decision? The only way we were going to stop the Japanese was an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Even the most conservative estimates showed that it would have resulted in more civilian deaths than resulted from those bombs. AND of course, we'd have lost Americans. You people live in a fucking dream world.

This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

We give medals and accolades to military REMFs who spend their careers behind desks

Have you been in the military? Do you know the process by which service members recieve awards?

As it happens, I do know the process.

My son came back from 8 years service in the army (including service in Iraq) with a chestful, only one of which was given for anything I'd consider out of the ordinary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

I'll bet at least one was for just being there. It deserves a medal. Isn't there a difference between medals and fruit salad?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 210]

Quote

This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection.

Agreed. But you also have to acknowledge that it was 1945...not 2005. You know what I'm saying.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Gawain 0]

Quote

This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection.

I'll take a tangent...

Without doing any serious research, my understanding was that they were amongst a list of four or five cities on the list, and they were chosen for being industrial, relatively untouched by other bombing campaigns, psychologically their destruction would be "understood"...where would you have decided differently?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

How about dropping 2 nukes on primarily women and children to "persuade" the men to stop fighting. The list goes on, but we have done plenty of cowardly things - of course you won't see it that way, the US never does wrong.

Dude, that's just ignorant. Have you ever read any of the history behind that decision? The only way we were going to stop the Japanese was an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Even the most conservative estimates showed that it would have resulted in more civilian deaths than resulted from those bombs. AND of course, we'd have lost Americans. You people live in a fucking dream world.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dude, that's just ignorant. Have you ever read any of the history behind that decision?


No, yours is ignorant. Gee, the Manhattan Project Selction Committee in May 45....don't know anything about it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.The only way we were going to stop the Japanese was an invasion of the Japanese mainland.


And Russia was planning one. Could we let Russia save the world? They just got thru defeating Germany, we couldn't let them have that glory too. Also, speculation on your part, Hiro Hito had alreadt conditionally surrendered, we anted unconditional, so conventional bombing might have doen that.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Even the most conservative estimates showed that it would have resulted in more civilian deaths than resulted from those bombs.


We bombed with bomb sites, couldn't even accurately bomb thru clouds, so that is a pure guess.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AND of course, we'd have lost Americans. You people live in a fucking dream world.


You people, you mean military vets? Are you one? Or are you saying, you white people. I dunno, guess I'm not sure which ad hominem you are chosing.


The Manhattan Project Selectiuon Committee yielded that we wanted large civilian casualties and thgerefore we bombed unmolested cities. If there were military targets there, why hadn't we bombed them earlier in the war?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'm pro-military, I'm a vet

Tell us about your service.

You know I could, but why build an ad hominem for you? I didn't see war, but I would have gone. I served 1 term, that's all you need to know, in reality, far more than you need to know.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How about dropping 2 nukes on primarily women and children to "persuade" the men to stop fighting. The list goes on, but we have done plenty of cowardly things - of course you won't see it that way, the US never does wrong.

Dude, that's just ignorant. Have you ever read any of the history behind that decision? The only way we were going to stop the Japanese was an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Even the most conservative estimates showed that it would have resulted in more civilian deaths than resulted from those bombs. AND of course, we'd have lost Americans. You people live in a fucking dream world.

This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection.

BINGO - you could not have nailed it better. I have no issue with the use, just the target - women and children = terrorism.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection.

Agreed. But you also have to acknowledge that it was 1945...not 2005. You know what I'm saying.

That's true, if we call the founding fathers great as they were slave owners, we must call the US civilized in 1945 even tho we interned 110,000 US citizens and killed 300,000 women and children to stop the war.

What was then herosim is now defined as terrorism.

I guess it's all in the context...kinda like Barry Bonds' baseball. Should we have painted a big asterisk on teh 2 bombs?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection.

I'll take a tangent...

Without doing any serious research, my understanding was that they were amongst a list of four or five cities on the list, and they were chosen for being industrial, relatively untouched by other bombing campaigns, psychologically their destruction would be "understood"...where would you have decided differently?

5 cities

Totally unmollested

Large civilian count

Meaningless military targets, admin, assembly areas, etc


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>psychologically their destruction would be "understood"...where would you have decided differently?


What?

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection.

I'll take a tangent...

Without doing any serious research, my understanding was that they were amongst a list of four or five cities on the list, and they were chosen for being industrial, relatively untouched by other bombing campaigns, psychologically their destruction would be "understood"...where would you have decided differently?

Fact is, most of the important military or industrial targets HAD already been hit by LeMay's bombing campaign. So having an undamaged city as primary criterion (which it was) ensured a target of limited military or industrial importance. IOW, the targets were chosen so as to make research subjects of their civilian populations.

What would I have done differently? Chosen the two most important MILITARY targets regardless of their previous damage.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection.

I'll take a tangent...

Without doing any serious research, my understanding was that they were amongst a list of four or five cities on the list, and they were chosen for being industrial, relatively untouched by other bombing campaigns, psychologically their destruction would be "understood"...where would you have decided differently?

Fact is, most of the important military or industrial targets HAD already been hit by LeMay's bombing campaign. So having an undamaged city as primary criterion (which it was) ensured a target of limited military or industrial importance. IOW, the targets were chosen so as to make research subjects of their civilian populations.

What would I have done differently? Chosen the two most important MILITARY targets regardless of their previous damage.

Yep, giant petri dish. And after they chose the 5 cities, the intentionally didn't bomb them, didn't want to scatter the civilian population.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

I'm pro-military, I'm a vet

Tell us about your service.

You know I could, but why build an ad hominem for you? I didn't see war, but I would have gone. I served 1 term, that's all you need to know, in reality, far more than you need to know.

Why would I attack you for your service? If you really did serve I commend you for that. Since we know so little about you your validity is questionable.

You're extremely anti-republican...in some cases bordering on anti-american. I know alot of vets. Your views seem extreme for someone who volunteered to serve your country, and most likely benefitted from that service in some way.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Imo, there have been a lot of missed opportunities and policy choices that have diverted the US attention from capturing Usama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and dismantling the global radical Islamic Salafists over the last 16 years. Unquestionably US efforts over the last 6 ½ years have severely limited al Qa’eda’s capacity. With the amount of US money and the best military in the world being put toward that goal, I expect nothing less. (Is this an example of the aphorism of throwing money at something does … or doesn’t fix a problem?)

In the end, imo, it is the tacit support of the Taliban and al Qa’eda by the inhabitants of Afghanistan and Pakistan (aka “Talibanistan”) that hide and enable al Qa’eda.

What are they reconstituting in northwest frontier?

And why hasn’t al Qa’eda attacked the Continental US again?

My explanations:

Successes of the GWOT. The US and allies have been successful at disrupting and complicating al Qa’eda’s operations.

Perception of target hardening/decreased (or less) vulnerability, aka DHS & TSA have done something other than make commercial aviation more frustrating; they've made US soft targets less easy.

Success in conventional weapons and improvised explosives, as was noted by another poster. IEDs have been horribly and tragically effective.

Patience. Al Qa’eda is waiting for an opportunity; they are patient. They’ve done that before.

Wild Cards. Decentralized cells. Al Qa’eda is a highly decentralized network; the cells are still organizing operations.

And one that a few here might be loathe to acknowledge much less admit, because it has nothing to do with our actions:

Norms: Challenges from within the radical Islamist community. The US and allies do not have credibility with the radical Islamist community. It’s akin to a 12-yo whuffo commenting on skydiving.

Otoh, a number of guys who do have radical Islamic ‘cred’ have started to speak out and engage in debates (some on the order of 100s of pages) with al Qa’eda. E.g., Muhammed Khalil al-Hakaymah’s September 2006 “Toward a New Strategy” warns against excessive violence and civilian targeting because it lessens popular support for mujahedeen; Saudi Arabian cleric Sheikh Salman Al Oudah Ramdan letter in 2007: “My brother Usama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed … in the name of al Qa’eda?,” or most notably, imo, Sayed Iman Al Sharif (“Dr. Fadl”) has challenged his student, Ayman al-Zawahiri, “Jihad … was blemished with grave Sharia violations during recent years … [Now] there are those who kill hundreds, including women and children, Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Jihad!” To be explicit, these men are *not* friendly to the US or liberal democracy, instead they see al Qa’eda as being damaging to their strategic interests and to the rise of their imagined rekindling of 7th CE Salafism. They are bad men; the last one is in jail in Egypt.

Who are the tacit supporters of Taliban and al Qa’eda in “Talibanistan” going to find more credible?

Last week the US military transitioned responsibility for security in the al Anbar province of Iraq to the Iraqis – yeah! Outside of Kabul, is there even stability and security to transition? In areas where there is ‘security’, is it most often provided by Taliban and Taliban conscripts/supporters? Frankly, one cannot reasonably expect rebuilding of a society that has been insecure for the last 19y (from Soviet invasion through today) in 5y. Whether you call it nation building or SSTR, we are still figuring out how to do it. “[T]he QDR recognizes Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) as a U.S. government wide mission of increasing importance and identifies military support to SSTR as a core mission.” Mentioned 26 times in the 2006 QDR.

In addition to not capturing UBL & AZ, many recommendations of the 9-11 Commission have not been implemented or implemented very late, e.g., the “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007” was not introduced into the US House until 05Jan07. It was introduced into the Senate 04Jan07 as “Improving America's Security Act of 2007. Included in that bill was legislation on screening cargo entering US ports (e.g., for nuclear devices), rail transportation security, and increased security on industrial chemical facilities – all of which were recommendations from 9-11 Commission. Sen Obama voted for it; Sen McCain did not vote. (Imagine how the far right blog-o-sphere would react/spin that if Sen Obama had not voted?) President Bush signed the legislation on 03Aug07.

I was in DC on Friday talking to/with folks who were involved in writing the 9/11 Commission (aka the “National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States”) report and folks who are on Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. The thinking isn’t about the current administration; the impetus and the goals are to influence the next administration.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[grimmie 186]

In true "speakers corner" fashion we have debated ROTC medals, Bill Clinton, revenge, TSA etc.

I really just wanted to know if you guys cared if GWB and his boys captured Bin Laden before January.

With all of the rhetoric revolving around terrorism and keeping the American public safe, I myself am pissed that 7 years later Bin Laden roams free. It's just my opinion and wondered if others cared or just don't give a shit anymore. I really could care less about your politics or who you blame. I'm mad as hell.

And nerdgirl. I don't know what you do for a living, but I hope it involves keeping us safe.

[downwardspiral 0]

Pissed? No. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? Not in the least.


Better?




Nerdgirl is a hottie.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[grimmie 186]

Better!

Agreed!

[airdvr 210]

Quote

In true "speakers corner" fashion we have debated ROTC medals, Bill Clinton, revenge, TSA etc.

I really just wanted to know if you guys cared if GWB and his boys captured Bin Laden before January.

With all of the rhetoric revolving around terrorism and keeping the American public safe, I myself am pissed that 7 years later Bin Laden roams free. It's just my opinion and wondered if others cared or just don't give a shit anymore. I really could care less about your politics or who you blame. I'm mad as hell.

And nerdgirl. I don't know what you do for a living, but I hope it involves keeping us safe.

Hardly roaming "free".

And yes, Marg is amazing in her ability to analyze....dammit!

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne