9/11 Tribute

[[]D [] []v[] []D]

eielson said:

2792 deaths on 9/11
2400ish deaths for Pearl Harbor

yeah, that was my mistake

[Eielson]

travis said:

2000+ 10s upon 10s of thousands injured, name a war like that, even in WW2 it wasnt this bad eielson in one day

We have had something like 3500-4000 die in Iraq I believe.

[captobvious]

eielson said:

captobvious said:

More people dying in DC daily than Iraq? That's ludicrous. Where did you get that idea?

We don't have that many people dying over in Iraq, for a war this is nothing for casualties, in some wars we would lose more people in a day than in this whole war.

WE don't have that many casualties, but we're still losing a whole lot more people per day than we lose in Washington. And the Iraqi losses, which includes innocent civillians, are staggering.

[Commodor]

i still stand by my opinion to pull out, because even if they try to attack us again, now we are prepared, and we have much more sophisticated weaponry and defenses than they do.

did any of you know that we can root this all back to ronald reagan?

[Commodor]

he gave the al-quaeda the weaponry they have now, when they were fighting the soviets. reagan saw this as a way to indirectly fight the soviets, and since the u.s. was fighting for the position of world power with the soviet union, it seemed like a pretty good idea then, but look at us now. it came around to bite us on the butt. some of the soldiers we sent were met with some of the machinery that we were once fighting WITH!

[Eielson]

commodor said:

i still stand by my opinion to pull out, because even if they try to attack us again, now we are prepared, and we have much more sophisticated weaponry and defenses than they do.

did any of you know that we can root this all back to ronald reagan?

Actually we could rather root it back to Bill Clinton, all he had to do was give them the word and Bin Laden would've been dead well before 9/11.

[Tye Williams]

eielson said:

commodor said:

i still stand by my opinion to pull out, because even if they try to attack us again, now we are prepared, and we have much more sophisticated weaponry and defenses than they do.

did any of you know that we can root this all back to ronald reagan?

Actually we could rather root it back to Bill Clinton, all he had to do was give them the word and Bin Laden would've been dead well before 9/11.

Not to mention 9/11 could have been prevented if the departing Clinton administration had given the new Bush administration the proper intelligence report. Bush is unfairly perceived as the scapegoat, when it is actually the Clinton administration's fault for not giving them the proper information when they left office.

[captobvious]

theunusualsuspect said:

eielson said:

Actually we could rather root it back to Bill Clinton, all he had to do was give them the word and Bin Laden would've been dead well before 9/11.

Not to mention 9/11 could have been prevented if the departing Clinton administration had given the new Bush administration the proper intelligence report. Bush is unfairly perceived as the scapegoat, when it is actually the Clinton administration's fault for not giving them the proper information when they left office.

My understanding is the outgoing Clinton administration repeatedly held briefings on the topic with the incoming people, and cautioned them repeatedly that Al Qaeda would be their number one national security issue. The Bush administration reacted with overwhelming indifference.

Ever wonder how the Afghanistan campaign came together so quickly? The Clinton administration developed the whole plan. The only thing that kept Clinton from executing it himself was the thinking that a transition of power during an active war would be an unsettling proposition for the troops.

[Commodor]

Still, reagan was involved in this before clinton

[Peyton Carter]

Well, I'm pretty sure George Bush Sr. was the one who armed Osama Bin Laden and his followers. They were "freedom fighters" then.

[Caz]

Clinton could have tooken care of this during his tenure as president, he was scared, there is no other explanation. President Bush has done the best thing possible and that is invade Iraq, to say that was the wrong thing to do or say we should pull out, is stupid. What do you think is gonna happen if we pull out and don't wipe out Al-Qadia? That Al-Qadia won't regain it's strength? No, President Bush is not going to pull out, he is gonna clean up Al-Qadia.

[captobvious]

caz said:

Clinton could have tooken care of this during his tenure as president, he was scared, there is no other explanation.

Correct explanation has already been given.

President Bush has done the best thing possible and that is invade Iraq

What do Al Qaeda and Iraq have in common? Nothing. Furthermore, by invading Iraq, Bush managed to let Osama escape. This is a presidential blunder of enormous magnitude. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, and he pulled our forces out of there to go after weapons of mass destruction that had been destroyed years ago.

Any defense of the Iraq campaign is stupid.

[Tye Williams]

Well, it happened. There's nothing we can do about that. We got Saddam Hussein out of power, which eventually would have been done anyway. We also gave the Iraqi citizens something they have never known: freedom. Many Iraqis are grateful for what we have done, but of course the media would never show that. They'd rather show the insurgents and suicide attacks and get everyone to hate Bush.

[Silver Fox]

theunusualsuspect said:

Well, it happened. There's nothing we can do about that. We got Saddam Hussein out of power, which eventually would have been done anyway. We also gave the Iraqi citizens something they have never known: freedom. Many Iraqis are grateful for what we have done, but of course the media would never show that. They'd rather show the insurgents and suicide attacks and get everyone to hate Bush.

On what basis do you assert that life is better now in Iraq than it was before we invaded? Saddam (and his crazy sons) did some bad shit but yesterday residents of Baghdad woke up to find about 50 tortured bloodied corpses strewn around town as some sort of grisly wake-up treat. Now that's anecdotal and clearly not scientific. How about this though? A recent academic study at John Hopkins finds chance of violent death in Iraq is greater now that it was before the US invasion:
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html. Not sure how much people love freedom while attending their childrens' funerals, stepping over bodies in the streets, and hiding in their houses.

On what basis do you assert that the media have an anti-Bush agenda? Try not to just mindlessly spew right-wing rhetoric. But I admit, if you can't trust academics, and you can't trust the media, that does make opinion shaping difficult.

[falcon91]

if your talking about casulties in 1 day..what about WW1 battle of the somme the day every1 "went over" there was some o the biggest losses in one day..more than d-day if i remember right

[Tye Williams]

johnbent said:

theunusualsuspect said:

Well, it happened. There's nothing we can do about that. We got Saddam Hussein out of power, which eventually would have been done anyway. We also gave the Iraqi citizens something they have never known: freedom. Many Iraqis are grateful for what we have done, but of course the media would never show that. They'd rather show the insurgents and suicide attacks and get everyone to hate Bush.

On what basis do you assert that life is better now in Iraq than it was before we invaded? Saddam (and his crazy sons) did some bad crap but yesterday residents of Baghdad woke up to find about 50 tortured bloodied corpses strewn around town as some sort of grisly wake-up treat. Now that's anecdotal and clearly not scientific. How about this though? A recent academic study at John Hopkins finds chance of violent death in Iraq is greater now that it was before the US invasion:
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html. Not sure how much people love freedom while attending their childrens' funerals, stepping over bodies in the streets, and hiding in their houses.

On what basis do you assert that the media have an anti-Bush agenda? Try not to just mindlessly spew right-wing rhetoric. But I admit, if you can't trust academics, and you can't trust the media, that does make opinion shaping difficult.

There is absolutely no way you can deny the media is not left wing, it is fairly obvious from their reporting. Now, I'm not suggesting it should be right wing either; it should be neutral, and just report the facts. I never liked the idea of political parties, as government is all for the best interests of the parties, and not the people themselves.
Now, back to Iraq. The insurgents are the enemy, not our own army and leader. They're the ones who are doing all of this. If we withdraw from Iraq, we leave a very vulnerable government there, which will no doubt be overrun by the insurgents. The whole reason we aren't withdrawing is that we are helping them out until they are strong to support themselves, and eliminate the insurgents. If we withdraw, I can guarantee you it won't be until after 2008 at the earliest. Oh, and by the way, I'm not right wing... I'm a moderate.

[Jordan Allan]

theunusualsuspect said:

I never liked the idea of political parties, as government is all for the best interests of the parties, and not the people themselves.

ok George Washington

[Silver Fox]

theunusualsuspect said:

johnbent said:

On what basis do you assert that life is better now in Iraq than it was before we invaded? Saddam (and his crazy sons) did some bad crap but yesterday residents of Baghdad woke up to find about 50 tortured bloodied corpses strewn around town as some sort of grisly wake-up treat. Now that's anecdotal and clearly not scientific. How about this though? A recent academic study at John Hopkins finds chance of violent death in Iraq is greater now that it was before the US invasion:
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html. Not sure how much people love freedom while attending their childrens' funerals, stepping over bodies in the streets, and hiding in their houses.

On what basis do you assert that the media have an anti-Bush agenda? Try not to just mindlessly spew right-wing rhetoric. But I admit, if you can't trust academics, and you can't trust the media, that does make opinion shaping difficult.

Now, back to Iraq. The insurgents are the enemy, not our own army and leader. They're the ones who are doing all of this.

First of all, our soldiers are absolutely killing civilians all over the place. Often accidentally, but not always.

Also, there are MORE violent deaths now than there were before. Even if it is the insurgents killing people and not our soldiers, there are still MORE now than before. We are responsible for the change from before to now. Was Saddam controlling the insurgents better than we are or are the insurgents coming because they hate us. Either way, Iraq is a worse place today than it was before.

Feel free to argue that it will all be worthwhile in the end when we're in heaven with our honey and virgins (oh, wait, that's them not us), but if you continue trying to argue that it is better now, then I'm done bec I won't consider you rational any more.

I don't want the media to be liberal either. I want them to tell the truth. The truth right now is that a country has been massively F---ed by the Republicans. The poor are poorer, health care is a nightmare, the rest of the world hates us, our soldiers are dying in an ill-conceived war, and Iraq is a bloody quagmire much worse than it was before, our army is massively over-stretched, we've upped enlistment bonuses four times greater than before, we're enlisting the bottom of the barrel in the army's own enlistment tests, our recruiters have been privatized and are preying on the poor children of black single mothers and we are implementing a back-door draft by not allowing soldiers to go home after their enlistment is over. For the media not to report this would be for them not to be telling the truth. Telling the truth doesn't make them liberal.

[captobvious]

theunusualsuspect said:

There is absolutely no way you can deny the media is not left wing, it is fairly obvious from their reporting.

This is a lie that has been repeated often enough by the radical conservative media (Fox News, Clear Channel, Washington Times, New York Post, etc.) that it has seeped into the mainstream media. It has been fully discredited.

One of the things you should keep in mind is that, while individual journalists are, on average, a bit left of center, their editors are answerable to guys like Rupert Murdoch.

[Silver Fox]

captobvious said:

theunusualsuspect said:

There is absolutely no way you can deny the media is not left wing, it is fairly obvious from their reporting.

This is a lie that has been repeated often enough by the radical conservative media (Fox News, Clear Channel, Washington Times, New York Post, etc.) that it has seeped into the mainstream media. It has been fully discredited.

One of the things you should keep in mind is that, while individual journalists are, on average, a bit left of center, their editors are answerable to guys like Rupert Murdoch.

capt rules. every chance I get I exalt him, yet somehow his rep never gets positive.