Kabul is bombed.

[Toad]

What part of the "New Global Economy" did the Pentagon represent?

[Naso]

Originally posted by Toad:
What part of the "New Global Economy" did the Pentagon represent?

Weapon systems producers

Combat airplanes producers (and Huge ones too)  

Fuel producers

Food (for troops)

Pharmaceutics (for woundeds)

Uniforms, trucks, paper, computers, supercomputers, communication systems, HiTech hardware (no, not our HiTech   ), etcetera, etcetera.

Jeez, Toad, you know very well, an army at war need an HUGE amount of money.

And, BTW, I knew Italy was one of the greatest producer of anti-personnel mines, but looking at your post, seem Russia beat us hands down, following this trend you are leaving us only fast cars and the better food (and "that" other activity   ).  

[Sky Viper]

Originally posted by Toad:
What part of the "New Global Economy" did the Pentagon represent?

Um, actually the Pentagon was just a big bellybutton 5 sided building that was easy to see from 300 ft. in a Passenger Jet. It just happens to be well known as a US Military installation.
Remeber that the apparent target was not the Pentagon, but the White House.
Ever been to DC?  Imagine being pumped up on adreneline and trying to fly that jet liner around the Mall Complex in DC.  Not an easy task for someone with about 20 min. experience at the controls.
I doubt that he could figure out which one was the White House.

Viper

[AKDejaVu]

The whole "world economy" idea is contrived.  The World Trade Center was a hub for world commerce.  It was also the tallest building(s) in New York.

The Space Needle in Seattle was a target of a terrorst plot in 1999 (planned for new year's day 2000).  The reason?  Because it was highly visible and there was going to be alot of partying going on around there with alot of cameras.

The target seems to be visible decadence and monuments.  Contrive what you want out of that.

AKDejaVu

[SOB]

Ispar,

Maybe I'm confused.  What you're saying is that whenever the United States is attacked, we should try and figure out exactly what WE did to cause ourselves to get attacked and stop doing it?  If so, at what point would you suggest that we do fight back?  Or should we never fight back against aggressors?  Should we have fought in WWII?  Was that senseless violence that we should have avoided?

I guess I am confused.  We should what?  Make sure that there's no United States citizens, aid, military, anything in the middle east?  Or maybe we should just close our borders and keep everything US in the US.  But then, if/when we're still attacked, what then?  Figure out what "they" don't like about our country and change that too?


SOB

[Toad]

So the world-wide Global Military-Industrial Complex is headquarted at the Pentagon? This is going to come as news to a few very, very large firms around the world. The terrs pick the Pentagon not because it's the HQ of the US military but because it's a big corporate world HQ.  

...wait.. they picked it because they couldn't find the White house? Planned everything out so carefully but forgot to show the guys how to use a GPS and/or enter lat/long into the Flight Mangement Computer...oops wait, the Pennsylvania plane apparently turned directly for coordinates in the DC area... maybe they DID know how to program the FMC.

Hey, wait... what was the target of the Pennsy plane anyway? Anyone know for sure?

Oh, yeah, there may well have been 2-4 other hijack teams out there flying already when the FAA "pancaked" the system. Some in the industry think we were just lucky there weren't 2-4 more hijackings. What were the targets of those?

It wasn't an attack against the USA? LOL.

[Toad]

SOB,

You just have to ignore Ispar. He's one of freedom's freeloaders.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

John Stuart Mill

[batdog]

Parasite is more like it Toad.


xBAT

[Dowding]

Unbelievable Toad. But perhaps you were just complying with the general odour of roadkill pervading this thread.

Specifically, it seems you despise the whole Quaker faith.

I also thought you were better than character assasination. Clearly I was wrong, although your use of Mill's 19th century rhetoric for that purpose is quite commendable.

[Red Ant]

OF COURSE it was an attack against the U.S.A. My point was that it is MORE than that. People seem to get the idea that just because one wishes to understand the underlying principles behind the attacks one is somehow "soft" or "un-patriotic". What happened to "know your enemy"? Toad, you of all people should know your Sun Tzu.
It should be patently clear that THE most present danger to fundamentalist Islam is not Tomahawk missiles or the 10th Mountain Division - it is Reeboks, Levi's, Coca Cola & Britney Spears. They are "losing their congregation", and what is doing it to them is "western consumerist culture". The same culture that, combined with the brilliant U.S. military/economic policy, crushed the old Soviet Union.
Now some of you seemed to misunderstand me - i am ENTIRELY for the current military action. However, i suspect that it and the humanitarian aid are not going to be enough to really "win" this war. Hence my post above. Misinterpret as you wish.

[ispar]

Well, I wasn't really making an argument per se, after that first paragraph or two, I was just venting frustration and feelings. Take that bit as you may.

As far as culpability, the US doesn't have a friendly record in that part of the world. Sanctions against Iraq, support of corrupt governments in return for bases while we criticize others for the same violations, a total refusal to criticize any actions taken by the Israeli government (not to be taken as an endorsement of Palestinian methods or ideals) and a stonewall attitude with regard to that same conflict. Add to this American arrogance and assumed civil and moral superiority, and you get one pissed off Middle East.

The problem, Nash, is that I can't think of a better solution. Neither can I think of a worse one. It's a catch 22 situation, and we are responding in the way that makes the most sense to us, and has the most tangible and evidential results: military action.

Just how we function, I guess.

SOB, I am saying that yes, instead of just striking back at an attacker and assuming that killing them off will make us safe and ensure peace we should take a close look at ourselves and do what we can change about our foreign policy to make this country, as well as others, safer from terrorism for removing part of the reason. Terrorism is not "just for the hell of it." There ARE reasons, justified or not. It's a long road ahead, that's for sure.

Toad, viva la differance. S!

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: ispar ]

[Naso]

Originally posted by Toad:
So the world-wide Global Military-Industrial Complex is headquarted at the Pentagon? This is going to come as news to a few very, very large firms around the world. The terrs pick the Pentagon not because it's the HQ of the US military but because it's a big corporate world HQ.  

Au contraire mon ami,

Pentagon is'nt the HQ of this global complex, Pentagon it's just one of his puppets.

Funny, uh?
 

Red-ant and Ispar, good posts, S!

[Thrawn]

Hey Hang, why don't you ask the people support our point of view to join the military?  At least ispar has the balls to say he is a pasifist.  They go on about wanting people killed, but apparently don't have the steel to go do it themselves.  Ispar talks his talk and walks his walk.  Do they?

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]

[mrfish]

Originally posted by ispar:
SOB, I am saying that yes, instead of just striking back at an attacker and assuming that killing them off will make us safe and ensure peace we should take a close look at ourselves and do what we can change about our foreign policy to make this country, as well as others, safer from terrorism for removing part of the reason.

why are they mutually exclusive?

why can't we retaliate for the deed and also let it serve as a wakeup call to change our policy. our policy needs changing and i don't blame the arabs for disliking the us --->BUT(qualifier)<--- the act of sep 11th needs to be dealt with too - we cant just 'let it go'. it was heinous! it's it's own thing seperate from our policy revisions. they made a mistake and have to pay the price regardless of whether we should be there or not.

what's funny is before sep 11th, liberals jumped to call anyone against the u.s. supporting israel an antisemite bastard who eats babies and now after sep 11th they are calling it the u.s.' responsibility to listen to the poor arabs complaints and maybe israel was mean after all!

what a bunch of losers. they have to take whatever position seems the most compassionate and understanding regardless of which makes the most sense.

it's like you change the vogue view with the facts staying nearly the same and suddenly their love goes to the arabs because they are a more pathetic victim than the israelis! now they need a momma worse.

sorry israel, there's a new oppressed victim for our liberal support now. you have been bumped - you are yesterday's poster victim, those poor struggling arabs are the latest thing in sympathy these days.

wake up fools. these bleeding heart saps are the same people that think we can have a war without losing civilians. when did that become relevant in war? what a riot!!!!!!!!!!!! patton is turning in his grave..... i can already hear the history books....

"america was attacked relentlessly throughout the early 21st century as industry crumbled and tens of thousands lost their lives. however, they were prevented from striking back or defending themselves because the citizens did not approve of a war where people actually died (cuz that's mean)and didn't want to hurt the feelings of arab americans in the u.s.

america worked feverishly to develop a non lethal terrorist seeking weapon and eventually came up with a bomb that targeted only bad guys and delivered a recorded message scolding them for their murderous ways and asking them nicely to say they were sorry.

it also had a number for counseling stenciled on the side in case the recorded message was too harsh and made a terrorist cry. (after all the voice used was none other than charlton heston and we know he is a big meanie cuz he likes guns)

realizing that america had turned into a bunch of sniveling rutabagas, osama bin ladin said too hell with it, surrendered to authorities and served out 2 years in a mental health care facillity and 6 mos probation. he later went on to write a best seller called "how the americans made me sad and made me want to bomb them" and now lives comfortably in redondo beach"

this world just cracks me up...
   

[AKIron]

<soapbox mode> I take exception with those that say we brought this attack on ourselves and now we should rethink our foreign policy. Yes we as Americans have exerted our not insubstantial influence in the world. Yes we have made enemies. Did we ever imagine that we would be untouchable? Only the naive would think so.

So now that our collective nose has been bloodied does that mean we should withdraw and beg forgiveness? Hell no! Some of us knew that exerting our influence and power would cause some to hate and target us yet we’ve done it anyhow. Does anyone that enjoys the fruits of living in the great and powerful nation of the US truly believe that we can be as powerful and prosperous as we are without looking after our own interests worldwide? If so I think you’ve got your head buried where the sun don’t shine. </soapbox mode>