U.S. Politics, 7

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

what is wrong with this?

No offense, but it seems like sort of an odd question. It's part of history, it happened. Saying that we should intentionally try to forget a historical event seems a strange way of dealing with reality. Then again, I was a history major, so perhaps I'm biased.

ETA: Okay, I see how you addressed this with swordfish.

Well, there will come a time when it will still be a memorable historical event, but where it's relevance to decisions we may make or how we view the world will be less relevant. When Japan surrendered after WWII, Pearl Harbor lost it's direct relevance although it still served as a military reminder not to get caught napping. But I don't think we're yet at the same historical point of limited relevancy as we were when the surrender was signed on the U.S.S. Missouri.

[Shryke]

No offense, but it seems like sort of an odd question. It's part of history, it happened. Saying that we should intentionally try to forget a historical event seems a strange way of dealing with reality. Then again, I was a history major, so perhaps I'm biased.

ETA: Okay, I see how you addressed this with swordfish.

Well, there will come a time when it will still be a memorable historical event, but where it's relevance to decisions we may make or how we view the world will be less relevant. When Japan surrendered after WWII, Pearl Harbor lost it's direct relevance although it still served as a military reminder not to get caught napping. But I don't think we're yet at the same historical point of limited relevancy as we were when the surrender was signed on the U.S.S. Missouri.

How aren't we?

What relevance are the people behind 9/11 to the world anymore?

[Week]

But I don't think we're yet at the same historical point of limited relevancy as we were when the surrender was signed on the U.S.S. Missouri.

"Mission Accomplished" didn't do it for you either?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

"Mission Accomplished" didn't do it for you either?

Absent "Mission Accomplished" for Afghanistan, no.

[Lord Mord]

Swordfish,

What is beneficial about forgetting about it?

I see "remembering" as the more active role, and therefore we should look at whether or not it's beneficial to persist in that activity. For the life of me, I'm not sure what we gain by holding onto memories of injury. For myself, holding onto grudges never really seems to work out.

[MinDonner]

It does not stop at US citizens, but others are not likely to be waving American flags.

Well, this was kind of my point. The original argument was, IIRC, that the flag-waving was appropriate because all these people had been "affected" by 9/11, which kind of baffles me. I guess I have a European distrust of flag-waving anyway, but come on, London has been bombed shitloads of times and we don't feel the need to get the flags out on every anniversary. It seems... unneccessarily bellicose, for what is supposedly an anti-terrorism memorial.

[TerraPrime]

I'm of two minds on this.

On one hand, I don't think it's inappropriate for people to feel a sense of solidarity and a sense of unity when confronted with the events of 9/11. After all, I don't think the terrorists make that fine of a distinction on who's American and who's not by geographical locations. They attacked the former WTC because it was a symbol and because of the population density. It's no less an assault on the rest of the country for it's limited geographical reach. For that reason, I don't think it is wrong for every American to feel attacked even if they do not live in NYC or do not have relatives there. So, I don't really get this "no, you CANNOT be affected by 9/11" meme. It comes across as rather petty and sneering, almost like a black person telling an Asian that no, you CANNOT be affected by racism.

On the other hand, I am often disgusted at the blind flag-waving type of patriotism that some of the people exhibit. To these people, the 9/11 event is no more than a rallying point for "U.S. Good, you suck!" Rather reminescent of high school prep rallies. These people seem to have co-opted the tragic event and turn it into a symbol that means something entirely differently, something that I find to be entirely ugly. The lesson of the event is not that Islam is a terrorist religion, nor that Muslims are bad people, which is, sadly, what seems to be the predominant jingo amongst this group of people. There's also a strain of over-reaching for victimhood in some of the rhetoric, exemplified by those who fear that their town of 10,000 in the middle of nowhere might be the next terrorist attack target.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, this was kind of my point. The original argument was, IIRC, that the flag-waving was appropriate because all these people had been "affected" by 9/11, which kind of baffles me. I guess I have a European distrust of flag-waving anyway, but come on, London has been bombed shitloads of times and we don't feel the need to get the flags out on every anniversary. It seems... unneccessarily bellicose, for what is supposedly an anti-terrorism memorial.

It's not necessarily bellicose at all. I think the point of the flags at the memorial isn't to say "let's go kick some muslim ass", but rather a way of saying that the entire country supports the direct victims of the attack in that city. It's a way of telling those people who suffered losses that "you are not alone". At least, that's how I'd see it. You very often see flags at the funerals or memorials of military people who were killed for precisely the same reason.

I'm not saying that means the event is never used as a justification for military action overseas. Clearly, it is. But I don't think the presence of flags at a memorial necessarily indicates bellicosity anymore than flags do at any other memorial service, such as when a President or other public figure dies.

ETA: exactly what TP said in his first paragraph above. As to the second paragraph:

The lesson of the event is not that Islam is a terrorist religion, nor that Muslims are bad people, which is, sadly, what seems to be the predominant jingo amongst this group of people.

This raises an issue that I think is at a core of a lot of the disagreement and angst about this. On one side is the "muslims are bad people" argument, and on the other is "this has nothing to do with islam". Isn't there sort of a middle ground somewhere, where you acknowledge that all muslims are not bad, but also that there is a significant strain of radicalism and malignancy that goes beyond just a couple of people?

If we were discussing Christianity in the 11th-13th century, during the various crusades in the Holy Land and elsewhere, I don't think it would be considered in bad taste to observe that Christianity had a significant problem with aggressiveness/extremism. And clearly, there also were a great many Christians who were not out forcibly converting people in the Baltic regions, or pillaging muslim cities. But the latter doesn't mean that it would have been wrong to view Christianity in general with some degree of caution, because the presence of "good" Christians really doesn't matter too much of the bad ones are sufficiently numerous or powerful to cause problems.

[alguien]

This raises an issue that I think is at a core of a lot of the disagreement and angst about this. On one side is the "muslims are bad people" argument, and on the other is "this has nothing to do with islam". Isn't there sort of a middle ground somewhere, where you acknowledge that all muslims are not bad, but also that there is a significant strain of radicalism and malignancy that goes beyond just a couple of people?

If we were discussing Christianity in the 11th-13th century, during the various crusades in the Holy Land and elsewhere, I don't think it would be considered in bad taste to observe that Christianity had a significant problem with aggressiveness/extremism. And clearly, there also were a great many Christians who were not out forcibly converting people in the Baltic regions, or pillaging muslim cities. But the latter doesn't mean that it would have been wrong to view Christianity in general with some degree of caution, because the presence of "good" Christians really doesn't matter too much of the bad ones are sufficiently numerous or powerful to cause problems.

Probably it would just be more accurate just to say "Extremists are bad." Or "Fundamentalists are crazy."

Also, while the Crusades are a great example of the worldly evils of Christianity (especially the Fourth... man that shit was messed up) I would say the rape and genocide of entire indigenous peoples across two whole continents to be an even better one.

[The Progressive]

Cocopuff is on a roll!

Great stuff, buddy.

[DanteGabriel]

Hunter S. Thompson's post-9/11 column (bolding is mine):

The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now -- with somebody -- and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.

It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy. Osama bin Laden may be a primitive "figurehead" -- or even dead, for all we know -- but whoever put those All-American jet planes loaded with All-American fuel into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon did it with chilling precision and accuracy. The second one was a dead-on bullseye. Straight into the middle of the skyscraper.

...

We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for WAR seem to know who did it or where to look for them.

This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now. He will declare a National Security Emergency and clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the guilty won't hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will ferret them out by force.

Good luck. He is in for a profoundly difficult job -- armed as he is with no credible Military Intelligence, no witnesses and only the ghost of Bin Laden to blame for the tragedy.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1250751&22

He wasn't wrong, was he?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, generalizing is generalizing. You are repeating verbatim the typical stereotyping/generalizing/xenophobic garbage that has been thrown around for thousands of years of human linguistic and cultural development in order to justify marginalizing certain populations.

It's not a generalization. It's an acknowledgement of a significant, and dangerous, radical element within islam. It is neither suggesting nor implying that all muslims are radicals. In fact, it's a specific acknowledgement that they are not.

For instance:

Were there black civil rights activists that were violent and broke the law?

Yes.

Should I view black civil rights activists or blacks in general with some degree of caution because the presence of a few bad activists?

Hell fucking no.

Some men are rapists, though certainly all are not. Is it nevertheless reasonable for a woman to exercise some degree of caution when in the company of a man she does not know, or in a deserted parking lot, etc., based on the possibility that he might be one?

[Altherion]

I meant it was absurd to think it was possible under Gore. As is claiming the connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war was "not clear cut". I thought it was pretty clear fuck cut as day that there is not actually connection other than what was cooked up by W and his council.

It was not possible under Gore, but if Gore had won in 2000, he would quite likely have lost the 2004 election (the Republicans are good at selling "not tough enough when it comes to national security") and then the war would have probably been on in 2005 rather than 2003. This is far from certain though which is why I said it might not have happened if he had won in 2000. As to the connection between Iraq and 9/11, the issue is not that Saddam had anything to do with the latter, but that Bush would never have been able to push the war through Congress if it wasn't for 9/11.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It was not possible under Gore, but if Gore had won in 2000, he would quite likely have lost the 2004 election (the Republicans are good at selling "not tough enough when it comes to national security") and then the war would have probably been on in 2005 rather than 2003. This is far from certain though which is why I said it might not have happened if he had won in 2000. As to the connection between Iraq and 9/11, the issue is not that Saddam had anything to do with the latter, but that Bush would never have been able to push the war through Congress if it wasn't for 9/11.

If Gore had gone into Afghanistan in 2001, (and I'm not really sure about that), and if he had not invaded Iraq (which I think is more likely), I think he probably would have won reelection in 2004 simply because we would have been at war and people would have rallied behind the President.

The flies in the ointment would have been if we'd been hit with another terrorist attack in the meantime, or if Saddam had continued being a prick and Gore had not gone to war despite public sentiment to the contrary.

[Shryke]

If Gore had gone into Afghanistan in 2001, (and I'm not really sure about that), and if he had not invaded Iraq (which I think is more likely), I think he probably would have won reelection in 2004 simply because we would have been at war and people would have rallied behind the President.

The flies in the ointment would have been if we'd been hit with another terrorist attack in the meantime, or if Saddam had continued being a prick and Gore had not gone to war despite public sentiment to the contrary.

Except there would have been no public sentiment for it because there would have been nobody to build it up.

[DanteGabriel]

Except there would have been no public sentiment for it because there would have been nobody to build it up.

Nah, the neocons would have used their usual media whores to build up the need to invade Iraq. Look at what's happening now with these same morons trying to convince everybody that we need to invade Iran.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

My two cents is that we would have still gone into Afghanistan under Gore, but not Iraq. The American public was practically demanding that we go to war somewhere.

I think you're probably right, although he might have been more willing to try to find a compromise with the Taliban than was Bush. It's just tough to know for sure.

[awesome possum]

Except there would have been no public sentiment for it because there would have been nobody to build it up.

As Dante suggested, the neocons would have been calling for it, especially if Gore's Afghanistan war was as unsuccessful in capturing or killing bin Laden (depending on if the Gore Administration would have made him Public Enemy #1) as Bush's was.

[sToNED_CAT]

My two cents is that we would have still gone into Afghanistan under Gore, but not Iraq. The American public was practically demanding that we go to war somewhere.

Really? You people realize that US massively bombed Iraq under Clinton, just because of some weapon inspectors dispute?

And you realize that Clinton attacked Serbia to stop genocide in Kosovo, and that genocide, UN and NATO admitted(after the war) didn't actually take place?

[awesome possum]

Really? You people realize that US massively bombed Iraq under Clinton, just because of some weapons inspector dispute?

And you realize that Clinton attacked Serbia to stop genocide in Kosovo, and that genocide, UN and NATO admitted(after the war) didn't actually take place?

Really? You realize that dropping bombs on a country is different than a full-scale invasion?