What did you do to remember 9/11?

Remove all ads!

Shralp calling me a Coward because i have a different opinion than you is just the sort of childish response i expect from a kindergarten student. So until you actually have anything polite to say then don't say anything at all.

And yes the UN did intervene. But then as you say they were led by the United States. But then i wouldn't argue with a man like clinton with his finger on the Trigger. The UN follow America because they are afraid of the US (bit like a dictatorship isn't it?). That is why it is such a shock that they have put their foot down this time.

 

It's all Clinton's fault!!!

Amazing, he's not even President anymore and the Republican's still can't get over their seething anger/jealousy toward him.

How someone can blame 9/11 on Clinton just goes to show how blinded by party politics people can be.

 

No, I name you coward because you refuse to look closely at the situation and come to a conclusion.

You obviously have not looked closely at the situation, as I was able to refute your point about American media bias when a simple Internet search would have shown you the same thing.

[ September 20, 2002, 18:51: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Gnloyn. I was making a joke about it because they deserved it. Actually, they deserved more.

 

Scamparella,
You clearly disagree with my assessment of Clintons performance. However you don't comment on any of the points I made:
1. his response (or lack there of) to attacks made by Al Queda
2. his crippling of the intelligence and military capabilities of the US.

Instead, you imply that I am a Republican. You are wrong. I attempt to be objective. Had you made this attempt, you would have at least addressed the above statements, either disputing the statements themselves or the impact of his actions.

Any comment?

 

I can tell you one thing...

Last year, after the 9/11 I went to school only to find out that we was going to have a silent minute the day after. The next day i skipped the school totally, listening to a song that is named Ett fritt Palestina by EAK - Eld Attack Krossa which in english is A Free Palestina by FAC - Fire Attack Crush...

I am a commmunist and I am proud of it. just don`t say that we are evil it was just Stalin that spread **** about us killing innocents people. I am a supporter of Fidel Castro - the saviour of Cuba, I am from Sweden and one last thing.

Remember that many people that died have maked their caarers on the expence of others...

"One mans bread is the other ones dead"

Do not care about my other post i was very angry that day... I am having seriously family problems.

I do not even think that Hitler was evil. He was just mad, thinking that white was the superior race. There is only one race: Humans.

[ September 20, 2002, 22:49: Message edited by: AssWooper the ÜberSpammer ]

 

Holy crap. Wow. Oh, geez.

Hitler did NOT think that "white was the superior race," unless if by "white" you mean Aryan. The majority of Jews killed by the Nazis were "white" [Caucasian.] i.e. Hitler killed 12 MILLION "whites" [6,000,000 Jews, 6,000,000 non-Jews.]

[ September 21, 2002, 16:09: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

 

BTW, I beg your forgiveness Z-Layrex, I didn't mean to insult you before, it was dumb of me.
Though I still dont share your opinions

[ September 22, 2002, 00:57: Message edited by: Turandil ]

 

I thought about and mourned the lives lost. And wished (in vain probably) that there would be no more, here or elsewhere.

I stayed away from media coverage, it was just too overwhelming.

I have strong opinions on US foreign policy, but this topic has degenerated into a flame war. So I am going to keep them to myself. We agree that we are intelligent and can have a rational discussion, most of you say that in almost every post, then turn around and twist someone else's words around a little bit, or don't think carefully about what the other person is saying, or throw a little insult to the other person when you reply.

I move that this thread be closed. It's not proving anything, and while I think it's good for people to air thier differences and discuss them in a rational matter, that's not what's happening here. The emotions are spilling over, and it's pretty much down to people questioning each others sanity because they have a different opinion, and can't for the life of them understand why. No more, please!

The worlds problems will not be solved on these boards. There are always going to be problems in the world, there are always going to be different points of view on exactly what the problems are and exactly how they got started, and how they could be solved, and who should have done what. Everyone here is trying to convince the others that they are right. And it's not going to happen because everyone else feels as strongly as you do.

This topic has given me much food for thought, but
no one has the right to take an innocent life, for any reason. Let's leave it at that.

Peace

[ September 22, 2002, 04:19: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

 

Jack- I will comment on just a few of the things you just brought up.
To begin with, I purposefully did not use your name in my post because I do not know whether you are republican or not and it does not matter. My post was in response to the blame you placed upon Clinton which is something the Republicans have done from day one; I meant it to be a general comment, not a direct one at you. I personally think it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to try and pin 9/11 on Clinton.

Although I did express my amusement in regards to your Clinton bashing, I really don't want to get involved in the banter going on here. I don't have all the articles and news programs I have listened to over the last decade right here in front of me to 'support' my opinions, so I can't argue facts. Clinton did what he could given a Congress full of Republicans who were hell bent on making him look bad and blocking his every move. IMO we spend more than enough money on the military so I disagree with your description of his cuts in spending.

 

It is completely logical to think that eight years of a presidency can have an effect on foreign policy.

Criticizing as mindless "Clinton bashing" is disingenuous.

 

Personally Shralp, I think blaming anyone other than the terrorists and their leader is somewhat akin to blaming the victim in a rape or the murdered instead of the murderer.

Having said that, if you really need to blame any president blame George Bush. He is the one who put troops in Iraq in the first place which if I recall correctly, was the main reason Bin Laden was pissed off at us; He didn't like having infidels in holy land.

 

Oh, I agree that Clinton is not to blame for the attacks. But I don't think Jack was laying all the blame at his feet either.

That was a UN coalition that entered Iraq, BTW. And UBL was ticked about American troops in Saudi Arabia; you'll have to go a lot farther back than Bush to criticize that one.

Regardless, the Clinton Administration might have recognized that UBL was a threat early on. And no one realized how great a threat he really was, so I don't criticize him for that. But the ineffectual, half-assed bombing of a Sudanese medicine factory (and the other site in Iraq (?)) right when it was most politically convenient for Clinton -- that is an episode that is justly criticized.

 

I agree, that seemed just a little too well timed politically.

The problem is, how can we the people blame the politicians for doing stupid things to up their standing in the polls when the general public are such suckers for that kind of stuff?

 

This is an interesting 'infinite loop' (aka chicken & egg) problem:

-The general public (or 'average X/Y/Z') likes some stuff.
-Politicians are happy to oblige
-The not-so-general public (i.e. people that have an advanced ability to croticize, that can see past pretexts etc) don't like this stuff and criticize it. But this brings them at odds with the 'will of the people', so to speak.

I think the solution to the above is to strive, as a society, to produce smarter people. Unfortunately, in most cases, politicians DONT want smarter people (they ask too many questions for one thing), so they are determined to create dumber and dumber people-and we are back to square 1. And for the most part, moves and TV are great tools for accomplishing that.

This is not a phenomenon found only in the US-it can be found in Europe as well (although to a smaller extent).

-thanos

 

Heh. Scarampella, I blame the public too.

"Each society gets the government it deserves."

 

Scamp,
The failure is with the whole system. At the time of the attacks previous to 9/11, Clinton was in charge and had the opportunity to do something about it.
My implication is that if Clinton had been more responsive to the attacks by Al Queda during his presidency, we MAY have been able to avoid 9/11. He chose not to. Why? I don't know. My guess is that the polls indicated that terrorist attacks were not a major concern. Clinton has been accused more than once of governing by the polls (I tend to agree with this).
The problem with going by the polls is that the public does not have all of the information. Much of the intelligence regarding Al Quedas actions and plans was not made public.

 

Yes, educate the masses!

I too believe politicians rely upon an uninformed, ill-educated populace. They are much easier to manipulate. And as well, the media does not provide the public with much information: only what the few moguls who own them want us to read. The media has great power over what is a public issue and often sets the tone for how the public will react.

Clinton, I believe, had to contend with all the negative branding by the Republicans over his actions in the 60's when he rallied against the US involvement in Vietnam. Republicans would like to maintain an exclusive association with the military for obvious reasons. Even though many of them avoided military service, they painted Clinton as unpatriotic simply by virtue of the fact he was excersizing his rights as a citizen. Ultimately, Clinton did not have the support he needed to do something militarily for an extended amount of time. He tried to keep all action to a minimum. To turn around and fault him for the atmosphere created by a party that wants to be the only ones using the military - well, I say its their bed, let them sleep in it.

[ September 24, 2002, 17:34: Message edited by: scarampella ]

 

Scarampella,
The president is the commander of the military. While he cannot wage a prolonged war without congressional approval, he can take more action than Clinton did.
I find it remarkable that you entered this debate by accusing me of partisan politics, yet, that is all that you have added. You seem compelled to make excuses for Clinton by blaming the Republicans.
My contention is that they all dropped the ball, but since Clinton was in charge (yes, in charge) he gets the most blame. He didn't even TRY to promote real military action against Al Queda even after the attack on the USS Cole. American sailors died in that attack. What did Clinton do? Lobbed some cruise missles. What did that tell Al Queda? That the US was not serious about defending itself.

 

Excuse me, but I never accused anyone of anything.
I am a die hard liberal with no shame for saying so and yes I will argue partisan politics because I hate the way republicans do politics.
I am not trying to say Clinton did the right thing or say he is immune to criticism. The USS Cole is not the only military failure on Clintons part. I just assert once again, regardless of whether he was commander in chief, the republicans did their best to say he was not fit to be commander of the armed forces because he abandoned them in the 60's. You cannot deny the effect that has upon his capacity to use them with full support. Are you forgetting the public reaction to the soldier dragged thru the streets in Africa?