You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

9/11

Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 12:51am

Post 1 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

While I personally didn't know anyone harmed by the events of the day, for all the lost souls of the horrible events of September 11, 2001- our blessings are with your families. I can't believe no one has said anything about the 6th anniversary of it, yet. (6 years, whoa.)

If this has already been posted, I apologize.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 1:58am

Post 2 of 101

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

As much as I feel for everyone who lost someone in the towers, Pentagon, or crash in PA, I think it's time for America to move on. It was six years ago, the dust has cleared, and we're back on our feet. </end0.02¢>

Here's to everyone who lost someone they cared about on that terrible day.

TimmyD
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 1:58am

Post 3 of 101

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

I was at home sick and watched it live on tv, the day it happened, the next day everyone was real quite.

I really cant believe my school didn't do anything today like an extended "moment of silence" or something. Hmmmm... sad stuff, a lot of people have been in paranoia about airplanes since then including my mom...

It might have been 6 years ago but it doesn't fill like it.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 2:11am

Post 4 of 101

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I still remember all the teachers whispering about it and not really telling us anything the day of. A few of my friends lost loved ones in the towers and its always going to be tough.

And I'm not really sure what you mean by its time to move on. It may have been six years but its weird how memory and time really don't apply to tragedies. My best friend died a couple years ago and I can remember every second of that day and it feels like its yesterday. And I'm sure thats the same for anyone who has lost anybody or gone through a tramatic experience, and 9/11 was a tramatic time even for those nowhere near NYC.

I really don't think there is anything wrong with remembering 9/11 every time it comes by. Hell, the least it does is always bring the country together.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 2:31am

Post 5 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2/-1

Ok, this is re-edit number 3 of this post. (This is hard to put delicately)

I will always remember 9/11 and carry it with me for as long as I live. I will never ever forget where I was, etc. I will never forget how it shaped an entirely new course of world events, and I will never ever disrespect those who died.

However, I agree with Timmy completely. I don't see any PEARL HARBOR threads every December 7th. I don't see any threads on the anniversary of the Titanic, or of even other recent terrorist attacks in foreign countries.

This thread is almost as redundant as saying "the sky is blue". Saying it once every year doesn't make you a better person or make it any more right.

9/11 is more than a day now. Its defined an entirely new era of history. I'm sure historians looking back on this time period will say that the world of 9/10/01 was drastically different from the world of 9/12/01.

I will always hold the deepest sympathies in my heart for those who lost loved ones on that day, but we have more to worry about right now. We have American Soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. People who volunteered to put their lives in immense danger, and weren't simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The world is changed because of 9/11, and while the past must be acknowledged, the present and future are our only hope to redeem the lives lost on that day 6 years ago.


Once again, this was my third re-edit of this post, because my first two attempts didn't capture what I wanted to say and sounded way more insulting. I really don't mean to be mean or rude in any way, and I hope that comes across in the above post.

EDIT: And before anyone goes blindly hating on me, keep in mind that the creator of THIS thread would have done the same:

http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15463&highlight=sep+11th

Oh how times have changed.

Last edited Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 3:35am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 3:08am

Post 6 of 101

xanetia

Force: 2524 | Joined: 12th Feb 2007 | Posts: 173

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

*removed with hindsight*
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 3:15am

Post 7 of 101

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

Once again, this was my third re-edit of this post, because my first two attempts didn't capture what I wanted to say and sounded way more insulting. I really don't mean to be mean or rude in any way, and I hope that comes across in the above post.
Hehe, I originally had tossed some "I don't think we know the entire picture of what happened" stuff into my post, but took it out, figuring I'd be the center of some attack. Your post is good for a third edit biggrin
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 3:33am

Post 8 of 101

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

I think it is appropriate to remember that day six years ago. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing. It was a life changing event. My sympathies go out as well to those who's loved ones died on that terrible day. But let's not just focus on that.

I also want to acknowlegde those heroes who died, and lived, trying to save those trapped inside those two towers. For what those men and women did, I think its appropriate to repeat my praise each year at least once, if not more. Because they are true heroes and that never gets redundant.

Perhaps the reason why you don't see a thread about Pearl Harbor on the FXhome forums is because none of us were alive at that time, and that event never really effected us directly. I can assure you that there are memorial services all over the country every year on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor.

Evman I appreciate your post. However, the world has been changed as you said, but we can't forget what changed it. We must remember those who died, so we can truly redeem their deaths. If saying "the sky is blue" had any realistic value to any of us. Then I would be saying it everyday.

It may be redundant to some of you, but to be fair there is no harm done. We can't discourage people to not share experiences about this horrible day just because there are no pearl Harbor threads. If someone wants to create a anniversary thread for PH. Be my guest.

Thanks Atom for this thread. I was actually just getting on to create a similar thread, when I saw this. So thanks again.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 3:38am

Post 9 of 101

xanetia

Force: 2524 | Joined: 12th Feb 2007 | Posts: 173

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

We must remember those who died, so we can truly redeem their deaths.
I hope you just picked a bad choice of word in "redeem", or im reading it wrong. Cause although to americans that wording *may* sound patriotic, to me it sounds like revenge and schoolboy fighting with guns.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 3:41am

Post 10 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I've just edited the end of my post to add some perspective.

Just take a look through that thread and see how much change someone can go through in just three years.

ssj john, thanks for appreciating and understanding my post. I'm just waiting for people who are exactly like I used to be to come hating on me, and here I get your thoughtful and insightful post. Thanks.

I understand what you're saying about not forgetting what changed the world... but honestly... will you EVER forget it? I know I won't. I don't need to be reminded of that day, as it is a part of our culture and something that has defined the world stage. I don't think anyone who witnessed it live will ever forget it. Ever.

Our only problem will be educating children born post 9/11 of its significance... a task that will need to be taken by the schools if responsible parents don't explain exactly what the day means.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 4:01am

Post 11 of 101

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

I think we are interpreting the word "remember" differently. Yes, my mind may never actually "forget" what happened that day. But when saying "remember" I talking on a bit deeper level.

For some of us, we don't need to talk about that day. Thats absolutely o.k. But I think it not fair to discourage those who want to vocally honor those heroes. I don't think anyone on this thread actually believes that posting makes them a "better person." At least I don't.

I appreciate you evman for taking the time, and re-editing your post. That shows you do care about what your trying to say and have respect for what others are expressing. I think thats a practice that I and the others on this forum could try more often.

For me, talking about the emotions I felt on that day, helps me maintain my respect for the heroes of that day. But we all have our different ways of dealing with things, and I hope that we all can have respect for that.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 4:51am

Post 12 of 101

xanetia

Force: 2524 | Joined: 12th Feb 2007 | Posts: 173

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Just as a small note to those in america who do not have the priveledge of a non american view. Starting a topic on this can very quickly stray into restricted discussion matter. If I elaborate it will become restricted, just as a warning.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 6:18am

Post 13 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

xanetia wrote:

Just as a small note to those in america who do not have the priveledge of a non american view. Starting a topic on this can very quickly stray into restricted discussion matter. If I elaborate it will become restricted, just as a warning.
While I'm sure we appreciate the warning, I really don't think it was necessary. While everyone seems to be at different odds with the events/remembrance, we're all wary of eachothers opinion, and 9/11 is something that I am almost positive cannot be refuted by anyone of any nationality as a very, very sad yet heroic day.

You may have forgotten Timmy, and that's fine, but don't say 'the dust has cleared, let's move on'. It wasn't Pearl Harbor 60 years ago, it was 6. And for those of us who have grown almost into adults since then, it's a real thing now to look back on.

At least, that's what I think. My school didn't even do a moment of silence, as if the thing never existed, and that's something that bothered me. You don't have to grieve, but don't be oblivious to something that, quite frankly, shouldn't be.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 7:57am

Post 14 of 101

skywalker dan

Force: 684 | Joined: 7th May 2005 | Posts: 190

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

i also think its important to remember the events of 9/11. over here in the uk the bbc has shown like a week of programs dealing with the subject, i have watched all of them with great interest. i cant even imagine what some people must of gone through that day, the desisions they were forced to make, or the last calls home to freinds and family. truely a very sad time.

i also think its just as sad that six years later the man behind the attacks is still at large, is it just me or is that just weird? i mean how can that be? the biggest attack on american soil and the purpurtrator is still free. where is the justice there?

these days the news headlines are about iraq, and the war on terror (which is a stupid name by the way). have people forgoten that no iraqies were ever on those planes? has the world gone mad?

sd
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 8:21am

Post 15 of 101

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

It's interesting seeing people's different reactions to mass tragedy on this scale. There's often debate whenever anniversaries of this kind of thing comes round, as to whether it's 'worth it' or 'appropriate'.

Personally I don't mind either way - if people want to set aside a specific day to remember, that's fine by me.

As for myself, I don't tend to go in for the 'anniversary' thing. If something is important to me - as 9/11 certainly is - then I will remember it constantly. It's something I'm aware of and consider regularly. I don't need a specific day to 'remind' me, or to make me pause and consider.

It's the same reason I've never quite understood things like Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day etc. It's almost like they're designed for people that don't have time to actually be considerate of their partner/mother/father in 'normal' life, and thus have to be reminded or pressured into it. Which, of course, defeats the entire point.

Note that I'm not saying that is the case with this - 9/11 remembrance is considerably more important than the other examples above!

It's an interesting debate.

As for 9/11 - having a remembrance day seems unnecessary to me, as 9/11 is all around us in every facet of society, politics etc. But if you want to remember it, then don't let anybody stop you. smile
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 3:22pm

Post 16 of 101

neoglitz

Force: 1011 | Joined: 15th Dec 2005 | Posts: 156

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

xanetia wrote:

Just as a small note to those in america who do not have the priveledge of a non american view.
The "privilege" of a non American view? What does that mean exactly?

Please, keep this thread in perspective. This is about remembering those who died that tragic day, not about the who, what or why the event occurred.


Above banner produced thanks to Ben3308
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 5:34pm

Post 17 of 101

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

xanetia wrote:

Just as a small note to those in america who do not have the priveledge of a non american view. Starting a topic on this can very quickly stray into restricted discussion matter. If I elaborate it will become restricted, just as a warning.
This will probably get deleted, but... if the "non-American view" means "omgz teh bush and conservatives did 9/11," you're more than wise to keep it out of here. Sadly, that isn't at all a non-American view, it is now being acknowledged as a mainstream leftist position to take, even if bin Laden himself basically admitted to it (again) in his most recent video to America. Clearly he was paid by the (evil) neo-cons to say that. And steel doesn't melt at 700 degrees, it just loses half it's strength.

That had to be said.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 7:12pm

Post 18 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Yeah 9/11 conspiracy theories are the most bogus things I've ever heard (aside from "WE DIDN' LAYND ON TEH MOOOONZ!!1?"... THAT is absolutely ridiculous and every single thing about that theory can be debunked), and "almost" every shred of evidence saying that it didn't really happen or was planned by the gov't can be easily debunked with common sense (although there is ONE thing that I can't figure out, but it's minor.)
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 8:09pm

Post 19 of 101

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

Bin Laden himself basically admitted to it (again) in his most recent video to America.
Out of interest, is the video to which you refer the one with a still (library?) image and a v/o? Whilst not challenging it's authenticity, it would be pretty easy for anyone here to make a video like that in about 20 minutes - it leaves me wondering why OBL, the head of this super-coordinated international terrorist organisation, can't just shoot a 5-minute video on a handycam/mobile phone holding up that day's newspaper to prove he's still a living threat...
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 9:25pm

Post 20 of 101

xanetia

Force: 2524 | Joined: 12th Feb 2007 | Posts: 173

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sorry if my wording was a little off, I was getting a little annoyed with these conversations yesterday, on a different forum.

As a GENERALISED statement, some people I know, me included have found that americans seem to think they are the center of the world (Not on this forum thankfully).

I apologise for my, intactfully worded reply yesterday as I stupidly let my temper get the better of me.

NOTE: For those interested the incident was on LOTRO forums where some american players had tried to enforce a 5 minute truce in an ingame PVP zone on the american and oceanic server, then complained when a non american interrupted.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 9:35pm

Post 21 of 101

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

The only thing about 9/11 I don't understand is why the government will not release the hundreds of security footage showing the plane hit the Pentagon. Almost immediately after the plane hit, the FBI showed up at every location that had the attack on camera, and confiscated the footage. Why?
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 10:53pm

Post 22 of 101

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I actually know someone who lived across the WTC and was at home the day it happened. We were at a graduation travel in Madrid at the time and the guy was a former class member, so he gave us a call and told us what happened before it was in the world wide news. Then the line got cut and we didn't hear from him for a whole 3 days.
He was okay, though was right in the middle of everything when the towers collapsed. Hence ironically I have some sort of personal connection to the whole thing, depite being non-american.

People die every day and it's always sad, especially when it hits the so called "innocent people", which are unfortunately the most common victims. So a salute to all of them who had to die and to those who lost someone. Not only during 9/11, but all the other days of the year in all those years and all the other countries in the rest of the world.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 11:25pm

Post 23 of 101

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

TimmyD wrote:

The only thing about 9/11 I don't understand is why the government will not release the hundreds of security footage showing the plane hit the Pentagon. Almost immediately after the plane hit, the FBI showed up at every location that had the attack on camera, and confiscated the footage. Why?
LOLz ITS CUZ TEH GVMENT CAUZD 9?11

Seriously though, you have to admit that pretty suspicious. Many people believe a rocket hit the pentagon, which is totally possible. Why they would confiscate the footage so hastily is beyond me.

9/11 is something I'll always remember, and it's something that happened in my lifetime, which is sort of scary. Still, we should honor those that died in the towers, and on the planes. Those stories are oh so tragic. Especially the ones of the people calling their families telling them that they're not going to make it. I mean, wow, that would be hard.

I think we should still keep it in the back of our head that such a catastrophe took place on September 11th, but people shouldn't be acting like it just happened.

A very large part of my family lives in New York, and my cousin's fiancée went into ground zero with detecters to try to find survivors. He didn't find one, and he went insane. He locked himself in his room for over a week.

Anyway, I send my regards to those who died in that event, and I wish the families affected comfort.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 11:28pm

Post 24 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I just hate it when the replay the videos over and over on days like 9/11...It's like replaying the recent spinal chord injury for that football player of the Buffalo Bills...Why make people see replay after replay, over and over again. It's pointless.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 11:30pm

Post 25 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

xanetia wrote:


As a GENERALISED statement, some people I know, me included have found that americans seem to think they are the center of the world (Not on this forum thankfully)
I realized your statement is entirely generalized, but that doesn't mean you can just say things like that. Thankfully Americans don't think they are the center of the world on this forum? Wake up, man, this forum is probably one of the best representatives of America. A multitude of opinions, races, ideologies, and residing-states make up the American users on this site. If you're going to judge 'Americans', generalize us too.

Because really, you're talking to real Americans, lots of them from all over, and if your impression from conversing with lots of us is that we're not as self-centered as we're played up to be- that should be it.

And just to play devil's advocate, let's not forget that America is one of the economic big-wigs, a melting pot of many, many cultures, and a major superpower on the planet. It's not entirely crazy, or delusions of grandeur, to believe it might be one of the main centers of the world.
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 11:39pm

Post 26 of 101

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Just as a moderating sidenote and reminder:

Watch that this thread doesn't wander into deleting area...
Posted: Wed, 12th Sep 2007, 11:48pm

Post 27 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar - I hope it won't but I think we're trying our best to keep it civil.


xanetia - keep in mind that you can't generalize America based on a few people. Unfortunately, as is almost always the case when a group is being judged, the loudest, most annoying people get the most attention.

You may see Americans as self loving, world hating bastards, but honestly, you can't possibly say that. If you lived here for even a year (or less, in fact), you would see that the majority of American aren't as you so deftly describe.

Saying "Americans think they're the center of the world" is like saying "Muslims wear turbans and fly airplanes into buildings". Sure, there are some Americans that think that and some Muslims that do that, but that in no way means that the majority of the group do as well.

Just watch out for stereotyping Americans, because you may not realize it, but it can be just as bad if not worse than some of the things that those certain "louder more annoying" Americans say. It ends up sounding ridiculously hypocritical, IMO.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 12:00am

Post 28 of 101

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

My entire life I've been sick of this "the world vs. America" where, for some reason- maybe because we're one of the largest superpowers in the world, I dunno- everyone seems to hate America and think that they've got some level of knowledge above Americans.

Like you're 'in the know', but if you're American you must be too self-involved to care. That's some pathetic sh.it.

Same thing, because I'm Texan, most of northern America would consider me too stupid or incoherent to be knowledgeable about anything, what with my dopey accent and ten-gallon hat.

Quit the generalizations, man. I've had enough.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 1:30am

Post 29 of 101

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

One of my Mom's best friend's husbands, a very close family friend, worked in the towers and he took a vacation day to be with his family that day (it wasn't a significant day, just pure luck.) That's my closest connection to 9/11, and I have a few family members who reside in New York City. I'm with Evman, Tarn, and what Timmyd was trying to say. 9/11 is a huge day that changed the course of history, very sad day. But Tarn's post said it all for me. I think we should definitely think back on it on 9/11, it's only natural. A moment of silence in schools would be nice, mine did it (public school). Anyways, my thoughts go out to families who were deeply affected by 9/11 and the war, but they always do, not just on September 11th. But the fact that the day is 9/11 is going to be a reminder no matter what, though.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 1:38am

Post 30 of 101

xanetia

Force: 2524 | Joined: 12th Feb 2007 | Posts: 173

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I am sorry all for insulting anyone.

I take my leave.

Sorry Sollthar for getting you involved.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 1:51am

Post 31 of 101

irishcult

Force: 1965 | Joined: 6th Jul 2005 | Posts: 440

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

i havnt read all the replys in this but for 9/11 my school did have a moment of silence and also played taps on the bugle seeing how we have 3 bugle players at are school. It was really nice to know that its still remembered after 6 years.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 3:14am

Post 32 of 101

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

xanetia wrote:

As a GENERALISED statement, some people I know, me included have found that americans seem to think they are the center of the world (Not on this forum thankfully).
While that's not entirely untrue, there are Americans (some of them in office) who seem to hold that opinion, it's a pretty good obvious thing that... a lot of Americans whom you may be in contact with will probably want to vocally announce their voices for 9/11.

Yes, it was six years ago... but so what? I regret to admit that Osama bin Laden was quite right in his most recent video, when he said that 19 young "recruits" (I hesitate to refer to them as martyrs or whatever he used) altered the course of not only the most powerful nation on Earth, but they altered the course of global politics entirely. America, the invincible, had blood drawn. 3,000 people were mercilessly killed by a foreign attack that took place on our own, home soil, for the first time in our country's existence.

I can't really say I fault Americans for remembering this day each and every year. It's one day, and seriously, does it hurt to remember? I don't think so. A year ago, 3,000 people went to work perfectly normally that day. They toasted and buttered their bread exactly as they would have any other day. They drove their cars and parked where they would've any other day. We still remember Pearl Harbor, I think remembering September 11th is well in order.

That said, I feel very strongly that we should also acknowledge the losses suffered by our allies abroad, Britain on July 7th 2005 and Spain on March 11th, 2004. They suffered because they supported us -- and that is unacceptable.

xanetia wrote:

For those interested the incident was on LOTRO forums where some american players had tried to enforce a 5 minute truce in an ingame PVP zone on the american and oceanic server, then complained when a non american interrupted.
I, personally, believe that remembrance of 9/11, while important, is something of a personal nature. I'd think it'd be pretty weird if the average Joe came up to me and said, "Hey, want to shut up with me for a minute to remember 9/11?" That's... creepy. It was creepy when a friend of mine called me and -- very dramatically -- said that he wanted me to remember 9/11, as if, for some reason, I wouldn't.

Maybe I'm just a prick to good-intentioned people, but frankly, stuff like this should be a matter of choice. I chose to participate in this thread, a remembrance of 9/11. I chose to remember 9/11, and salute the half-mast flag on F.E. Warren AFB. That's my thing, it's personal, and I'll keep it that way -- because these sorts of things tend to make people uncomfortable when forced upon them. It's kind of like religion, to a lesser degree.

So, I can't really blame you for groaning at some guys wanting to interrupt your gameplay to remember 9/11. I'm sure the victims of 9/11 wouldn't have been irritated by your continuing to have fun -- so... that goes without saying. That said, someone who has the balls to complain about a 9/11 remembrance thingy might ALSO be a prick...

...but anyways. That's my thinking on that.

TimmyD wrote:

The only thing about 9/11 I don't understand is why the government will not release the hundreds of security footage showing the plane hit the Pentagon. Almost immediately after the plane hit, the FBI showed up at every location that had the attack on camera, and confiscated the footage. Why?
Several reasons, I'm sure. I'm in the Wyoming Air National Guard, I possess a top secret clearance. That doesn't mean I know anything really cool, but... frankly, if you were in my shoes, you might be not be surprised at some of the stuff that you will never ever see. Some of it, to me, seems absurd! I'm like, "What? I can't take this outside of the building?" And the answer is most absolutely not.

Quite honestly, the rule that I've observed is as such: If something has been around something highly classified, it, too, will be classified.

So... images of the Pentagon (read: the command center for the United States Armed Forces) being struck by a Boeing 757 (because that's definitely what hit it) probably won't be released to the public for a really long time.

And, maybe, the Generals that decide what gets classified and what doesn't get a good laugh from conspiracy theories, so they keep egging them on by doing stuff like that. biggrin

ben3308 wrote:

Same thing, because I'm Texan, most of northern America would consider me too stupid or incoherent to be knowledgeable about anything, what with my dopey accent and ten-gallon hat.

Quit the generalizations, man. I've had enough.
Hear, hear, from the Wyoming kid. I don't have a funny accent, though. Mahaha!

xanetia wrote:

I am sorry all for insulting anyone.

I take my leave.
I really don't think anyone was insulted here, just... taken aback. Hey, as long as you're not a 9/11-conspiracy-extremist-moron, we're cool! biggrin
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 3:21am

Post 33 of 101

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

You know guys, there is one very simple and easy way to see what "most" Americans are really like.

The 2008 elections. Don't f*ck this one up smile
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 3:44am

Post 34 of 101

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

You know guys, there is one very simple and easy way to see what "most" Americans are really like.

The 2008 elections. Don't f*ck this one up smile
Nice Colbert reference.

If both parties choose pr*cks I'll be angry. Extremely angry. But I won't be one of the Americans who f*cks it up. I will do my research and vote for who appears to be the right person. Americans don't have much say in our political system unless they dedicate their lives to becoming politicians. Most people in power who chose that course are horrible (exaggerating for effect) people.

Anyways, this election is going to be huge (all are, but this one will be interesting, especially since I can vote smile). It'll be interesting to see someone other than Bush in a "post 9-11" world, and I hope whoever we (by we I mean our electoral college) elect does some justice for our current situation.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 3:49am

Post 35 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky: Ready to get Clintonified?


*waits for Evman to cover his face and sigh.

This election will be interesting, as the Age of New Children- who were the most prominent speakers in the 2004 FXHome debate- will be voting for the first time, mostly. (My bets, although I'm a total liberal, are on McCain right now. Gotta respect a conservative with liberal ideals who was tortured for years on-end.)

Last edited Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 3:53am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 3:51am

Post 36 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

That is why if you are of legal voting age, you need to vote for Ron Paul.


Atom wrote:

Pooky: Ready to get Clintonified?


*waits for Evman to cover his face and sigh.

This election will be interesting, as the Age of New Children- who were the most prominent speakers in the 2004 FXHome debate- will be voting for the first time, mostly. (My bets, although I'm a total liberal, are on McCain right now. Gotta respect a conservative with liberal ideals who was tortured for years on-end.)
Although he's not my candidate, I'm not sure how you call McCain someone with liberal ideals.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:10am

Post 37 of 101

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: -1

Indeed, I STRONGLY urge any american old enough to vote in the 2008 elections to go on YouTube and watch a couple of Ron Paul videos. He is quite amazing, the very definition of what used to be the american spirit, and he is extremely passionate about his (completely logical and reasoning) points, not to mention that the man simply does not lie.

Now, most news outlets will say that he has no chance, which is possibly true, mainly because most news outlets say he has no chance. If I were American, I'd register as a Republican (even if I'm more of a neutral voter) and vote for him as their candidate, even knowing he might not win. I mean, you can always vote Democrat otherwise.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:16am

Post 38 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." - Gandhi.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:20am

Post 39 of 101

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." - Gandhi.
Wow... creepy. They were ignoring him up until recently, and if you watch the Fox News debate (somehow 33% of Fox News viewers voted that Ron Paul won), they were making fun of him and Giuliani was actually laughing whenever Ron talked.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:28am

Post 40 of 101

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Huckabee. Giuliani. Or McCain. Then Ron Paul, and then maybe Hilary.

Why Republican front-runners? Well, not because I like the party particularly (rather opposed to it, actually) but it's because I think Hilary and Obama both lack the correct experience (both only junior senators, more experience needed, IMO) to command a whole country, and I'm afraid voting anyone else in the Democratic party will prove to little avail.

McCain has an exit strategy for Iraq, which I like, and he knows his stuff about the toll war can take on people- having been kidnapped and tortured as a POW for over nine years of his life- so I'm betting he'll have some good ideas as to how to get things going as President of the United States. I'm not saying he's particularly the best candidate for the job, but he would no doubt make a good leader of the free world.

Huckabee, on the other hand, has some moderate ideas, so does Giuliani. When we discussed their party affiliations in my AP Government class, we all decided that they simply adopted the Republican platform to strategically gain the right amount of votes. Short of that, both are close to being Libertarians. Giuliani is pro-choice and supports gay marriage. Sound like any republican you know? Not really...

Ron Paul is indeed a good choice. I may actually vote for him as time goes on, I'll have to see how things go.

Oh, and abotu having a Texan accent: I don't have one in the slightest. I've been told I have a mild NY accent, but nothing close to Texan. And I wouldn't begin to know where to find a ten-gallon hat; I was being so incredibly facetious it might've been hard to detect, heh.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:33am

Post 41 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

McCain having an exit strategy? He said the troop surge is working. He isn't pulling out anytime soon. And Guiliani being a libertarian? Did you mean liberal? With all do respect, this is ludicrous. National ID cards ring a bell? Seriously, wiki libertarian. You'll see Guiliani with a line through his head.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:41am

Post 42 of 101

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Giuliani said something along the lines of "Freedom is submitting to authority." once... that's the opposite of libertarian.

Ron Paul is extremely libertarian though, that's actually something that other R candidates accused him of.

Huckabee went on about how we shouldn't pull out of Iraq for "Honor" during the last debate, and I was surprised at how often he used the word. Reminded me of WWII-era japanese.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:42am

Post 43 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

*High Five* Pooky. You know your stuff. Let's get you down to the states and a green card smile
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:45am

Post 44 of 101

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

You'd be surprised... I watch everything regarding the US elections and nothing about Canadian politics, since you guys kind of own the world right now. Wish I could vote over there.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:58am

Post 45 of 101

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I support Ron Paul 1000%. I'm liberal and libertarian, Ron Paul seems like the right man for the job and that's how I'm voting, parties aside. Cutting back on all the government organizations is great and all, but I disagree on some of the cuts (and even if he were elected, I doubt he'd have enough power to cut any.) But some of the candidates more toward the authoritarian end are saying some almost fascist stuff on their home-front policies.

Also, listen to what Giuliani is saying. He is saying some scary stuff. Not to mention his debate tactics make me want to hit him (in the face, no less). I think he did some great stuff as Mayor of New York, but he could not run this country well in my opinion.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 4:58am

Post 46 of 101

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I'm not so sure I want a candidate who wants to pull out of Iraq.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:24am

Post 47 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

My government teacher today said it best:

"It comes down to this: Do you want a woman, a black guy, a Mormon, a 3-times-divorced playboy, or a crazy?"

I loved it.

EDIT: Screw it, I'm voting for Hillary after what I just saw. I loved Bill Clinton, and this made me laugh hysterically.

Last edited Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:30am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:30am

Post 48 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

My government teacher today said it best:

"It comes down to this: Do you want a woman, a black guy, a Mormon, a 3-times-divorced playboy, or a crazy?"

I loved it.
Speaking of stereotypes. To put it bluntly, your teacher is an asshole. God forbid he meant Ron Paul as the crazy. Anyways...

All the other candidates want to increase presidential power, when Ron Paul wants to limit them. A man running for office who wants to decrease the power of that office? Sounds like an honest man to me.

Regaurding Iraq, regardless if you think we should be there or not, we went against our own constitution in going there. Ron Paul introduced numerous bills giving the house an opportunity to actually declare war. (He stated he would not have voted for his own bill, but thought it necessary that if we were going to continue fighting a way, we ought to declare one.) He eve n introduced a bill that would have sanctioned our military and fighters to go and specifically look for Osama and the taliban and al queda instead of declaring war on a sovereign nation.

George W. recently met with the president or pm, (whichever it is) of South Korea. The South Korean leader begged W to declare a truce or an end to hostilities to the KOREAN war. GWB flatly declined. We need to strengthen our country and our own infrastructure and not go poking around the business of other countries. Everyone thinks 9/11 was this isolated incident because the terrorists "hate our freedom." There is something called BLOWBACK.

For those interested in more social libertarian issues, including privacy and taxes, you should check out the late Aaron Russo's film, America: Freedom to Fascism. It is available to watch for free on google video.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:32am

Post 49 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

No one is arguing with you or saying any other candidate is generally better, sbfmovieco. So chill. When the time comes, we'll discuss Ron Paul more in-depth. smile
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:34am

Post 50 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Just responding to pickle regarding iraq.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:36am

Post 51 of 101

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

My government teacher today said it best:

"It comes down to this: Do you want a woman, a black guy, a Mormon, a 3-times-divorced playboy, or a crazy?"
What?!? No retard? There's ALWAYS one in the group. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:38am

Post 52 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'd say Joe Biden, but frankly I like him the best out of ALL the candidates right now. Like an actual, smart person. Not just some puppet or clueless plan-reciter. Thank god my country makes it easy for me to choose between 2 candidates and parties when the time comes. All those choices. smile

Last edited Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:41am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:39am

Post 53 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Although I strongly agree with limiting the president's power and that of gov't in general, I don't think reducing the power of the commander in chief in a time of war is a good idea either (although I'm by no means advocating to enhance that power).

That is why I think for this election we need to select someone like McCain, with a strong military background, who knows what its like and what is at stake (the guy spent a significant portion of his life being tortured for his country's sake, I'm pretty sure he knows what's at stake for the troops over there), just to lead us through to what will hopefully be the end of this war.

Once things in Iraq have at least cooled off a bit under McCain, then we can start electing people (like Ron Paul?) who will limit the power of the presidency and the government, and straighten this mess out.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:42am

Post 54 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'd agree with you on that Evman, but the power Bush was never there in the first place. So the limiting of power would just take it down to what it should be, as specified in the constitution.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:43am

Post 55 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

Although I strongly agree with limiting the president's power and that of gov't in general, I don't think reducing the power of the commander in chief in a time of war is a good idea either (although I'm by no means advocating to enhance that power).

That is why I think for this election we need to select someone like McCain, with a strong military background, who knows what its like and what is at stake (the guy spent a significant portion of his life being tortured for his country's sake, I'm pretty sure he knows what's at stake for the troops over there), just to lead us through to what will hopefully be the end of this war.

Once things in Iraq have at least cooled off a bit under McCain, then we can start electing people (like Ron Paul?) who will limit the power of the presidency and the government, and straighten this mess out.
I hate to say it, as Evman and I have always split harshly on politics, but I agree. Almost completely.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:52am

Post 56 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

It's at least good to see young people passionate about the process.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 5:55am

Post 57 of 101

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Atom wrote:

My government teacher today said it best:

"It comes down to this: Do you want a woman, a black guy, a Mormon, a 3-times-divorced playboy, or a crazy?"

I loved it.

EDIT: Screw it, I'm voting for Hillary after what I just saw. I loved Bill Clinton, and this made me laugh hysterically.
woah woah atom, I'd be very careful with that comment, even though it wasn't you who said, I still would not have posted that. Thats a very offensive comment. Suggesting that voting for a women, or a black, or a mormon is as bad as voting for someone who is mentally unstable? That's rediculous, in my eye's we shouldn't even be focusing on facts like gender race or religion.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 6:38pm

Post 58 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Upon doing some research on Ron Paul, I'm beginning to really like the guy.

That being said, I think he'd make a much better peacetime president than a wartime one... which is ashame, because he looks like he's getting on in years and this might be one of his last shots.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 8:00pm

Post 59 of 101

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Yes, PLEASE do vote Ron Paul. He's a great guy, pretty much a Libertarian running as a Republican.

Atom, I'm going to be frank with you and tell you that Hillary Clinton is one of the worst choices to vote imo. The same goes to her husband: They lie in peoples faces. After all the accusations to Bush for 'not stopping 9/11' Clinton is a complete hypocrite. That article is pretty much showing that Clinton, not Bush had chances to stop Bin Laden(and possibly 9/11).

I'm not trying to point fingers here, it's just I think the media really harps on Bush. Have you noticed you never see anything pointing out the Democrat's flaws? It's always the Republicans doing something wrong. I don't hate democrats, or their beliefs, just some of the people that represent them drive me nuts.

Sorry to sound so harsh, it's just I can't stand it when people are treated so unfairly.

*Tries to keep a friendly tone
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 8:40pm

Post 60 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Everyone should share their own piece of the pie in this blame game. The fbi/cia knew that there were students being trained on how to take off in planes but not land them. And why do these organizations get so much money? Beats me.
Posted: Thu, 13th Sep 2007, 11:47pm

Post 61 of 101

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

All the other candidates want to increase presidential power, when Ron Paul wants to limit them. A man running for office who wants to decrease the power of that office?
Actually, that's quite a conservative mantra... but that's nothing new. Or special. A whole bunch of people have either tried to cut or extend executive power throughout the years, it's really nothing new -- because, quite frankly, it isn't superbly relevant in modern American politics. Put simply, the President doesn't have much power outside of defense and foreign affairs.

Now, a candidate who would seek to de-corrupt and clean Washington, with a particular look at Congress? Totally different. That NEEDS to be done, desperately. In what occupation can you be blithely absent from your duties, while still deciding your own rate of pay? To teh best of my knowledge, there's only one job like that in America, and that is that of the Congressman. If someone wanted to fix that... they'd have a really good chance at my vote.

sfbmovieco wrote:

Regaurding Iraq, regardless if you think we should be there or not, we went against our own constitution in going there.
No, we didn't. The president possesses the power to use military force, for a limited time. After that, Congress needs to either declare war, or authorize him to use military force (which is what they did in Iraq). Declaration of war or not, the point is -- the president can't arbitrarily go ransacking countries with our military for no reason -- Congress has to approve it.

They did.

sfbmovieco wrote:

He eve n introduced a bill that would have sanctioned our military and fighters to go and specifically look for Osama and the taliban and al queda instead of declaring war on a sovereign nation.
That isn't even remotely relevant anymore, and frankly, it was stupid to think that it was relevant in the first place. Osama and the Taliban are, more or less, defeated foes. I mean, sure, Osama makes a video here and there but... not terribly much. Focusing on him or the Taliban would be a grand waste of manpower and resources -- the point now is to get Iraq on it's feet and stable enough to where we can leave without worry that they'll collapse into civil war. If it takes twenty years, so be it. We started it, we better damn well finish it.

It's almost laughable, the people who consider our 4,000 losses in Iraq as a horrible waste of life are the same people who would make their deaths all go in vain by USING their deaths as a reason to pull out.

sfbmovieco wrote:

We need to strengthen our country and our own infrastructure and not go poking around the business of other countries.
Yeah. We tried that. Twice. If I recall correctly, World Wars I and II followed shortly after both attempts to quit meddling. While I don't agree that we need to be in hundreds of countries around the globe, I don't think we need to be here in our own country. We are a rich and powerful country -- we should be using our advantages to help the rest of the world out.

sfbmovieco wrote:

Everyone thinks 9/11 was this isolated incident because the terrorists "hate our freedom." There is something called BLOWBACK.
9/11 was a fairly isolated incident. As far as I know, we didn't really do anything to deserve it, Osama just failed to take down the Twin Towers the first time.

Evman wrote:

Although I strongly agree with limiting the president's power and that of gov't in general, I don't think reducing the power of the commander in chief in a time of war is a good idea either (although I'm by no means advocating to enhance that power).
No more emergency powers to the Emperor! Noooo!

Fill wrote:

Atom, I'm going to be frank with you and tell you that Hillary Clinton is one of the worst choices to vote imo.
I whole-heartedly agree.

Fill wrote:

That article is pretty much showing that Clinton, not Bush had chances to stop Bin Laden(and possibly 9/11).
Yes, we all remember what Clinton did to strike back at Bin Laden after he attacked the USS Cole. He launched two whole one-hundred-and-fifty million dollar cruise missiles at two (count 'em, yep, TWO) abandoned terrorist training camps in Yemen.

Weakest. Response. EVER.

Fill wrote:

I'm not trying to point fingers here, it's just I think the media really harps on Bush.
I completely agree. What really irks me is how people who have never been to Iraq, who've never been in the heat of an intelligence organization... can point fingers and place blame. Hell, the entire Iraq War is a "failure" because the media said so. These are people who spend their lives either on camera, or on the internet, in protective shelters provided by the UN or the Department of Defense.

America's resolve these days is to contemplate retreat after 4,000 losses? I realize that's a grim way of looking at it, but... come on. We started a war in that country... and that's about it. How about letting us finish it, so that... you know... twenty years from now, some neo-Bin Laden blows up the Chrysler Building and the Sears Tower because we screwed over Iraq so much.

Gah. I need to stop.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 12:30am

Post 62 of 101

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Nice post Pickle.

Here's what irks me though: one of the three reasons given in the 9/11 report for why they did it was that the US had bases in Saudi holy land. The very meddling that is supposed to stop the terrorists is actually strengthening their resolve, because they don't want a an occupying military force (who the hell does?). Also, I don't understand how anyone could still claim that taking out Iraq was 'policing the world'. It was clearly not.

This is really similar to Vietnam: huge protests calling for retreat, while the government kept repeating the same years-old arguments about how retreating would collapse the country and that we must respect our honor. Look at Vietnam now: it's doing fine! Personally, I care more about the lives of the living soldiers than the honor of the dead ones... why kill more if there is no reason to be there in the first place?
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 1:13am

Post 63 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Fill, you can't just tell me who is the weakest. Frankly, you really have no idea. It's all opinion anyway. I loved Clinton to death and as much as people may get on him for his scandal (which, you know more goes on behind closed-doors with other Presidents anyway), I think he was the greatest. My opinion.

Fill wrote:

Have you noticed you never see anything pointing out the Democrat's flaws? It's always the Republicans doing something wrong. I don't hate democrats, or their beliefs, just some of the people that represent them drive me nuts.

Sorry to sound so harsh, it's just I can't stand it when people are treated so unfairly.
You've got to be kidding. You just basically threw propaganda about a specific family at me, and say you can't take people being treated so unfairly? I won't go deep into this, to save from big argument, but I know what I think about Bill Clinton and I know the Democrats are spewed at ALL THE TIME. And sure, of course Bush is. He's almost a complete screw-up vote and has ridiculously low public approval ratings. Not saying he was a horrible leader, or that I have a better solution to problems that arose- but I'm certain there was a better, more qualified person who wouldn't have made such immediate and/or rash decisions. Really, though, that's pointless to talk about, as he's almost gone. Just trying to point out that it isn't the Republicans that get most of the fun poked at, it's Bush specifically.

And heck, I think I have room to talk about him. He's been my leader (Governor and then President) my entire life.

I might vote for Hillary, I might vote for Ron Paul, I might vote for John McCain. I don't know right now, but I do know you can't just "tell" someone what to think.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 1:28am

Post 64 of 101

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Bill Clinton as president is sort of a mixed bag, IMO. On one hand his foreign policy was weak, but on the other he was and is a great speaker.

My favorite president still is Ronald Reagan.

I haven't read most of this thread, but I noticed A Pickle seems to be handling it nicely.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 2:07am

Post 65 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

Pickle, no matter what I say won't change your mind but hopefully someone will read my post and it will change their mind.

If what you said about someone ending corruption would get your vote, then you should vote for Ron Paul. He hasn't voted for his own pay raise, he doesn't take money from his government pension and when congressional medals are being given away at taxpayers expense (for people like Tony Blair and Charles Schultz) he shoots those bills down. However, he had said he would take $100 of his own money to pay for these medals, if his fellow congressmen would do the same. To date, no one has stepped up.

To your second point, the constitution and the founding fathers did not want us getting involved in the affairs of other countries and basically getting involved in the civil wars of other countries. It's funny that you say it's important to get Iraq on its feet? Why? Why is that our job? By your logic, we need to invade Cuba, Darfur, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and some of the South American countries such as Venezuela. For you to say it's no longer important to go after Osama and the Taliban is laughable. You are speaking the Bush talking points to a T. WE did not start the war in Iraq. The US President and US Congress did. There has to be a distinction between the US Government and the people of the US. I am by no means using the deaths of our brave soldiers as a reason to pullout. I have friends in Iraq fighting for the freedoms of the Iraqi people. My concern now has to turn to them and their lives. They deserve to live long and fruitful lives, do they not? It is not their fault we should not have invaded a nation that was no threat to our national security.

You bringing up WW1 and WW2 is funny. There is a saying in Nascar that cautions breed cautions....Well war breeds more war. Look at our current situation. Now all the warhawks want to preemptively invade IRAN! Wow. If there had not been WW1 there would not have been WW2. (I believe WW1 truly began after an assassination attempt btw.) Germany got so much crap and was beat down after WW1 that they lacked clear leadership. Here comes a young man who speaks well and shares a humble beginning with many of the downtrodden Germans. And so Hitler rises to power. To say these two wars resulted from our non-meddling policy is irresponsible. We are a rich and powerful country, yet a great number of our people and veterans go hungry, are without homes...Why don't we use that advantage to help OUR OWN PEOPLE, BRIDGES, CREATE JOBS...Rather than helping out countries fighting themselves.

9/11 was in no way an isolated incident. We took out Iran's government back in the 1950's, we gave weapons to Osama and his people to fight the USSR. Then we gave Saddam weapons to go after Iran. All the while giving BILLIONS of dollars to their sworn enemy, Israel who is entirely capable of taking care of themselves. (Other than Pakistan and India, they are the only country with nukes in that area.) No country deserves to have innocent lives taken but to think the US did nothing to provoke those attacks is silly.

Look at democratic leaders during the Vietnam war. They all put in more and more troops while also trying to invade and take out other foreign leaders (Bay of Pigs). It took a republican president to put an end to our entanglements there.

Your weakest point is that if you haven't been to Iraq, you cannot criticize the war. My best friend of 17 years is in Iraq. I want him to come home safe. He wants to come home. Why should he die for the freedom of the Iraqi people when they don't want it themselves! They are not fighting for their own freedom. Their government is corrupt! We never should have gone there in the first place because we were misled about WMDS! In my opinion, from looking at past historical events, this only energizes terrorists to come after us. Pickle, I'd warn you to not use terrorists blowing up our buildings as a fear mongering tactic to make us believe in your side.


EDIT: It's worth pointing out, the same people who are HOORAH for this war and staying there 30 years are the same people who were critical of our war in Kosovo and Bosnia and wanted us out of there immediately. Hypocrisy? Undoubtedly so.



Then why are we still there?
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 3:03am

Post 66 of 101

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

"The constitution and the founding fathers did not want us getting involved in the affairs of other countries and basically getting involved in the civil wars of other countries."

I find that statement very interesting. First off, the constitution. The founding fathers agreed that they could in no way predict the future of America. Thats why its amendable. Secondly, the founding fathers had two very different opinions. If my history is correct, they were about 50/50 on that. In fact, they were so split, such difference of opinions forced Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to never talk again. So presuming what they want from a quote from Washington about avoiding entanglements with other countries hardly describes their entire position. They also never lived to see the World Wars or the Cold War. Its a different world.


"To say these two wars resulted from our non-meddling policy is irresponsible."


No, but they ended with our meddling policy.



I always have a problem with this "we got what we had coming to us" argument for 9/11. First, I really don't think that is valid. Yes, so the U.S. government gave Osama weapons during the Cold War because at the time the enemy of our enemy is our friend, maybe. So logically does that story end with them bombing the WTC? I mean do you really see that all as a logical progression? I think the only people truly at fault for 9/11 are the people who did it. Secondly, this then created theory that anything pertaining to foreign policy should be second guessed because we must do things only that we are sure noone will attack us for. There is plenty of evidence that terrorists hate us for Hollywood. Should we shut down Hollywood because of it? Consider this analogy. If you saw someone getting bullied, do you intervene because maybe its the right thing to do, at least to is mediate? Or do you walk away because potentially you could become a target for the bully because of it? By your theory, we never should have gotten involved with World War 2, because hey its not our fight.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 3:14am

Post 67 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I've responded to your points on numerous amounts of my points so I won't go any further with those, but I will respond to your last point. We only got involved in WW2 after we were DIRECTLY attacked by another COUNTRY, not some militant group that has no state affiliation. In my opinion, that is a huge difference.

And I never stated we got what we had coming to us. I'd appreciate it if you don't just group me with people who say that. What I am saying is that we cannot do things and not think they will have direct consequences.

The founding fathers had different viewpoints on many things including the size of government, but after what they had gone through to become a free country,I can't imagine they wanted to be involved in other countries civil wars.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 3:42am

Post 68 of 101

King of Blades

Force: 1700 | Joined: 29th May 2006 | Posts: 794

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Has this thread blown up into an all out political debate? Well, it certainly seems so...

My view on the "War" in Iraq:

I believe that when we had first sent our troops over there, it was a "good" cause, seeing as we were directly attacked by an opposing force, state affiliation-- group of crazed militants regardless, we still had the right to retaliate, in my opinion.

Now, what we're doing now is just pointless, as we've lost thousands of soldiers out there but more importantly, thousands of families are losing their kids for God's sake!

Please forgive the harshness of this post, but 'Dubya' really needs to look at his own borders; HIS country is suffering from poverty and homelessness, and needless violence, when he's socking away money for reparations in Iraq, which I think is total bull.

Thankfully, after the fact that we've lost those thousands of lives in Iraq, NOW Bush has opened his eyes to see that it makes sense to withdraw a small portion of soldiers from Iraq; there was a special news bulletin that Bush will have withdrawn 57,000 soldiers by December, and hopefully get the rest of them out by June...

But that remains to be seen.

The "Surge" supposedly worked... no, it didn't, not in my eyes, at least. Nearly 4,000 soldiers are dead. No progress has been made to find Osama bin ****head. Dubya's "WMD" are nonexistent. Saddam Hussien (or "So-damn-in-sane") is dead. We really don't need those extra thousands of troops out there, losing their lives for no reason. Granted, they are "dying for their country", but is there a present threat here right now? No, not in the least, unless we have a fragment of Al-Qaeda runnin' around in the U.S...

And that's my spiel for the night...
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 3:47am

Post 69 of 101

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm honestly a little confused, just so I can understand your side, what would you say is the proper form of action against a militant group that resides in other countries.


"What I am saying is that we cannot do things and not think they will have direct consequences."

I apologize for grouping you, I have debated some people in that group before and I jumped into that state of mind.

There is as much evidence saying terrorists hate America for what it is as there are who hate it for its foreign actions.


"The founding fathers had different viewpoints on many things including the size of government, but after what they had gone through to become a free country,I can't imagine they wanted to be involved in other countries civil wars"

As I remember, France was going through a revolution and wanted complete American support and Thomas Jefferson led a large amount of the founding fathers(including the American public) in wanting to give them complete support France on every level. Washington led (or rather Alexander Hamilton led) another group that felt they should remain away from entanglements like that. If I am remembering wrong, I apologize and will gladly stand corrected.

Now, I agree with Washington in that situation, and history proved he made the right choice. But it is a different world. America was a new nation then, not anymore. Isolationism is not a realistic policy anymore, not since World War 2 ended. It's just not.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 3:57am

Post 70 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This is getting a little out of hand, so can we perhaps hold off on political campaigning speak until we start the Campaign threads and hold this one to remembrance, please?

(You know, sbfmovieco. wink)
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 4:25am

Post 71 of 101

King of Blades

Force: 1700 | Joined: 29th May 2006 | Posts: 794

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

This is getting a little out of hand, so can we perhaps hold off on political campaigning speak until we start the Campaign threads and hold this one to remembrance, please?
I agree with you here; this thread was meant for the mourning of September 11th, not for the purpose of that day...
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 4:41am

Post 72 of 101

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Well I want to say that 9-11 is the most horrible tragedy to happen to america and one of the worst tragedies in the world. Alot of what made it so bad is that we were able to watch the horrible day unfold on live television from different angles over and over again.

Previously someone said that "why make such a big deal about 911 when we dont make a big deal about the Pearl Harbor anniversary or the sinking of the titanic anniversary" Well the main reasons would be that these events have lost their impact, the only people who have seen the true terror of those events are either passed on or are in very few numbers. Im not 100% sure but my guess would be that in 70 years from now the impact of the 911 anniversary will be as big of deal as the Pearl harbor attacks.

I lost 1 relative in the 911 attacks and a good friend of mine lost one of his parents. This day is still a big deal to me and it will be for the rest of my life. Even though this thread has gone off topic to more of a political debate, I do have to say its good to see fellow young adults and even kids who cant vote yet talk about politics. Most people our age would say "I dont Care, Im not voting". So no matter what party you're voting for, its good to see younger americans interested and excited about politics.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 4:45am

Post 73 of 101

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

kingofbladeslv wrote:

My view on the "War" in Iraq:

I believe that when we had first sent our troops over there, it was a "good" cause, seeing as we were directly attacked by an opposing force, state affiliation-- group of crazed militants regardless, we still had the right to retaliate, in my opinion.
I think you may be confused as to why the U.S. invaded Iraq.

It's an easy mistake to make, considering how the U.S media (and administration) subtly, and sometimes not-so-subtly, linked the 9/11 terrorists with Iraq, and even Arabs in general, in order to persuade the public to support the Iraq invasion.

As a result of this linkage, many U.S. citizens were up in arms when it was reported that a company from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) would be operating some shipping ports in America, fearing easy access for terrorists. These people didn't realise that the UAE was in fact an ally of America, not an enemy, mainly due to the aforementioned linking.

Bush eventually admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 4:58am

Post 74 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

What you do is what was written into the constitution; Ron Paul proposed a bill that would allow the United States to hire mercenaries and troops to root out and find the terrorists directly responsible for 9/11. You don't invade a sovereign nation that was not a threat to national security.

Secondly, what I am proposing is not isolationism. We need to interact with other countries. We need free trade, to discuss things diplomatically. Just do not get involved in other countries personal affairs. Like Ron Paul said, You cannot spread freedom through the end of a barrel of a gun.

Atom, I don't think this is getting out of hand. I think it's been civil so far and it should continue in that matter.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 5:52am

Post 75 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

Atom, I don't think this is getting out of hand. I think it's been civil so far and it should continue in that matter.
I'm trying to kindly ask you to remove yourself, sbf. Whether it is said in well-written sentences or not, you're directly going against the war in Iraq and that's basically it, for the sheer purpose of being "right"- which, while I agree with- isn't the purpose of this topic.

It seems, as it may be civil- you've consistently and purposefully hit on a topic most people in this thread are trying to stay away from, as it's very debatable and controversial right now.

The last thing we and I really need is another 13-page thread started by me on my record.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 6:03am

Post 76 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

The past two pages have been about politics. Even a member of the FXHome staff has commented on the topic regarding the Iraq war. I'm not doing this just to be right. The things I'm saying, a great deal of it, is just my opinion. I am against the war. So I should remove myself from this thread? People are not trying to stay away from this topic - many people have responded to my comments and I urge them to.

See, the thing you don't understand is I have respect for other users. A Pickle for instance. He and I probably are two worlds apart about this issue. But I respect him. He has shown himself to be a great member on this forum and his computer knowledge is immense. I respect him, and when I disagree with him on issues like this, I try to eloquently explain why I have the feelings that I do.

No moderators have stepped in; not only that an fxhome team member has contributed to this thread. Sorry Atom, but I'm going to have to kindly continue posting here because this is a great forum and I know that this topic can remain civilized.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 6:09am

Post 77 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Okay, do whatever you want. See what happens. But when this thread goes to hell, don't come bringing it up in another one of your tirades against me.
See, the thing you don't understand is I have respect for other users.
Obviously not all of them, eh?
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 6:21am

Post 78 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'd like to thank everyone so far for remaining civil about the topics at hand and encourage everyone to keep it that way. Like I've stated, we all may have different opinions but let's not forget that each of our contributions in the area of filmmaking and computing is really the heart and soul of why we are here.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 7:51am

Post 79 of 101

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

"Ron Paul proposed a bill that would allow the United States to hire mercenaries and troops to root out and find the terrorists directly responsible for 9/11."

I'm not sure about anybody else, but the idea of America hiring mercenaries and soldiers of fortune is kind of frightening, IMO. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Taliban, the ruling government body in Afghanistan, a supporter and foundation for Al Qaeda?


"Like Ron Paul said, You cannot spread freedom through the end of a barrel of a gun."

But war has been the largest catalyst for change throughout history. I'm not saying taking all measures possible before any kind of fight shouldn't be done, but when it comes down to it. Sometimes its what you need.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 7:52am

Post 80 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

War is sometimes necessary, no doubt about it. WW2 being a prime example.

But I have yet to hear a good reason for why we went into Iraq.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 8:18am

Post 81 of 101

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Here is my opinion on Iraq. I think going in and taking Saddam and his regime out of power was a good thing. I think it was morally good. He slaughtered his own people and countless other things. With him in control, Iraq was a threat to the United States. He may or may not have had WMDs at the time but he would eventually.

Going in for the most part alone was rough, but that would never had changed with the time. France bought oil from Saddam at the time, the UN was useless and corrupt, etc. You can ask the valid question "Well, why should the US go in?" and my answer would be because America is the hegemon and if they don't do it, who else will? If the UN won't move on it, then who other than the US to go forward with it. And then the argument rises that who is it that says US ideals and morales are right for anywhich country? And again, thats another valid question. There is no way to know the answer to that. But I think the values America would seem to be pushing on any nation it has so far been intervening in are really morals and ideals found in any major country. For instance, look at women in Afghanistan. When the Taliban were in control they had barely any rights. Now they have much more and are more or less equal to men there. I think thats an absolutely good thing and that may conflict with past afghan culture but I don't think that makes it wrong. But I there is nothing that proves it either way. So that is a truly hard thing to consider.

Now this is all not to say that alot hasn't gone wrong in Iraq. I think the entire war could have been handled much better. I think it was wrong to file this under the "War on Terror". I don't think it really is. I think its a continuation of the conflict with Saddam dating back to the first Gulf War, and this was ultimately how it was going to end one way or another. While it has now truly become the battleground against terrorism, that is only a product of the war. The war in Iraq, while inevitable IMO, may have been able to be held off for years while a more precise War on Terror could be planned and executed.

But all that said, we are there now. Things still need to change before we make a successful plan that involves any sizeable removal of troops. And we do need to wait for someone to figure this all out or we are gonna pull out and things trully will fall apart. Whether it becomes a safe haven for terrorists or Iran takes control. Just my opinion.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 8:34am

Post 82 of 101

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

This topic is being watched. Everybody tread carefully please. smile
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 12:29pm

Post 83 of 101

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

To your second point, the constitution and the founding fathers did not want us getting involved in the affairs of other countries and basically getting involved in the civil wars of other countries.
I highly encourage you to re-read the US Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8. If our founding fathers didn't want us "meddling" in other countries affairs, then they...

A.) Would not have included a clause for the power to declare war.
B.) Would not have included a clause for Congress's power to govern the military, and...
C.) Would not have authorized the use of military force versus outright declaration of war in the Barbary Wars, starting in 1804. Put simply, the practice of "not declaring a war" is nothing new -- many of the founding fathers were alive when Congress did this, and one of them was the President.

sfbmovieco wrote:

It's funny that you say it's important to get Iraq on its feet? Why? Why is that our job?
Are you implying that it isn't? We invade that country, leave it in ruins (as wars often do), and now an insurgency has formed -- and the best solution is to just pull out after we've committed a paltry 4,000 troops? That's the easy way out -- the country would easily collapse into civil war that would rage on and on for ten, twenty, maybe thirty years as each of the insurgent factions struggled for supremacy with the United States gone.

You're arguing that after STARTING this war, we are not obligated to make our amends and rebuild Iraq to a point equal or superior to where it was before the war?

sfbmovieco wrote:

By your logic, we need to invade Cuba, Darfur, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and some of the South American countries such as Venezuela.
By my logic? Pardon me... but when did I ever say I agreed with the invasion of Iraq? I didn't. It shouldn't have started in the first place, but lookie-doo, we're there and because we're there, we have a responsibility to that country. Invading nations seldom does any good, especially these days.

Since you've mentioned it however, I think I'd like nothing more than to see Hugo Chavez drown in a "fishing accident," Ahmadinejad die of "cardiac arrest," and Kim Jong Il kick the bucket due to a "coup d'état." Frankly, Saudi could go too, I wouldn't really mind.

Since all of that is relatively unrealistic on a military scale of the modern US military... we have to realize the countries we're currently committed to, and fixing them first.

sfbmovieco wrote:

For you to say it's no longer important to go after Osama and the Taliban is laughable.
My bad. I suppose I should think that spending billions of dollars on an impossible manhunt and a defeated enemy is more important than fighting our strong foes who oppose a rebuilt, revitalized Iraq?

sfbmovieco wrote:

You are speaking the Bush talking points to a T.
Huh. Great minds think alike.

sfbmovieco wrote:

WE did not start the war in Iraq. The US President and US Congress did. There has to be a distinction between the US Government and the people of the US.
Sadly, I have to give Osama bin Laden a penny for his thoughts here. We, the people of the United States of America, elected Bush and our Congressman into office. If you intend to so fully place bleme on them, and them alone, then you have a skewed concept of what being a citizen of a Republic truly means.

Regardless of whether or not you directly or indirectly decided that we should or should not go into Iraq, my point is this: We are America. We are one of the richest, most powerful nations on the planet. We should be leading by example, and abandoning one of our so-called "mistakes" is by no means an example of that leadership.

sfbmovieco wrote:

My concern now has to turn to them and their lives. They deserve to live long and fruitful lives, do they not?
You expect them to live long and fruitful lives in a country where multiple insurgent groups will be struggling for dominance (read: fighting eachother, with absolutely no LOAC, no precision-guided weaponry, and little to no regard to civilian casualties)?

sfbmovieco wrote:

It is not their fault we should not have invaded a nation that was no threat to our national security.
No. It's not. It's our fault. And we need to own up to that, and do the best we possibly can to ensure that they can live long and fruitful lives, hopefully lives that are longer and more fruitful than under their previous leadership.

sfbmovieco wrote:

If there had not been WW1 there would not have been WW2.
Not at all... if the Allies had been reasonable in their demands at the end of World War I, it's quite likely that World War II wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately, the Allies quite literally cut Germany into pie slices such that, at the end of every year, Germany was paying out far more to the Allies than it could use to rebuild itself. This, above all, motivated Hitler's rage against his other European counterparts.

But to say World War II was as a direct result of World War I itself? No. If "war breeds more war," why didn't we see a World War III after World War II? Why haven't we seen ANY war REMOTELY approaching the scale of World War II?

Might have something to do with the fact that we dropped all reparition debts and whatnot at the end of the war...

sfbmovieco wrote:

To say these two wars resulted from our non-meddling policy is irresponsible.
They didn't start because of our non-meddling, but they got very bad before we simply HAD to get involved. Think of how many people would've been spared in World War II had we jumped in the fray right in the beginning.

sfbmovieco wrote:

We are a rich and powerful country, yet a great number of our people and veterans go hungry, are without homes...Why don't we use that advantage to help OUR OWN PEOPLE, BRIDGES, CREATE JOBS...Rather than helping out countries fighting themselves.
Most of that comes through privatization... I'll be completely honest here. Poverty can be helped, but not much. There's no reason that anyone can't get any money in this country. If you put your mind and your effort to it, you can be earning $100,000 a year. Anyone can do that, period. That's what's so fantastic about this country is that, by and large, you get what you deserve.

sfbmovieco wrote:

9/11 was in no way an isolated incident. We took out Iran's government back in the 1950's, we gave weapons to Osama and his people to fight the USSR. Then we gave Saddam weapons to go after Iran. All the while giving BILLIONS of dollars to their sworn enemy, Israel who is entirely capable of taking care of themselves.
Now I won't deny any of those as valid reasons, they all are. But there comes a sense of "get real," and "get over it" with some of them. Bin Laden wssn't even born when we were doing our stint in Iran in the 1950's, and he was most likely pretty happy with us in the 1980's, when we provided his gang weapons to fight the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Saddam Hussein and our early support of him... I can't really blame that. Ever read it? Saddam wasn't such a bad Middle Eastern leader, and he was doing battle with the Soviet-supported Iran -- which was more or less why we were supporting him. It wasn't until he invaded Kuwait that we, as a Western nation somewhat responsible for global events, had to take action, which soured our mutual relationship. If Bin Laden is bitter about that, tough beans. That's not our cookie.

About the only "real" reason we were attacked on September 11th is because we support Israel. I don't give a damn if you think they're capable of handling themselves, they WILL handle themselves with our money. No Israeli terrorist organization has taken American hostages. No Israeli terrorist organization has attacked the Olympics. No Isreali terrorist organization has attacked the World Trade Centers, and no Israeli terrorist organization has ever hijacked a plane. As a matter of fact, I'm hard-pressed to recall any... Israeli... terrorist organizations. I feel inclined to add the Israeli politicians have always been open and of positive mindedness when approaching Middle East peac plans. Their Palestinian counterpart, by the name of Yasser Arafat, apart from being a terrorist, was a repugnant hindrance to the process of peace. He would make a demand, and would refuse to accept Israli counter-offers, and when he did, he'd move the goalpost to something unrealistic. Then he'd blame Israel and the West for the situation in the Middle East.

So. Let's recap.

Israel: Likes us. Helps us. Helpful in Middle East peace plan. Responsible for one attack on the United States in the past 50 years, potentially accidental.
Palestine: Hates us. Throws candy in streets on 9/11. Obstructive to Middle East peace plan. Virtually responsible for violence in Isreal. Supportive of many attacks against the United States and Allies in the past 50 years, in some cases responsible.

Hmm. I can't POSSIBLY think of why we might be giving Israel money.[/sarcasm]

sfbmovieco wrote:

Your weakest point is that if you haven't been to Iraq, you cannot criticize the war. My best friend of 17 years is in Iraq. I want him to come home safe. He wants to come home. Why should he die for the freedom of the Iraqi people when they don't want it themselves!
At the risk of sounding extremely cold here...

A.) Your friend of 17 years joined the US Military during a time of war. I shouldn't have to elucidate more than that...
B.) The Iraqi people don't want freedom? That's quite a blanket statement to make. 63% of Iraqis turned up for the vote. Seems like more than half of them are taking advantage of the freedom they apparently don't want...

sfbmovieco wrote:

Pickle, I'd warn you to not use terrorists blowing up our buildings as a fear mongering tactic to make us believe in your side.
Now there's some logic. You call it fear-mongering, but you yourself have stated that our actions in Iran in the 1950's, along with our solicitations with Saddam and Osama bin Laden were catalysts to the eventual consequence: 9/11.

Now you're saying that we should pull out of Iraq (again, after committing a paltry 4,000 soldiers), let the country crumble into Civil War, and that'll magically solve all of our problems? You don't think that doing that might provoke the next bin Laden into committing the next 9/11?

Yes. I am saying that we had better fight and rebuild the countries we have decimated in order to prevent more terrorism on our home soil. You may call it fear-mongering, but I think I've pretty well established my point here. Defeat is not an option. Not for this country.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 1:28pm

Post 84 of 101

Merrick

Force: 1067 | Joined: 12th Apr 2007 | Posts: 548

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I wish it was possible to make a thread like this without getting all political about it. There's one thing we all have to agree on: that a lot of people who never did anything against any of our nationalities died that day.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 8:11pm

Post 85 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

We're in the war now, no use criticizing what has already been done. Let's just deal with what we have on our plates right now
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 9:07pm

Post 86 of 101

King of Blades

Force: 1700 | Joined: 29th May 2006 | Posts: 794

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Hendo wrote:

It's an easy mistake to make, considering how the U.S media (and administration) subtly, and sometimes not-so-subtly, linked the 9/11 terrorists with Iraq, and even Arabs in general, in order to persuade the public to support the Iraq invasion.

As a result of this linkage, many U.S. citizens were up in arms when it was reported that a company from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) would be operating some shipping ports in America, fearing easy access for terrorists. These people didn't realise that the UAE was in fact an ally of America, not an enemy, mainly due to the aforementioned linking.

Bush eventually admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Ah yes, I see that now. My (and perhaps many others') mistake... wink
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 10:26pm

Post 87 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

We're in the war now, no use criticizing what has already been done. Let's just deal with what we have on our plates right now
What I'm trying to get at.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 10:30pm

Post 88 of 101

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Evman wrote:

We're in the war now, no use criticizing what has already been done. Let's just deal with what we have on our plates right now
What I'm trying to get at.
Except well said smile
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 10:52pm

Post 89 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't see how it's the responsibility of our soldiers and the American people to finish a war we never should have started. Someone earlier mentioned Congress gave the approval to goto war. They did so under false pretenses (WMD's, Saddam's links to 9/11). The American people have no obligation to free the people or Iraq. I'm surprised so many conservatives on this board are saying we need to stay the course when it's really been more of a liberal philosophy if you look throughout history.

We defeated the Soviet Union without massive use of force. It's scary the administration is now talking about using a preemptive strike on Iran. Our military is stretched so thin right now. Another useless war is not what we need. Follow conservatives like Nixon and Reagan (Who in is memoirs related at times that he was wrong and should not have invaded several countries he sent troops into.) and you will see a better America in my opinion.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 11:28pm

Post 90 of 101

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

I don't see how it's the responsibility of our soldiers and the American people to finish a war we never should have started.
Because, even if we never should have started it, WE DID. And because of that, as with most wars, the host country is struggling right now in the heat of it. Infrastructure needs to be rebuilt. Public works needs to be built up. There's almost no economy to speak of. And battles continue to manifest themselves here and there, mostly in Baghdad.

Without us, the infrastructure would've been as it was before the war. Without us, the public works would've been as it was before the war. Without us, the insurgency wouldn't exist.

But here's the cold truth: All of that is the way it is now, because we did go into Iraq. And if it was as pointless and unnecessary as you say, then you had better beleive it is our responsibility to fix what we did wrong. I had better not be a citizen soldier of a nation who, when we screw up, turns tail and runs. We had better take responsibility for our actions, and do our best to amend them.

sfbmovieco wrote:

We defeated the Soviet Union without massive use of force.
Are you nuts? The Cold War may not have involved many shots fired directly between the United States and the Soviet Union, but we fought through other means. The Cold War yielded more military progress than anything we've ever seen -- the Internet was spawed of it, by DARPA's desire for a nuclear-survivable, intercontinental packet-switched network. There were massive troop buildups on both sides, the US AND the Soviet Union. There was a race to dominate space. There was a race to who had the most nuclear weapons.

And as for the use of military force? We fought "the Soviet Union" in Korea. We fought it in Vietnam. We fought them at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, and we fought them in Afghanistan. We dedicated a lot of military power and technology towards defeating that enemy -- the entire country was motivated as one to fight, either economically, technologically, socially, or militarily.

We "won," not because they gave up, or because they lost more guys than we did -- we won because we had plenty of steam left in our pistons. They couldn't match us -- and that's what put us on top.

sfbmovieco wrote:

It's scary the administration is now talking about using a preemptive strike on Iran.
If we weren't in Iraq right now, I'd be more than supportive of taking military action against Ahmadinejad. That man is nothing more than an Osama Bin Laden with the keys to a standing army and air force, and soon, keys to nuclear weaponry. Unfortunately, we went into Iraq spending a TON of our budget on that.
Posted: Fri, 14th Sep 2007, 11:40pm

Post 91 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

You mentioned we fought Cuba, Korea and Vietnam. We lost all of those conflicts. Cuba and the bay of pigs was a huge embarrassment upon America IMO and many people do not know about it. In Vietnam we "turned tail" as you say and look at it now. Vietnam is doing fine and we freely trade with them.

The same people who are saying we can't run out of Iraq because the country will implode and it'll be a haven for terrorists are the same ones who said this war would be a slam dunk, the oil will pay for it, and we'll be done with it in no time. - This taken from my buddy Ron Paul, and frankly, I have to agree with him. It's time we stopped listening blindly to what people tell us. Seventy percent of both our country and Iraq don't want us there. They "voted" because their religious leaders told them to and they all basically voted down religious lines. Not really much of an election. Oh wait...Isn't that what happens....Oh nevermind.

EDIT: We won because they starved their people and communism has not successfully worked when put into practice. Everyone is created equal, not everyone acts that way.
Posted: Sat, 15th Sep 2007, 6:53am

Post 92 of 101

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Just to be fair though, pickle doesn't seem like the kind of person who just blindly believes what people tell him, like you he knows what he's talking about and what he's arguing for.
Posted: Sat, 15th Sep 2007, 9:41am

Post 93 of 101

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

You mentioned we fought Cuba, Korea and Vietnam. We lost all of those conflicts.
We lost the Korean War? To the best of my knowledge, while we didn't manage to take North Korea (which I'm sure we could have given some more commitment to the war), we managed to stave Communism off of South Korea. And quite frankly, it appears as though we didn't need to take North Korea -- they've really been a nobody for the past fifty or so years.

South Korea has been an economic powerhouse. I think that speaks pretty well as to what we accomplished from a war we apparently lost...

sfbmovieco wrote:

In Vietnam we "turned tail" as you say and look at it now. Vietnam is doing fine and we freely trade with them.
Actually, they're doing fine because, in 1986, Vietnam's Communist Party in control began to do several free market reforms. This was most likely due to the fact that the Soviet Union, the nation on which Vietnam was reliant upon in military and humanitarian aid, was soon to fall. It's not like the countries of the world, and certainly not the countries within the USSR's "circle," were completely unaware of what was taking place eastward.

Immediately following the Vietnam War, there were massive humanitarian, economic, and military crises. The Communist Party in control there immediately sent military members and public servants of the Republic of Vietnam to "re-education camps." They were essentially labor prisons, where individuals would work long hours with inadequate food or medical treatment.

Postwar Vietnam was most definitely not "just fine."

This is somewhat relevant, but the most important thing to take note of is that Vietnam is not Iraq. The two are in two different culture zones, and where there were two main forces struggling for control of Vietnam, there are perhaps ten insurgent "armies" battling for domination of Iraq. That doesn't include the Northern Kurds, who have been eager to have a land they could call their own.

Yes, turning tail, surrendering, retreating into defeat, whatever you wish to call it -- would be a grave mistake. The Bay of Pigs? That was probably America's most embarrassing moment in modern history, but it would quickly be forgotten in favor of how the world would remember how we abandoned to certain doom the country we had pledged to liberate and re-invigorate.

sfbmovieco wrote:

The same people who are saying we can't run out of Iraq because the country will implode and it'll be a haven for terrorists are the same ones who said this war would be a slam dunk, the oil will pay for it, and we'll be done with it in no time.
Great. So... they said it would be a slam dunk, the oil would pay for it -- and they failed to take into account the insurgency that ended up happening. Now that the insurgency is happening, they're saying that if we pull out, the country will implode into civil war.

That seems pretty logical to me. There's nothing wrong with... being wrong.

sfbmovieco wrote:

They "voted" because their religious leaders told them to and they all basically voted down religious lines. Not really much of an election.
They also had insurgent militias publicly forbidding anyone from going to vote, warning them of "consequences" for disobedience. Of course, not much really happened, but the first votes had many Iraqi civilians scared of going to vote. 50% of Iraqis went to vote. A larger percent of Iraq's population voted than did America's population. In October of 2005, more Iraqi elections drew 63% of Iraqis out.

I can see how Iraqis may not want us there, and it's painfully obvious that the American public has lost all of it's resolve in Iraq, and perhaps just about everything else that doesn't involve bashing Bush. But if we leave Iraq now, the country implodes, and then the Iraqis will hate us even more for abandoning them. And, quite frankly, they would be right to do so.

sfbmovieco wrote:

We won because they starved their people and communism has not successfully worked when put into practice. Everyone is created equal, not everyone acts that way.
We won because of economy. Period. We had a much better ability to build and research, mainly because companies competing for the almighty dollar had eachother to compete against. In the Soviet Union, there existed no such competition, just state-owned corporations that worked out of fear rather than working to win.
Posted: Sat, 15th Sep 2007, 8:43pm

Post 94 of 101

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

Great. So... they said it would be a slam dunk, the oil would pay for it -- and they failed to take into account the insurgency that ended up happening. Now that the insurgency is happening, they're saying that if we pull out, the country will implode into civil war.

That seems pretty logical to me. There's nothing wrong with... being wrong.
Ooooh so very not so. http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Posted: Sat, 15th Sep 2007, 9:55pm

Post 95 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

I'm surprised so many conservatives on this board are saying we need to stay the course when it's really been more of a liberal philosophy if you look throughout history.
I don't want to "stay the course", I just think that (and it's kind of hard to see how people don't see this), we can't simply just pull out without SEVERE consequences. We need to finish the war, not abandon it. We also shouldn't finish it by "staying the course", but with some alternate method... (neither party has been able to come up with a good one, however).
Posted: Sun, 16th Sep 2007, 4:39am

Post 96 of 101

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm sorry, and perhaps this is just wishful thinking, but this has gone into territory that is absolutely not at all about the topic. Please, guys, let's stop the back-and-forth. If the war discussion is primarily between A Pickle and sbfmovieco, perhaps PMS would be better.

Either way, let me just remind everyone this is not a political thread. Maybe you can argue that 'by effect' it is, but let's keep this on-task, please.
Posted: Sun, 16th Sep 2007, 4:42am

Post 97 of 101

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

And by keeping it on task it's dead then. If you even think about 9/11 now on 9/16 you're a horrible person for not mentioning anything then. razz
Posted: Sun, 16th Sep 2007, 5:55am

Post 98 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:



Ooooh so very not so. http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Niiiiceeeee. Good video to put in the repertoire.

A Pickle, I definitely respect your positions because I once held the same positions. Like Evman said, neither party has come to any sort of good conclusion. While I think your idea of staying there and finishing it is noble, Iraq has only gotten worse and been filled with more insurgents since we got there. If we in fact do end up staying there for another 4 years, we have to make a major change in our game plan.

We shouldn't of been pussy footin' around the first four years.
Posted: Sun, 16th Sep 2007, 6:29am

Post 99 of 101

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

sfbmovieco wrote:

Pooky wrote:



Ooooh so very not so. http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Niiiiceeeee. Good video to put in the repertoire.

A Pickle, I definitely respect your positions because I once held the same positions. Like Evman said, neither party has come to any sort of good conclusion. While I think your idea of staying there and finishing it is noble, Iraq has only gotten worse and been filled with more insurgents since we got there. If we in fact do end up staying there for another 4 years, we have to make a major change in our game plan.

We shouldn't of been pussy footin' around the first four years.
But what he's trying to say is, we did. We cannot just abandon our mistakes. We all know that we shouldn't have gone there. Thats not the debate, the debate is whether we stay there or we jump ship like little panzy's. Thats completely irresponsible anyway you look at it.

4,000 of our soldiers have died, which for one is way less than any real war we've ever fought. But we can't just give up, if we do, then what did those 4,000 soldiers die for? Nothing!

If we stay, and work our way through this, then Iraq will eventually become self-sustaining. If we leave now, iraq will collapse and become a haven for terrorist, with very small chance of everything working itself out, which we know almost definately wont happen when you have different factions fighting for control.

So your options are A) let us finish what we started, so that iraq doesnt become an actual threat to us. Because if we stay there, we know we can eventual work things out, or B) Jump ship, let Iraq turn into a pool of terrorist, so that eventual we'll have to go back anyways.

If a canidate comes up with a good way to pull our troops out, and also has a solution for making sure iraq doesn't implode. They have my vote
Posted: Sun, 16th Sep 2007, 6:38am

Post 100 of 101

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

We can't pull out of Iraq in one day. Come on.

When far, far leftists come out to Capitol Hill, like they did recently (and 120 of 'em got arrested, I'm a liberal, just to put this in perspective) and say "PULL OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!!" they're literally meaning today. This isn't feasible, it just can't work.

We're already there. It's not as easy as just pulling out. We have, what, 20 or so brigades stationed there? Obama (who I don't usually agree with, but I do on this) thinks once the new presidency starts, we should selectively pull troops out, one brigade a month. This would mean we'd have two years more, but it'd be an appropriately-paced withdrawal from Iraq. I think something like this could work.

Which is exactly why I'm by someone like McCain. Someone who can deal with the wartime side of things, at least for half of a presidency. I mean, honestly, of all the people running, McCain would be the best wartime president. I despised the man in the 2000 election (mainly because I was 10) but now I sort of see with him eye-to-eye on how to lead our country, given the circumstances.

Sure, Huckabee or Paul are likely better people overall, but I don't think either has what it takes for where we are now.

My government teacher juxtaposed pulling the US out of Iraq to getting rid of the Mexican illegal immigrant occupation in our homeland (a similar circumstance, considering much of America sees reason to get the illegals out, but there are still those that sympathize). It might be the right thing to do to pull illegal Mexicans from American states, but is it practical to force 27 million people to leave where they've chosen to live? I don't think so. Same thing applies to Iraq: we need to stay in there, if only for a few months.

It can't happen all at once, fool! wink
Posted: Sun, 16th Sep 2007, 7:26am

Post 101 of 101

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't think it's smart to judge a candidate on whether they would be good during wartime vs. peace time. I think if a man is qualified, they would be good leaders during both times. I say this because Iraq is a huge issue, but not the only elephant in the room. We have our economy (a fiat currency, the illegal federal reserve system and out of control interest rates/housing markets), private healthcare vs. government run healthcare, national ID cards (going into effect within 6 months or so), the patriot act, illegal and legal immagration and a myriad of many other concerns...

I hate it when all people say is "Hey if we just pull out we are panzy's! We'd be the losers!" While I don't 100% agree on pulling every single troop out this very minute, us sustaining troop levels like the president is wanting is just not the right thing to do. I think a lot of you do not see that we will now basically have some sort of troop levels there forever and we have also nearly committed to an entanglement with Iran. (If any Republican nominee gets in other than Ron Paul, we're going to Iran.) If he's not careful, Bush, before he leaves may get us into that as well.

Now some of you may say I am a Bush basher. I voted for the man. Twice. I've been told I make Ann Coulter look like Mao. I am choosing my positions based on a very conservative, and newly found respect for libertarianism.

Like I said before, we don't need 150,000 troops leaving tomorrow but they need to be out of Iraq soon. Our troop levels over there will have nothing to do with how self-sustaining Iraq is. Their government is currently on vacation (in the middle of some of the most important votes in their young democratic nation!) while our brave men and women are sacrificing their lives. Their government is rife with corruption, the Iraqi army is under trained and also filled with corruption and the streets are flooded with sectarian violence.

Our troops are not going to win a war where they are the middle men in a struggle of two opposing religious groups fighting to the death. Only the people of Iraq can set themselves free. Come on! (Said in GOB style.)