Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile DeCandido.net back back forward forward
six years ago today.... - KRAD's Inaccurate Guide to Life
ramblings from a mad fedora'd writer
six years ago today....
...some crazy people hijacked four planes. Two of them crashed into the largest buildings in New York City, destroying them and killing thousands. One crashed into the Pentagon. One crashed in Pennsylvania prematurely thanks to the heroism of those aboard.

Six years later, we're still waiting for those deaths to be avenged. Instead, the president of the United States lied to us by saying that catching the man responsible would be our top priority, then used the attack as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack.

Six years later, I feel considerably less safe.

Here's to all those who died that day, and all those who have died since because of what happened that day.

Current Mood: pissed off pissed off
Current Music: "Stomp Dance (Unity)" by Robbie Robertson

20 comments or Please comment
lyonessnyc From: lyonessnyc Date: September 11th, 2007 05:23 pm (UTC) (Link)

respectful discussion

Keith, I respect your opinion, and counter with my own.

I think the men and women who are working hard and offering up their own lives to bring bin Laden to justice in Afghanistan and other places would disagree with you. The reality is the desolate terrain where the monster is hiding and those who protect him are far more to blame than our people's efforts to find him. Just because it's not in the news 24/7 doesn't mean it's not happening. Also, just because not every plot that's averted makes the news, it doesn't mean the plots aren't happening either.

The effort against terrorism is not just about one man in a white house, dreadfully flawed as he is.

That said, I can't think that deposing the man who gassed the Kurds and murdered thousands of others is a bad thing. Handled badly at times, sure. But I still think it needed to happen. Would history have looked so kindly on Roosevelt if he'd continued to sit by while the Jews were being exterminated? It took an attack on our soil by Japan to get him into the war. He *knew* about the concentration camps, too, but didn't act until we were attacked by a different enemy. Vastly simplified, but it illustrates my point.

[non-seq]Wow, it's really pouring outside.[/non-seq]
kradical From: kradical Date: September 11th, 2007 05:32 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: respectful discussion

I can't help but think our forces in Afghanistan would have an easier time of it if most of our (dwindling) forces weren't focused on Iraq. And I'm not pleased at the fact that the war in Afghanistan is getting less coverage, though the continued lack of results is even more depressing.

As for the invasion of Iraq, it hasn't been nearly as simple as that. Hell, years ago, Dick Cheney argued against invading Iraq for several reasons, all of which actually came to fruition.

And I'm not entirely comfortable with invading a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked us. Roosevelt was able to go to war with the Axis powers because one of those powers attacked our soil. The analogy of Japan:Germany::al-Qaeda:Iraq doesn't really hold up because Iraq and al-Qaeda aren't allies. In 1941, declaring war on Japan was virtually the same as declaring war on Germany, because they'd allied themselves. That was not the case here, for all that such a connection was claimed.

Now the precedent has been set, though. We can claim no moral high ground if another country decides to invade our soil. And that scares the shit out of me.
From: trace_of_tears Date: September 11th, 2007 05:33 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: respectful discussion

Pardon me for interrupting, but I think your example needs clarification. It was not Roosevelt who was "sitting by" while the Jews were being exterminated. He had, by his own hand, provided millions of tons of war materiel to the Allies while trying to convince the American people that a war against Germany was needed and necessary. It took a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, with no prior declaration of war, to convince the American people to enter the war. If you look at public opinion polls before and after December 7, 1941, you'd see that a lot of people did not want to get involved with the affairs of other nations before - yet following Japan's attack, that view changed drastically.

The president of the United States is bound to the will of the people as he is effectively their head and spokesman to the world. If you look at every major war the United States has fought in (that a declaration has been signed on), all of them were fought with the popular opinion strongly for going to war.

Bear in mind I'm just a student, so I may be wrong here, but this is what I seem to remember from my American history classes...
lyonessnyc From: lyonessnyc Date: September 11th, 2007 05:58 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: respectful discussion

I've also read that Roosevelt was an anti-Semite and personally didn't give a rat's ass about what was happening to the Jews. I saw an eye-opening documentary on PBS several years ago that went into detail where people would try to convince him to get the US involved, and he didn't see a need. I don't have a lot of detail at hand (and have to run out to actually get stuff done now) but I remember clearly being shocked by this, because my own grandmother practically worshipped the ground that man walked (well, rolled) on.

I *do* think that WWII would have been far different if it had occurred during the Internet age.
xnamkrad From: xnamkrad Date: September 11th, 2007 07:26 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: respectful discussion

Just to point out that after Pearl Harbour, the USA declared war on Japan. It was then that Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around.
philangelus From: philangelus Date: September 12th, 2007 05:00 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: respectful discussion

Check the approval ratings among soldiers. They actually agree with him. If anything, they feel so much more unsafe. What with the automatic weapons fire and RPGs raining down on them while fighting a war that most of them feel is unjust.
debg From: debg Date: September 11th, 2007 06:02 pm (UTC) (Link)
Six years later, I feel considerably less safe.

Sing it, my brother. Sing it loud.
(Deleted comment)
kradical From: kradical Date: September 11th, 2007 08:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'd say suicide is inherently crazy, but whatever. And I doubt either of us will convince the other about our current degree of safety. *grin*

And to the last point, the vast majority of the dead are American civilians (in New York and Washington, plus a planeful in Pennsylvania), American soldiers, and Iraqi civilians, none of whom are "declared enemies" by any stretch.
(Deleted comment)
stephen_dedman From: stephen_dedman Date: September 12th, 2007 05:52 am (UTC) (Link)
So (i) everyone who's not an American is automatically your enemy, and (ii) it doesn't matter how many of your own people die as long as you get to kill someone else?

Just seeking clarification here.
(Deleted comment)
stephen_dedman From: stephen_dedman Date: September 12th, 2007 01:42 pm (UTC) (Link)
Your argument, as phrased, didn't deserve to be taken any more seriously than I took it. The fact that of the thousands of people who died that day, a dozen were deluded beyond any useful definition of sanity, doesn't mean we should mourn any less. And anyone who gives people the impression that they're prepared to attack a country on grounds that wouldn't convince anyone but a like-minded fanatic who's willing to ignore any facts that don't fit his personal prejudices, is doing nothing to make any of us feel safer.
stephen_dedman From: stephen_dedman Date: September 12th, 2007 01:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
Also, most of the others who have died since who you would have called your enemies, are extremely unlikely to have done so had the US not blamed the wrong man for the 9/11 attacks and invaded a country that had never attacked the US. Hated the US, almost certainly, but last I heard, that wasn't a capital crime.

FWIW, I'm an Australian (or as Dubya would say, an Austrian), and I'm proud to say that we materially supported you when you invaded Afghanistan - just as I'm ashamed that my government bought into the Iraq bullshit in the hope of getting a free trade agreement and cheaper oil. But if it makes you feel any better, polls taken here recently show that "60 per cent of people continue to hold a favourable view of the US", and an anti-war protestor at APEC spoke for many of us when he said that "Australians are sensible enough to know the difference between a dud president and good Americans."
(Deleted comment)
stephen_dedman From: stephen_dedman Date: September 13th, 2007 01:47 am (UTC) (Link)
I disagree about their sanity; I doubt any court would have committed them involuntarily, nor do I believe a mental health professional would consider them less than sane. Choosing to do evil and being insane are completely different things.

Hence my use of the phrase 'useful definition', rather than legal or clinical. Yes, they chose to do evil, but also to die doing so, and I would contend that their reasons for doing so were not sane. And I am sorry that men who were obviously fairly intelligent could somehow be so deluded and motivated by hatred as to pointlessly kill thousands of strangers.

Am I correct to infer that you are referring to President Bush here?

Both Bush and Osama. And if you think the world is safer now, then you are defending Bush.
(Deleted comment)
stephen_dedman From: stephen_dedman Date: September 13th, 2007 05:59 am (UTC) (Link)
If you don't think the outcome (their death) is justified, what would constitute adequate justification in your mind for choosing to die in achieving your goal?

I don't think their goal can be considered evidence of their sanity - but then, I'm an agnostic unconvinced of the existence of either heaven or hell. If they intended to express their hatred, kill people, and hurt the U.S., then they succeeded; likewise if their aim was to help fun al-Quaeda, which was betting on a crash in airline stocks, or to motivate the U.S. to move its troops further from Mecca; but I'm not sure any of these would count as a sane reason for suicide.

Perhaps the end result would have been better for them had the fourth plane reached its goal, but if they were hoping to destroy or cripple the US by their actions, I still think they were deluded.

While I would defend some of the president's actions, I don't think that your conclusion follows from your postulate. There are many reasons the world is safer, and President Bush is not the only person influencing them. I could construct an argument that assumes arguendo that Bush's actions detracted from overall safety but that the world is still safer because of other people's actions and their reactions to Bush's choices.

There we must agree to disagree, because I don't see any evidence that the world is safer; on the contrary, I think that Bush's actions in invading Iraq have hampered attempts to make Afghanistan a safer place, as well as making him a recruiting-poster-child for anti-Western fanatics everywhere.
brotherflounder From: brotherflounder Date: September 11th, 2007 07:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
I supported the War on Terror when it was actually a war on terrorism, and was successfully dislodging al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.

Now, with the utterly pointless war in Iraq, America is on far shakier ground that it was before 9/11, and most of the successes in the War on Terror have been negated, and many were reversed completely.

I pray that his successor will be able to clean up the mess this man and his administration have left us.
kradical From: kradical Date: September 11th, 2007 08:31 pm (UTC) (Link)
Right there with you on all three points.
stephen_dedman From: stephen_dedman Date: September 12th, 2007 06:10 am (UTC) (Link)
Agreed. The US had (and has) enormous support from other countries for going into Afghanistan, then squandered it by invading Iraq without UN support on the basis of trumped-up evidence (and that's putting it politely). In the process, not only is the US now in danger of losing two wars and soiling the whole idea of democracy by trying to force it onto people at gunpoint, it has apparently increased the number of people in other countries willing to become suicide bombers - and possibly worse still, the number of people who aren't, but who are willing to give or sell the terrorists what they need.
greeneyedkzin From: greeneyedkzin Date: September 17th, 2007 02:17 pm (UTC) (Link)
Me too. I -resent- being lied to about Saddam's involvement and the existence of WMD in Iraq, which extended our theatre of operations and our supply lines dreadfully. Lousy logistics, tactics, and strategy. Afghanistan was one thing, and we still haven't caught Bin Laden.

I live here, so I am going to derive positives where I can.

New York is open for business. New York showed that, like the other great cities of history, it can take a hit and survive. We didn't let down the people in this country (nor did the people in PA or at the Pentagon). We worked together. We're coping.

I don't like all the security, but we do what we have to do. I am proud of my city and my industry.
nachtswerg From: nachtswerg Date: September 11th, 2007 07:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
Here, here, Mr. D!

I'd prefer to look on this day as a tribute to heroism, instead of terrorism. There were men and women, both in uniform and civilians, that did extraordinary things on that day. This, by the way, is not meant to shortchange all of those other folks who do heroic things on a daily basis.
kradical From: kradical Date: September 11th, 2007 08:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
kessadebra From: kessadebra Date: September 11th, 2007 08:48 pm (UTC) (Link)
*raises a glass to all who fell, to those who lost loved ones, to those that lost jobs and homes because of the change and to all those who have helped any way that they could*
20 comments or Please comment