Life since 9/11/01

[SLCPUNK]

SPlunk would you mind telling me what the hell you are babbling about? No one here questioned our military strength? You did, read above. Our military might isnt' quite what I thought it was? What is this quote above here say? Is that not you?

You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Explaining how the world trembles beneath at the mere thought of our military. In reality Iraq was no cake walk, as many thought it would be.

Who are you to jump in and tell me that I don't respectfully disagree with his views?

Why shouldn't I? You are talking about two different things.

And for the record, the other countries did not deny the WMD existed there. If they did, prove me wrong. But, the way I remember it, they just wanted to contain the madman with sanctions. In other words, WMD did not pose a threat to THEM, so why support the invasion -

I've heard all this before. It's all nonsense.

You call the other countries names for not wanting to go in. But they WERE RIGHT. There was no threat, it's an established fact at this point. There was no threat to anybody.

I did read your posts, and nobody wants to hear it anymore. It's over, done, and you guys were wrong.

[DCGNR2006]

SPlunk would you mind telling me what the hell you are babbling about? No one here questioned our military strength? You did, read above. Our military might isnt' quite what I thought it was? What is this quote above here say? Is that not you?

You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Explaining how the world trembles beneath at the mere thought of our military. In reality Iraq was no cake walk, as many thought it would be.

Who are you to jump in and tell me that I don't respectfully disagree with his views?

Why shouldn't I? You are talking about two different things.

And for the record, the other countries did not deny the WMD existed there. If they did, prove me wrong. But, the way I remember it, they just wanted to contain the madman with sanctions. In other words, WMD did not pose a threat to THEM, so why support the invasion -

I've heard all this before. It's all nonsense.

You call the other countries names for not wanting to go in. But they WERE RIGHT. There was no threat, it's an established fact at this point. There was no threat to anybody.

I did read your posts, and nobody wants to hear it anymore. It's over, done, and you guys were wrong.

Gimme a break will ya? You were against this war, fine. You feel some sort of vindication now that Iraq is a mess, good for you. If you felt leaving that guy in power after what happened on 9/11 with " supposed " stockpiles of that crap was the right move , then more power to you. I will respectfully dis-agree with you as well.
Oh, by the way. The Iranian president again said just this afternoon that Israel will face annihalation. This coming days after he announces they have joined the nuclear club. Would you suggest the " wait and see " approach on that situation as well?? Never mind, I know your answer already. And don't speak for other people saying no body want to hear it anymore either, because I know plenty of people who don't want to hear your point of view anymore as well, but these are called posts for a reason. You are not going to agree with everyone on it. The point of them is discussion. If you choose not to do that, then why even bother replying?
When I saw your posts , I did'nt get angry with you, I just gave my view on things. Sorry if you were offended .....Take it easy man

[SLCPUNK]

Gimme a break will ya? You were against this war, fine. You feel some sort of vindication now that Iraq is a mess, good for you.

I feel no vindication of the thousand dead and the billions, if not trillions spent. I have been against it since day one.

If you felt leaving that guy in power after what happened on 9/11 with " supposed " stockpiles of that crap was the right move , then more power to you. I will respectfully dis-agree with you as well.

I never thought taking somebody out on cherry picked "evidence" was a good idea, no.

Oh, by the way. The Iranian president again said just this afternoon that Israel will face annihalation. This coming days after he announces they have joined the nuclear club. Would you suggest the " wait and see " approach on that situation as well?

First of all, you are comparing apples to oranges.

I always felt that Iran had ties to AQ, not Iraq. It was W who screwed it up with his "Slam Dunk" in Iraq. Our standing (although you guys don't seem to care) with the international community has been ruined. Now, we may really need it. Iran is years away from developing anything that can harm us. So, again, no need to rush in with guns blazing. Have you not learned from Iraq yet?

  Never mind, I know your answer already.

There you go answering for me again........

You don't offend me though.

[SLCPUNK]

So then, what is your solution to Iran?

Just drop a nuke?

Our military is too stretched to go in there at this point, and we are out of money.........

[DCGNR2006]

Damn, why won't you let me leave! Just kidding. You and I really need to get in a room and argue this one out , I think.
I will attempt to respond to all of your quotes on quotes


1) I'm glad you feel no vindication - did'nt mean to imply otherwise

2) Cherry Picked evidence is crap. I saw BillClinton on Larry King months before the invasion saying the same stuff as Bush. I'm not saying the evidence was correct, but I am saying that the idea that these guys made it up is horseshit. Clinton went into detail on the Mustard Gas, Anthrax, Botchelum, all of that good stuff. Did he get his evidence cherry picked directly from Bush?

3) I was'nt comparing Iraq to Iran. Was only pointing out that a potentially dangerous Middle East situation was occuring, and like it or not, America is going to be smack in the middle of it. And I apologize for appearing to speak for you, was only making an assumption

4) TAKE IT EASY!

5) PLEASE TELL ME WE CAN AGREE ON ONE THING , HOWEVER, ?- GUNS N' FUCKING ROSES!

[SLCPUNK]

Damn, why won't you let me leave! Just kidding. You and I really need to get in a room and argue this one out , I think.
I will attempt to respond to all of your quotes on quotes


1) I'm glad you feel no vindication - did'nt mean to imply otherwise

2) Cherry Picked evidence is crap. I saw BillClinton on Larry King months before the invasion saying the same stuff as Bush. I'm not saying the evidence was correct, but I am saying that the idea that these guys made it up is horseshit. Clinton went into detail on the Mustard Gas, Anthrax, Botchelum, all of that good stuff. Did he get his evidence cherry picked directly from Bush?

3) I was'nt comparing Iraq to Iran. Was only pointing out that a potentially dangerous Middle East situation was occuring, and like it or not, America is going to be smack in the middle of it. And I apologize for appearing to speak for you, was only making an assumption

4) TAKE IT EASY!

5) PLEASE TELL ME WE CAN AGREE ON ONE THING , HOWEVER,  - GUNS N' FUCKING ROSES!

If you want to argue with me in a room about this, you will probably have to wait in line......there are plenty here that have already got a place. Take a number and have a seat please.

2) The "Clinton defense" is not accepted because Bush took us to war, not slick Willy. Bush said WMD, and "mushroom cloud". He talked at great length about the tubes, which were false.

5) I can agree on GnR with you, you bet!

[DCGNR2006]

Damn, why won't you let me leave! Just kidding. You and I really need to get in a room and argue this one out , I think.
I will attempt to respond to all of your quotes on quotes


1) I'm glad you feel no vindication - did'nt mean to imply otherwise

2) Cherry Picked evidence is crap. I saw BillClinton on Larry King months before the invasion saying the same stuff as Bush. I'm not saying the evidence was correct, but I am saying that the idea that these guys made it up is horseshit. Clinton went into detail on the Mustard Gas, Anthrax, Botchelum, all of that good stuff. Did he get his evidence cherry picked directly from Bush?

3) I was'nt comparing Iraq to Iran. Was only pointing out that a potentially dangerous Middle East situation was occuring, and like it or not, America is going to be smack in the middle of it. And I apologize for appearing to speak for you, was only making an assumption

4) TAKE IT EASY!

5) PLEASE TELL ME WE CAN AGREE ON ONE THING , HOWEVER,? - GUNS N' FUCKING ROSES!

If you want to argue with me in a room about this, you will probably have to wait in line......there are plenty here that have already got a place. Take a number and have a seat please.

2) The "Clinton defense" is not accepted because Bush took us to war, not slick Willy. Bush said WMD, and "mushroom cloud". He talked at great length about the tubes, which were false.

5) I can agree on GnR with you, you bet!


One last thing for me. The Clinton thing is a defense on the accusation of Cherry Picking evidence about WMD. Nothing to do with the invasion or the Mushroom Cloud crap ( which I never bought , anyway )

[sandman]

kudos to all - the political discussions in the jungle have remained "mature" over the last week or so. both sides bringing it strong, but remaining respectful. good to see.


i supported clinton when he bombed iraq, and because of his comments, i have always believed iraq was the bigger threat.

i agree that iran was a major threat all along as well. and can appreciate arguments that maybe they were more of a threat than iraq.

BUT, i also thought that by establishing a democracy in iraq, it would help our efforts in other middle east nations (including iran). for these reasons, i supported the war (i actually wanted it when clinton was in office). 

but plenty of mistakes have been made in iraq, so the overall plan for the middle east has not worked. i still believe if executed properly, we could have had much more success in iraq. but i could be wrong.

[DCGNR2006]

kudos to all - the political discussions in the jungle have remained "mature" over the last week or so. both sides bringing it strong, but remaining respectful. good to see.


i supported clinton when he bombed iraq, and because of his comments, i have always believed iraq was the bigger threat.

i agree that iran was a major threat all along as well. and can appreciate arguments that maybe they were more of a threat than iraq.

BUT, i also thought that by establishing a democracy in iraq, it would help our efforts in other middle east nations (including iran). for these reasons, i supported the war (i actually wanted it when clinton was in office).?


What's up Sandman. Yeah, I realize that when discussing politics, it can always get heated, so I do try to be respectful and Plunk seemed to be. You can actually learn a lot from opposing view points, if you give it a chance




but plenty of mistakes have been made in iraq, so the overall plan for the middle east has not worked. i still believe if executed properly, we could have had much more success in iraq. but i could be wrong.

[sandman]

what's up DC. i agree 100%. i admit i enjoy arguing, but a benefit from that is you can learn ALOT, and at the very least see things in other perspectives that you might not have considered.


GnFnR!!!!

[D]

The cool thing is, where use to we would all just fight and fight it seems now that even if we dont agree we can at least try and take a second to see where the other person is coming from and try to at least respect their opinion.


For instance when SLC was talking about the Loose Change documentary.

Normally I wouldnt have even entertained the idea.

Now though I watch with an open mind, see the possibilities and even if i dont agree i can at least respect and see how he arrived to his conclusion and even agree with some of it.

Its pretty cool when people can get along!


Makes me wanna stand up and start singing "America The Beautiful!"

[heinous]

Yeah, attacking and toppling a military and regime that has next to nothing for weapons is a huge accomplishment.

So you're telling me that if someone took away your weaponry, invaded the US, defeated the US military, knocked the current White House out of power, and said they were doing it for your good that you'd just say "Well ok, sure, go right ahead" rather than find any possible way you could to fight back?? I'd say rolling over and taking it is more cowardly than fighting back with whatever means you may have.? What's weaker is going on an unprovoked attack because we thought they may have been a threat.

Your twisted sense of moral relativism makes me sick.

You somehow assume that those attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as civilians, are somehow noble patriots defending their homeland.? If that were the case, they wouldn't be killing their fellow citizens and trying to impede the development of their own government.

You would be more able to recognize the enemy forces in Iraq for the self-interested, wanton killers they are if you weren't so busy condemning America.

Well if CNN, Fox News, et. al weren't afraid to criticise the government when they deserve it...

Give me a break.

Nobody is afraid to criticize the government.  It is done every day.

[Mal Brossard]

Yeah, attacking and toppling a military and regime that has next to nothing for weapons is a huge accomplishment.

So you're telling me that if someone took away your weaponry, invaded the US, defeated the US military, knocked the current White House out of power, and said they were doing it for your good that you'd just say "Well ok, sure, go right ahead" rather than find any possible way you could to fight back?  I'd say rolling over and taking it is more cowardly than fighting back with whatever means you may have.  What's weaker is going on an unprovoked attack because we thought they may have been a threat.

Your twisted sense of moral relativism makes me sick.

You somehow assume that those attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as civilians, are somehow noble patriots defending their homeland.  If that were the case, they wouldn't be killing their fellow citizens and trying to impede the development of their own government.

You would be more able to recognize the enemy forces in Iraq for the self-interested, wanton killers they are if you weren't so busy condemning America.

Once again, no one is answering my question.  If you had everything taken away from you and you were attacked by an outsider with questionable motives, you would just roll over and accept it rather than fight back against the invaders and those who support these invaders?  I doubt it.  Like I said-- what would you do if it happened to you?  I just think you don't want to face the possibility or even probability that you would act in the exact same way.

I love how suddenly questioning someone makes me anti-American.  Gotta love what's happened to this country.  Patriotism doesn't mean blind, unquestioning loyalty to America.  It doesn't mean Amerika Uber Alles. 

Well if CNN, Fox News, et. al weren't afraid to criticise the government when they deserve it...

Give me a break.

Nobody is afraid to criticize the government.  It is done every day.

Find me a MAINSTREAM MEDIA ORGANIZATION that will.  The people constantly criticise the government and its actions, but when do you see it making major news?  You don't.  The mainstream media has too much to lose in questioning the government.  Advertising and money are now more important than getting the real story out to the people and if you offend the wrong people by asking the wrong things, bam, no advertising money.  You'd be surprised how many stories are silenced because of the risks of losing out on advertising money or other perks.

While on the topic of the mainstream news media, because I can sense so many "liberal media" comments about to be thrown out, I'll quash those before anyone can start.  This is a brief excerpt from my final college paper.

"Over the years, Fox News has been accused of being extremely one-sided in its coverage of domestic issues, especially when it comes to political, gender, and racial minorities.  The channel is consistently associated with more conservative and Republican-leaning viewers and show guests while leaving Democrats and liberals off the channel whenever possible.  The aforementioned host of Fox News' Special Report, Brit Hume, is one of the worst offenders of right-wing bias in selecting guests on his show.  According to a study published in Extra! Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, 71% of all guests on Hume's show in 2001 were "Conservative," while the other 29% were classified as "Non-Conservative" (Rendall and Hollar, 2004).  The latter classification included people of many different political ideologies-- Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and more.  Fox calls Special Report its "signature show."  The fact that 71% of guests on the show come from one political ideology is troubling, especially when it is mentioned that the station calls itself "fair and balanced."  In 2004, a similar study was performed, looking at the guests of Special Report, and classifying them as conservative, centrist, progressive, or non-ideological.  The final breakdown of these guests was 57%, 12%, 11%, and 20%, respectively (Rendall and Hollar, 2004).  Once again, conservatives dominated the numbers, but not as egregiously as they had in 2001.  Additionally, the guests were primarily white males.  In the 2004 report, women represented only 7% of guests, while nonwhite people made only 11% of all guests (Rendall and Hollar, 2004).  None of the women or nonwhite guests were classified as progressives.  While the station has attempted to be more "fair and balanced," it appears they have a long way to go before living up to their slogan.  This rightward bias is not only found in Fox News.  The remainder of the nightly network newscasts favored conservatives when it came to partisan sources.  ABC, NBC, and CBS newscasts all featured more than 70% of partisan sources being conservative-leaning in 2001.  Even National Public Radio, often called "liberal radio" by its detractors, had conservatives outnumbering progressives by almost a three to two ratio (Rendall and Hollar, 2004)."

Let me repeat that last part-- ABC, NBC, and CBS newscasts all featured more than 70% of partisan sources being conservative-leaning in 2001.  Even National Public Radio, often called "liberal radio" by its detractors, had conservatives outnumbering progressives by almost a three to two ratio.

Anyways, back to the real topic here-- not the conservative media, not the Iraq war, but September 11.  Let's go.

[sandman]

it is not the media's job to criticize the U.S. Government.

but if you want examples of political analysts criticizing the U.S. Government (who appear on mainstream news channels and in mainstream newspapers) i'll give you plenty.

and your hypithetical question about someone coming to the U.S. does not make any sense. U.S. is a land of opportunity. our government helps our people. immigrants WANT to come here to live (check the news).

[SLCPUNK]

it is not the media's job to criticize the U.S. Government.

The hell it isn't!!!

[sandman]

it is not the media's job to criticize the U.S. Government.

The hell it isn't!!!

we're talking about mainstream news media. their job is to report.

just because "reporters" on ccn criticize the white house, doesn't make it right. 

it will be a sad day when news reporters openly give partisan opinions. then we'll never be provided all the information we have a right to. 

[SLCPUNK]

it is not the media's job to criticize the U.S. Government.

The hell it isn't!!!

we're talking about mainstream news media. their job is to report.

just because "reporters" on ccn criticize the white house, doesn't make it right. 

it will be a sad day when news reporters openly give partisan opinions. then we'll never be provided all the information we have a right to. 

This is where you get confused.

Reporting the truth about something is not biased!

It is reporting.

That is what journalism was originally supposed to be. Not the sound bites you see today on the trash 24 hour news channels.

[sandman]

it is not the media's job to criticize the U.S. Government.

The hell it isn't!!!

we're talking about mainstream news media. their job is to report.

just because "reporters" on ccn criticize the white house, doesn't make it right.?

it will be a sad day when news reporters openly give partisan opinions. then we'll never be provided all the information we have a right to.?

This is where you get confused.

Reporting the truth about something is not biased!

It is reporting.

That is what journalism was originally supposed to be. Not the sound bites you see today on the trash 24 hour news channels.

i'm not confused at all. i agree with your last post. they should report everything they know and be totally truthful.

but keep their opinions/criticism/praise out of it.

which one would you rather see reported:


A. Bush gave a powerful speech that had a positive impact on those in attendence.

B. Bush gave a speech which was well received by the 200 NRA members in attendence. 


i prefer B.

[D]

I emailed the documentary to my brother and he and his friends watched it and they agree with SLC on it.

We were discussing it and I tell u what, Im starting to believe maybe the Govt had something to do with this.

Where were the bodies? why did the buldings just collapse the way they did?

This documentary is very interesting and makes me kinda scared.

[SLCPUNK]

it is not the media's job to criticize the U.S. Government.

The hell it isn't!!!

we're talking about mainstream news media. their job is to report.

just because "reporters" on ccn criticize the white house, doesn't make it right. 

it will be a sad day when news reporters openly give partisan opinions. then we'll never be provided all the information we have a right to. 

This is where you get confused.

Reporting the truth about something is not biased!

It is reporting.

That is what journalism was originally supposed to be. Not the sound bites you see today on the trash 24 hour news channels.

i'm not confused at all. i agree with your last post. they should report everything they know and be totally truthful.

but keep their opinions/criticism/praise out of it.

which one would you rather see reported:


A. Bush gave a powerful speech that had a positive impact on those in attendence.

B. Bush gave a speech which was well received by the 200 NRA members in attendence. 


i prefer B.

Well now I think we are talking about two different things.

I incorrectly assumed that you meant any report that was did put the government in the good light.