How Did 9/11 Affect You, Change You, Alter Your Life?

[Tim]

Some good discussion here and some concerning comments, it is this sort of discussion that is vital for everyone to take part in these days impo.

Sarah ye said: "A soldier's JOB is to fight to keep the country safe and free and to promote democracy across the globe.".

Actually no. The purpose of the military is and should be one thing - defence.

This idea of promoting democracy....sorry but that could not have come out of a politicians mouth any better.

The question of if a nation should have democracy or not is up to only one group of people, the citizens of that nation.

One of the biggest lies and pieces of propaganda about this whole war is that the US/UK etc were and are there to bring democracy... What a disgusting hypocritical lie that is.

Many of us could list a ream of countries that should equally be "worthy" of the mighty and selfless armies of the US/UK invading and bringing "democracy".
No, instead the US (and other Western powers) has a horrid track record of meddling in foreign nations for their own benefit. This includes destroying democracy...

This is such a huge and wide topic that to do any sort of justice requires wide reading from many angles and sources, ideally outside the "victors" history books, to even try and get a glimpse of the tragicness of war and politics. None of us know it all or many of the answers, however it is vital that the hardest questions are asked.

Anyone who thinks that democracy comes about or should come about at the end of a bomb or gun is a very dangerous person.

Nick, ye said, "But to call us then enemy, I can not hold my contempt anymore, you make me sick."

The only contempt being shown here is by yerself.
No nation nor military power has the right to act as they want and not accept the consequences. In this case the consequences include the fact that not only are people in Iraq upset/angry/frustrated/disappointed/disagreeing in the actions of the "coalition of the willing", but so are people and nations all over the world and indeed even a majority of the citizens of the supposed "coalition of the willing".

Gordon Brown even recently went as far as to almost demand that people in the UK show public gratitude to military personnel and that not to do so is somehow unpatriotic... This is utterly offensive to people like me who did not ask for and in fact protested that those same soldiers should be sent to take part in an illegal war.

The military can be used very effectively in defence. I have seen troops evacuate citizens from unstable foreign nations. I support the use of military in real coalitions like Peacekeeping forces (but by hell these are normally nightmares due to politicians bad decisions). Clearly military forces and personnel can perform amazing efforts in true situations of defending nations and citizens. Sadly however the military has become a huge political tool.

Respect and honour are not automatic, they are earnt. Joining the military is a job or a career. So is being a bricklayer, farmer, doctor etc None are any better nor more deserving of respect or praise than any other. The difference between them is that as a soldier ye serve yer commanding officer, who in turns servers his and so on up the chain until...the Commander in Chief... who has his political and other agendas. Like has been said, that means soldiers are pawns. I know. I was an inch away from signing up for an "elite unit" after a long selection process. Deciding not to do so was the best decision thus far in my life now that i have learnt to see the bigger pictures.

[Tim]

KD, since im here ill respond in brief and hope that others may be able to provide ye with a better response than mine.

It was a pre-emptive strike or a "preventative" war (in other words not in self defence but rather premeditated aggression). There are so many documents that reveal this but ill just drop a couple if i may:

It was and is illegal under International Law. The US and UK agreed to the UN Charter. Breaking it is illegal. The charter was made to prevent other nations unjustly attacking others.

Even article 24.1 of the Charter says:

"Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security"

Even though the UN did not vote to authorise the invasion, the US didnt care and decided to go it alone anyway in contravention of the UN and international law. The US thought it best to make it look like there was a coalition, so they got Blair and Howard and a few others and went to it.

"Iraq war was illegal and breached United Nations charter"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/...

In addition it was illegal under US Law.

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" - Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ira...

It was also illegal under UK Law (except the government had their Attorney General basically say that it was legal)

UK Army Chiefs said:

"feared Iraq war illegal just days before start"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/20...

This is why the lies that were told as justification, both in the US and the UK, for the war ie the threat of the WMD being used in 45mins etc, are vital. The only way they could justify the war was by claiming self-defence. However there was no threat. Therefore no need for "self defence pre-emptive strike"

[[deleted user]]

seek i posted your comments on Weekly Peace Rally

let me know if you want me to edit it

i think the links are important

[Reads with Scotch]

Seek:

One of the biggest lies and pieces of propaganda about this whole war is that the US/UK etc were and are there to bring democracy... What a disgusting hypocritical lie that is.

Explain further please.

No nation nor military power has the right to act as they want and not accept the consequences. In this case the consequences include the fact that not only are people in Iraq upset/angry/frustrated/disappointed/disagreeing in the actions of the "coalition of the willing", but so are people and nations all over the world and indeed even a majority of the citizens of the supposed "coalition of the willing’’.

I would raise the argument, that the Iraqi’s are not the ones particularly upset, by our presence. Do they want us to leave…? I’m sure they do. It seems to me that a flood of dissenters cross the boarders, from neighboring countries. These same dissenters are the ones we are fighting. Why are they there? To repel the coalition? To stop us from repressing the Iraqis? If that is the case why are they killing the Iraqi’s at a staggering rate? Sure they poke at us whenever they find a “soft target” (IED’s) But for the most part we have to herd them like cattle. Back them up against the wall so they can’t run, then deal with them.
The only difference is, now the locals are starting to help us. They have started to realize that these Sheiks are not telling the truth. (That Americans and coalition forces are there to rob them of their lives) They look around and ask each other. When was the last time an American killed someone I know… It does happen, and as I said before, the impact is massive to the solder/marine that takes responsibility.
Then they ask when was the last time someone I know was killed by al sadar’s boy’s…. hmmm interesting, just about everyday. So they start helping us.

Now 2 out of 3 of our next (limited) leadership pool wants to close shop and leave. Will things be perfect in a year, no. Will they be perfect in 5 plausible, 10 looking pretty good. Is ten years of hardship for America worth the freedom of millions of people? I think so.

I think it is worth it because
1) Like it or not we are committed to it.
2) I have to believe that the free world can selvedge something good out of this mess. If not what is the point of being free?
3) Democracy in the geological center of the Middle East will allow other nations in the area to see first hand what democracy is about. Maybe I am being foolish, but I think that could in time lead to a more peaceful world.

Understanding and tolerance. I don’t know maybe someone a little more articulate should be saying this. I am after all the enemy/pawn/mindless brute answering to the President’s battle call.

p.s. Maureen, I don’t hate or dislike you. We just couldn’t be further apart on this subject.

[Tim]

:) Nick, just a real quick point i want to make, we are all pawns. It just so happens that military personnel are front line pawns. We all (or most of us) pay taxes which are used to fund this war for example, whether we like it or not. No one called you personally the enemy or a mindless brute. The fact that you are here articulating and discussing with us proves that ye are not. The enemy reference, as Kristjan pointed out, is that we are all the enemy. There is no "them" and "us" until it suits someone's rallying cry.

Yer points.

1. Like it or not, we are there.. i'll grant ye that. However "being committed" to it... to what? The WMD was the reason. When it was realised that the WMD claim was a lie, then it was regime change (illegal and immoral) Then it was setting up democracy (immoral, see below). The only committment the US should be showing is to its troops, by bringing them home.

2. Freedom is to be valued in its own right. It is not something to be forced upon someone else.

Look at the examples of true grassroots civilian liberty revolutions - it comes from within. Not from an external party with weapons. Peoples and nations should be respected enough to make their own way. How would we feel if a foreign nation decided that the "democracy" seen in the US/UK was not what they wanted and decided to invade us to "liberate" us..?

3. Again we are not or should not be world policeman or judge. The US/UK are democracies yet have been at war at brought the opposite of peace many more times than many undemocratic nations.

Ye are soooo right about saying that understanding and tolerance are key! That includes understanding that others are different and have the right to forge their own futures and for us to have the tolerance to accept that there may be differences.

Yer first point about asking me to explain further ill come to later on if ye dont mind (unless someone else can answer Nick first?), my fingers need a wee break heh. In brief, as i mentioned before, the reasons for going to war, changed, to suit the propaganda, this included the claim that it was to bring democracy. That being the case, why has the US not made it policy to invade every undemocratic nation in the world to "liberate" and bring democracy? Cheers fer continuing to discuss, i can respect that greatly.

[[deleted user]]

hi nick

i didn't say you hated or disliked me

i was answering charissa's direct question not applying that to anyone else

and actually i was thinking we broke it now we have to fix it a couple of months ago and i still lean that way slightly because i hate to leave the mess however...my opinion is to argue for peace because war is so fucking horrible
i had a three hour conversation with a returning ia recently...he disagrees with your on the ground assessment
he sees no point in continuing to police the situation
he sees it as a quagmire

i respect his and your opinion
and i respect you sharing it

i just disagree

moral absolutism is the way i'm leaning because everytime we start talking grey areas we start allowing less moral and ethical actions and we are right back where we started killing people
as i've said twice, we've been 50 years
i am tired of being ashamed of us actions

i don't want to kill people

[shellyindallas]

This whole "well, we're already there! the mess has been made" is such a frustrating argument. these were the same people who were gun-ho about going in in the first place. and now, rather than concede that the war was a mistake, and that hating us and not wanting us there is the one thing the Sunni and the Shiite's agree on, it's just "well, let's finish what we started". ?! I don't get the logic in that.

And Seek you make such a good point about if our military's job is to spread democracy, why aren't we invading every undemocratic nation on the globe and "liberating" them? I'm anxiously awaiting a response along with you.

The other claim Bush likes to lay on the terrorists is that they hate us b/c we are free. As David Cross says, if the terrorists hate freedom, than other countries like Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland who are freer than we are would be dust by now.

PS- this site has a list of Bush's war crimes:
http://archive.democrats.com/elandsli...

[[deleted user]]

hi shelly

thanks for the post
i put the link on Weekly Peace Rally
won't you join us?

[shellyindallas]

Maureen: How?

[[deleted user]]

go to groups tab
the Weekly Peace Rally group
should be in the recently active groups
if not you can find it in the group listings

we try to get together on Thursdays at 3:00 pacific time (u.s.) but you can add a post anytime

there are some intersting things coming up this weekend and links to other sites like bodycount

[Kristjan]

Nick said: One of the biggest lies and pieces of propaganda about this whole war is that the US/UK etc were and are there to bring democracy... What a disgusting hypocritical lie that is.

I’m sorry, but that is just plain funny ... ‘cause , you know, we all know how Bush hates ‘Yes Men’ and mostly likely ignored all them neocons (such as Paul Wolfowitz, "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, John Bolton, etc.) in his administration. Yep Yep Yep ... here is a peek at their position paper on the Middle East:

“The US establishes a reasonably democratic, pro-western government in Iraq. When Palestinians see Iraqis beginning to enjoy real freedom and economic opportunity [they’ll] demand the Palestinian Authority reform politically and negotiate with Israel. A democratic Iraq will also hasten the fall of the fundamentalist Shia mullahs in Iran, whose citizens are gradually adopting anti-fanatic, pro-western sympathies. Jordan’s pro-western Hashemite monarchy would likely come into full bloom. Syria would be no more than a pale reminder of the bad old days. (If they made trouble, a US invasion would take care of them, too). The corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt would [look like] holdouts against the democratic tide. We could decide whether to ignore them as harmless throwbacks to the old days or deal with them, too.”
Joshua Micah Marshall in Washington Monthly, April 2003

Nick said: They have started to realize that these Sheiks are not telling the truth. (That Americans and coalition forces are there to rob them of their lives) They look around and ask each other. When was the last time an American killed someone I know… It does happen, and as I said before, the impact is massive to the solder/marine that takes responsibility.

Uuummmm actually the US is working with the Sheiks now ... at least according to the military. One of the biggest reasons for the violence against the US was that we thought we could ignore them before. Now we know.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/ir...

[Reads with Scotch]

Kristjan:

Those Sheiks you speak of are now working with us because their "Always faithful" Followers were leaving them to back us. It was a political power move to maintain their sway. In that region, religion rules.

[Kristjan]

Nick said: Those Sheiks you speak of are now working with us because their "Always faithful" Followers were leaving them to back us. It was a political power move to maintain their sway. In that region, religion rules.

That is a circular argument ... I don't buy it. I also think you are confusing terms here a bit. Sheiks are simply tribal elders ... no real religious connection other then the tribes here are all Sunni. Mullahs are the religious leaders and they are nearly all nuts cases.

[Reads with Scotch]

Eh... Yes you are correct. But the foundation of me statement is still the same. The Sheiks are placed by the Mullahs. If the Mullahs lose, the sheiks lose. However I will also admit, that arguing about this means little because there is no way to back up either side. Just what I experienced and what my former squad, and friends tell me.

[Paul]

Man, this is such a heartfelt and honest thread. I salute you all. And now I will probably offend every one of you. I can’t put this into any kind of coherent order but I have to make these points…

The WMDs : people say our leaders lied about this. But the countries who didn’t join the coalition and opposed the war all believed in Saddam’s mythical WMDs. They all honestly believed in them. Saddam pretended he had them. Blair had nightmares that even if he wasn’t friends with Osama now, he might be later and he might give Osama all the nerve gas he’d been dreaming about; and Osama, as we know, would have used it. People say that our leaders lied but what happened was more subtle than that. They had intelligence services feeding them stuff which reinforced their fantasies. In turn the intelligence services had no intelligence about Iraq except for what the Iraqi emigrant community wished to tell them. And those guys wanted Saddam out so they could get back in. So it was one of those self-reinforcing things. Daylight never broke through.


Maureen said: ”we had 30-50 years to prevent 9/11 , we didn't acknowledge the real grievances of the arabic people, we didn't stop our policies and now we want to bomb them back to the paleolithic and call them barbarians “

Nobody is bombing anyone back to the stone age. That was tried once, in Cambodia in 1969-71, thanks to Nixon and Kissinger. Bush isn’t trying that in Iraq. Where do you get this idea? It is true that we never took Arabs or Islam seriously until they forced us to.

Krisjen : “It is generally considered illegal for one country to attack another without the existence of an immediate threat. The Bush administration hinged their entire legal justification of an invasion on the lie that such a threat existed. Now that it is clear that such a threat did not in fact exist, the legal justification for the invasion is missing. It is therefore illegal.”

This stuff about legality drones on and on in the UK too, and it’s tiresome because it can never be answered. International law is not clear at all. What’s legal is what you can get away with, or as you put it, “We are still there because nobody is powerful enough to make us leave and not for any other reason.” Legal schmegal, the USA does whatever the hell it wants to. It doesn’t answer to the UN or anyone else. And if Obama gets elected it’ll be no different. He didn’t rule out invading Pakistan (“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will”)

Random Anthony made a courageous point about the modern military (and got a light spanking for his trouble) – no, mostly the boys don’t join up for noble reasons, they want a job, and they fancy the macho life. It was ever thus. They don’t sign up with a burning desire to impart the rule of law on the heathen. They like the big tanks and all the hardware.

American foreign policy since WW2 has been based on the wrong premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So America went round the world in the 50s and 60s supporting every anti-communist regime, whether they were frightful tyrants or not. So in the 1980s America supported the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The mujahideen transmuted into the Taliban who we’re fighting now. In the 1980s America supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. He was your guy then. The policy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend meant that America completely ignored any notions of human rights and democracy except where it suited them as a stick to beat some regimes with, like China. America supported the obviously anti-democratic coup against Allende in Chile in 1973 (Wikipedia says “Documents declassified during the Clinton administration show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970, immediately after he took office”). Nick plaintively says “we are not the enemy”. As a British person I know who I choose between America and its enemies in 2008 – I choose the USA. But I do not do so imagining that you are the great champions of liberty and democracy that you believe yourself to be.

The insurgency : this word deserves to be waterboarded. There is no one thing called an insurgency, there are numerous local evil vicious religious and tribal wars which erupted under the pretext of an anti-Western insurgency. We see how the Shias and the Sunnis hate each other even more than they hate the Americans - how many times have we read this stuff (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/midd...) - 40 dead in a suicide bombing? Doesn’t even get to page four these days.

Okay, I think that's enough for tonight!

[[deleted user]]

Paul, what a stupid ignorant fuck you are. Just kidding. It's all that Seven Samurai going to your head. Toshiro Mifune would have solved the problem--because all of his enemy samurai would have approached, very courteously, one by one.

[Reads with Scotch]

Paul:
Random Anthony made a courageous point about the modern military (and got a light spanking for his trouble) – no, mostly the boys don’t join up for noble reasons, they want a job, and they fancy the macho life. It was ever thus. They don’t sign up with a burning desire to impart the rule of law on the heathen. They like the big tanks and all the hardware.
There are two sides on this one.

1) This statement is true. I didn’t know many teens that wanted to change the world, make it a better place, or save flood victims. The military is willing to give them; high powered assault rifles, machine guns, armored recon vehicles with a 20mm cannon, 155mm howitzers, M1a4 Abrams tanks, and Million dollar jets. The recruiters use this as a selling point.
2) This statement is false. Once their dreams of running threw an armory getting to finger fuck any piece of hardware they can get their hands on wears off. And their real training takes over. They not only know what is expected of them, but they believe. (Always going to be a 10% that just doesn’t care, in the Corps we referred to these as libo marines)

[[deleted user]]

i'm stealing seeks' post from the weekly peace rally group

A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq"

Intro:
http://www.theseminal.com/2008...

actual plan site:
http://responsibleplan.com/

Thoughts?


i will add some more another time perhpas but right now i'm a bit tired

paul so i didn't get the geologic time period exact
shock and awe jeez run for cover is still freakin awful

[Tim]

I know this is a little of track, pardon me please. Charissa if ye would rather make a new topic, please feel free to separate this.

I was wondering if i may ask our American friends here if they think that media coverage of the war in Iraq has changed perceptibly over the last few years and if so, how and why?

I just read an article titled, "War in Iraq kept away from public" , which suggests that in many media outlets the war in Iraq is no longer being mentioned at all at times.

This is staggering when some of the facts of the matter are considered as pointed out in the article:

"This war is the second longest in U.S. history, after Vietnam, and the second costliest, after World War II. About 157,000 U.S. service members are now in Iraq, many on their second or third tour. Another 10,000 are from the United Kingdom and other coalition countries.

As of March 7, 3,975 Americans had been killed in Iraq and 29,320 had been wounded. At least 81,000 Iraqi civilians — including children — have been killed in various forms of violence since March 2003. Some studies put the total at 600,000. Epidemiologists believe another 650,000 Iraqis have died from indirect causes.

The cost of the war is staggering. One estimate says it will total at least $3 trillion dollars, many times more than the official total of $600 billion to date. The $3 trillion total comes from Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University in their new book titled, appropriately, "The Three Trillion Dollar War.""

Do you, on the ground, find this to be the case or not? Personally i get daily news feeds from a couple of hundred different news sources, alternative and mainstream, so i tend to get a broad view; but i cant know what it is actually like as an American reading the news there.

For our older friends here, was there a similar media situation during the Vietnam war? Did people switch off? Cheers

[Reads with Scotch]

Sorry maureen, can you cut and paste, I'm on a company computer, and the site is blocked.

[Tim]

Nick, try this full link..the one above (for the intro) includes a video which may be why yer work is blocking it.
http://www.theseminal.com/2008/03/17/...

If ye mean the actual plan site is blocked, then it wont be possible to cut and paste as it is a multilayered site to be honest.

[[deleted user]]

tv was nascent during vietnam
the shock to our psyches of seeing the violence broadcast to our livingrooms was incredibly impactful
walter never shook
and when he broke...
news was more respected
less info had a bigger impact

where i am in america
nightly news just showed a ship deploying
flags, sunshine, family members

oops yah- i just downloaded it pdf 36 pages
let me see if i can send it to your profile

[Reads with Scotch]

I could be wrong here but I think the media is letting off on Iraq. Some think it is because of the new wave of progress (I know that is debatable) others might say after 5 years of having it shoved down everyone’s throat with no real evidence supporting either side people just got sick of it. Ratings you know... Or there is my stance... 1984 anyone?

So instead of hearing about things of important context we get...

Britney spears updates daily
The stock market
Weather
Pairs Hilton
Some actor OD'ing
Election news coverage (as long as the issues are not discussed, and so on you get the point you’re a smart guy.

[Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You.]

I haven't had time to read through all of these posts yet, but I intent to later. I want to really absorb what is being said here and respond intelligently, if possible. But I do want to respond to a couple of things I read in a very cursory glance:

Maureen, I don't know you at all so it's not possible for me to dislike you. I have disagreed with much of what I have seen you post. I don't equate disagreeing with someone with disliking someone. I disagree with people I like, and with people I love, pretty much on a regular basis. "Emotional reasoning" is double speak as far as I'm concerned. There are arguments based on independant facts, and there are arguments based on feelings. Those are two entirely different things. When feelings are unmitigated by support of independent facts it undercuts your argument, period. This is not a personal bias, it is a well agreed upon point of logic. You can feel any number of ways, but if your facts are in error, your feelings are just that... feelings. On my bad days I can feel like nobody likes me... but those feelings aren't accurate. They *feel* true. But when I bother to check in with my friends and family, I find that I am simply having crazy thoughts. Just because I *feel* like the government is out to get me, doesn't make it true, and it certainly isn't a good argument.

Seek: Please feel free to start a new thread for your question. This thread was originally specifically about 9/11... and now it has digressed into a debate about Iraq, which is really a separate topic. I think your question is a good one... and it probably deserves it's own thread.

[[deleted user]]

hmmm
i don't like you based on your posts

because you say period doesn't make something true

and i'm not ready to give you the logic queen crown

now i really am going to leave, take a lovely shower and spend some time with the family

i will also probably stick to other groups because i really can't stand that poopy head charissa

i began crashin this party and there was much fun with some of you and it will be easy enough to find me on Weekly Peace Rally if anyone wants to

adious amigos

this particular cocktail party has ended with a fight in the kitchen and i may have started it
apologies if i broke anyone's gramma's crockery

[Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You.]

uhm... wow Maureen... nice to know how you feel. I've disagreed with a lot of people on this blog, both here in Axis Mundi and on other threads... I don't think I've ever met anyone as rude as you. Maybe, as Donald says, I come across as pushy. I grew up in a family where debate around the dinner table was the rule, so I'm probably pretty opinionated and not afraid to say what I think. I'm not afraid to disagree with people. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. It's not personal. It's debate. However, apparently you think it is personal. And now that you have said you don't like me because of some of my opinions, or how I couch them, and have started with name calling on top of it, I think I can say, without reservation or regrets, go fuck yourself.

[Charissa, That's Ms. Obnoxious Twat to You.]

Thanks Koe... I'm pretty partial to you as well. xoxo

King... no kidding... I can't think of a single person I don't disagree with... usually on some pretty key issues... thank goodness there are plenty of other people who can deal with it.

[[deleted user]]

In Charissa's defense (not that she at all requires one), emotional "argumentation"--as most people are aware--is in fact a logical fallacy. Logic and emotion are two separate, distinct things by the conventional definitions of both. What kind of world it be if everyone argued solely on the basis of his or her pure emotional response? We'd be like cavepeople thumping each other over the head with our clubs when we felt like it... only now the clubs du jour are nuclear weapons, anthrax, and dirty bombs. No, thank ya. Give me logic anyday--and then let me feel passionate and emotional about my logical conclusions.

[Sarah]

Wow, Maureen. I agree that that was completely uncalled for and I think that you should apologize.

Goodness knows I'm usually in the minority whith my opinions around here but I think (I hope) people still like me and we can have respectful, if heated, discussions and debates about the things on wich we disagree.

If someone doesn't like you it probably isn't because of your opinion, it's probably because of the abrasive and out-of-line way in which you voice them.

I understand this is an emotional issue for you because your daughter is in the military. I will hope and pray for her continued safety.