It was a game changer because the government made it a game changer.
There is no scenario in which the USA government would not have reacted the way that it did.
The government couldn't react any other way. Let's not pretend there is a scenario where the US government says "yo guys, everything is cool, lets move on and forget."
I live in New York city, and I lived here when the attack happened, and yes everyone including me was traumatized even if they haven't lost anyone in the tragedy, and those that did have obviously been hurt beyond repair, but the idea that a world is somehow a different place now has been pushed down our throats by the government.
The world wasn't a safer place before 9/11... as a matter of fact 9/11 was planned during the time before 9/11, so how are you gonna say that the world all of a sudden became a lot more dangerous after that, it's still the same world. And as for showing the US that they're not detached from the world... The US was NEVER detached from the world. We were already in Asia, and the middle-east previously, and that's what brought on the the hatred that inspired the 9/11 attacks in the first place, and as a result of these attacks we went even deeper with involvement in the middle-east, and now they hate us even more...
First of all, no, the world was not insanely safer the day before 9/11. But the banks were not any healthier the week before the economic collapse.
There are jus those moments when everything changes. Look at economic bubbles. It can all come crashing down in a single day.
9/11 changed everything, even though the day before and the day after were not part of some seperate timeline.
Second of all, no, the US was not attacked for its involvement in the middle-east. Al-Qaeda provided several reasons for their attack outside the middle-east. So even if the US had never been in the middle-east, the attack would still happen. To think that they are reactionairy is to think that they are logical and reasonable. They are not.
The government takes advantage of people's fear, there's nothing new here. And yeah... you're just proving my point, because what happened after World War One in terms of treaties, foreign policies, and etc. Is what lead to World War 2...
Just because people are traumatized doesn't turn right and wrong on its head.
Nobody said that.
But this idea that 9/11 was a trivial event that the US government could have moved away from without and changes, is ridiculous.
When I said world war 1 its clear that you didn't understand what I meant. Before world war 1 there was an incredible optimism in the western world. As if we were nearing a sort of end-game for society. People truly believed that we were on the track to the ultimate society. World war 1 undid that entire belief, whether it was ever true or not, and it did so in an insanely shocking fashion that left even people outside the war in disbelief.
After world war 1 this made way for an incredible cynical look at the world.
On February 08 2012 05:05 xDaunt wrote: Well, it's decision time for me. I'm in Colorado, and the caucus that I'll be attending is going to take place at 7 MST this evening. I still haven't decided whom I'll vote for. I'm really curious to see what other republicans think and why. In 2008, I was still in Boulder, and the caucus was basically a freak show of Ron Paul supporters. I'm guessing that I'll be around a more normal crowd this time now that I'm in the suburbs.
Freak show? as in they were wearing costumes? O_o
Also, Ron Paul nailed an interview yesterday:
Ron Paul supporters in Boulder are generally of the "I'm a dirty hippy who wants weed to be legalized" variety.
It was a game changer because the government made it a game changer.
There is no scenario in which the USA government would not have reacted the way that it did.
The government couldn't react any other way. Let's not pretend there is a scenario where the US government says "yo guys, everything is cool, lets move on and forget."
Well that's partially the problem. But I'm not talking about immediate reaction. Sure going after Osama Binladden can be justified, but the war propaganda that ensued against Iraq, and now Iran, as well as Syria, Egypt, and etcs...
None of that stuff was necessary.
The interesting thing about that video, is that George Bush was elected on a PEACEFUL platform. So there was one party that supported non-intervention to a large extent and it was the Republicans, the Democrats weren't the war mongers that the Republicans are today, but they were the ones who joined the conflict in Kosovo.
Now we have NO party that's non-intervention, everyone is ready to jump out there and "help people spread democracy."
How is it justified? It's not the Republicans are fear mongering, and the Democrats are doing it to place themselves on a "moral high-ground." We don't have an anti-war party any more and that's terrible, because our policy is going to cause a lot more wars, and war is a horrible thing, and it was horrible before 9/11 and it's still horrible now, so in that sense nothing has REALLY changed.
I live in New York city, and I lived here when the attack happened, and yes everyone including me was traumatized even if they haven't lost anyone in the tragedy, and those that did have obviously been hurt beyond repair, but the idea that a world is somehow a different place now has been pushed down our throats by the government.
The world wasn't a safer place before 9/11... as a matter of fact 9/11 was planned during the time before 9/11, so how are you gonna say that the world all of a sudden became a lot more dangerous after that, it's still the same world. And as for showing the US that they're not detached from the world... The US was NEVER detached from the world. We were already in Asia, and the middle-east previously, and that's what brought on the the hatred that inspired the 9/11 attacks in the first place, and as a result of these attacks we went even deeper with involvement in the middle-east, and now they hate us even more...
First of all, no, the world was not insanely safer the day before 9/11. But the banks were not any healthier the week before the economic collapse.
There are jus those moments when everything changes. Look at economic bubbles. It can all come crashing down in a single day.
9/11 changed everything, even though the day before and the day after were not part of some seperate timeline.
Second of all, no, the US was not attacked for its involvement in the middle-east. Al-Qaeda provided several reasons for their attack outside the middle-east. So even if the US had never been in the middle-east, the attack would still happen. To think that they are reactionairy is to think that they are logical and reasonable. They are not.
The government takes advantage of people's fear, there's nothing new here. And yeah... you're just proving my point, because what happened after World War One in terms of treaties, foreign policies, and etc. Is what lead to World War 2...
Just because people are traumatized doesn't turn right and wrong on its head.
Nobody said that.
But this idea that 9/11 was a trivial event that the US government could have moved away from without and changes, is ridiculous. [/quote]
Why should something like that change the country permanently? If anything it should have changed it in the other direction... get the troops out, stop influencing the middle-east it's obvious they're not happy with us there. Instead we go in and bomb these countries... how many kids have we left parentless? In 20 years they'll be back to try and avenge their parents, and when this type of thing happens again, are you going to try and justify a change of foreign policy to be EVEN more aggressive?
When I said world war 1 its clear that you didn't understand what I meant. Before world war 1 there was an incredible optimism in the western world. As if we were nearing a sort of end-game for society. People truly believed that we were on the track to the ultimate society. World war 1 undid that entire belief, whether it was ever true or not, and it did so in an insanely shocking fashion that left even people outside the war in disbelief.
After world war 1 this made way for an incredible cynical look at the world.
And this cynicism gave way to self-destructing foreign policies, just like 9/11 did, you would have hoped that people have learned their lesson, but fear is a dangerous thing, and it's most dangerous because a powerful central government never passes it as an opportunity to grab more power, and disenfranchise its people.
On February 08 2012 07:22 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On February 08 2012 05:05 xDaunt wrote: Well, it's decision time for me. I'm in Colorado, and the caucus that I'll be attending is going to take place at 7 MST this evening. I still haven't decided whom I'll vote for. I'm really curious to see what other republicans think and why. In 2008, I was still in Boulder, and the caucus was basically a freak show of Ron Paul supporters. I'm guessing that I'll be around a more normal crowd this time now that I'm in the suburbs.
I love Ron Paul, but sadly he's not going to be on par with Mitt Romney or Gingrich for that matter. Hopefully some of his ideas are absorbed by the front-runner though.
On a side note going to my first caucus tonight! Though it's Republican, and I'm pretty liberal. Though I'm interested in what they are going to converse about.
Ron Paul supporters in Boulder are generally of the "I'm a dirty hippy who wants weed to be legalized" variety.
That implication is just ignorant. Al Qaeda is an extreme sect of Islam but we don't use them to label the whole religion. Fred Phelps is an extreme example of Christian intolerance but if I used him as a prime example of Christianity that would be stupid wouldn't it?
I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and I know he won't win the nomination over Mitt Romney, but I have been so impressed at the amount of support he has had in the polls, makes me realize there is hope for this country some day soon, even if it isn't this time around. Sadly we as a nation will have to endure a lot more pain to learn the lessons before we are finally willing to take the hard steps people like Dr. Paul have been calling for.
On February 08 2012 08:35 Sovano wrote: I love Ron Paul, but sadly he's not going to be on par with Mitt Romney or Gingrich for that matter. Hopefully some of his ideas are absorbed by the front-runner though.
On a side note going to my first caucus tonight! Though it's Republican, and I'm pretty liberal. Though I'm interested in what they are going to converse about.
It'll be cool if you can do a writeup of your caucus experience for us who live in primary states!
Ron Paul supporters in Boulder are generally of the "I'm a dirty hippy who wants weed to be legalized" variety.
That implication is just ignorant. Al Qaeda is an extreme sect of Islam but we don't use them to label the whole religion. Fred Phelps is an extreme example of Christian intolerance but if I used him as a prime example of Christianity that would be stupid wouldn't it?
You think I'm exaggerating? You should have seen these people. Besides, it's Boulder, Colorado. You really shouldn't be surprised.
Ron Paul supporters in Boulder are generally of the "I'm a dirty hippy who wants weed to be legalized" variety.
That implication is just ignorant. Al Qaeda is an extreme sect of Islam but we don't use them to label the whole religion. Fred Phelps is an extreme example of Christian intolerance but if I used him as a prime example of Christianity that would be stupid wouldn't it?
You think I'm exaggerating? You should have seen these people. Besides, it's Boulder, Colorado. You really shouldn't be surprised.
Visited Boulder a month ago, and I have to agree with this. Plenty of normal people, obviously, but definitely no shortage of "hippies."
On February 08 2012 08:27 Kiarip wrote: And this cynicism gave way to self-destructing foreign policies, just like 9/11 did, you would have hoped that people have learned their lesson, but fear is a dangerous thing, and it's most dangerous because a powerful central government never passes it as an opportunity to grab more power, and disenfranchise its people.
I'm still going to disagree with the premise behind your argument. With what happened to our country that day, we had to make a united and forceful retaliation. And at the end of the day, that retaliation in some form had to be an operation in the Middle East--there is no denying this no matter how complicated you want to get with political theories.
On February 08 2012 08:32 Rabbet wrote: Calling it now, MItt Romney is going to win but Ron Paul will be on the ticket as his vice.
I've wondered about this. Is this even a possibility? Would be awesome, but I'm not so sure... They don't exactly see eye-to-eye on a lot of things.
The way Ron Paul defends Romney and never attacks him makes me wary of this actually happening. However, I honestly can't see, and hope that he doesn't sell out like that.
Well to be fair, nobody attacks RP during debates, and vice versa. I saw Santorum call him out on his abortion voting record once, and he ended up looking like a dope because RP played the gynecologist card.
Imagine RP getting a mormon to legalize marijuana. I'd laugh.. and then promptly get high.
On February 08 2012 08:32 Rabbet wrote: Calling it now, MItt Romney is going to win but Ron Paul will be on the ticket as his vice.
I've wondered about this. Is this even a possibility? Would be awesome, but I'm not so sure... They don't exactly see eye-to-eye on a lot of things.
The way Ron Paul defends Romney and never attacks him makes me wary of this actually happening. However, I honestly can't see, and hope that he doesn't sell out like that.
Err, you're kididng right.
He's blasted Romney so many times in debates/adds. Probably more so than Gingrich
On February 08 2012 08:27 Kiarip wrote: And this cynicism gave way to self-destructing foreign policies, just like 9/11 did, you would have hoped that people have learned their lesson, but fear is a dangerous thing, and it's most dangerous because a powerful central government never passes it as an opportunity to grab more power, and disenfranchise its people.
I'm still going to disagree with the premise behind your argument. With what happened to our country that day, we had to make a united and forceful retaliation. And at the end of the day, that retaliation in some form had to be an operation in the Middle East--there is no denying this no matter how complicated you want to get with political theories.
I couldnt think of anything more fitting than this song after I read that comment
EPT
