9/11 Discussion Thread, *POSSIBLY HEATED DISCUSSION*

[Lightwielder]

I would like to take this time to remember an tragedy that happened 8 years ago, today. September 11, 2009. Also known as 9/11. But as much as it was a tragedy, it was also a unifying force. That day, everyone united with the other. Race, religion, gender aside; they stood with each other, and promised to not let it happen again. To let those responsible know that we will not back down from their attacks.

This event united the United States. Let us unite once more in its memory.

Thank you to all who died, that were unwillingly sacrificed during this tragedy; and to all those who lived to fight back.

[Havoc]

Ok, I know that there's a strong danger of starting a flame war, but here goes...

Why exactly is it such a tragedy? Yes it definitely sucks that a lot of people died, but a lot more people have died in disasters before and since. Yet we make no mention of them each year.

What particularly gets me is your mention that it was a unifying force. I feel that it's done exactly the opposite, creating a great deal of hate for Muslims, and anyone of similar ethnicity, who can be mistaken for a Muslim.

And how exactly have we fought back? By invading an unrelated country and killing people there?

EDIT: I've moved these posts to a separate thread, so that anyone who wishes to can ignore it more easily.

[Choson One]

Well I got something that might blow your guys mind...

There was most likely bombs in The Towers. One Jet crash to both Tower wouldn't take them down, unless it hit a vital part of the main support beam, but that is unlikely. Bombs must have been planted someway somehow. So when the Jet hit the bombs were set off and made the Towers collapse. Also here's a funny fact, how did some buildings that were around the Towers blow up? Bombs. Some may have been crushed but some others have blown up insted. Makes you wander huh?

[Elrond]

Apparently, 9/11 didn't unify the US enough. Have you followed the health-care reform debate lately? Have you seen a congressman interrupt the President in his speech and say "you lie?" Have you seen how Fox is inciting against the President? And have you seen how "united" the country is on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, and have you seen how "united" the country is with regards to economic stimulus?

[MrBlack]

Mr.Black has ideas about how to fix the problems which may or may not exist within The United States goverment, but this may be wrong time and place.

[Lightwielder]

Apparently, 9/11 didn't unify the US enough. Have you followed the health-care reform debate lately? Have you seen a congressman interrupt the President in his speech and say "you lie?" Have you seen how Fox is inciting against the President? And have you seen how "united" the country is on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, and have you seen how "united" the country is with regards to economic stimulus?

Well, it has been eight years. Unfortunately, people change.
------------------------------------------------------------
I do apologize, however. I was not aware that it was so controversial as to be moved to its own topic. I was not trying to stir up trouble or anything.

As to Havoc's question. It was a tragedy that unified the country. But, as I said above, it has been a long time, and people forget. I'm was simply trying to make sure we don't forget it. People are forgetting, politics are screwing with things. The country is in division chaos. Rome was a similar way, and I don't want that to happen.

What particularly gets me is your mention that it was a unifying force. I feel that it's done exactly the opposite, creating a great deal of hate for Muslims, and anyone of similar ethnicity, who can be mistaken for a Muslim.

Yeah, that is true, but the same sort of thing happens with almost any major disaster or attack. It's not really anything new. Truly sad, but absolutely unavoidable. It's human nature.

EDIT: I've moved these posts to a separate thread, so that anyone who wishes to can ignore it more easily.

Rep'ped for that, as I was not trying to cause trouble, and didn't realize that it might trouble people.

[psychoadept]

Well, if nothing else it's one of those major historical events, like the Kennedy assassination, that most Americans can tell you exactly where they were and what they were doing when it happened.

I, for example, was walking up the stairs to the registrar's office at my college when I first heard about it, and then read the reports on the internet with my advisor in his office. I had friends living and working within blocks of the towers, which was the most nerve-wracking part until we heard from them.

[thingirl]

I was (14- 8 =) 6. I think mom saw it on Fox and told me to "come here". So I watched it on the news in the living room of the first house my parents bought. Typing helps jog peoples memories if they were 6 when it happened.

[Badstench]

I got up at something like 6am, getting ready for work. There's usually a news bulletin on TV at that hour.

'That' morning, I was confused why they should be showing a disaster movie. It took me a little while to realise I was watching actual events.

Anyway, Lightwielder... stop apologising! You had something to say that had a decent and positive spin on a tragic occurrence. And, at the time, it was unifying.

From my seat on the sofa more than half a world away, I felt the momentousness of watching the twin towers fall and knowing the consequences would change the lives of many in the years to come.

But politics aside, people died tragically; innocent people who were used to make a devastating point, people with families and loved ones and precious lives.

It's okay to remember them.

Good on you for startiing the thread, and though Havoc phrased it's separation by saying people could ignore it if they wanted to, I'm sure he meant that others could also add to it without lesser conversations interupting.

I like positive spins!

[Lightwielder]

Anyway, Lightwielder... stop apologising! You had something to say that had a decent and positive spin on a tragic occurrence. And, at the time, it was unifying.

Thanks, Badstench. That helps.

Me, personally. I heard from the rumors, and brief news comments. I was not directly affected by the incident. I ended up realizing what was going on entirely, a couple of days later.

[thingirl]

I didn't realize until about 4 years later. I was six when it happened.

[smv1973]

My Mother knew the Pilot of the first plane to hit the Towers (flight 11). He would only do about 2 flights for the airline each month. He worked full time for the Federal government with my Mother.

[Daffanka]

My neighbors' daughter was supposed to be a stewardess on the plane that crashed the buildings, but she had the flu. Luckiest case of flu I ever heard of.

[thingirl]

Oh man, yeah. lucky flu. Oink.

[Elrond]

In 2003, the US under GWB conquered Iraq for its link to Al-Qaida and for posing an immediate threat to the free world with its deploy-able Weapons of Mass Destruction. Under GWB, investigations launched by Bush concluded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and did not have any links to Al-Qaida.

Since then, 4344 US servicemen died and more than 31000 were injured. In addition, 1395 contractors have died in that conflict. More than 320,000 Iraq vets are suffering from various degrees of brain injuries.

Iraq is no closer to freedom and democracy today than it was under Saddam Hussein since it has become an Iranian proxy state (today's rulers of Iraq were groomed in Iran).

The questions are:

- Why did hundreds of thousands of young and old men and women die or sustain injury?
- Why did the US spend $US 684 BILLION in that war? And would that money have been better spent?

[thingirl]

It's just like withthe Atom bombs. They cost a lot and killed a lot of people, but if they hadn't been deployed, many more lives would have been lost than if they hadn't. True, the second one wasn't necessary.

And the US army personnel know the risks they're taking to defend our country.

Several Billion might be a little much, but just think, Obama has spent much more than that on useless stimulus packages. If anything, they have cost more jobs than they saved.

Now, as we wait on the war vets on this board to respond to this, I'll brace myself to get flamed.

[Elrond]

It's just like withthe Atom bombs. They cost a lot and killed a lot of people, but if they hadn't been deployed, many more lives would have been lost than if they hadn't. True, the second one wasn't necessary.

And the US army personnel know the risks they're taking to defend our country.

Several Billion might be a little much, but just think, Obama has spent much more than that on useless stimulus packages. If anything, they have cost more jobs than they saved.

Now, as we wait on the war vets on this board to respond to this, I'll brace myself to get flamed.

For the record, Bush was forced to sign 2 stimulus bills because the dire economic situation. So, blaming Obama on this is a no-go. (BTW, I'm not an Obama fan!).

As to WWII, the US was defending itself against Japan in the Pacific and defending allies in Europe. But where is the motive and justification for war in Iraq. There was no threat there to start with. That's what Bush investigations have concluded! So, the US servicemen (and women) were taking risks on an imaginary enemy in Iraq. They were not defending the US!

[smv1973]

My younger brother has done one tour of duty in Iraq. His unit has been told that they maybe deployed again before next summer. They will be going to Afghanistan this time. He is in the National Gaurd.

[Elrond]

My younger brother has done one tour of duty in Iraq. His unit has been told that they maybe deployed again before next summer. They will be going to Afghanistan this time. He is in the National Gaurd.

All the best to your brother on his next deployment when it comes. Did he, or do you, feel that the Iraq war is justified in light of the reasons leading up to the war and the subsequent refutation of those reasons?

[smv1973]

All the best to your brother on his next deployment when it comes. Did he, or do you, feel that the Iraq war is justified in light of the reasons leading up to the war and the subsequent refutation of those reasons?

Short answer yes at the time the war was started. If we had or go by hindsight short answer is no.

[Elrond]

Short answer yes at the time the war was started. If we had or go by hindsight short answer is no.

Fair enough for regular guys and gals. But is it fair for leaders to fall on that! In any case, when did "hingsight" kick in? And why are people still dying there?

[smv1973]

Fair enough for regular guys and gals. But is it fair for leaders to fall on that! In any case, when did "hingsight" kick in? And why are people still dying there?

Hindsight kicked in after about a month or month and a half. I have no answers why people are still dying and being hurt.

[Badstench]

I've just finished posting the latest in the "Tales From Behind The Green Door". Presenting this in a readable fashion to the forum requires changing the structure so that it reads more easily.

I am happy with the result (although I noticed a few punctuation errors that need correcting), and am patting myself on the back with a glass of wine before I start on posting "Gamemaster In The Spotlight".

In the meantime, I have been perusing this thread and have a few inter-related thoughts.

1) There's an island in the Pacific Ocean called Fiji. This island was a protectorate of New Zealand, though it was self-governed. I use the past tense, was, because a coup happened whereby the military took control after an election placed the minority Indian populace in control. This was a direct violation of the democratic process.

The military general who placed himself as the new head of government has been condemned by the governments of England, Canada, New Zealand, USA and Australia. His name is Frank Bainimarama.

Frank promised to restore democracy, then renegged on that promise. This caused Fiji to be expelled from the Commonwealth (an economic alliance of British origin), and has resulted in the threat of Fiji having its seat on the United Nations revoked.

What this means to Fiji is economic disaster. Frank Bainimarama answered by approaching China for economic aid, and China answered by "loaning" them vast sums of money.

What has this got to do with 9/11? Nothing... except to confirm the growing status of China as the major world political power that threatens the US dollar as being the currency that all economies are measured by.

China has vast resources of manpower, and is a contender for economic importance over America. If you've been keeping up with the news, you might know that talk has been bandied about of the Chinese yuan replacing the US dollar as the main global currency.

The United States has one advantage... it is the most advanced nation technologically, and especially with it's military. America is regarded as being the stalwart of Democracy, the nation that prevents military dictators from pulling the world into separate states that have no consideration for the common people.

Now, the fact that China threatens the US economically is frightening. The thing most nations require for sustainability are resources, and if America expends too many resources on fighting wars against terrorism, it weakens its position globally.

The fear engendered by Fiji's actions includes the possibility that China will gain access to a Pacific naval base deep into the heart of many democratic nations, New Zealand and Australia being in the forefront, with the US not far behind.

So.... the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are helping to erode the position of the US as the major political power in, what is essentially, my neck of the woods.

Only time will tell how this pans out.

[Lightwielder]

Hindsight kicked in after about a month or month and a half. I have no answers why people are still dying and being hurt.

Did it really? This is war. I believe that hindsight, by definition, cannot apply to war. War is chaotic, ever-changing, spontaneous, and unpredictable. No war is ever the same.

- Why did hundreds of thousands of young and old men and women die or sustain injury?
- Why did the US spend $US 684 BILLION in that war? And would that money have been better spent?
I don't doubt that our enemies(and we do have some out there) would hesitate to take advantage of any opportunity to strike back. These soldiers know the risks and results of war. I dare you to be the one to make the decision to pull our soldiers out(and, naturally, take full responsibility for the end result).

[Elrond]

I don't doubt that our enemies(and we do have some out there) would hesitate to take advantage of any opportunity to strike back. These soldiers know the risks and results of war. I dare you to be the one to make the decision to pull our soldiers out(and, naturally, take full responsibility for the end result).

Lightwielder, I haven't found a reason in your post to explain why Iraq was attacked and not North Korea for example. North Korea has nuclear capacity and long-range missiles. Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction and did not have any links to the enemies (Al-Qaida).

If we want to take out our enemies, then why not hit the enemies that threaten us, not just people who do not like us. I assume there is a difference between enemy and someone who hates us.

As to making the decision to pull out, I would not make it because I would not have sent the troops on a wild goose chance in the first place. I would have at least established with credibility if there was a true threat to the US from Iraq, not investigate the threat after launching the war and losing tens of thousands of men and women.

[zmflavius]

Lightwielder, I haven't found a reason in your post to explain why Iraq was attacked and not North Korea for example. North Korea has nuclear capacity and long-range missiles. Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction and did not have any links to the enemies (Al-Qaida).

If we want to take out our enemies, then why not hit the enemies that threaten us, not just people who do not like us. I assume there is a difference between enemy and someone who hates us.

As to making the decision to pull out, I would not make it because I would not have sent the troops on a wild goose chance in the first place. I would have at least established with credibility if there was a true threat to the US from Iraq, not investigate the threat after launching the war and losing tens of thousands of men and women.

Would a military occupation have solved North Korea's problems. In a country where every man, woman, and child is conditioned to serve "their dear leader" to the very last, and where almost everyone has some degree of military training, I doubt it.

[thingirl]

Also, this was tried back in the Korean war. They are backed by China.

[zmflavius]

Also, this was tried back in the Korean war. They are backed by China.

Not as much as in the past though.

[thingirl]

Good point. Still, the US has to deal with China if they attack NK. And If we lose China's trade...

[Elrond]

The reference to North Korea was to show that there are countries that pose a threat to US National Security that were left behind in the "war on terror;" whereas Iraq that did not post a threat was attacked!

[Havoc]

Well, Pakistan has a lot more 'terrorist training grounds', and yet the US feels fit to see them as an ally.

[scout1idf]

Havoc's post probably won't make sense because I chose to delete my posts. One before and one after his.........

I should have stuck to my instincts and not got involved, sorry......

[Lightwielder]

As to making the decision to pull out, I would not make it because I would not have sent the troops on a wild goose chance in the first place. I would have at least established with credibility if there was a true threat to the US from Iraq, not investigate the threat after launching the war and losing tens of thousands of men and women.

But the problem is that this statement is from hindsight again. If Bush was able to see into the future and see that this would be a wild goose chase because they have no Weapons of Mass Destruction, then I don't think he would've sent them either. However, the people were crying for vengeance, and there was a believed threat.

-What would you have done?-

I don't ask this question to be answered, but to be pondered. An answer would likely result again in hindsight opinion, and that doesn't get us very far.

[scout1idf]

......And If we lose China's trade...


Americans would have more of our jobs back!!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't let that FACT slip by.

[Lightwielder]

As to making the decision to pull out, I would not make it because I would not have sent the troops on a wild goose chance in the first place.

Wait...how does that even answer my question in the first place? You weren't the one to send them in. I was talking about making the decision to pull them out after someone else had ALREADY sent them in. (Bush is no longer in office, so he can't pull them out anymore. Someone else would have to do it.)

[Oldschool]

Like Scout I'm skeptical to add my two cents but here goes.....

Regardless of one's personal views on US troop levels/involvement in Iraq why is the current situation there and in Afghanistan not deemed worthy of more than a passing mention by the media.

The current level which has not diminished significantly since Bush left office and Obama took over is projected to stay fairly static till at least partway through 2010. Actually according to Gen. Heidi Brown who is overseeing troop withdrawals, “We would stay steady with troop strength until after the election plus 60 days..." “You don’t know who will win the government and how long it will take to seat the government.” Currently the Iraqi election is scheduled for the end of January, 2010.

If Obama's promise to end combat ops in the fall of 2010 is kept this would require a massive pullout of troops which the administration seems unwilling or unable to do. Keep in mind, troop rotations despite what many members of the administration and media would like one to believe are not withdrawals.

Re: troop rotations - http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12816

Interesting to note this out of the announcement, "This announcement reflects the continued commitment of the United States to the security of the Iraqi people, and provides replacement forces required to maintain the current level of effort in Iraq. Subsequent deployment orders will be issued based on force level decisions made in the future."

This also doesn't even address the ever increasing troop deployments to Afghanistan.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/2009/09/02/quick-facts-US-military-operations-Afghanistan

* Current Troop Levels - There are roughly 62,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan. This number is expected to grow to at least 68,000 by December. [Gates Says Additional Local Forces May Be Needed In Afghan War, Bloomberg News, September 1, 2009.]

Again regardless of one's personal views it's interesting to note the apparent lack of interest among many, especially the lamestream media, now that a different administration is handling the reins.

[thingirl]

I had a big rant about Nobama and how he's not going to fix all of out problems. But, It was getting too long and not making any seance. And yes, the "n" in Obama's name is intentional.

[smv1973]

Originally Posted by thingirl
Also, this was tried back in the Korean war. They are backed by China.

Not as much as in the past though.

Not True. China provides North Korea with about 85% of all it's material imports such as food, heating oil, gas and military items.

[zmflavius]

Americans would have more of our jobs back!!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't let that FACT slip by.

The reason Americans lost their jobs to China in the first place is because Chinese workers are willing to work for much less than Americans. Honestly, can you imagine a company owner asking an American worker to do work that any person with a high school education (or less) could do for Chinese wages? The average Chinese worker makes around 3000 yuan (according to my dad) a month, or $442 a month by working 12 hours a day. No American would work for wages even twice that (I think). And even if China stopped selling labor to American companies, Americans would almost certainly go find another developing country which didn't have shortsighted labor unions or labor laws and build factories there.

Not True. China provides North Korea with about 85% of all it's material imports such as food, heating oil, gas and military items.

Even so, that doesn't mean that China will fully back them on whatever they do. If things came to a head, I doubt China would choose to declare war on everyone else rather than tell North Koreans to jump in the lake.

[thingirl]

Defending your home country, aren't you Zm?

[Elrond]

But the problem is that this statement is from hindsight again. If Bush was able to see into the future and see that this would be a wild goose chase because they have no Weapons of Mass Destruction, then I don't think he would've sent them either. However, the people were crying for vengeance, and there was a believed threat.

-What would you have done?-

I don't ask this question to be answered, but to be pondered. An answer would likely result again in hindsight opinion, and that doesn't get us very far.

Lightwielder, this is not a hindsight answer. It is an answer I would fully expect from the leader of the world's only superpower, with tens of billions of dollars invested in "intelligence and military intelligence." And it is something basic in decision making.

I do not expect the world's super power to go hunting for revenge 2 years after September 11th in order to satisfy the carnal instinct of revenge, especially since the war in Afghanistan was already launched by then! And especially when the perpetrators of 9/11 were on the run in Tora Bora and that region. Revenge would have meant going after Bin Laden, not Saddam!

Let us try and get some things in the spotlight:
- A nation does not launch war without clear evidence that the war is warranted. And even when such evidence is warranted, war is not always the best option. Example: The USSR posed an existential threat to the US during the 50's and throughout the Cold War. Yet, war was not launched despite that threat!
- There was never any credible or non-credible intelligence report establishing any kind of link between Al-Qaida and Saddam's regime. The link was made up to justify the war; and Cheney admitted that after he left office!
- The UN in its 10 years of monitoring Iraq before the war failed to find evidence that Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration intentionally magnified some biased and unverified intelligence tip-offs from dissident Iraq's bent on toppling Saddam. The assessment of these tipoffs by US intelligence officers BEFORE the war was that they were not credible.
- US and Western intelligence services did not turn up any credible evidence of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction before the war. There was speculation before the war, not evidence required to take the decision to endanger the lives of men and women in uniform.

With those facts before the US President, why did he go to war?

[zmflavius]

Lightwielder, this is not a hindsight answer. It is an answer I would fully expect from the leader of the world's only superpower, with tens of billions of dollars invested in "intelligence and military intelligence." And it is something basic in decision making.

I do not expect the world's super power to go hunting for revenge 2 years after September 11th in order to satisfy the carnal instinct of revenge, especially since the war in Afghanistan was already launched by then! And especially when the perpetrators of 9/11 were on the run in Tora Bora and that region. Revenge would have meant going after Bin Laden, not Saddam!

Let us try and get some things in the spotlight:
- A nation does not launch war without clear evidence that the war is warranted. And even when such evidence is warranted, war is not always the best option. Example: The USSR posed an existential threat to the US during the 50's and throughout the Cold War. Yet, war was not launched despite that threat!
- There was never any credible or non-credible intelligence report establishing any kind of link between Al-Qaida and Saddam's regime. The link was made up to justify the war; and Cheney admitted that after he left office!
- The UN in its 10 years of monitoring Iraq before the war failed to find evidence that Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration intentionally magnified some biased and unverified intelligence tip-offs from dissident Iraq's bent on toppling Saddam. The assessment of these tipoffs by US intelligence officers BEFORE the war was that they were not credible.
- US and Western intelligence services did not turn up any credible evidence of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction before the war. There was speculation before the war, not evidence required to take the decision to endanger the lives of men and women in uniform.

With those facts before the US President, why did he go to war?

Oil!

Defending your home country, aren't you Zm?

I may not agree completely with it, and I may prefer living in the US, but that doesn't mean I don't love my home country, and anyways, they're much better than the US when dealing with problems such as illicit drugs and gangs.

[scout1idf]

The reason Americans lost their jobs to China in the first place is because Chinese workers are willing to work for much less than Americans.

Are you including the political prisoners that are forced to work in that statement?

Honestly, can you imagine a company owner asking an American worker to do work that any person with a high school education (or less) could do for Chinese wages? The average Chinese worker makes around 3000 yuan (according to my dad) a month, or $442 a month by working 12 hours a day. No American would work for wages even twice that (I think).

I think a lot of American workers would be willing to work for that wage (and many currently have to) if the price of the products that we buy to live (not the luxury items either) would reflect the wages that people make.

In the last 4 years I have gotten less than a 2% (before you ask, it was 54 cents per hour over 4 years, not each year, total in 4 years and 10 months ago I was forced to take a 50 cent an hour cut in pay) raise in my wages while prices in my area have increased 10% to 20% for basic need items in those same 4 years. The saddest part is, I work in the best paying factory in my area, so it's not like I can find a better job.


And even if China stopped selling labor to American companies, Americans would almost certainly go find another developing country which didn't have shortsighted labor unions or labor laws and build factories there.

The "use" of developing countries is the idea of people that have enough money to support 200 generations of their family and think that that isn't enough. They are not only greedy, but EVIL people that care nothing about the people that they are stepping on just to make more money that they could never possibly use.

As for "shortsighted" labor unions or labor laws......

Have you ever worked in an American factory? Not as management either, I mean as a worker. If not, I would like to know what you base your opinion of labor unions being "shortsighted" on, hear say.

I have worked in Non-Union and Union factories both. Non-Union factories should be banned. Most that I have worked in are no better than plantations where the employees are no better off than slaves and the bosses are taskmasters with their whips standing over them. We fought a civil war to end that kind of environment and now it's legal.

And the labor laws, I don't know about anybody else, but I'm pretty fond of having my body parts attached to my body and in good working order. NOT cut off or mangled so they can't be used. Also factories are no place for children to be. A good "safe" work environment is still dangerous even for adults. We don't need 8 year old's running machines and getting hurt or killed in the name of PROFIT for some LAZY WORTHLESS corporate leader that couldn't make the product that he/she is profiting from if they had a book, a video and 50 assistant's showing them how to do it!!!!

****************

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'm tired of Unions being put down by people that have not been a member of one. I have personal experience with Union and Non-Union jobs and if I have my way, I'll never have a Non-Union job again.

Many good people lost their lives over the years to bring workers good paying jobs and safe work environments. No Union is perfect, but at least they try their best to make employers be humane to the workers.

[zmflavius]

Are you including the political prisoners that are forced to work in that statement?



I think a lot of American workers would be willing to work for that wage (and many currently have to) if the price of the products that we buy to live (not the luxury items either) would reflect the wages that people make.

In the last 4 years I have gotten less than a 2% (before you ask, it was 54 cents per hour over 4 years, not each year, total in 4 years and 10 months ago I was forced to take a 50 cent an hour cut in pay) raise in my wages while prices in my area have increased 10% to 20% for basic need items in those same 4 years. The saddest part is, I work in the best paying factory in my area, so it's not like I can find a better job.




The "use" of developing countries is the idea of people that have enough money to support 200 generations of their family and think that that isn't enough. They are not only greedy, but EVIL people that care nothing about the people that they are stepping on just to make more money that they could never possibly use.

As for "shortsighted" labor unions or labor laws......

Have you ever worked in an American factory? Not as management either, I mean as a worker. If not, I would like to know what you base your opinion of labor unions being "shortsighted" on, hear say.

I have worked in Non-Union and Union factories both. Non-Union factories should be banned. Most that I have worked in are no better than plantations where the employees are no better off than slaves and the bosses are taskmasters with their whips standing over them. We fought a civil war to end that kind of environment and now it's legal.

And the labor laws, I don't know about anybody else, but I'm pretty fond of having my body parts attached to my body and in good working order. NOT cut off or mangled so they can't be used. Also factories are no place for children to be. A good "safe" work environment is still dangerous even for adults. We don't need 8 year old's running machines and getting hurt or killed in the name of PROFIT for some LAZY WORTHLESS corporate leader that couldn't make the product that he/she is profiting from if they had a book, a video and 50 assistant's showing them how to do it!!!!

****************

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'm tired of Unions being put down by people that have not been a member of one. I have personal experience with Union and Non-Union jobs and if I have my way, I'll never have a Non-Union job again.

Many good people lost their lives over the years to bring workers good paying jobs and safe work environments. No Union is perfect, but at least they try their best to make employers be humane to the workers.

That's called "free labor."

----------------------------------------

Life sucks

-------------------------------------------

ok, maybe not the labor laws.

[Taleria]

Why exactly is it such a tragedy? Yes it definitely sucks that a lot of people died, but a lot more people have died in disasters before and since. Yet we make no mention of them each year.

And how exactly have we fought back? By invading an unrelated country and killing people there?

Thank you. I'd never have dared to say this aloud, but I'm in total agreement.

Hundreds of thousands have died in natural disasters, but they don't get much media attention. What is they say? One death is a tragedy; a thousand is a statistic? I don't know the precise quote. Feeling a bit cynical.

For the record, I was never in agreement for the "liberation" of Iraq, not before the war and most definitely not in hindsight. What hindsight? I can say with complete smugness that I thought this was a bad course of action from the start, before the investigation.

Why? Because revolution should come from within, and the Middle East has a different power structure than the U.S. This does not mean they are somehow backward or barbaric. And no country wants to be invaded by foreigners. Not to mention that we had a history with Saddam that made us rather hypocritical to storm in and pretend that we had the best of intentions. Weren't we the ones to help him to power?

Cultural differences and much turbulent history were completely disregarded for rash action and ill-conceived, shortsighted decision-making. SO easy to make a mess; so difficult to clean it up.

Lightwielder, I haven't found a reason in your post to explain why Iraq was attacked and not North Korea for example. North Korea has nuclear capacity and long-range missiles. Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction and did not have any links to the enemies (Al-Qaida).

If we want to take out our enemies, then why not hit the enemies that threaten us, not just people who do not like us. I assume there is a difference between enemy and someone who hates us.

As to making the decision to pull out, I would not make it because I would not have sent the troops on a wild goose chance in the first place. I would have at least established with credibility if there was a true threat to the US from Iraq, not investigate the threat after launching the war and losing tens of thousands of men and women. **

I could not have said this better. North Korea threatens Japan and Hawaii regularly. Every time they announce a missile test, I wonder when the shoe will drop. Some in the U.S. don't even know Hawaii is not another country in itself. Perhaps our very government has forgotten this? Why do they persist in underestimating a possible threat - one that has made no secret of its wish to kill U.S. citizens?

Not to mention that North and South Korea used to be one country, until superpowers decided to pull it apart. If North Korea were liberated, its people could eat wholesome food and not get sick and die from drinking poisoned water and trying to eat things that are rotten. Korea might even be unified again. I'd like to note I'm full Korean ethnically, though culturally, I'm definitely American born and raised.

I did think it was stupid to launch an investigation, however token, *after* undertaking the "war on terror."

And honestly, if everyone who hated us were an enemy, we'd have a very long list.

[zmflavius]

Thank you. I'd never have dared to say this aloud, but I'm in total agreement.

Hundreds of thousands have died in natural disasters, but they don't get much media attention. What is they say? One death is a tragedy; a thousand is a statistic? I don't know the precise quote. Feeling a bit cynical.

For the record, I was never in agreement for the "liberation" of Iraq, not before the war and most definitely not in hindsight. What hindsight? I can say with complete smugness that I thought this was a bad course of action from the start, before the investigation.

Why? Because revolution should come from within, and the Middle East has a different power structure than the U.S. This does not mean they are somehow backward or barbaric. And no country wants to be invaded by foreigners. Not to mention that we had a history with Saddam that made us rather hypocritical to storm in and pretend that we had the best of intentions. Weren't we the ones to help him to power?

Cultural differences and much turbulent history were completely disregarded for rash action and ill-conceived, shortsighted decision-making. SO easy to make a mess; so difficult to clean it up.



I could not have said this better. North Korea threatens Japan and Hawaii regularly. Every time they announce a missile test, I wonder when the shoe will drop. Some in the U.S. don't even know Hawaii is not another country in itself. Perhaps our very government has forgotten this? Why do they persist in underestimating a possible threat - one that has made no secret of its wish to kill U.S. citizens?

Not to mention that North and South Korea used to be one country, until superpowers decided to pull it apart. If North Korea were liberated, its people could eat wholesome food and not get sick and die from drinking poisoned water and trying to eat things that are rotten. Korea might even be unified again. I'd like to note I'm full Korean ethnically, though culturally, I'm definitely American born and raised.

I did think it was stupid to launch an investigation, however token, *after* undertaking the "war on terror."

And honestly, if everyone who hated us were an enemy, we'd have a very long list.

OIL! GEORGE BUSH IS AN OIL MAGNATE!

(Sorry, couldn't resist saying that)

And on North Korea...

North Korea "threatens" Japan and Hawaii regularly, but whether it actually is a threat is debatable. A country like North Korea, which is so completely withdrawn from the world and is ruled by a madman who chooses his heir based on how aggressive he is is simply not capable of launching an invasion, let alone, an assault on any othe nation (Didn't all of its "long-range missiles" fall apart after being launched?).

Also, "liberation" of North Korea is not just simply sending an invasion force northward, because a "liberation" of North Korea would require convincing all 24 million people there that they want to be "liberated" instead of fighting to the death. Good luck with that.

[Tetracapillactomist]

No reason to post here... so I will.

Long-defunct subject... Perhaps, perhaps not.

Perhaps it should be - or perhaps it shouldn't.

But one of the 'capi' of the anti-West 'Mafias,' the head of an 'enlightened' and self-exalted group of holy warriors fighting the 'righteous' fight (blowing up civilians, including mothers, sisters, daughters - well, same as aerial attacks, bombing sorties of official armies do, I suppose...), was killed recently, so this thing was back in the 'profitable news' category - at least for a short, shallow breath and the blink of an unseeing eye...

All this - the events, the implications, the causes and consequences, the ramifications, the many-many costs (in lives lost, in changed attitudes, anxiety, and in values - human and otherwise -, in short: most everything; yes, including monetary, economic, at the end of the day, since it did eventually have a serious impact on the lives of individuals in all strata of society, and due to direct connections or indirect, or simply due to domino or ripple effects, all around the world...), the back-and-forth arguments, debates, the resurgence of hatred, intolerance, suspicion, the 'eye for an eye,' the 'tit for tat,' the 'who started it,' the blinders, the ignorance, the mulish refusal to see the other side, the retrenching, closing in, retracting into the shell, the accusatory pointing fingers, the conspiracy theories, the revelling in death inflicted (again and again, and on all sides equally, like cannibalistic bloodlust covering the whites and yellows of people's eyes in a thick, sticky, dark red haze...), the flag-waving, the flag-burning, the vicious bloody snarl of the proud and self-righteous troglodytes gathering into separate and opposing camps, ready to blow the enemy (always evil, always demonised on all sides, irrespective of the specific reasons given, particular excuses used) off the face of the earth (and blow the Earth too, off its axis, if it comes to that, and blow it clean of all human life, if 'must')...

All of that, and more, just fills me with a bitter taste of darkest pessimism, or stoic hopelessness for the future of humankind, and all cultures, all flavours of human civilisation...

I don't support either side - none of the sides, corners, factions and parties, sects or schools of thought, groups or gangs, mobs or organisations, gods or religions, tribes or clans, theories or practices that consider human lives as expandable on the altars of economy, politics, religion, philosophy - for the sake of profit, supremacy, faith, theories...

It's been said that no ideology is worth a single human life.

The polar opposite of that has also been said.

Well then: pick your sides, form into ranks, and let the killing begin - we'll determine the right answer in the time-honoured fashion, according to "the ways of the world."

But that's all right, isn't it?... I mean, "wha' you gonna do?"... "What can we do?" "It is the way of the world." (All right, I guess I'm in no mood for platitudes, really, so I can't think of any more of them right now, and am even at so few of them, already repeating myself... Hm, mustn't get boring now! Must keep the entertainment value high, the preaching peppy and palatable, the sound bites snappy and snagging, and the prophecies must be delivered with convincing certainty, and they must be sufficiently threatening, projected not so far into the future that they are eventually forgotten, nor so close in time as to prevent a healthy and potent build-up of fear, panic, hysteria and frenzy )

In any case, been feeling that bitterness even before finding a guest viewing this thread, and following suit by way of a single click...

Maybe it's true that sometimes it's not so much a case of us finding things, as it is them finding us...

Much like a brick falling. Or a stray bullet flying through the air... until it finds a much too often tragically random, hapless and helpless, innocent target...

Yes there are innocents still, you cynically dismissive, smirking pseudo-intellects of self-assumed superiority... you know who you are, I do not, nor would I particularly care to know you much... But there always are those - especially when sitting alone, with their reaction unwitnessed by others, or witnessed only by like-minded ones...

Well, we live in an interesting world, I'll say that much...

Or do we?... Is that a false and superficial impression...?... Maybe...

After all, looking at it another way, these things are so predictable at times...

R.I.P. friend. And all you innocents, and those not so innocent as well.

(I could say 'sorry for the rant,' but I won't, because I'm not. Not at the moment. I'll be sorry later.
If all this doesn't make sense, well, that's just the way it'll stay. This is only supposed to make sense to me, it's self-serving in that way.

Think of this post as a cryptic marker carved full of undecipherable runes, no blueprint, no explanation forthcoming. Like a note to myself. To someone else too, who will never read it - maybe to many others who will never read it. To all of them.

But if it won't make sense to anyone living but myself, in this place, that's self-serving, I guess, and maybe I'm sorry for taking up the space. Or maybe I'm not, and that's just bitter anger and resigned sadness speaking. I really don't know, not even sure which of those two I'm feeling, as they seem to alternate... I don't seem to care, and it's an insignificant detail to be obsessing over. It doesn't matter.

I will try not to post replies while in this state, if I feel anger coming on, so that, hopefully, I avoid taking it out on an unsuspecting victim, undeserving of my misdirected ire.

I will try to post only things that might draw a smile, and I'll try to talk only about inconsequential, light subjects for a while - more so than usual. Except maybe in case of an advice, if I'm able.
For the rest... there might be too many (and likely failed) attempts at joking, and they'll probably come across as forced. Kinda sorry about that in advance. Come to think of it, maybe I should make this whole production of a closing statement retroactive. That might at least shed some light and excuse me to whatever degree - and for whatever that's worth.

As for explanations: just don't ask. That's all [I]I'm asking for the time being. That's the way I'll handle it - as usual, more or less. Maybe later. Although that could take ten years, judging by precedents. So just look at the above as nonsense - which should be fairly easy, is my guess, even without reading it myself. A very long non sequitur. [And that should be a familiar term by now on this forum.] I keep going on with this purging, nonsensical soliloquy, and it just occurred to me it may not fit in under the 10,000 character limit... I also have a strong sense that the writing of this was a stupid impulse, and the posting of it is a still stupider decision, and pointless too... Oh, well, once I decided, then prepared for it, I'll jump - the regrets, if they come, they come later.

What is it about bloody Sundays, anyway...

[Blackcrowe]

Sheer nonsense TC. (Somewhat nicely arranged though, with some interesting turns of phrase).

It scored an 8.6 on my nonsense-o-meter, which is a very respectable result. ;)

[texlaw1992]

Now this would be an interesting poll:

Which is more nonsensical:

TC's post above; or

Sarah Palin's comments about Paul Revere?

Methinks TC's missing an opportunity to become a Fox News counsultant (lol).

[Tetracapillactomist]

... but just to be clear, R.I.P. was meant for someone I lost. Well, two persons, actually, so far this year. (Neither of them related to the American "War on Terror" in any way, incidentally, nor to the "jihadist" war on everything else. This just happened to be the thread that triggered my mournful insanity.)

The first, old and suffering, died on the first Sunday of the new year. The other, young and healthy, this past Sunday.

Tex, give me at least a Michael Palin instead of that thing of yours. And Fox News?... It might be fun to play with their heads and feed them stories of alien presidents from Planet 9, but even though I don't watch them, I've seen enough of Stewart and Colbert to know that even at my most nonsensical and insane, they would be disappointed in me.

Well, thanks anyway.

BC... I expected a 9.8... (although it's interesting that among the 91 decimal values possible there, you picked 8.6... Well, I did read something about crows' uncanny abilities... I guess there might be some truth to that.)

Thank you both. Next time I'll try to do better. I'm aiming for 10.0, no less.

(I guess now is the time to regret having posted, huh? Ha, ha-ha. It came sooner than I thought.)

So thanks for your support. I did not ask for it - and lo, I did not get it. :D
That seems like a fair deal. :)

[Badstench]

My best friend (Paul) has been banned from watching the news on TV by his partner until after his daughters (aged 4 and 6 respectively) have gone to bed.

He's a Conservative by politics and thought. He's also very opinionated and lacks any sense of diplomacy, so he speaks his mind.

Paul can create outrage with a raised eyebrow. Unfortunately, he has me as a friend, and i know just where to prick his sensibilities. His partner often whacks me and says, "Stop goading him."

Does that stop me? No way!

But I find it hugely amusing that he's not allowed to watch the news.