What does 9/11 mean to you?

[Velensk]

Okay my other question was:

If like twenty American citizens went totally crazy on their own and killed 2.5 thousand New Zealanders, is it okay for New Zealand's military to occupy us for a decade, kill innocent American civilians, kidnap and torture some, and replace our established police force with mercenaries that operate above both American and New Zealand law (i.e. they can do whatever they want with no consequences in either country)?

Would you be perfectly okay with that, or would you grow to dislike New Zealanders?

Do you understand why such actions would do nothing but create hatred and even more terrorism against New Zealand?

In general I find the question moot and not just because New Zeland doesn't have the power to do so. I suspect a number of terrorist groups might if they had the resources and I wouldn't blame them overly much for trying. I'd still fight them tooth and nail but that doesn't mean that they might not be 'right'. A lot of foreign goverments complain about the way the United States organises their foreign policy but you know, none of them do anything effective about it. If what the United States is doing is wrong, and you strongly believe that, then how would you stop them? If you had force you could try the invade them and force them to change method and although it would generate resent, it might work. There probably are better methods but if so the only effective one I've seen tried is 'convince all the people of the United States to vote for a canadit who different polices' but that has it's own set of issues, especially considering the way the Unites States political system tends to organise things into two parties. That wasn't an option for anyone wishing to deal with Hussain anyway.

As it is, the problems in the places we are talking about are substancially more severe, deepset, and long lasting, than a mere twenty lunatics.

Idealogically I can see your point. Practically I don't see it as being overly relevant. Something needed to be done, the United States was the people with the power who decided to do so. The fact that they may have made mistakes in execution, the fact that it might earn them a bit of resentment from those they stepped on while trying to get somewhere, and the fact that it isn't something supported by international law doesn't change the fact that something needed to be done or that it might turn out better in the long run.

As for the other part of the question, I don't think I'd hate New Zealanders in general but then I think that it's never good to hate anyone. I still might end up fighting them.

[tekelili]

How to beat terrorism:

We did it in Spain, after fought ETA for more than 30 years its members in prision are asking for stop fight, and its operative power has decreased to almost zero due to police hits to their comand staff.

What we did to achieve it:

ETA had great support among Pais Vasco citizens, around 30% of populaton was more or less agree with their fight. We understood we had to gain their hearts and prove we were right. So we never invaded Pais Vasco, decreted marcial law or punished inocent citizens. We just tryed to caught them like comon criminals and send them to jail after normal judicial procedures. Pais Vasco citizens had always same rights and democratic power as any other citizen in Spain. We even judged some antiterrorism members of our own side for start a "dirty war" and start kiliing ETA members in France without a judicial procedure. Some of them were to jail, because what they did was wrong.

If you read what I wrote about carefully, you will find some differences in fight terrorism approach from countries like USA or Israel.

[averyimaginativename]

Slightly off topic, but relating to ETA and Pais Vasco...

I know it's only sport, but Friday's stage of the Vuelta a Espana was a wonderful moment of Spanish and Basque history. That is what it looks like when you've beaten terrorism.

[doofus-01]

I have an American friend who lived in Manhattan in 2001, and she said Americans are pansies who can't handle war on their own turf.

I have a "friend" who says your "friend" is an [censored].

How to beat terrorism:

I get what you're saying, but I think there must be differences between external and domestic terrorism. I'd have to think about it a bit more, but I want to say that the populace is more engaged and there is more political accountability for dealing with domestic terrorism. But thanks for pointing that out, some good news for a change.

With respect to your earlier post about Chile: The US (or rather certain US agencies - most of the US knows nothing about it.) have indeed had a hand in some reprehensible things in Latin America. The war on Communism, even if there was a real enemy, was a convenient excuse for a lot of things. War on Terror was a similarly convenient tool, but I think it fell apart more quickly (though not before the 2004 elections).
-----------------
I used to live in NYC, left on a flight from LaGuardia on 9/10/2001. 9/11 meant a lot to me at the time. As a nation, the US was united for a little while after 9/11, then other things happened, and for anyone not serving in the military, Iraq and Afghanistan are abstract concepts that have nothing to do with how one pays the bills and puts food on the table. The most recent manufactured crisis was raising the debt ceiling, had nothing to do with events pre-2004 (or much of anything). We're back to our old ways, only now 10 years have gone by and we've precious little to show for it. Before the recent 9/11 remembrances, I hadn't fully realized it.

[Dunno]

War on terrorism does not exist. Uncle Sam simply wants his petroleum. That is all, case closed. Why do you think USA engages in conflicts in Libya and Middle East but never helps in, say, Chechnya or China? Big countries never care about ideology, because they don't have to. It's simple, really.

Edit: of course by saying "War on terrorism" I mean invading on countries in the name of "freedom" and "anti-terrorism". Terrorism is bad, and we should fight it, but in a way tekellili provided.

[Velensk]

I would like to see you find some statistics to back up that claim.

The Unites States does not get hardly any oil from Iraq even now after it has invaded and I don't see any major contracts coming up in the near future considering the general efforts to reduce oil dependancy.

As for why it picks the middle east, there are indeed a large number of very practical reasons why to fight here but aside, they can hardly expend all this effort everywhere at the same time and China in particular would be difficult to tackle even if it doesn't seem to be taking care of itself decently (for the most part).

EDIT: Rechecked my facts, the United States does in fact get a decent amount of oil from Iraq however, there was no increase after the invasion according to http://205.254.135.24/dnav/pet/hist/Lea ... TIMIZ1&f=M. Infact, oil imports were peaked at october of 2001 and have been generally dropping since.

[Great_Mage_Atari]

I agree with Velensk on his point. It has been my belief that we were in Iraq and Afghanistan to rid it of it's problems (as in Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladan). As for good ol' Uncle Sam wanting more oil, that is only partly factual, as we do, in fact, want.more oil, since we do need it. But, case in point, we do have a large supply as it is. We dont particularly invade for oil, but sometimes our actions (lack of better words) helps us get the oil we so desire. I agree with Velensk on his point. It has been my belief that we were in Iraq and Afghanistan to rid it of it's problems (as in Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladan). As for good ol' Uncle Sam wanting more oil, that is only partly factual, as we do, in fact, want.more oil, since we do need it. But, case in point, we do have a large supply as it is. We dont particularly invade for oil, but sometimes our actions (lack of better words) helps us get the oil we so desire.
As for claims that we "pick on" the Middle East since we fight there so much, it would stand that we also fight in southern Asia and Europe (WWI and WWII for Europe and Asia, and Vietnam and Korea for Asia). It isn't really a dedication we have towards defeating Middle Easterners. We fight all over. In that sense, I agree strongly with Velensk.

[Gambit]

Yeah we haven't gotten any more oil from this...

If you're looking for an oil related ulterior motive: Driving up the prices with the turmoil gives us an excuse to "DRILL BABY DRILL!" here at home.

Weird. The people who are most in favor of these wars are also most in favor of oil and gas at home (no matter how dangerous) and they're also the people who get the most campaign contributions from the oil companies. And they also seem to get hired by the oil companies after they leave office more than any other group of people. So strange...

Also the people most in favor of the wars get the most money from defense contractors too. What in the world could be going on here?

[Dunno]

As for why it picks the middle east, there are indeed a large number of very practical reasons why to fight here but aside, they can hardly expend all this effort everywhere at the same time and China in particular would be difficult to tackle even if it doesn't seem to be taking care of itself decently (for the most part).

I'm terribly sorry, but apparently my English ends here. Could you put that thought in other words? Thanks!

EDIT: Rechecked my facts, the United States does in fact get a decent amount of oil from Iraq however, there was no increase after the invasion according to http://205.254.135.24/dnav/pet/hist/Lea ... TIMIZ1&f=M. Infact, oil imports were peaked at october of 2001 and have been generally dropping since.

Of course it's decreasing, from what I know it is decreasing in most countries, even the bigger ones.

It has been my belief that we were in Iraq and Afghanistan to rid it of it's problems (as in Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladan).

This is just naive, I don't know what else I can say about this statement.

As for good ol' Uncle Sam wanting more oil, that is only partly factual, as we do, in fact, want.more oil, since we do need it. But, case in point, we do have a large supply as it is. We dont particularly invade for oil, but sometimes our actions (lack of better words) helps us get the oil we so desire. I agree with Velensk on his point.

I still claim that is looks the opposite: USA first looks for oil, and then it adds ideology. I mean, let's stay realistic, USA wants to be a powerful empire. And it won't get powerful by helping everyone around for free. And hell, I don't say only US does it, nor do I say it's wrong. That's simply how the world works.

As for claims that we "pick on" the Middle East since we fight there so much, it would stand that we also fight in southern Asia and Europe (WWI and WWII for Europe and Asia, and Vietnam and Korea for Asia). It isn't really a dedication we have towards defeating Middle Easterners. We fight all over. In that sense, I agree strongly with Velensk.

This part is a definition of anachronism. Times change, and so do countries' goals. You cannot compare conflicts from Cold War with conflicts from World Wars or modern times. And frankly, for the first time in my life, I see someone who defends USA and mentions Vietnam.

[Velensk]

Were oil the main objective there should have been a increase to the amount of oil received at some point even if in general oil importation is decreasing. As it is, the United States oil demands have been steadily growing and yet they are still getting less oil from the middle east including this area that they supposed 'conquered for it'.

The other paragraph was about how there is a limit to how much the United States can do and thus it makes sense for them to what is convenient for the moment as well as in line with their general objectives.

I don't see why he cannot compare the previous conflicts to this one. The cold war battles were in large part fought over ideals as the larger ones at the very least were not profitable (I am not at all sure what economics of supporting various Junta's looks like so I won't comment on it. In Vietnam where they supported a corrupt government, it wasn't because they were needed trading partners, major allies, or anything like that, the idea was to mainly just to slow down the general momentum of communism as they feared what might happen if it spread to quickly. Whether or not this is a justifiable fear is a debate I don't care to get into but I don't see why he cannot use it as evidence that wars happen for reasons other than immediate national interest.

EDIT: As a note, I will make no claim that the Unite States actions are not done for their own benefit as well but in this case I don't think the benefit that they held in mind was oil. I sincerely doubt that economically the United States will ever come close to recovering all the money they put into rebuilding Iraq but there are other benefits and I suspect that assuming no other disaster or major issue comes up soon (an assumption that I don't care to plan for) it will turn out better for both the United States and Iraq in the long run.

[Dunno]

Well, oil importation is decreasing, like I said, from natural reasons. I read some other graphs from the site you provided, and import from Iraq still looks pretty high. Remember that winning a war is a profit itself, worth risking reputation. And perhaps Bush wanted to do something with 9/11 to show people America is not to be messed with, so he invaded Iraq and blamed it on them. But never mind that, these are only speculations, my main point was that US did it for their own benefit, whatever it was.
During Cold War, almost every conflict was a "simulation", so to speak, of what would have happened if the war between US and Soviets eventually begun. You know, Soviets support one side, Americans support the other one and let's see what happens. Yes, you can say that it was done for ideals, but I just wanted to say that I always see those "ideals" as an excuse. Because they have to say something to the public. If you want to believe in US goodwill, go ahead, but I will always see it as being naive.

[Velensk]

You think Vietnam and other skirmishes were some kind of simulation of what would happen if the US and Russia fought directly? That is a confusing theory. If that was the case then somehow America actually won Vietnam, the kind of casualty ratio they had was not something that not even Russia could afford. I know that the Americans were protesting their casualties in vietnam but I think they inflicted something on the lines of hundreds (or thousands I forget which) of times as many. I don't think that would be the case if that were a real war, and I really don't think that the tactics involved would be that representative.

I generally believe that the Domino Theory was genuinely believed by many and that it was a major influence in the nations decisions. I don't actually think that it was entirely correct but I think a large number of the decisions made reflect a belief that it is true rather than some desire to test strength or make a profit. I also believe that a large number of the United States current decisions may ultimately benefit others. I don't know if this counts as 'believing in US goodwill' or not but I don't really see why you would consider it naive.

[Boldek]

conflicts such as Vietnam , Korea, and Iraq were all smaller skirmishes on larger wars, such as the war against communism and the war on terrorism.

During Cold War, almost every conflict was a "simulation", so to speak, of what would have happened if the war between US and Soviets eventually begun. You know, Soviets support one side, Americans support the other one and let's see what happens. Yes, you can say that it was done for ideals, but I just wanted to say that I always see those "ideals" as an excuse. Because they have to say something to the public. If you want to believe in US goodwill, go ahead, but I will always see it as being naive.

both communism and terrorism are same in some aspects: both are non-tolerant, totalitarian, and both seek destruction of capitalist governments. to say that believing in US good will is 'naive' is pretty much saying that Decatur's heroic battle, much less the entire US navy, against the Tunisia pirates two hundred years ago was to steal the pirates gold, not protect innocent sailors from ferocious raiders. if judging a country by it's past actions, which is usually the way it's done, is in order, then when has the US 'conquered' a country for its resources? did they bomb Germany flat for its cars? did they plan to invade Japan for it's territory? (both those countries had millions of US taxpayer money flowing in to rebuild their ruins) in all past cases of US conflict, never has she attacked another country for villainous or greedy motives. why should we be 'naive' for looking at facts, rather than listening to an idea that is popular? isn't it more naive to believe what ever a bunch of liberal media claims?


some stuff on american conflicts.... in many of the major wars we fought in, Germany, Japan, Osama bin Laden, Tunisia Pirates, just to name a few, all believed one thing: they all thought that americans were what sgt. Groovy's friend likes to call 'pansies' they all thought that if they just gave a big bruise, something really scary would happen, and America would either just fall over and give up, or lose it. to be precise: they thought they could bully people with their attacks, their raids, with their threats, with their large font sizes and harsh words... and like most bullies that get beaten, they thought they could get away with it. instead, Hitler, Yamoto and co, Osama, Hussein, Pirates, all came to bad ends thanks to uncle sam. Hitler thought that he could winkle countries under peoples noses while he had his peace talks, and he almost got away with it. the Japanese thought they could bully the American 'pansies' into submission by bombing Pearl Harbor, and speaking of bombs, they sure got it. Osama thought that by bombing the twin towers he would unstable the world economy, and drive America into a war that Gambit thinks the Iraq war resembled. but instead of a mega uber bombing on the middle east, Bush kept his head and removed the next threat: Hussein who was feverishly preparing his WMDs. the Pirates thought that by attacking ships and playing mr. meanie, they could just somehow frighten America into paying tribute, (and they did, for a short period of time) to say we could talk it out, or ignore them, or just forget it, or yell at people trying to protect the world from terrorists, hasn't seemed to work. somehow, every time, these bullies only learn through violence. was the Iraq war a hideous mistake? it saved innocent people from a cruel tyrant, it aided a country to become a stable capitalist government, and it halted Hussein from getting his nukes ready and blowing something into smithereens, so yes, I think that it wasn't such a bumdown failure as some people in this thread think. but Iraq wasn't really the symbol of terrorism, as terrorism happens when villains lie enough times and become a bully. what about fundies like Christians, and Jews and Muslims? to rate a religion by a handful of bad guys is pretty bad, and rather intolerant, so really, maybe GMA was right folks. and what do I think about 9-11? sure, abortion, car wrecks, drowning, heart attacks kill loads more people, but it was a symbol, a symbol about the innocent people that where murdered by a group of villains. it was an open example of what happens if we ignore terrorists, what ever ideology.

[lipk]

both communism and terrorism are same in some aspects: both are non-tolerant, totalitarian, and both seek destruction of capitalist governments

Wrong. I don't say anything about communism, look up the recent 'communism thread'. Terrorism merely means using violence for political purposes. You might still remember Breivik. He's a terrorist but he supports capitalism (and even democracy!).

both communism and terrorism are same in some aspects: both are non-tolerant, totalitarian, and both seek destruction of capitalist governments. to say that believing in US good will is 'naive' is pretty much saying that Decatur's heroic battle, much less the entire US navy, against the Tunisia pirates two hundred years ago was to steal the pirates gold, not protect innocent sailors from ferocious raiders. if judging a country by it's past actions, which is usually the way it's done, is in order, then when has the US 'conquered' a country for its resources? did they bomb Germany flat for its cars? did they plan to invade Japan for it's territory? (both those countries had millions of US taxpayer money flowing in to rebuild their ruins) in all past cases of US conflict, never has she attacked another country for villainous or greedy motives. why should we be 'naive' for looking at facts, rather than listening to an idea that is popular? isn't it more naive to believe what ever a bunch of liberal media claims?

Having good will is a feature of individuals. The US government isn't an individual. Do you think that Germany had a common 'bad will' during WWII? Then why did they do nasty things? Sure, the United States seemed to be a good guy at average for the last century, but it's not because of some 'benevolent spirit'. Organizations are nothing like human soul.

[Boldek]

yes, muslims aren't all mad men, and Americans aren't all super heroes, but the spot light centers on a hero and a madman. sure perhaps there was some greedy politician who thirsted after oil, but he wasn't the guy that ordered the charge.