What did you do to remember 9/11?

Remove all ads!

Dargorn, that's sheer arrogance.

Have you ever read American media? I make a challenge to you: Go to the Washington Post's website, www.washingtonpost.com, every day for a week. It's a very mainstream paper from the nation's capital. Count how many articles cover those who do NOT want us to go to war against Iraq. Heck, there's one on the front page today.

Your ridiculous claims that I'm just regurgitating what I'm force-fed by the media doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I recently had an Irish guy tell me the same thing -- we in America only her one side of the story, blah, blah, blah. He sent me an interview with Nelson Mandela in order to "enlighten" me. It was from MSNBC. (And I'd already read it.)

Oblate, I read that English link you sent. While I agree that economic sanctions do not usually work, the page you linked to was pretty light on facts and heavy on wild accusations. And let's remember that most sanctions (all, as far as I know) against Iraq were put there by the UN, not the US.

[ September 19, 2002, 14:42: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Facts? c'mon Shralpie. That would ruin the wonderfull verbal-igniting poodle image.

[ September 19, 2002, 14:54: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Fankly I didn't do a thing to remember 11/9 because I get sick and tired of this whole 11/9 thing. And even more of the advantage the USA has taken from this event (either your with us or against us). True a lot of people died, but so did a lot of japanese people who lived in hiroshima, or a lot of innocent people living in vietnam!

 

aegron;

How many times should it be pointed out that The bombs in Japan was to stop a war, the WTC attack was to start/continue/ignite one. This is a very fundamental difference in the thoughts behind the two acts. Why is that so hard to acknowledge?

I know intentions and logic is one thing. The consequences, etics and suffering is they grey aftermath of warfare analasys. But please keep them seperated.

[ September 19, 2002, 15:06: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Amazing how many Europeans are willing to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki when bashing the US.
Should we open season on Germany for Auschwitz, Treblinka, et. al.?
The high and mighty Dutch and English. Have you considered the effects of your colonialism worldwide? Africa has still not recovered.
What about Japan (the "victim" according to many here)? Why not have a discussion on Nanching?

While Americans are accused of being brainwashed by the press (the most open press in the world, IMO, and very critical of the government), I believe that many Europeans have been brainwashed to be anti-USA. Proof? Read this entire thread.

Edit: Added IMO to appease Thanos

[ September 19, 2002, 19:03: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

Thanks alot Faerus, but i'm British actually (but i love the US very much). But i still get what you mean. I am not a fool for agreeing with an action by the goverment Turandil, I think you might be the fool for not accepting someone else's opinion. I am sick to death of the "oh let's give them another chance" opinion that we all had a few years ago. I just can't take watching a maniac fire a gun into the air to celebrate, or see a troop of evil Extreme Islamic morons gunning down a street for no reason other than religion. I just want them dead.

 

Jack:

Please define 'world'. Also, how do you know that? Did you go to every place in the planet and saw what their media were?
True, media here are quite open compared to (some countries in) SE asia/middle east/africa (and a handful of countries in Europe). But, for the most part, european press is rather open, IMO.

It is my personal opinion that Americans tend to sometimes abuse the word 'world' (not always with bad intentions, but sometimes they are there). It is such a generalizing word.

-thanos

 

Thanos,

Nice try. Is that all you've got?

It is clearly opinion. I will be more precise.

Very convenient how you ignored the rest of the post.

[ September 19, 2002, 19:02: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

Shralp and Nobleman. I don't make things up. I base my opinions on things i read in books and newspapers not by pure speculation. For god's sake the text i read is Biased too!

But tell me this then Shralp. If your media is so fair in its depiction of this latest event and even in some cases trying to prevent it, then why does the American public support Bush's actions more than any other state.
If the media is fair then it cannot be that which stirs them. 99% of the population did not see the Two towers disaster so they must have relied on media for their knowledge.
And i refuse to believe that any half intelligent man like yourself would follow their government through sheer blind Patrionism.
Why is America so pro war when in other countries the enthusiasm is much less?

(Nobleman please don't be nasty, i have grown up a lot, i ONLY use the facts now.)

 

I love your posts poodle. Your ingenious wordings and way to make dimmed grey arguments lighten up. I apologize for teasing you. I don't think you lie. You are just a very impulsive writer and you're eager to say a lot and solve a lot. You make a difference in each post. Now thats interesting.

Please don't call it lie. At hardest to yourself call it adapting the truth. Which is what everyone does. Me included

 

Jack:

I didn't ignore the rest of the post. I just didn't have time to comment on all of it. But the excessive use of the word 'world' is sometimes annoying.

Anyway, now, with more time in my hands, I can answer some of those things.

Let me put it this way, for my fellow Europeans:
'If you are going to criticize the US, at least do it for the correct reasons'.

It is pointless to bring the A-bomb thing over and over again. THAT was a different time, and you have to put things into perspective (the perspective of THAT time, not now). And in any case, the british leveling of German cities was quite as bad. Bloody Sunday was also a terrible thing (and that was in the 70ies, IIRC).

Jack: you say than you have the most criticizing media. Pray tell, how many of the *mainstream* media are criticizing Bush after 9/11? Anyone that DARED criticizing the government about its actions after 9/11 was deemed as a 'terrotist symapthizer', 'unpatriotic', 'anti-Semetic' (funny how that pops up all the time) etc. You want proof? The host of "Politically Incorrect" (the show, don't remember his exact name). And that's just ONE instance.

Now, if you are referring to some little-known (at least to me) newspaper, or some TV station with local coverage, criticizing the government, that I cannot know. But it's rather pointless.And in any case, I can say that (part of)the Greek media is heavily criticizing the government. Same goes for some British media (the Independent comes to mind). So I stand by my opinion that your claim (even if it is a personal view) is flawed. Unless of course you have lived in various parts of the world and know better.

Seriously, you (and most Americans) should stop seeing every word of criticism coming from Europe as 'anti-americanism', and start seeing it for what it is: criticism. I am sorry, but some (actually, most) of the actions of your government are not popular in Europe-and we all have our reasons for that (and most of them are pretty good reasons, mind you-I could elaborate on that if you wish). I agree that there are certain posts/articles/shows/whatnot that are indeed blatatly bashing the US for everything and then some. BUT, there is an equivalent amount that does just the opposite: praises the US for everything and then some.

So I guess what I am saying is, maybe you should stop being so uni-lateralist and give some people a chance to express their thoughts, even when you don't like them (the thoughts, not the people). This is exactly why I brought the notion of 'freedom of speech' in that other post. At least Blackthorn contradicted those claims (although he didn't convince me, but at least he was civilized: didn't call the poor guy an idiot, or a moron, or say that his post was full of crap).

Some people are so quick to pass judjement on other countries, but get infuriated when someone else does the same to their own country...

I am all for civilized discussions. So I wish we could all stick to that.

-thanos

 

Thanos,
Once again you put words in my mouth:

Show me where I made any statement resembling the above.

As far as criticism. I am all for it. If it is constructive. Rhetoric is not criticism. If you read my posts, you will see that I want dialog (see the Moment of silence thread). I am continually asking people why they feel the way they do. Why the post what they post. Most of the time, I get no response. I don't believe that my country is right in everything it does. Quite the contrary. I just don't see where broad generalisations, backed by questionable figures, are useful in any debate.

Until the rhetoric is removed, there can be no honest dialog.

About the press. Yes after 9/11, being critical of the government was unpopular. It didn't last long, did it? I think it is a good thing that the press is critical of the government, when the motive of the criticism is not political (ie. Liberal press being critical simply because the leader is conservative).

 

The simple answer: America is threatened. America wants to respond. It's hard for countries not so threatened to get motivated enough to get involved. This is why I give full props to Blair (whom I always thought was merely a toady Clinton clone before). And then there's the cowardice factor I mentioned before.

The complicated answer: Many people want threats to America like Saddam Hussein to be preserved. The Russians want him around because he's an important trading partner. The French and Germans want him around because they sell him weapons. The Chinese want him around because they want ALL threats to the US to remain. Resentment of America's wealth and power sparks a little bit of joy in a lot of people. That as well as misguided concepts of justice lead people to think that everything done on the international stage must be done through the UN, and as we've indicated that we'll go it alone to defend ourselves if the UN doesn't step up to the plate, that causes more resentment. People on the left are often willfully blind and see nothing but white people preparing to attack brown people or a rich country attacking a poor country instead of the real issues behind it. Many others with chips on their shoulders realize dimly that America is in the right to defend herself, but because of grudges over past wrongs they cheer against us.

A lot of Americans felt similarly in the past. But a sneak attack on American soil does a lot to clear away the nonsense of political correctness and liberalism and forces people to get down to brass tacks.

Oh, and I missed it: Did you just concede that the American media is not as biased as you claimed?

 

Sharlp:
"Many people want threats to America like Saddam Hussein to be preserved. The Russians want him around because he's an important trading partner. The French and Germans want him around because they sell him weapons. The Chinese want him around because they want ALL threats to the US to remain."

Even if what you say is true, this does not expain why Saddam is a threat for USA. In my country we use to say "a dog, who barks, does not bite". After the Gulf war Saddam is screaming that he will destroy USA. What has he actually done? Absoluty nothing. Saddam has never been connected with Bin Laden. If there are evidence that he is training terrorists, why the USA goverment has not presented them?

Also, even if he has nukes and biological weapons, where is the threat for USA? Do you think that he is an idiot? Do you think that he does not know that if he bombs USA with a single nuke, Iraq will become a nuclear graveyard? In addition, as far as I know, his missiles can not reach USA. so where is the threat for the american people?

 

Jack:

I didn't say you called the guy an idiot, that was Z. And you are right, you never said those things. I had you mixed up with someone else and I apologize.

Back to the point: yes, there is rhetoric. FROM BOTH SIDES. If you accept that, it's great-it means we have a promising basis for further discussion.
And as I pointed out in the previous post, I don't agree with all the blame thrown at the US. But I agree with some. And if you want to hear that part, and my reasons as to why I don't like ASPECTS of the US (foreign) policy, I will be happy to oblige. But yes, blaming everything on the US is as bad as the (pathetic) attempts of part of the US government to convince the world that Saddam is the Devil Incarnate( mind you, he is prerry bad), and that therefore they are justified to do whatever the hell they feel like doing.

And one last thing about rhetoric etc (again, from BOTH SIDES). I think it partially has to do with the average age in these forums. Young people (especially teenagers, since I consider myself young as well) tend to be impulsive, over-reactive, dogmatic, short-tempered etc. I guess it could be one of the reasons we are seeing all this behavior. But then again I could be wrong.

-thanos

 

Yes i did Shralp. Because unlike you i am perfectly willing to accept i am wrong if shown the evidence to prove so.
But i am not left wing in my view. I couldn't care less about wether they are black or white or brown or green. The fact that i try desperatley to get across is that in my opinion America is just as bad as the middle east. Iraq is going to be attacked soon so that it cannot be capable of making nucleaur weapons. Yet America is allowed nucleaur weapons.
Ok you could say that Saddam is more dangerous with them and that he is under sanction. And for good reason as they invaded neighbouring countries.
But America intervened in it. A matter which was nothing to do with them. I didn't see the middle eastern countries mosey on in and help out vietnam!
So both countries go to war for no just cause and yet America is instantly trusted with weapons but Iraq is not? Where is the logic? (Go on go mad at me i have a follow up argument)

 

Heh. If you've given any evidence that prove anything, I've missed it. Are you referring to something in particular, or are you just generally slandering me?

And that is exactly why I call you a coward. You try so desperately to say that George Bush and Saddam Hussein are moral equals when it is obvious to one and all that they are not.

Ah. You start to catch on. I think.

Wrong again. The United Nations intervened. America led, but it was the entire international community that joined, and it included several Middle Eastern countries. You would have the world look the other way when Iraq invades Kuwait because we shouldn't "intervene"? Coward.

 

Thanos,
Rhetoric from both sides. This is true. While I try to keep it out of my posts, it is certainly present from some of the pro-US posters.
Your comments about age are interesting. I have believed that this is true for a long time. I did not want to offend anyone by pointing it out.

Just so everyone understands me, I love my country, I am patriotic, but I do not agree with everything that my government, the American media, or American athletes (see the Olympics. Puke) do. Too many people who represent the US on the national stage do a poor job of it. I recognize that this is what the rest of the world sees. I try to do a good job of representing my country here. By trying to be open minded, fair, and accepting. I don't do this because of the way America is viewed. I do it because this is how I try to live my life. I frequently fail. But I will keep trying.

About Iraq. I don't believe Saddam. If he was honest, he would not have kicked the inspectors out 4 years ago. If the UN had any balls, they would have held him to the agreement that he made ending the Persian Gulf war. I think Bush comes off like a cowboy, but I think his interests are in the right place. Saddam is a threat to the world and needs to be dealt with. At least Bush is willing to. Clinton is a fool. Al Queda attacked the US several times during his presidency. What did he do? Lobbed some cruise missles at Afghanistan and the Sudan.
If Clinton had dealt with them appropriately (and not slashed the US intelligence community and military) we could have avoided 9/11. Alot of people claim that young Bush is trying to complete a vendetta started by old Bush. I disagree. He is cleaning up the mess that Clinton made after 8 years of doing nothing to deal with threats and attacks.

 

They started it.

 

Just to note, the UN weapons inspectors were not kicked out of Iraq. They left on their own accord in protest of Iraq's uncoorperativeness and for fear of their own safety. The UN tried to regain admittance later on but Iraq would not permit it.

And Z - is that comment really necessary or even appropriate? It's pretty tasteless to laugh at horrific events like that - any such events.