CNN is showing their "CNN Remembers" special about 9/11

[JazzManJim]

And they just did the part where the second plane hit the Tower.

Like five replays, from different angles. In Slow Motion.

Even now, it's like a kick in the gut.

 

[Liontamr]

I saw that yesterday ... It's still tough to watch and leaves an empty feeling in my heart.

 

[Eumenides]

Last year I had to stop watching the news because it was making me cry with every family story they showed, not to mention the constant replay of the tragedy.

It is one of those moments you never thought you would have.

 

[Kelly_Liscious]

I do not want to watch that again.
It makes me feel so sad and I can only imagine how it must feel for all the people who lost some one , who went through these events first hand.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

y'know what hit me like a ton of bricks? I recently saw a Simpson's episode where Homer's car is locked up right between the two towers of the WTC....

I felt like I was hit in the stomach when I saw that, cus I just kept repeating in my head.. "They're not there anymore... they're not there anymore."

 

[JazzManJim]

And though I'm sure this belongs on another thread....

We're debating in this country whether or not we should remove from power a man who supports what happened in every way and has the means to give those selfsame terrorists greater and more terrible weapons.

How this is even a matter for debate escapes me.

I could care less what the other Arab countries there think. Their country has not come under attack from these people. Their country never will because they lack the will to oppose those actions.

 

[Spinaroonie]

I do not want to watch that again.

You pretty much won't have a choice.

Every network on the day will be going full "we remember mode"

Honestly, it's going to be a busy night at blockbuster.

 

[JazzManJim]

No, no, no, no, no.

Don't show this, you CNN fuckers.

What the fuck is wrong with you?!?!?!

They're showing the people actually jumping out the windows!!

Don't you fuckers have a HEART?!??!

Time to turn the channel. There has to be something on Skinemax....

 

[Angel]

I Want to see it again.

It's too easy for me to think back on the memory and feel nothing close to what I felt when it happened.

It's just another memory now and I don't want it to be like that. I want to remember it the way it was when it happened.

I don't want it to be pushed back with the rest of my memories.

I don't want to think about it and have it affect me the same way hearing about some random person in West Bumblefuck got shot 12 years ago affects me.


I just can't bring myself to watch it.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Maintain the Hate . . .

In Northern Ireland the Protestants march each year to remind themselves why they hate the Catholics.

In the US, the Propaganda Department of the appointed Dubyah Adminstration replays the horrors of 9/11 to encourage the nation to go to war against a nation that might threaten the Bush family business of pipelines. If the Iraq regime is such a threat, why then did Bush Snr stop the Desertstorm campaign when they were 30 minutes from Baghdad??

I seem to remember that Ray Bradbury predicted this secenario in Fahrenheit 451. written in 1967.

 

[Sillyman]

I don't want to see this. The news media successfully managed to put the entire nation into a state of post-traumatic stress syndrome. I'm not eager to get my extra spoonful of insanity, thank you. You want to go to war with Iraq, fine, there is certainly no stopping you. Leave me the hell out of it though.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Maintain the Hate . . .

In the US, the Propaganda Department of the appointed Dubyah Adminstration replays the horrors of 9/11 to encourage the nation to go to war against a nation that might threaten the Bush family business of pipelines. If the Iraq regime is such a threat, why then did Bush Snr stop the Desertstorm campaign when they were 30 minutes from Baghdad??

Probably because people like you would have bitched.

TB4p

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Maintain the Hate . . .

Probably because people like you would have bitched.

TB4p

Excellent point tb4p

Really... I can really imagine Don K Dickhead screaming "Go...Go on..invade Baghdad, go get Saddam!" at his TV back in '91.

 

[70/30]

This cowards got it once cause he kept his lips zippin'
Now he in the news and he wettin' and I'm livin'
This Southern cowards life who I used to do my clues with
Subliminally this is me, I try not to assume shit
Let's not forget the king of Internet
Will assume another name while he tarnishes ya rep
And calls you Ziggy Starters but who the major charm
Who starts to elevate out the reach of his arm

 

[peachykeen]

Everyone grieves in different ways. Some people will want to watch it, some will not. The power of the remote control is in your hands. Personally if I never see that again it will be too soon, but that's just my choice.

JMJ we don't exist in a vacuum. We do have to think about how other nations will react. I would love to say "Go in there and squash him like a bug!" but that's sort of an instant gratification response and may only do us more harm in the long term. As Americans we tend to be myopic and a bit shortsighted.

 

[Violette]

You have a good point, peachy, about the "instant gratification" problem. Going after another target because you can't get the one you want won't avenge those lost to us, and it certainly won't help the rest of us, either! Now if only someone could clue Dubya in on that...

I saw the CNN special. Unlike most people, I HAD to watch in order for it to truly sink in that this had happened to my hometown....the sad part is that sometimes I can still see them...

Of course, the REALLY sad part is that CNN is selling the special on DVD! Honestly, did they HAVE to?!

 

[Don K Dyck]

Re: Re: Re: Maintain the Hate . . .

Excellent point tb4p

Really... I can really imagine Don K Dickhead screaming "Go...Go on..invade Baghdad, go get Saddam!" at his TV back in '91.

Quite the contrary, PC and TB4p, it made perfect sense to complete the job and take out Baghdad in 1991. Just as it made perfect sense for Patton to take out Berlin in 1945.

The question that remains unanswered in both cases is "Why were the successful troops stopped from achieving the campaign objectives?" The answer is political, not military.

In 20/20 hindsight, with Bush Snr, Gorbachev and Majors gone, Saddam Hussein is the only "surviving" leader from the time, and the answer could easily be that the US defence contractors needed a future "Bad Guy" to prop up their industry. Remember, the US military allowed Saddam Hussein to keep his 'choppers - with devastating effects, near genocide, on the Kurds and other minority groups.

The CNN replay is designed to stir up all the passions to justify US militarism. The only beneficiaries from increased military activity are the defence contractors who traditionally support the Republican Party, and are frequently members of the Council for Foreign Relations, the group that "provides" many of the advisors to Presidents from BOTH parties.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Maintain the Hate . . .

Quite the contrary, PC and TB4p, it made perfect sense to complete the job and take out Baghdad in 1991. Just as it made perfect sense for Patton to take out Berlin in 1945.

The question that remains unanswered in both cases is "Why were the successful troops stopped from achieving the campaign objectives?" The answer is political, not military.

In 20/20 hindsight, with Bush Snr, Gorbachev and Majors gone, Saddam Hussein is the only "surviving" leader from the time, and the answer could easily be that the US defence contractors needed a future "Bad Guy" to prop up their industry. Remember, the US military allowed Saddam Hussein to keep his 'choppers - with devastating effects, near genocide, on the Kurds and other minority groups.

The CNN replay is designed to stir up all the passions to justify US militarism. The only beneficiaries from increased military activity are the defence contractors who traditionally support the Republican Party, and are frequently members of the Council for Foreign Relations, the group that "provides" many of the advisors to Presidents from BOTH parties.

Or the answer could be that Desert Storm was simply a mission to liberate Kuwait and that when that job was finished, there was no need to risk further loss of American soldiers' lives.

Nahhh, can't be that easy. There has to be some conspiracy. The military-industrial complex, yeah, and the vast right-wing conspiracy, and they were all in bed with Enron and Philip Morris, uh huh. That's gotta be it.

TB4p

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maintain the Hate . . .

Or the answer could be that Desert Storm was simply a mission to liberate Kuwait and that when that job was finished, there was no need to risk further loss of American soldiers' lives.

Dead on, Oh Smart Bear!

Every single human being who were decision-makers in Desert Storm have said that the reason they didn't depose Hussein or go further than they did is because their mission was to liberate Kuwait. That's all.

Many of them wanted to go further. Many of them pleaded for it. But they also recognize that we didn't have a clear mission to go further and that we gave an express promise to do just what we told them we'd do. No more and no less.


But I suppose my point with Iraq and this is that it is painfully obvious to everyone save the delusional that Hussein is working hand-in-hand with the selfsame people who drove loaded airplanes into those buildings and killed thousands.

I understand those who urge caution, but I believe that we've been quite cautious enough. We were the country attacked by these terrorists. We were the one that had war declared on us. We are the one who foiled an assasination attempt on its President (Bush I, in case y'all forgot). We are the country that still faces continued attack from weapons far worse than killed thousands on that fateful day. We don't need approval from any other country. We've been every reason a rational and cautious nation could possibly need.

So maybe we should watch that special again. When we do we should ask ourselves how many of our countrymens' lives are worth waiting for someone to like us.

 

[70/30]

Great it needs to be done but how are we gonna do it and have reasonable insurance it is not going to make things worse. In addition are you willing to raise taxes to help pay for it?

 

[JazzManJim]

Great it needs to be done but how are we gonna do it and have reasonable insurance it is not going to make things worse. In addition are you willing to raise taxes to help pay for it?

If you're talking about removing Hussein, that's relatively easy. You send in a small team of special forces guerillas and you shoot him. Bang. Done.

Now, how you ensure that there's a workable Democracy is tougher. You do have a group that's prepared to make this work in the Kurds. All they need is some actual support.

Now, is it likely that we'll have to keep troops there for some period of time. Sure there is. But that's not such a distasteful thing. We did it in Europe for 40 years after WWII. We did it in Japan too at the same time. Neither place seems worse for the wear and we seem to have weathered that fairly well. So it's definitely doable.

As for taxes. There's no indication one way or the other that there'll be a need to raise them. I, personally, am in favor of finding this money in the budget as it stands. There's a hell of a lot of slack in the budget that could be absorbed right now.

What it comes down to is that question again. Are the lives of more of our countrymen worth the wait?

 

[70/30]

Not so easy since it is taking a long time to get bin laden's bunch and Mullah Omar. We also can't find Eric Rudolph in our own damn country. I think we'll have to line up every Iraqi and check the fingerprints to see if we got him. I don't know so much about the Kurds but from what Frimost and Rex have been talking about they aren't close to forming a coalition. However simple you think an operation against Saddam will be, I think at the minimum it'll be twice as difficult. Then we are both generously leaving Israel out of the equation. I'm glad Powell's in the mix but with the operation fully being in Rumsfeld's hands, it is hard to tell. I think guys like Hegel, Myers, Biden, and Armey's influence make a difference and they say hold up. About cutting fat from the budget, I say do it but it's Congress' move but I still anticipate they'll vote on party lines unless "In order to Kill Saddam" is at the top of each bill.

 

[teddybear4play]

Not so easy since it is taking a long time to get bin laden's bunch and Mullah Omar. We also can't find Eric Rudolph in our own damn country. I think we'll have to line up every Iraqi and check the fingerprints to see if we got him. I don't know so much about the Kurds but from what Frimost and Rex have been talking about they aren't close to forming a coalition. However simple you think an operation against Saddam will be, I think at the minimum it'll be twice as difficult. Then we are both generously leaving Israel out of the equation. I'm glad Powell's in the mix but with the operation fully being in Rumsfeld's hands, it is hard to tell. I think guys like Hegel, Myers, Biden, and Armey's influence make a difference and they say hold up. About cutting fat from the budget, I say do it but it's Congress' move but I still anticipate they'll vote on party lines unless "In order to Kill Saddam" is at the top of each bill.

While you raise some good points, I think you give Saddam and the Iraqi military far, far too much credit. We rolled over them ten years ago like an AM General Hummer does a daisy, and by all intelligence accounts, he's substantially weaker now.

There's also a big difference between Osama bin Laden and Hussein. By bin Laden's very nature, he's always in hiding, always on the run, and never aboveground for very long: with good reason, as the U.S. has had him on our enemies list for a while now, and a toe tag prefitted for his stinking corpse ever since 9/11. Hussein, on the other hand, is a public figure, not to mention a very vain one, as "leaders" of his ilk are usually. While he may have several various bases of operation, he certainly wouldn't have the same resources if he were chased from power as OBL would/does. And while we don't necessarily like Hussein very much, we would just be out to get him out of power — not put a bullet in his head.

Finally, I'm not concerned about anyone else, really. The "experts" who all suggest that we'd never be able to build a decent coalition, or that the "Arab street" will rise up in anger, or that attacking Iraq would only provoke retaliation, were saying the same thing in 1991. In the end, nobody will really raise any real objection, if for no other reason that they'll witness the awesome firepower we blast Iraq with (just as we did Afghanistan) and be scared into agreement.

And not a chance in hell we raise taxes. We'll simply go further in deficit spending. Raising taxes is what George H.W. Bush did in 1990, and it combined with the oil crunch from the Gulf situation threw the economy into turmoil and resulted in his losing the election to a hillbilly with a hard-on. George W. Bush may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but he won't be foolish enough to suugest a tax increase in an already constricted economic situation, and he'll veto anything that comes to his desk that even smells like a tax hike.

TB4p

 

[70/30]

sure. who takes over after saddam falls?

You didn't mention Israel, I'm curious where they fit in.

Also, it is an invasion of a country that perceives their religion is being attacked and they already harbor illwill towards us for various bombings and levying sanctions for over 10yrs, you don't think random Iraqi civilians will join the fray?

To my knowledge American interests haven't been specifically attacked by a terrorist group since Sept, do you think "sleeper cells" will quickly energize and attack?

If Saddam doesn't have enough of his country's loyalty to withstand much of an attack, Arab Street as you call them has even less. Wouldn't militaristic splinters be apt to pursue our troops and/or attempt to overthrow the heads of state that cowered to the "infidels"?

How many regimes do you think we can successfully put in at the same time in the region-Afghanistan, Iraq,...,...,....?

How long did it take for the Gulf War coalition to assemble and position?

Where are our troops going to be based before and during the attack?

Oh yeah Israel again-they were attacked in 91, they'll be attacked again this time-how can anyone predict what they will do if they are pursued from several directions-since the Muslim surrounding governments don't have enough control over their citizens and army?

 

[70/30]

About finding Saddam, Jim said send in special forces to get him and it's over. It is going to take a lot more than special forces and airstrikes. 10's of thousands of groundtroops are a must and they must act quickly so other Muslim military factions don't have enough time to organize and provoke Israel.