What exactly happened on 9/11/01?

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:20 pm

I don’t think you can ever win the war on terror. All you can really do is try to the number of attacks. No matter how many precautions you take there will always is a risk of attack. That is the demoralizing reality of the war on terror.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:24 pm

El gato - I had read several times now your post to me, but had to try to calm myself before responding to you. Just like you I too have the right to my viewpoint, so I will do this as lady like a possible. no FO's.

[quote]RIGHT HERE IN PODUNK MONTANA [quote

first, i didn't know Kalispell qualified as podunk, my family is from small podunk towns (Lincoln, Belt, Denton & Fairfield), and yes there are many soldiers from Montana in the Army. Hubby being one of them. so yes I'm sure you've seen pictures, but how many of those were in the initial wave? The PM officers went first, they had to to secure safety for our troops, THEY removed and buried the dead. So yes I'm sure you've seen pictures, i've seen GORE. Okay, it disturbs me to see dead people.

I am anti-death penalty, i do not hunt (although if used for food i have no problem with hunting), I cry when birds use my car windsheild to commit suicide. seeing mass bodies piled up disgusts me. I personally do not feel unleashing vengence on all Iraqi citizens was necessary to combat terrorism. Many of the terrorist are SAUDI nationals, not Iraqi.

I am not excusing the extremists for the bombings around the world, but there are more systematic ways to deal with terrorism besides bombing an ENTIRE country to heck. I do not think we used wisdom, i think BUSH wanted to flex is muscles and win a pissing contest.

[quote]WE DIDN'T GO TO IRAQ TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. Have innocent people died because of our invasion? Yes; unfortunately in war, innocent people die. Are the majority of Iraqis better off now (or soon) than when Saddam was in power? According to those I talk to who have been there, the answer is yes as well.

I think that we were careless in our bombing raids. I do not like seeing bombs labelled "FU Iraq", or "this is for NY" if our countries objective was to solely remove high powered officials and bank rollers or terror cells, this said otherwise. it was revenge. the US was going to "teach them a lesson", I don't think any lives are worthless, nor do I feel as a Christian that we have the right to unleash vengence. God tells me this in Romans 12:19 (see HC93 isn't the only one who can thump a Bible). However, as not everyone believes the way i do, i'm sure they are fine with our attacks on Iraq, but personally i am not.

I do think in 10 years or so Iraq will be better than with Saddam, but we've damaged the country, and killed it's people, so how are we any better than him?

[quote]The terrorists developed & implemented a plan SPECIFICALLY TO KILL INNOCENT AMERICANS. The fact that you try to make a comparison to what we are doing in defense of our nation & our freedom is appalling to me, especially considering that your husband is directly involved in the conflict[/quote}

There were in my opinion other options as to how we can defend the US, than the actions Bush used. Brian would be the first to say that he doesn't approve of our methods, he is a soldier and it is his number one priority to uphold any lawful order directly given to him. He has orders and will execute them, but does not have to morally agree with them. He would also tell you that WE never agree on anything he does in the Army.

I am loyal to my hubby, but there are many activities he's been involved with while being on active duty that i don't agree with, and that's okay. (some he finds stupid - i.e. my problem with animal research methods they've used while at APG) and he's worked on many "projects" he doesn't back 100%, but he took an oath and will do what he has to do as a member of the armed forces.

Brian and I are different people and just because I'm legally bound to this man, does not mean i have to agree with him, his job, or even his political views.

I do support our soldiers! does not mean i have to support the war in iraq.

-rebecca

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:50 pm

Rebbecca one difference between us and the terrorist is that our killing and bombing was done after a matter of public debate and as a matter of official public policy from a legitimate government, and Iraq was repeatedly warned that they would be attacked.

Not that it makes the killing any less brutal, bit I don't think you can say that a war campaign whose principle targets were military and within the bounds of the Geneva convention is the same as terrorists who target civilians.

The primary purpose of the US bombing was to bring about a change in government in Iraq, with the expressed interest in bringing peace through war - I know that sounds stupid, but the goal is to eventually bring peace through the region, which could only be accomplished by war.

The primary purpose of the terrorist attack was to bring terror and death - they have no illusions of actually winning a war, they simply want to make people afraid and miserable.

Even thought the immediate results of each action might be the same, I really think you have to examine the intention of both parties before you decide we are the same as them.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:52 pm

Saddam didn't bomb us, Osama did. he may have financed different operations, but all terrorists were linked to OBL. MANY to Saudi Arabia. I'm not dumb, Saddam is proof of satan on earth, but the reason we are in iraq isn't because 9/11. it's because Bush Sr. didn't get it done during the Gulf war.

-rebecca

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:26 pm

briannell wrote: I'm not dumb, Saddam is proof of satan on earth, but the reason we are in iraq isn't because 9/11. it's because Bush Sr. didn't get it done during the Gulf war.

Are you sure it wasn't for oil or because Saddam tired to kill Bush Sr.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:37 pm

I thought it was fate to have 9-11 dovetail with Saddam booting UN inspectors and then having a bunch of circumstantial evidence of WMDs.

The evidence of linking bin laden with Iraq was icing.

I believe the real reason that Bush II wanted to invade was because Saddam tried to assassinate Bush I...just my opinion.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:13 pm

my opinion (for what it is worth) is that we belonged in Afganistan, I was happy to blast the hell out of it. I think very flimsy evidence was used to get the US into Iraq. I think Pres. Bush wanted to make the old man proud and finish what he didn't. also i think oil has a lot to do with it. As for WMD's I've already previously stated that when hubby was overseas trace components were found, and mobile WMD's were going back and forth with Syria (according to the intel his unit had), so I think Syria is a big threat, but we haven't bombed them. why? Bush used 9/11 to push his personal agenda.

now that we're there we need to do our best to clean up his mess.

Sorry I insulted, those who truly believe we should be there, but i don't feel that way. Nor do i think it is fair to send my hubby to get shot at and attacked by roadside bombs over oil.

-rebecca

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:39 am

Regarding the idea that Bush Sr. didn't "finish the job" back in the 90's during the Gulf War:

Saddam had invaded Kuwait. Our ONLY mission was to remove Saddam's forces and liberate the Kuwaiti people. If Bush Sr. had ordered an invasion &/or an attempt to take out Saddam, he would have been absolutely CRUCIFIED in the American press and throughout the world. The press & the international community, as well as a significant % of the American people would have lambasted Bush for "overstepping" our mission.

Think about it; if Bush Sr. DOES invade Iraq and take out Saddam, wouldn't we have had to face EXACTLY what we are today? We still would have had to remain as an occupying force until Iraq "stabilized", the world community would be pissed, and the American people would no doubt have been just as polarized on the issue as we are today. The difference is, theoretically anyway, that Bush Jr. claims there were WMD's and that Saddam was a direct threat to the U.S.; what would Bush Sr.'s reasoning have been for an invasion and removal (or assassination)?

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:01 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:It wouldn't sell newspapers, nor would it drive up tv news ratings...that's why I think mainstream media has moved on.

conservative talk radio hosts know that beating the 9-11 drum will keep their ratings high enough to justify continuing to produce their talk show...that's why i think conservative radio talk shows beat that drum.

i don't think it's any more complicated than that...

On the flip side, I still see the occasional Abu Ghraib/Gitmo terrorist "abuse" front page story here in the Oregonian.

I can only assume they continue this drumbeat to satisfy what they feel is their majority readership.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:16 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:Just a thought: The War on terrorism is a war of attrition - perhaps analogous to the Cold War. At some point - maybe 20 years - I think people, in general, will get very tired of either blowing themselves up, or just as simply, mass murdering people using other types bombs. I think such a shift in human consciousness might go down in history - but I'm an optomist.

I think this is a very unique perspective. I hadn't heard this angle. I find myself agreeing with it.

The only problem I see with this premise is that our political climate doesn't look past the next election. The US population might be in this for the long haul, but our leadership on both sides of the aisle aren't. And because our mainstream media is basically a tool of one party, the end result could be a loss of US support. There are too many elections to be won, too much power to gain, too much money to put in the bank.

That is why I am somewhat pessimistic of the overall WOT but am optimistic on Bush's resolve in Iraq. If we can buy even three more years of letting these terrorists alienate even more innocent civilians, then it could actually be exponential in the future of this long struggle.

I'm no utopic idealist. I realize the war in Iraq and even Afghanistan is not going perfectly. But if you take into account the money, manpower, and resources the Islamist terror types are investing in Iraq, I really do think that if Bush has the resolve to stay in Iraq until the next election we will be much better of because of it.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:16 pm

curious how you'd feel if your loved one came home from Iraq in a body bag? or if your spouse left you 12 -18 months at a time, with you being left a single parent. would you really support the WOT?

all soldiers consider it a honor to die for our country, and would not think twice about about laying down thier lives to protect us here at home. But if it was your spouse wouldn't you want a different solution to terrorism than occupying iraq?

I think Bush used OBL to get into Iraq, i just hope that it's worth it in the end. i would hate for Iraq to turn into another Vietnam, where we lost so many lives and had little effect on the country.

-rebecca

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:25 pm

briannell wrote:curious how you'd feel if your loved one came home from Iraq in a body bag? or if your spouse left you 12 -18 months at a time, with you being left a single parent. would you really support the WOT?

all soldiers consider it a honor to die for our country, and would not think twice about about laying down thier lives to protect us here at home. But if it was your spouse wouldn't you want a different solution to terrorism than occupying iraq?

I think Bush used OBL to get into Iraq, i just hope that it's worth it in the end. i would hate for Iraq to turn into another Vietnam, where we lost so many lives and had little effect on the country.

-rebecca

I'm not sure if your rant is directed at me or not.

If so...

One of my cousins just got back from Baghdad last week. It took him about a week to secure a flight out of Kuwait. Another cousin of ours is still there. We pray for him daily. He has four months left on his second tour.

Since I don't know much about your story, tell me why you should think you are the only one affected by this war? There are others with family members involved, even on this board.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:49 am

PaPaG-

i'm not claiming to be the only one affected and it was a general question to those on the board, not directed at you personally. I'm just curious how other people would feel about the WOT if they had a direct involvement like a loved one or spouse. I'm not that arrogant to think this war is done to make me miserable by deploying my husband. just a lot of people really in favor of the WOT have no loved ones involved, and many aren't even prior military. I just the the perspective is different when you have a personal stake in it.

-rebecca

just to put my rant into perspective for you since 9/11 my husband has been deployed a total of 30 months and looking at another possible 18 in November. figure i have the right to be whiney would like my kids to know their dad, and I'd like to be a "normal" couple for awhile. officers in the Army now have a 6x national average for divorce, Brian lets me whine, or bitch however i feel, because I'm STILL HERE.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:20 am

briannell wrote:PaPaG-

i'm not claiming to be the only one affected and it was a general question to those on the board, not directed at you personally. I'm just curious how other people would feel about the WOT if they had a direct involvement like a loved one or spouse. I'm not that arrogant to think this war is done to make me miserable by deploying my husband. just a lot of people really in favor of the WOT have no loved ones involved, and many aren't even prior military. I just the the perspective is different when you have a personal stake in it.

-rebecca

just to put my rant into perspective for you since 9/11 my husband has been deployed a total of 30 months and looking at another possible 18 in November. figure i have the right to be whiney would like my kids to know their dad, and I'd like to be a "normal" couple for awhile. officers in the Army now have a 6x national average for divorce, Brian lets me whine, or bitch however i feel, because I'm STILL HERE.

I hope I didn't seem harsh in my previous post. Your husband's deployment must be very difficult to you and your family. Obviously having two cousins serving there is much different than your situation. If it helps at all, I do support the work of our military in these operations.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:47 am

it sucks for all families, it's not natural to have such long deployments. in our case Brian is being "retained" because the army needs his specialty. frozen for the next 6 years, so we are not given a choice, that makes it worse. as for kids and i we'll probably head to great falls, if he goes another 18 months to be close to family. i'm living with his mom more than him these days.

interesting that we were married in maryland and after a minimum of one year without your spouse sharing your bed the state will null and void your marriage in a day if you file at the local court house. even some states view it as unfair to spouses. this law has been on the books forever, but it shows just how important it is for married couples to be together.

-rebecca

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:11 am

"Charlie only gets to go home 2 ways, Dead or with a victory"

I wonder if it's true for Muslim terrorist? If so we don't have a chance.

2nd thought. "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." same goes for signing on the dotted line. I had 8 years to go for my 20 but I didn't want to chance another deployment. So I baged it. Smartest thing I ever did. I'd view deployment a little differnt if I knew I'd be manning and aid station with a senator's son or daughter.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:27 am

jag - he can't bag it. we've done 9, and they froze Brian to 15 years. if they asked to continue in the army that's one thing, but to force you to stay in is another.

-rebecca

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:28 pm

El_Gato wrote:The difference is, theoretically anyway, that Bush Jr. claims there were WMD's and that Saddam was a direct threat to the U.S.; what would Bush Sr.'s reasoning have been for an invasion and removal (or assassination)?

The interesting thing about this quote is that, prior to our current invasion of Iraq, it is debatable whether or not Saddam actually *did* have any WMDs. During the first Gulf War, it is pretty much undisputed that he did in fact have them.

Doesn't it seem a bit inconsistent that the *possible* presence of WMDs is being used to justify the current war, while the fact that he definitely did have them in the first Gulf War would not have justified an invasion at that time?

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:55 pm

briannell wrote:curious how you'd feel if your loved one came home from Iraq in a body bag? or if your spouse left you 12 -18 months at a time, with you being left a single parent. would you really support the WOT?

all soldiers consider it a honor to die for our country, and would not think twice about about laying down thier lives to protect us here at home. But if it was your spouse wouldn't you want a different solution to terrorism than occupying iraq?

I think Bush used OBL to get into Iraq, i just hope that it's worth it in the end. i would hate for Iraq to turn into another Vietnam, where we lost so many lives and had little effect on the country.

-rebecca

I know the first question is rhetorical. However, I think the person serving and the spouse of that person probably know what they are getting into before joining. A couple anecdotes: (1) I was a few hours from signing up for OCS because I hadn't heard from the companies that I had earlier interviewed with. I was tired of waiting and wanted to get on with a career. My girlfriend at that time basically said she wouldn't be a military wife. We both thought that we had about 1 last night together after about 3 years of dating. I kid you not....the next day, one of the companies called offering me a job...I took the civilian job, and married my girlfriend. (2) One of my best friends is a General's son, and he married his high school sweetheart, who was also a General's daughter. My friend will make General in about 3 years, and his wife still hates deployments. In Gulf I, her father, her father-in-law, her husband, her brother, and her husband's brother-in-law were in either Kuwait or Iraq at the same time...that is just brutal.

So, Rebecca, you are not alone in how you feel, and it appears to make no difference whether your family is career military, or not. I think there are very few marriages in the military, if any, where deployment is considered, "OK." And certainly, nobody likes to get shot at.

I can only guess, but I would say that probably all spouses of soldiers deployed overseas would rather fight terrorism any other way than the way the U.S. is doing right now. Sometimes, conflict and war cannot and should not be avoided. I think removing Saddam was the right thing to do. I don't think the U.S. should have to bear most of the cost of nation building; however, it is the bed we have made for ourselves, so I hope and pray, that smart people in Washington make smart decisions in order get our guys/gals home sooner rather than later.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:01 pm

Grizlaw wrote:Doesn't it seem a bit inconsistent that the *possible* presence of WMDs is being used to justify the current war, while the fact that he definitely did have them in the first Gulf War would not have justified an invasion at that time?

THAT is really an interesting thought...from what I have been told, there was a thought in Washington and at the Pentagon that Saddam was ripe for being overthrown without the U.S. military's involvement, which contributed to the decision to not go to Baghdad. However, we all know how badly the Kurds and the Shiites were brutalized in the aftermath of Gulf I.

At that time, I don't think there was ANY political will amongst the Allies to overthrow Saddam militarily.