A 9/11 Reality Check

[Ron in Regina]

If that Ball where to start Rolling, how many other U.S. Presidents (going back
only as far back as WW2 for convenience sake) would also fit into that charge
or others? Actually, to make it easier, name one that wouldn't....

I think that's why what you propose will never happen.

 

[Cliffy]

If that Ball where to start Rolling, how many other U.S. Presidents (going back
only as far back as WW2 for convenience sake) would also fit into that charge
or others? Actually, to make it easier, name one that wouldn't....

I think that's why what you propose will never happen.

I'm afraid you are right Ron. In fact it is an absolute requirement of a president to engage in war because if they didn't the economy would crash so bad the country would have to declare bankruptcy. It is the president's job to stimulate the economy. Too bad the anti-war movement can't see that a world at peace would mean they would have no life style what so ever.

 

[#juan]

One of the things that bugs the hell out of me is Americans stealing the term "ground zero". The term originally meant the spot immediately below where a nuclear bomb exploded. There is a ground zero in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The events in Washington and New York were nowhere near the same kind of thing.

 

[Kreskin]

This is how low and stupid the conspiracy movement is. Watch what this guy filmed and listen to the bonehead asking questions.

YouTube - Pumpitout.com Evan Fairbanks EXPOSED

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: “Ground Zero”

It is a somewhat misled use of the term, to be sure.

Though the tragedy of September 11th was absolutely that—a tragedy—I don’t think that it can compare, in terms of the scale of horror, to the nuclear attacks on Japan. I disagree completely with the suggestion that a president must keep the nation engaged in war—that is an irresponsible statement. It should be the president’s duty to safeguard the people of the United States of America, and war (under most circumstances) is completely counter to that objective. It should also be noted that the United States is not engaged in real or apprehended war, because the Congress of the United States has issued no such resolution. (The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to wage war, and this is something of which the United States people seem to be unfortunately unaware.)

 

[#juan]

This is how low and stupid the conspiracy movement is. Watch what this guy filmed and listen to the bonehead asking questions.

YouTube - Pumpitout.com Evan Fairbanks EXPOSED

I don't know why that moron wasn't gonged after a minute or two. It was painful listening to the turkey.

 

[earth_as_one]

GB1 didn't continue Gulf War 1 for the same reasons GB2 shouldn't have started GW2. Quagmires costs too much money and too many lives.

No kidding. Wars should not be entered into lightly. Nor should their justifications have to be invented.

9/11 is worth observing. When I think of 9/11 I se it as another event of senseless violence against innocent people. I include the 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, the 6 million other non-Jews that died at the same time, in the same places for the same reasons, the 1300 people killed in Gaza 9 months ago, Chechnya, Darfur, the DRC, Sierra Leone. We are equal and all senseless deaths are worth remembering.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

OK....According to which conservatives? Post a LINK.

That was quite a long item ago, Ron. I am sure that conservatives did say that. As to finding a link, I will try, but I cannot promise anything (it was a long time ago, more than 16 years ago, before Bush Jr. and Clinton).

Anyway, I will try and let you know if I find anything.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sorry Ron, I tried, but no can do. That was in 1991, internet was not in such a wide use back then. If I remember the name of the columnist, I may possibly be able to pull it out (assuming it has been archived on the net). But just searching the web doesn’t take you that far back.

 

[Cliffy]

It is a somewhat misled use of the term, to be sure.

Though the tragedy of September 11th was absolutely that—a tragedy—I don’t think that it can compare, in terms of the scale of horror, to the nuclear attacks on Japan. I disagree completely with the suggestion that a president must keep the nation engaged in war—that is an irresponsible statement. It should be the president’s duty to safeguard the people of the United States of America, and war (under most circumstances) is completely counter to that objective. It should also be noted that the United States is not engaged in real or apprehended war, because the Congress of the United States has issued no such resolution. (The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to wage war, and this is something of which the United States people seem to be unfortunately unaware.)

A very altruistic view but the reality is that the American economy requires war to stay active since about 80% is based on manufacturing the implements of war. That is why the CIA is engaged world wide in instigating wars in third world countries and have been for almost a hundred years. The is no money to be made in Peace.

 

[Kreskin]

I don't know why that moron wasn't gonged after a minute or two. It was painful listening to the turkey.

I agree. If I was the camera guy I would've told him to shove it fairly quickly.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: “Altruistic” View

Perhaps, if peace is not good for the economy, then the economy should be changed.

Now, of course this is a gratuitously optimistic view—but I sincerely hope, come centuries in our future (under the assumption that we, as a species, have survived for that long), our focus is something so much more positive—so much more noble, and valuable—then money, wealth, and material worth. Peace, enjoyment of the world, taking care of the sick and the needy, making sure that everyone enjoys what we are fortunate enough to have, to the maximum extent possible.

That sounds very communist of me, though.

Or Star Trek.

 

[Outta here]

I celebrate today`s date with countless millions around the world.

Long live Ossama!

Celebrating a tragedy - no matter where it's happened, or for what reason is just twisted. It's that barbaric mentality above and beyond any other contributing factor that creates fertile ground for new atrocities like this to spring forth.

Even being required to retaliate in self defense is just as much a tragedy as the instigating act of war - neither is cause to celebrate.

 

[Kreskin]

If wars are so good why do they have such a bad economy while fighting two?

 

[talloola]

If wars are so good why do they have such a bad economy while fighting two?

Good point, I'm afraid the wars have overextended their budget by so much it
will never be known, and when they give out the deficit for the u.s. the war
deficit is 'not' included, as though there isn't any, how sad and hurtful for the
american people, they don't have a clue how much their government spent on
those wars. but one thing is clear, it did not help their economy, it killed it.
And how many millions were 'just' filched away by 'who knows' who, and I'm sure
in Iraq, many made big bucks, and pocketed enormous profits,which came right out of the american people's
pockets, and went into 'greedy' pockets, either Iraqi government, or western
contractors over there, who made much more than they were suppose to.

 

[Cliffy]

That is the point. The rich couldn't a flying F if the little folk suffer as long as their pockets are filled to over flowing. They are the ones who control government policy and the unwashed masses can eat cake.

 

[EagleSmack]

One of the things that bugs the hell out of me is Americans stealing the term "ground zero". The term originally meant the spot immediately below where a nuclear bomb exploded. There is a ground zero in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The events in Washington and New York were nowhere near the same kind of thing.

Well we didn't "steal" the term "ground zero" we just used it. And as I read it it seems like we made up the term to begin with.

The term ground zero (sometimes also known as zero point[1] and surface zero[2], may be used to describe the point on the earth's surface where an explosion occurs. In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below an explosion

 

[EagleSmack]

(The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to wage war, and this is something of which the United States people seem to be unfortunately unaware.)

What you are unaware of is that the President DOES have the right to send US Troops wherever he darn well pleases. We the United States people are very much aware of it.

 

[EagleSmack]

A very altruistic view but the reality is that the American economy requires war to stay active since about 80% is based on manufacturing the implements of war. That is why the CIA is engaged world wide in instigating wars in third world countries and have been for almost a hundred years. The is no money to be made in Peace.

The CIA was around in 1909? Heck I didn't know that Clifford.

 

[#juan]

Well we didn't "steal" the term "ground zero" we just used it. And as I read it it seems like we made up the term to begin with.

Nobody else needed the term.

This is ground zero in Nagasaki, the center of an area where tens of thousands were incinerated in a few seconds: