Our Troops Must Stay - Page 2

The actions of 19 people on a September morning caused the complete reorganization of national policy for 300 million people living in the richest, most powerful country on the planet.

Don't sell terrorism short.

It doesn't hurt that the most powerful of those 300m people were very, very, very very interested in invading Iraq and had been for some time but needed an excusesomething on the order of Pearl Harbor.

Don't sell neoconservatives short.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Shit. Everyone knew when Junior was elected we were going into Iraq.

We are fighing for our lives people. Why can't you get that? This is for real. They hate us. They want to cut our heads off. We must kill them first.

War Texas Aggies!

Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!
Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!
Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!

God, how I long for the days before terrorism, back when we used to greet them on the streets and buy them flowers, when US policy was appeasement! How much easier those days were!

But now we simply cannot afford to delude ourselves into thinking that terrorism is OK. Terrorism is most definitely not OK! And so now we must lash out! We must attack! Because attacking terrorists makes them go away! They have always shown that in the face of adversity, they will cower and run away! Attack!

WE MUST FIGHT THE TERRORISTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM ON THE SUBWAYS OF LONDON!

Wait. Shit. Nevermind.

Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!
Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!
Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia!

Uh huh

Tee hee hee.

I don't even know where to begin here. I don't think I have to either.

It all makes sense now.

Are you implying that W helped plan 9/11? You're walking a fine line.

How the hell did you get that from what I wrote?

You made it sound like Bush EXPECTED that something the size of Pearl Harbor would occur. One could extrapolate that you were implying that Bush wanted 9/11 to happen or even planned for it to happen. Far fetched, I know, but not any more unreasonable than some of the other crap you all here are dishing up.

Yeah. It's crazy.

Edit: The actual document

Well, if you want to consider a sarcastic comment about a PNAC position paper that turned out to be crucial to US foreign policy a "conspiracy theory," then... hey. Waitaminute. It is a conspiracy theory!

I think Bush encouraged this kind of feeling by not making clear what he expected. He did this because he wanted his way with the ok for invasion. So he didn't counter the hysteria out there. For god's sake when you questioned the war people were talking about mushroom clouds in their backyard ( that by the way was from this forum ).

Actually, Bush said it, too: "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Also in that case, the truth is that 19 terrorists can do nothing to change US national policy, erode personal freedoms or start wars. The 300 million people can and did.

Naivete is a side effect of drinking too much Kool-Aid.

What should we have done? Started a diologue to see why OBL and the fellows were upset?

We could have caught OBL. Would that have been a good start?

Statistics (LA Times):
1 in 65 chance you'll die of cancer
1 in 89 chance you'll die in a car accident
1 in 12,000,000 chance you'll die because terrorism.

Where would you put your money? Could it be healthcare...?

We could start by not invading the wrong country.

We *could* have caught him, but I reckon that members of this administration did not want him caught. In fact, they were going out of their way *not* to catch him. If he is dead, which is more than just possible, he is either buried underground in a bombed out cave somewhere along at Pakistan Afghanistan border, or he died of kidney failure as reported in late 2001 in the Pakistani press. There has been $25 million reward for the capture of OBL (and Zarqawi), (dead or alive) since 2001, and four years later, nobody taken the bait. There have also been no OBL sightings, and the rare videotapes allegedly of "bin Laden", broadcast at times most convenient for BushCorp, are proven fakes, or pre-2002. It's even possible that he has undergone major plastic surgery and is living as a different person, or under protective custody. A few months before 9-11, OBL was visited in hospital in Dubai by CIA personnel (in a US Navy helipcoter), who allegedly spoke with him for several hours. Since OBL was not arrested or detained on that occasion, what the hell were they talking about? This meeting (in June 2001) was most likely some type of 'briefing'. Take your guess as to what it was all about.

I wonder how many people know that Bin Laden and his cohorts were the recipients of $$$ multi-billion in aid and arms during the 80s under the Reagan administration, while Bush Sr. was the former CIA chief during that time. With the oil and construction industry connections, Bin Laden and co. undoubtedly have very close (ie friendly) connections with members of this administration, as well as current and former CIA officials with whom he/they dealt extensively. Common sense dictates this.

The NeoCon element of the Bush Administration (ie its core) requires the bin Laden superstar boogey man to remain as large as life and ever present in the minds of the US public. The same goes for bin Laden's protegés and partners. These people represent the "justification" for the central platform of the BushCorp/Neocon manifesto.

Only one chance in 65 of dying of cancer : this is the best new of the day.

So isn't it interesting that we don't have a gigantic movement and public outcry to change national policy to protect us from cancer.

19 people on 9/11 made a big impact on 300 million. Much more impact than cancer ever has. Sad, but true.

My original point: Iraqis and our troops alike are justified in being concerned about 10,000 insurgents. Apparently a lot of Americans don't understand that.

Shooting at the "terrorists" makes less of them.

Yup. It's ridiculous that as many people die from smoking every two days, day in and day out, week after week and year after year, as died in 9/11, and yet look at the difference in response.

It is true. We need to do something about those that are forcing those people to smo...uh...err...oh...nevermind.

We did. It worked. I have a commit lozange in my mouth right now.

Not according to BRussell:

That's right. Context is utterly unimportant.

Feel free to add the context you feel I have ommitted.

1. BRussell says "It's ridiculous that as many people die from smoking every two days, day in and day out, week after week and year after year, as died in 9/11, and yet look at the difference in response." -- effectively comparing the results of actions people take themselves to the results of actions taken by other people against the victims.

2. I simply point out that...well..."many people die from smoking every two days, day in and day out, week after week and year after year" is a result of a self-chosen action.

3. You claim this problem has been solved.

4. I point out that (at least according to BRussell) it still exists.

Will do.



No. You said:


And I responded that we did do something about the tobacco industry's ability to market its product: we hit them with giant lawsuits, forced them to pay for anti-amoking campaigns, disallowed them from advertising on TV. All kinds of things. Then states started making it more and more difficult for people to smoke freely, anywhere. No more state buildings. Then hospitals. Now 20 feet from a building. Bars in some states.


No. I said "And it worked." We did something. And there was a demonstrable effect.


Are you a figgin' binary object or something? Everything is either 100% one way or the other? So if we go from 100K smoking-related deaths to 75K, the strategy to do something about the pushers hasn't worked because people still die?

Oh I see your confusion now.

You are equating suggesting someone do something (marketing) or allowing someone to do something with forcing them to do it.

Try to avoid getting bogged down in one of your semantical red herrings. The point was that we needed to "do something." We did. It worked and is working.

There were 12,658 murders this year. Actions taken by other people against victims. There were 2,238,480 assaults this year. Actions taken by other people against victims. There were 23,677,800 crimes committed by other people against victims.

Again. You have a FAR greater chance of being a victim by actions taken by your OWN COUNTRYMEN than you do of becoming a victim of terrorists.

Nice try though.

Does anyone else think it's ironic that we've sent over 2000 young men and women to their deaths to avenge the deaths of 2000 9/11 victims?

And give due credit to the US and UK forces. They appear to have killed many more than the 3,000 or so innocent civilians who died on 9/11. Collateral damage is apparently morally very different from terrorist outrage. Just ask anyone unfortunate enough to live in Falluja.

WE MUST FIGHT THE TERRORISTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM ON THE SUBWAYS OF LONDON!

I'm assumimg you think that those living in London are safer for the battles we wage around Falluja, Basra and the rest. That looks very unlikely I'm afraid.