How bad was 9/11 really

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Seekster:
No you didnt but you said America felt it was invincible or something like that and I merely expounded on what I assume you meant by that. Did I misunderstand your meaning?

Yeah, you did. I wasn't talking about America's perception of invincibility. I was talking more about the collective indignancy of many Americans in response to 9/11. America had an (IMHO rather arrogant) perception that violence and terrorism are things that happen in other countries. It wasn't so much that America was complacent, as it was Americans thought they could completely ignore the rest of the world's responses to American actions. Hence the mistake claim that "9/11 changed the world". 9/11 didn't change a goddamned thing. All it did was make a lot of Americans realize there was a world out there.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
No you didnt but you said America felt it was invincible or something like that and I merely expounded on what I assume you meant by that. Did I misunderstand your meaning?

Yeah, you did. I wasn't talking about America's perception of invincibility. I was talking more about the collective indignancy of many Americans in response to 9/11. America had an (IMHO rather arrogant) perception that violence and terrorism are things that happen in other countries. It wasn't so much that America was complacent, as it was Americans thought they could completely ignore the rest of the world's responses to American actions. Hence the mistake claim that "9/11 changed the world". 9/11 didn't change a goddamned thing. All it did was make a lot of Americans realize there was a world out there.

I think you are mistaken, such a perception was not possible since violence and acts of terrorism had occurred in America prior to 9-11, just nothing on that scale.

As far as Americans are concerned, 9-11 did indeed change the world, even if its only how we see it. I fail to see what is wrong with saying that. Are we not entitled to our own perspective on things?

Blablahb:
But most of that isn't because of 11-9, but because Bush went on a rampage, and the US public went into a fright and supported everything. That's separate from the actual terror attacks.

So are you trying to argue that the 9/11 attacks were not used as a justification for the war on terror? Was Bush already planning to invade Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time passing unconstitutional measures like the Patriot Act? If so I would like to know how he planned to pull that off in a pre-9/11 America.

And it's a little odd you seem upset about the US constitution being ignored, while in other topics, you defend free firearm possesion.

Considering the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I am not exactly sure how firearm possession and the Constitution are separate. Unless....are you pulling more random anti-gun zealotry out of your ass?

Both torture, random arrest and all the other homeland security nonsense, and free firearms plus legalised murder are done out of irrational fear. They're the same things. How can one be angry about one and approve of the other?

So the simple ownership of a firearm shows you are irrationally afraid of....what? A friend of mine is a target shooter and only owns firearms that are appropriate for target shooting (try shooting an attacker with a .22 short). So how exactly is his ownership of purely target guns an example of irrational fear? Point of fact while we are at it why don't you explain how after my friend was gang raped and tortured you justify calling her ownership of a firearm (she only carried a gun after the incident) "irrational fear". Why don't you explain how wanting to protect herself from a bunch of sick fucks is proof that she is irrational. GO ON PROOF IT.

BTW how is your quest for world peace going your holiness?

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
A more accurate assessment is that America is less adverse to using force than European nations are and it makes perfect since why to anyone who has studied history. America does not share Europe's bloody history and force has worked out well enough for us so far. Now having said that we would obviously prefer to use diplomacy as lets face it, using force all the time is expensive, inefficient, and its not entirely polite to put it lightly.

So you see its not really a difference in maturity, its a difference in culture and history.

Er...you don't think the reason why the US uses military force more than most nations is because the US has by far the most powerful military?

Also, while using the military is expensive, somebody gets paid to make all those wonderful toys, and they only last so long before they are past their used by date or obsolete, may as well use them on somebody and remind the world how scary you are.

In other words do I think that one of the reasons why the US uses military force more often than most nations is because we have the ability to project power and most nations do not. Yeah thats a good point, of course simply having the ability to do something is not itself a reason to do it though it could be a reason why other nations don't do it as much.

Oh and don't take that the wrong way, power projection is practically a necessity for the US Armed Forces given how geographically isolated the United States is from most of the world (we have Canada and Mexico to keep us company over here). Only a handful of nations have power projection capability, in short that is the ability to deploy and act in a combat zone quickly and effectively. America's extensive network of oversea's bases, large fleet of aircraft carriers, amphibious assault vessels, and perhaps most importantly our friends and allies across the globe gives the United States a power projection ability that is unmatched.

As I said though, power projection is a necessity for the United States given that the likelihood of deploying relatively close to home is slim and the fact that we have a number of overseas commitments to keep to other nations.

Sorry I had a bit of a nerd moment there, where were we again...

"Also, while using the military is expensive, somebody gets paid to make all those wonderful toys, and they only last so long before they are past their used by date or obsolete, may as well use them on somebody and remind the world how scary you are."

Scary? I suppose we can be. It really doesnt matter whether its out of respect or fear, if it means a nation may decide not to attack their neighbor or not to sell weapons to that terrorst group or things like that.

Honestly weapons are more expensive to use than to not use. Do you have any idea how much a patriot missile costs for example? We don't want to spend that kind of money without good reason. A military force is best used for deterrence, one of the worst things you can actually do with a military is send it into war (kind of funny huh). Wars mean you lose men and material and then you have to spend all this time and money fixing up and reforming your military afterwards, oh yeah and did I mention you lose men? On top of that when your military is occupied with a war other potential enemies may use the opportunity to pursue some unsavory agenda expecting to get away with it since your military is preoccupied (though the US military can probably maintain about 3 large scale combat deployments and a few smaller ones at maximum, even maintaining 1 can hurt your ability to respond to other trouble spots that might crop up).

No no better to avoid war and use diplomacy whenever possible. However diplomacy tends to work best when the other guy knows that you won't make your promises to them, or towards them (in other words your allies know they can depend on you, your enemies know that you can carry out any...promise...you make towards them). Speak softly, and carry a big stick, but best not to actually use the big stick unless its necessary to do so.

farson135:

Considering the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I am not exactly sure how firearm possession and the Constitution are separate. Unless....are you pulling more random anti-gun zealotry out of your ass?

Why'd you cut out the 'well regulated militia' part?

Seekster:
As far as Americans are concerned, 9-11 did indeed change the world, even if its only how we see it. I fail to see what is wrong with saying that. Are we not entitled to our own perspective on things?

I find the notion that all Americans must have the same perspective to be quite distasteful, but more than that one enters very dangerous territory when one pretends that one's perspective equates to reality. Saying that the world changed is akin to saying no one else in the world experienced terrorism before the US did, which is laughably incorrect.

What's worse is there is there is absolutely no need to say the world changed, other than self-serving maudlin crying for attention. Everyone in the world knows 9/11 was a bad thing. We don't have to declare it to be the WORST THING EVAR just to get attention.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
As far as Americans are concerned, 9-11 did indeed change the world, even if its only how we see it. I fail to see what is wrong with saying that. Are we not entitled to our own perspective on things?

I find the notion that all Americans must have the same perspective to be quite distasteful, but more than that one enters very dangerous territory when one pretends that one's perspective equates to reality. Saying that the world changed is akin to saying no one else in the world experienced terrorism before the US did, which is laughably incorrect.

What's worse is there is there is absolutely no need to say the world changed, other than self-serving maudlin crying for attention. Everyone in the world knows 9/11 was a bad thing. We don't have to declare it to be the WORST THING EVAR just to get attention.

Wait who declared it the worst thing ever?

And of course not all Americans feel the same way, though for probably the vast majority of us, the way we saw the world did change after 9-11.

Amnestic:
Why'd you cut out the 'well regulated militia' part?

Because it was not necessary to fully state my point. When you quote something do you always include every word or do you cut out (as much as is appropriate) the extraneous bits? I mean do you see any particular advantage in me typing out that extra statement that lends no important information to the actual discussion? If you want it that badly here you go-

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seekster:
As I said though, power projection is a necessity for the United States given that the likelihood of deploying relatively close to home is slim and the fact that we have a number of overseas commitments to keep to other nations.

It's hardly unique in that, lots of places aren't going to invade their neighbours.

Projection is a prerequisite for being a power, it's not due to the US's geography.

Seekster:
Honestly weapons are more expensive to use than to not use. Do you have any idea how much a patriot missile costs for example? We don't want to spend that kind of money without good reason.

The money it costs to build goes somewhere, though, and the people a tthe other end probably think that's a good reason for doing it. I can't remember which one, but one of the US's bombers has parts manufactured in every state. So, if anyone tries to cut spending on the bomber program, it's taking jobs and money from every state.

Seekster:
A military force is best used for deterrence, one of the worst things you can actually do with a military is send it into war (kind of funny huh).

Well, once you start not sending your military to war, it loses its its ability to deter. You have to keep bombing someone somewhere if you want everyone to be afraid of your bombers.

Seekster:
Wars mean you lose men and material and then you have to spend all this time and money fixing up and reforming your military afterwards, oh yeah and did I mention you lose men?

The human cost seems not to be a big concern. There seem to be endless complaints about the way ex-service personnel are treated, for example.

Seekster:
On top of that when your military is occupied with a war other potential enemies may use the opportunity to pursue some unsavory agenda expecting to get away with it since your military is preoccupied (though the US military can probably maintain about 3 large scale combat deployments and a few smaller ones at maximum, even maintaining 1 can hurt your ability to respond to other trouble spots that might crop up).

I don't think that's terribly relevant in the US's case. It had the predictable problems holding Iraq and Afghanistan after it (and allies) took them, but taking them wasn't such a problem. Even with such commitments, it can make quite a mess of most nations, and that's the deterrant that is needed.

Seekster:
Speak softly, and carry a big stick, but best not to actually use the big stick unless its necessary to do so.

It is (arguably) necessary to use the big stick at least to an extent every so often to show that you will use it when it's really needed. Nobody is going to be afraid of you if you don't go to the trouble of being frightening.

It was bad mostly for the fact it probably could of been prevented. Also you must understand here in America we are not used to terrorist attacks. We are generally an isolated country. People got scared, terrified to walk out their doors. This fear was escalated by the way the government informed the people about the attacks.

It was in no way the worse disaster in history, but it was the worst act of terror in America's history.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
As I said though, power projection is a necessity for the United States given that the likelihood of deploying relatively close to home is slim and the fact that we have a number of overseas commitments to keep to other nations.

It's hardly unique in that, lots of places aren't going to invade their neighbours.

Projection is a prerequisite for being a power, it's not due to the US's geography.

Hmm, no not really, at least not on a global scale. A world power must be able to extend its influence and project some level of power at least within its own sphere of influence (in the modern world a superpower's sphere of influence is global) but there are world powers today with limited power projection capabilities. China, South Korea, Japan, Germany, and Canada are some examples. China may want power projection capability soon but for now it and South Korea and Japan (whose Constitution doesnt really allow for the use of power projection anyway) don't need the ability because their likely deployment areas are relatively close by. Germany is unofficially still in time out for a few more decades (besides I think they are kind of done projecting power). Canada shares the same isolation as the US (perhaps even more so) but Canada relies on its friends more than the United States does, though thats not a dig at Canada, the Canadians can fight if they want to, they have proven that much, they just dont want to. Anyway I am getting off topic again.

No a lot of places arent going to invade their neighbors, we will make sure of that.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
Honestly weapons are more expensive to use than to not use. Do you have any idea how much a patriot missile costs for example? We don't want to spend that kind of money without good reason.

The money it costs to build goes somewhere, though, and the people a tthe other end probably think that's a good reason for doing it. I can't remember which one, but one of the US's bombers has parts manufactured in every state. So, if anyone tries to cut spending on the bomber program, it's taking jobs and money from every state.

There are probably a lot of bombers like that but you know we don't constantly build bombers. The military orders some those are built and delivered. If possible we try and sell some weapons systems to friends and allies and then we build those too. I don't see what your point has to do with not using weapons.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
A military force is best used for deterrence, one of the worst things you can actually do with a military is send it into war (kind of funny huh).

Well, once you start not sending your military to war, it loses its its ability to deter. You have to keep bombing someone somewhere if you want everyone to be afraid of your bombers.

Theoretically yeah and it also risks losing valuable combat experience to the point where you have an entire officer class who has never seen combat. Thing is we don't normally have to go out looking for a fight, there are too many people in the world willing to pick one.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
Wars mean you lose men and material and then you have to spend all this time and money fixing up and reforming your military afterwards, oh yeah and did I mention you lose men?

The human cost seems not to be a big concern. There seem to be endless complaints about the way ex-service personnel are treated, for example.

I am a big proponent of veteran's benefits and as far as I am concerned you can't do enough for vets so I am probably the wrong person to argue that point with.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
On top of that when your military is occupied with a war other potential enemies may use the opportunity to pursue some unsavory agenda expecting to get away with it since your military is preoccupied (though the US military can probably maintain about 3 large scale combat deployments and a few smaller ones at maximum, even maintaining 1 can hurt your ability to respond to other trouble spots that might crop up).

I don't think that's terribly relevant in the US's case. It had the predictable problems holding Iraq and Afghanistan after it (and allies) took them, but taking them wasn't such a problem. Even with such commitments, it can make quite a mess of most nations, and that's the deterrant that is needed.

First off from what I have read, Obama plans to announce today some cut backs to the US military. I've heard some say that it will limit America to being able to fight only 1 large war at a time along with smaller engagements elsewhere (in other words we wouldnt be able to do a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan at once, not that we want to do that anytime soon). I will withhold judgement until the plan is actually presented but I am always uneasy about drastic cuts to the military though I acknowledge serious cuts must be made. They should however be made with a scapel not a chainsaw if you know what I mean.

Anyway yes you are right, occupation duty is always going to be harder than actually taking territory. The United States military is in the process of transitioning from a fighting force built to take on the Soviet Union in a massive conventional war (hopefully conventional). In a conventional battle there are few military forces that pose a threat to the US military (and most of those we are friends with). It is little surprise then that our enemies like Al Qaeda avoid conventional warfare like its the plague. In Afghanistan the Taliban has repeatedly tried conventional style assaults on military basis near the Pakistan border and the results are...well...they don't try again for a while, they seem to have a short term memory though. Fighting an unconventional opponent is a challenge the United States military traditionally has more trouble with but Al Qaeda is giving us some practice and I think we are improving. Still unconventional wars are all about perception and moral and who can win over the local population. Its not a short or clear process and fighting a long war with vague non-concrete objectives is not easy, plus the civilian population has less patience for that kind of thing.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
Speak softly, and carry a big stick, but best not to actually use the big stick unless its necessary to do so.

It is (arguably) necessary to use the big stick at least to an extent every so often to show that you will use it when it's really needed. Nobody is going to be afraid of you if you don't go to the trouble of being frightening.

Yeah like I said, normally you don't have to pick a fight, someone will do you the favor of picking it for you. Saddam Hussein in the 1990s is a prime example. He thought that he could have a long drawn out and bloody slug fest with the USA and the rest of the Coalition like he did with Iran. He banked on the allies crying uncle first (which does make sense seeing how autocratic systems can absorb more causalities than open democratic systems can in wars due to the fact that autocratic systems can demand public support in a way while democratic systems have to ask for it). Unfortunately for Saddam he completely failed to appreciate the numerical, technological, and tactical disadvantages he faced and on top of that his opponents didnt move the way he thought they would.

...yeah I had a nerd moment again.

Seekster:
And of course not all Americans feel the same way, though for probably the vast majority of us, the way we saw the world did change after 9-11.

Now to phrase it as, "the way we saw the world changed" getting closer to what I think is the truth, but we must acknowledge that the way a people see the world is not necessarily representative of how the world actually is. To an extent that has been one of the problems with America's image abroad for decades; we are a people who are notoriously content to be ignorant of what the world is really like outside our borders, and for America to stay relevant in the coming years I believe that needs to change.

Vegosiux:

Seekster:
I do think Kata hit a few good points about how America had become complacent and was too busy patting ourselves on the back for outlasting the Soviet Union to notice the growing danger from Al Qaeda and other groups and we got caught up in the idea that we are untouchable. However 9-11 was a watershed event where to America at least the world before is different from the world after (or rather our perception of the world). No you don't have to recognize it but that is how most of us see it.

I don't think Kata even talked about that, but how complacent do you have to be to not see that the danger that is growing is growing because you are feeding it is beyond me. Do we need to put up signs "Do not feed the bears!" like in the zoo? Or well, "Do not fund insurgents that will come and bite you!"

Yeah funding unsavory groups like we did in the Cold War, in retrospect, probably not the best idea. So we make mistakes, at least we clean them up (Saddam Hussein anyone?). Whether or not this wave of Islamic terrorism started because of our actions does not change the fact that terrorism is unacceptable and should be faced and dealt with even why you simultaneously try and find the source to prevent the further spread of terrorism. Yes there will always be terrorism in some form or another and we will always face it and should. Ignoring a problem only makes it worse, or did Europe learn nothing from the late 1930s (sorry to use an overused example but I feel it is pertinent).[/quote]

Given America's tradition of funding terrorist groups i find most of that statment laughable.

So you always face terrorism? You clean up your mistakes? does the IRA ring any bells with you, that terrorist group that was funded by Americans and had the direct political, monitary and vocal support of US elected officials, or is it that its only terrorism when Americans are killed not when its us dirty socialist foriegners.

I can only imagine the uproar from America if a British MP stood up in parliament and supported Al Qaeda and asked for donations to help fund their noble struggle.

jimborious:

Vegosiux:

Seekster:
I do think Kata hit a few good points about how America had become complacent and was too busy patting ourselves on the back for outlasting the Soviet Union to notice the growing danger from Al Qaeda and other groups and we got caught up in the idea that we are untouchable. However 9-11 was a watershed event where to America at least the world before is different from the world after (or rather our perception of the world). No you don't have to recognize it but that is how most of us see it.

I don't think Kata even talked about that, but how complacent do you have to be to not see that the danger that is growing is growing because you are feeding it is beyond me. Do we need to put up signs "Do not feed the bears!" like in the zoo? Or well, "Do not fund insurgents that will come and bite you!"

Yeah funding unsavory groups like we did in the Cold War, in retrospect, probably not the best idea. So we make mistakes, at least we clean them up (Saddam Hussein anyone?). Whether or not this wave of Islamic terrorism started because of our actions does not change the fact that terrorism is unacceptable and should be faced and dealt with even why you simultaneously try and find the source to prevent the further spread of terrorism. Yes there will always be terrorism in some form or another and we will always face it and should. Ignoring a problem only makes it worse, or did Europe learn nothing from the late 1930s (sorry to use an overused example but I feel it is pertinent).

Given America's tradition of funding terrorist groups i find most of that statment laughable.

So you always face terrorism? You clean up your mistakes? does the IRA ring any bells with you, that terrorist group that was funded by Americans and had the direct political, monitary and vocal support of US elected officials, or is it that its only terrorism when Americans are killed not when its us dirty socialist foriegners.

I can only imagine the uproar from America if a British MP stood up in parliament and supported Al Qaeda and asked for donations to help fund their noble struggle.[/quote]

The IRA was supported by certain individuals in America not by the government. Hell there are certain individuals in the USA support Al Qaeda so its not unprecedented.

Individuals supporting a group is a very different thing than the government supporting a group as a matter of policy.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
And of course not all Americans feel the same way, though for probably the vast majority of us, the way we saw the world did change after 9-11.

Now to phrase it as, "the way we saw the world changed" getting closer to what I think is the truth, but we must acknowledge that the way a people see the world is not necessarily representative of how the world actually is. To an extent that has been one of the problems with America's image abroad for decades; we are a people who are notoriously content to be ignorant of what the world is really like outside our borders, and for America to stay relevant in the coming years I believe that needs to change.

If you want to get really philosophical, perhaps nobody really knows the way the world actually is.

America will be relevant for a long long time, even after China overtakes us economically and we cant be a superpower anymore we will still be a very strong world power.

Seekster:
If you want to get really philosophical, perhaps nobody really knows the way the world actually is.

Yeah, no. Sorry. Not buying this at all.

Obviously the stereotype of the ignorant American is a stereotype that does not apply to everyone. But I've spent a significant chunk of my life traveling abroad, and my experience has tended to confirm that a lot of Americans, especially Americans who are on their first stint abroad, are far less informed about how other countries function than people from other English-speaking countries. Likewise, Americans tend to have far greater trouble adapting to different cultures. And it comes from us being a myopic people.

Seekster:

jimborious:

Vegosiux:

I don't think Kata even talked about that, but how complacent do you have to be to not see that the danger that is growing is growing because you are feeding it is beyond me. Do we need to put up signs "Do not feed the bears!" like in the zoo? Or well, "Do not fund insurgents that will come and bite you!"

Yeah funding unsavory groups like we did in the Cold War, in retrospect, probably not the best idea. So we make mistakes, at least we clean them up (Saddam Hussein anyone?). Whether or not this wave of Islamic terrorism started because of our actions does not change the fact that terrorism is unacceptable and should be faced and dealt with even why you simultaneously try and find the source to prevent the further spread of terrorism. Yes there will always be terrorism in some form or another and we will always face it and should. Ignoring a problem only makes it worse, or did Europe learn nothing from the late 1930s (sorry to use an overused example but I feel it is pertinent).

Given America's tradition of funding terrorist groups i find most of that statment laughable.

So you always face terrorism? You clean up your mistakes? does the IRA ring any bells with you, that terrorist group that was funded by Americans and had the direct political, monitary and vocal support of US elected officials, or is it that its only terrorism when Americans are killed not when its us dirty socialist foriegners.

I can only imagine the uproar from America if a British MP stood up in parliament and supported Al Qaeda and asked for donations to help fund their noble struggle.

The IRA was supported by certain individuals in America not by the government. Hell there are certain individuals in the USA support Al Qaeda so its not unprecedented.

Individuals supporting a group is a very different thing than the government supporting a group as a matter of policy.[/quote]

Yeah that doesn't fly, serving US politicians (or as thier know 'the goverment') where supporting a gobally recognised terrorist organisation and they faced no repercusions, unless you think they should be able to support who/whatever they like in which case i'm sure you'd be cool with serving US politicians voicing support for Al Qaeda. Hell its not like funding terrorist organisations is against any US laws right?

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
If you want to get really philosophical, perhaps nobody really knows the way the world actually is.

Yeah, no. Sorry. Not buying this at all.

Obviously the stereotype of the ignorant American is a stereotype that does not apply to everyone. But I've spent a significant chunk of my life traveling abroad, and my experience has tended to confirm that a lot of Americans, especially Americans who are on their first stint abroad, are far less informed about how other countries function than people from other English-speaking countries. Likewise, Americans tend to have far greater trouble adapting to different cultures. And it comes from us being a myopic people.

Nearly all stereotypes have a small grain of truth to them and yes America does not have to deal with so many diverse people as say France simply due to geography among other factors.

Yeah its a funny thing about America, we are made up of a diverse collection of people with ancestors coming from all over the world yet we have long been a bit...lets say uncomfortable with foreigners to some degree throughout our history. I think our geography and independent spirit combine to make us that way. It is a fascinating irony though. Getting Americans to embrace globalism is probably like getting us to embrace the metric system, or soccer (aka football). We kind of do our own thing.

American culture is influenced by different cultures so in a way we adapt quite well to other cultures, they go in the melting pot like everyone else.

jimborious:

Seekster:

jimborious:

Yeah funding unsavory groups like we did in the Cold War, in retrospect, probably not the best idea. So we make mistakes, at least we clean them up (Saddam Hussein anyone?). Whether or not this wave of Islamic terrorism started because of our actions does not change the fact that terrorism is unacceptable and should be faced and dealt with even why you simultaneously try and find the source to prevent the further spread of terrorism. Yes there will always be terrorism in some form or another and we will always face it and should. Ignoring a problem only makes it worse, or did Europe learn nothing from the late 1930s (sorry to use an overused example but I feel it is pertinent).

Given America's tradition of funding terrorist groups i find most of that statment laughable.

So you always face terrorism? You clean up your mistakes? does the IRA ring any bells with you, that terrorist group that was funded by Americans and had the direct political, monitary and vocal support of US elected officials, or is it that its only terrorism when Americans are killed not when its us dirty socialist foriegners.

I can only imagine the uproar from America if a British MP stood up in parliament and supported Al Qaeda and asked for donations to help fund their noble struggle.

The IRA was supported by certain individuals in America not by the government. Hell there are certain individuals in the USA support Al Qaeda so its not unprecedented.

Individuals supporting a group is a very different thing than the government supporting a group as a matter of policy.

Yeah that doesn't fly, serving US politicians (or as thier know 'the goverment') where supporting a gobally recognised terrorist organisation and they faced no repercusions, unless you think they should be able to support who/whatever they like in which case i'm sure you'd be cool with serving US politicians voicing support for Al Qaeda. Hell its not like funding terrorist organisations is against any US laws right?[/quote]

I think those who supported the IRA SHOULD face repercussions. The only thing I can think of that prevented them from facing repercussions is the sizable Irish population in the US that might be sympathetic to the IRA.

Soluncreed:

Biodeamon:
not to start a flame war but...
america nuked japan twice and they brushed it off eventually,

america has just two buidings blown up and they act like the whole entire world has ended.

Dude. You're just so wrong. I've been to Hiroshima on the date of the bombing. You know what I was surrounded by? Large crowds of people walking in memory of the people who died. I was approached by a man who hated Americans for not spiritually winning the war, winning only through force. There were cars driving around with loudspeakers blaring out hatred towards America for it's actions. I recieved far more than just a couple dirty looks.

Don't make assumptions. There is still hatred there for what we did.

correction:what you did. i'm canadian.

P.S. you just described what happens everytime on the aniversary of 9/11 in america too. don't act like you people don't grieve over it.
also the hiroshima bomb ended a war. the 9/11 bombing started a war that's just begiining to wrap up now

You cannot compare Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Pearl Harbor was a military strike against military targets. Granted, many were killed. But again, military vs military.

9/11 was deliberately flying four planes either into buildings or into the ground killing thousands of innocent civilians. In no way is Pearl Harbor comparable to 9/11, except that Americans were surprised by it.

I would also respectfully submit that if you're not willing to see something on the scale of 9/11 repeated in your own country (or in the US again), then in was pretty damned bad by every imaginable scale.

Biodeamon:

also the hiroshima bomb ended a war.

It didn't. The war was already over; Italy switches sides and Berlin has already fallen. With USSR on one side and the US on the other, Japan would not stand a chance. What the bomb did (aside from killing lots of people) was mostly intimidate Japan into surrendering sooner. But the war was over before the bomb. And the bomb could have been used elsewhere, with less civilian casualties, and still be just as intimidating.

Hop-along Nussbaum:

I would also respectfully submit that if you're not willing to see something on the scale of 9/11 repeated in your own country (or in the US again), then in was pretty damned bad by every imaginable scale.

Holy Molly, we're actually agreeing on a point.

Biodeamon:

Soluncreed:

Biodeamon:
not to start a flame war but...
america nuked japan twice and they brushed it off eventually,

america has just two buidings blown up and they act like the whole entire world has ended.

Dude. You're just so wrong. I've been to Hiroshima on the date of the bombing. You know what I was surrounded by? Large crowds of people walking in memory of the people who died. I was approached by a man who hated Americans for not spiritually winning the war, winning only through force. There were cars driving around with loudspeakers blaring out hatred towards America for it's actions. I recieved far more than just a couple dirty looks.

Don't make assumptions. There is still hatred there for what we did.

correction:what you did. i'm canadian.

P.S. you just described what happens everytime on the aniversary of 9/11 in america too. don't act like you people don't grieve over it.
also the hiroshima bomb ended a war. the 9/11 bombing started a war that's just begiining to wrap up now

The we that I was referring to was Americans. Not necessarily both you and me. What I was arguing was that Japan has not just brushed off the bombing. They mourn it. And why wouldn't they? Many lives were lost. I never even stated that Americans don't mourn and blame others either. I was focusing on Japanese perspective.
And why is it relevant what the bomb starts or ends? Lives were lost. People mourn those deaths.

Seekster:
American culture is influenced by different cultures so in a way we adapt quite well to other cultures, they go in the melting pot like everyone else.

No.

Being able to choose between Americanized Chinese food, Americanized Mexican food, and Americanized European coffees is about the extent of most Americans' forays into the "melting pot" in my experience.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
American culture is influenced by different cultures so in a way we adapt quite well to other cultures, they go in the melting pot like everyone else.

No.

Being able to choose between Americanized Chinese food, Americanized Mexican food, and Americanized European coffees is about the extent of most Americans' forays into the "melting pot" in my experience.

Its subtle but its there. Many things that Americans would think of as American culture are actually products of the metaphorical melting pot.

chuckman1:
This is a topic I've wanted to talk about with the community for awhile and I feel could spark some interesting conversation. (Note I am American and have lived here my entire life)

Was 9/11 really that bad? I mean yes a couple thousand innocent people died for no good reason but I don't see it even close to the tragic level it's been made out to be. We have also had many liberties robbed of us in attempts to "keep us safe" that have really made no difference on our safety level.

It just shows how in America we feel untouchable and whenever something like this happens we freak out like HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? This happens all around the world and it wasn't even close to the worst things that happen in my opinion. Also how come every single 9/11 they go over it at school. We get what happened we dont need to keep bringing this up.

How do you feel on the issue?
:note I'd be careful how you word your response I suspect anyone who disagrees with your opinion will report you

.
The act itself wasn't devastating when you consider the vastness of the USA, but the fear it sustained - The fear of more attacks, more deaths, the constant uncertainty. It'd be as if you knew for a fact that something terrible would happen, but you didn't know when. That's how the public thought at the time, but it was based on mere illusions. I can sympathize as an Israeli that lived through the second 'Intifada'. You never knew what would happen. But you knew something will happen. A bus will blow up. A restaurant will be eradicated. A masked man will walk into your school with a rifle. You know. But you don't know when.
.
I think that the same fear I described here was shamelessly used as fuel for the declaration of War the USA had made against Iraq for the second time, and to keep public support up high during the administration of certain individuals... It was used to pass some unsavory laws, and some that directly violate human rights in the name of security against this unknown, all powerful force we call "Terrorism" that may strike us at any time.
I sympathize with your loss, but the way the death of almost three thousand Americans is used sometimes is shameful. Only last month over two thousand had died in flooding in the Philippians. There were mass graves because the locals couldn't deal with the amount of bodies that were piling up. The events on September, 11th don't come close to most of the disasters we see world wide every week, every month.

Vegosiux:

Biodeamon:

also the hiroshima bomb ended a war.

It didn't. The war was already over; Italy switches sides and Berlin has already fallen. With USSR on one side and the US on the other, Japan would not stand a chance. What the bomb did (aside from killing lots of people) was mostly intimidate Japan into surrendering sooner. But the war was over before the bomb. And the bomb could have been used elsewhere, with less civilian casualties, and still be just as intimidating.
-snip-

.
Those were two large Industrial areas. Even though Japan's infrastructure was in shambles, it could have still produced arms to continue the war. By bombing these sites, their capacity for continued warfare was reduced to a single digit and their spirit was utterly crushed
A terrible, terrible event. The worst bit wasn't the immediate casualties, but the radiation victims.

Seekster:

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
American culture is influenced by different cultures so in a way we adapt quite well to other cultures, they go in the melting pot like everyone else.

No.

Being able to choose between Americanized Chinese food, Americanized Mexican food, and Americanized European coffees is about the extent of most Americans' forays into the "melting pot" in my experience.

Its subtle but its there. Many things that Americans would think of as American culture are actually products of the metaphorical melting pot.

Perhaps you could name something that Americans have contact with from "the melting pot" that people in other countries frequently don't. Because I can't think of anything, except for the afore-mentioned Mexican food that isn't really Mexican and Chinese food that isn't really Chinese. Personally I don't see it as a point to be proud of that a British friend has never eaten at Taco Bell for example, when I've seen other Americans express incredulity that his society is even capable of functioning upon learning their police don't let American tourists play with knives openly in public. True story.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:

Katatori-kun:

No.

Being able to choose between Americanized Chinese food, Americanized Mexican food, and Americanized European coffees is about the extent of most Americans' forays into the "melting pot" in my experience.

Its subtle but its there. Many things that Americans would think of as American culture are actually products of the metaphorical melting pot.

Perhaps you could name something that Americans have contact with from "the melting pot" that people in other countries frequently don't. Because I can't think of anything, except for the afore-mentioned Mexican food that isn't really Mexican and Chinese food that isn't really Chinese. Personally I don't see it as a point to be proud of that a British friend has never eaten at Taco Bell for example, when I've seen other Americans express incredulity that his society is even capable of functioning upon learning their police don't let American tourists play with knives openly in public. True story.

im only gonna say some things about the melting pot, i dont care about the rest of your guys debate.

different parts of the US have different cultures due to there being different concentrations of immigrants in that area. arizona, new mexico, parts of California and the west half of Texas, have huge hispanic influences in the culture. now it is true that America has no unique culture besides americanized versions of the original immigrants culture, but thats all do to the fact that US is built on immigration.

lastly taco bell is a poor representative of Americanized Mexican food, the chimichanga is a better example since it originates from the US. but i gonna only speak for the southwest states since those are then only ones i have been to.

keiskay:
different parts of the US have different cultures due to there being different concentrations of immigrants in that area. arizona, new mexico, parts of California and the west half of Texas, have huge hispanic influences in the culture. now it is true that America has no unique culture besides americanized versions of the original immigrants culture, but thats all do to the fact that US is built on immigration.

This rather reinforces my point. How is that different from most other countries. England has had huge waves of immigration from the Indian subcontinent, Jamaica, and most recently Pakistan and Muslim countries. Germany has had significant immigration from Turkey. France has had immigration from north Africa. Even Japan, one of the most racially homogenous countries on Earth, has had immigration from China, Korea, Peru, Brazil, and the Philippines. All of these countries have experienced changes to their culture from these waves of immigration.

For Americans to play up American immigration as though no other countries experience the same things is a kind of ignorance. It comes from a myopic vision of the world that says we are the only country that matters.

lastly taco bell is a poor representative of Americanized Mexican food, the chimichanga is a better example since it originates from the US. but i gonna only speak for the southwest states since those are then only ones i have been to.

Fine then. Does the fact that my British friend has never eaten a chimichanga really reflect on his cultural experience?

Katatori-kun:

keiskay:
different parts of the US have different cultures due to there being different concentrations of immigrants in that area. arizona, new mexico, parts of California and the west half of Texas, have huge hispanic influences in the culture. now it is true that America has no unique culture besides americanized versions of the original immigrants culture, but thats all do to the fact that US is built on immigration.

This rather reinforces my point. How is that different from most other countries. England has had huge waves of immigration from the Indian subcontinent, Jamaica, and most recently Pakistan and Muslim countries. Germany has had significant immigration from Turkey. France has had immigration from north Africa. Even Japan, one of the most racially homogenous countries on Earth, has had immigration from China, Korea, Peru, Brazil, and the Philippines. All of these countries have experienced changes to their culture from these waves of immigration.

For Americans to play up American immigration as though no other countries experience the same things is a kind of ignorance. It comes from a myopic vision of the world that says we are the only country that matters.

lastly taco bell is a poor representative of Americanized Mexican food, the chimichanga is a better example since it originates from the US. but i gonna only speak for the southwest states since those are then only ones i have been to.

Fine then. Does the fact that my British friend has never eaten a chimichanga really reflect on his cultural experience?

i'll give you that, considering the only unique culture the US has is the navajo culture, the hopi culture, the cherokee culture and other native American groups still around (alive) in the US. but most if not all of that cultural influence is on the west coast. so anyone visting the east coast gets the basic whitewashed bland area unless they go and visit the Cajuns in Florida and Louisiana which probably isnt appealing to most.

keiskay:
i'll give you that, considering the only unique culture the US has is the navajo culture, the hopi culture, the cherokee culture and other native American groups still around (alive) in the US. but most if not all of that cultural influence is on the west coast. so anyone visting the east coast gets the basic whitewashed bland area unless they go and visit the Cajuns in Florida and Louisiana which probably isnt appealing to most.

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

I'm not saying that any culture is unappealing, nor that any culture is "whitewashed" or "bland", as both claims are highly insulting and show more than a little bigotry.

I'm saying the cultural impact of America's history of immigration is not as unique as Americans often proclaim it to be. There are Chinese immigrants in England, you know. I've met several Latin Americans in Japan. The world is small, borders are porous, and living down the street from some Mexicans doesn't make you an adapted world traveler.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:

Katatori-kun:

No.

Being able to choose between Americanized Chinese food, Americanized Mexican food, and Americanized European coffees is about the extent of most Americans' forays into the "melting pot" in my experience.

Its subtle but its there. Many things that Americans would think of as American culture are actually products of the metaphorical melting pot.

Perhaps you could name something that Americans have contact with from "the melting pot" that people in other countries frequently don't. Because I can't think of anything, except for the afore-mentioned Mexican food that isn't really Mexican and Chinese food that isn't really Chinese. Personally I don't see it as a point to be proud of that a British friend has never eaten at Taco Bell for example, when I've seen other Americans express incredulity that his society is even capable of functioning upon learning their police don't let American tourists play with knives openly in public. True story.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

As for knives, I used to work part-time as a bag checker at the entrance to Six Flags (its a theme park for those who don't know) when I was still in High School. You wouldnt believe the number of people who acted surprise when we explained to them that a pocket knife is indeed a weapon and no you cant take it in with you.

Seekster:

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
Its subtle but its there. Many things that Americans would think of as American culture are actually products of the metaphorical melting pot.

Perhaps you could name something that Americans have contact with from "the melting pot" that people in other countries frequently don't. Because I can't think of anything, except for the afore-mentioned Mexican food that isn't really Mexican and Chinese food that isn't really Chinese. Personally I don't see it as a point to be proud of that a British friend has never eaten at Taco Bell for example, when I've seen other Americans express incredulity that his society is even capable of functioning upon learning their police don't let American tourists play with knives openly in public. True story.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

You said, "Many things that Americans would think of as American culture are actually products of the metaphorical melting pot."

I'm asking you to name something concrete that Americans get from this "metaphorical melting pot" that is not widely available in the rest of the world. Give me a concrete reason to believe that America's melting pot is meaningfully different from most other countries' results of immigration.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:

Katatori-kun:

Perhaps you could name something that Americans have contact with from "the melting pot" that people in other countries frequently don't. Because I can't think of anything, except for the afore-mentioned Mexican food that isn't really Mexican and Chinese food that isn't really Chinese. Personally I don't see it as a point to be proud of that a British friend has never eaten at Taco Bell for example, when I've seen other Americans express incredulity that his society is even capable of functioning upon learning their police don't let American tourists play with knives openly in public. True story.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

You said, "Many things that Americans would think of as American culture are actually products of the metaphorical melting pot."

I'm asking you to name something concrete that Americans get from this "metaphorical melting pot" that is not widely available in the rest of the world. Give me a concrete reason to believe that America's melting pot is meaningfully different from most other countries' results of immigration.

Not so much unique as the fact that you have all these different cultural influences in one country. I think you misunderstood, I wasnt claiming that immigration in America is somehow different than immigration everywhere else, well outside of there being no indigenous "American culture". Its a mixture of many different cultures all melted down and put together.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked