Isn't it funny how times have changed in three years?

On September 12th 2001, our nation was so unison. So together.
So patriotic. There was no politics, there was no feuding, there was no disgruntalment. It was just everyone uniting for the greater good.

So what changed?

What has caused us to abandon the loyalty we all found together?

What has happened to the America of September 12th, 2001?

Well for one, the shock, horror and helplessness of 9/11 has worn off. On Sept 12, Americans were scared, angry and willing to put aside political feelings in order to help those injured/killed/affected by 9/11 and avenge the acts of terror. Since then, however, Americans have slowly come back to normal and returned to their usual Left vs. Right bickering. The questionable War on Iraq hasn't helped anything either.

I personally don't really think there was any unison on the part of the two parties. They just both happened to agree on the issue. They still hated each other.

I disagree.

Remember when, I think it was all the senators, sang God Bless America on the capitol steps? That was unison.

That was a publicity stunt borne out of decades of begging for money & re-election.

So theres no chance that 100 men just decided to stand together and show their love for their country?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
So theres no chance that 100 men just decided to stand together and show their love for their country? Not if those 100 men are politicians or lawyers. (Lionel excluded, of course)

To borrow a line from friends, there are no selfless good deeds. Anyways, it's not like they went out of their way to do it. Sunny day, steps right there, tv coverage...

I do not believe loyalty has wained. I think people just don't know what the hell to do. We hear one political party saying one thing and the other party saying completely different things.
We see soldiers dying. Some say needlessly. Some say for a just cause. The economy is up and down. Health care sucks. The price of necessities rediculous. Good people out of work. Good people worried about losing their job. Terrorists wishing we were all dead and trying their best to accomplish the fact.
Two Presidential candidates that few people have faith in, but must choose between, because no practical alternative is present.
Hurricaines tearing the hell out of florida. Social security is not secure. Foreign countries flexing their muscles.

And to top it all off the Cat is pregnant again.

Other than those few things I think life is great!!!
Have a good day. :D

Originally posted by HaVoK
Not if those 100 men are politicians or lawyers.

What's worse is that most of them are politicians and lawyers.

Originally posted by HaVoK
(Lionel excluded, of course)

Awww! :sniff:

IMO, although while knowing it would look very very good, I think there was a common decency behind the unity they showed.

yah, tragedy knows no political borders.......once the grieving has subsided, ::ding ding:: "back in the ring!"

I agree with that.

The show must go on as they say.

As usual I would give an international perspective to that thread.
I could say the same thing on a global basis.
On september 12th 2001, the world opinion supported the american people. Now in only three years, for many people, the USA almost have becomen the villain. That's pretty sad.

yup, the world prefered the status quo, a fake peace at the expense of americans, iraqis and afghans.

No, The world at that time respected us. Now, it knows we have blundered terribly, and it really is Mr. Bush's fought.

Why would the world respect us for getting bombed? There was no respect there, only sympathy.

The reason the world supported us on September 12th was because, for the first time since 1812, we were scared and vulnerable. So for one brief shining moment, they were on our level again.


As far as the politicians' sincerity, Tom Daschle hugged President Bush before his speech a week after September 11th, spent the next three years attacking him, and now uses the photo in his re-election campaign. That sounds political.

Are you forgetting Pearl Harbor?

Not to be a stickler, but I think we were vulnerable then. The difference between the leadership Roosevelt showed then, and Bush is now, is that we went after the right person.

Its like Kerry said Thursday night, what we did in Iraq would be like Roosevelt attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

Check this out:

Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism

Patterns of Global Terrorism - 2000
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
April 30, 2001


The designation of state sponsors of terrorism by the United States--and the imposition of sanctions--is a mechanism for isolating nations that use terrorism as a means of political expression. US policy seeks to pressure and isolate state sponsors so they will renounce the use of terrorism, end support to terrorists, and bring terrorists to justice for past crimes. The United States is committed to holding terrorists and those who harbor them accountable for past attacks, regardless of when the acts occurred. The US Government has a long memory and will not simply expunge a terrorist's record because time has passed. The states that choose to harbor terrorists are like accomplices who provide shelter for criminals. They will be held accountable for their "guests'" actions. International terrorists should know, before they contemplate a crime, that they cannot hunker down in safehaven for a period of time and be absolved of their crimes.

The United States is firmly committed to removing countries from the list once they have taken necessary steps to end their link to terrorism. In fact, the Department of State is engaged in ongoing discussions with North Korea and Sudan with the object of getting those governments completely out of the terrorism business and off the terrorism list.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism. Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist groups, some of which oppose the Middle East peace negotiations. Libya at the end of 2000 was attempting to mend its international image following its surrender in 1999 of two Libyan suspects for trial in the Pan Am 103 bombing. (In early 2001, one of the suspects was convicted of murder. The judges in the case found that he acted "in furtherance of the purposes of...Libyan Intelligence Services.") Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives and maintained ties to state sponsors and Latin American insurgents. North Korea harbored several hijackers of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in the 1970s and maintained links to other terrorist groups. Finally, Sudan continued to serve as a safehaven for members of al-Qaida, the Lebanese Hizballah, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the PIJ, and HAMAS, but it has been engaged in a counterterrorism dialogue with the United States since mid-2000.

Whether WMD's have or will be found in Iraq, almost seems moot at this point in the game (of course, I still believe they will be found)... Hussein was trying to build up a program. Whether he could hit our country probably wasn't a concern, but he would have been able to supply a terrorist group or groups(of which there are over 30 on the State Dept. listing...) the materials necessary to attack our country We'll continue to topple those regimes/governments that support, house, train, trade with, etc... any terrorist groups. In my humble opinion, I'd say a lot of those countries are run by fanatics.

If I had to guess, I'd say the next target is Iran or Syria....

It's called an Election JJB.... There's nothing wrong with our nation, there's nothing wrong with the people.... So the people don't agree, the politicians don't agree, it's America, that's what makes our country the Greatest Nation on Earth.

I disagree with your guys. You are making light of a very serious question.

Remember Ronald Regan's presidency? He was a hard core republican but he knew how to unite people of different backgrounds and beliefs for a common cause. He brought this country together. Even democrats respected and loved him. He was a true "uniter". Taking the time to listen to the other sides points of view and making them feel like their oppinion mattered even if he didn't follow it. In contrast, we have comrade bush who doesn't have the capacity to get two horney dogs to play nice, let alone foriegn countries or U.S. political rivals. He refuses to listen to any advice or input from outside his inner circle about his policies, he refuses to admit when he has made a mistake, and his personality leans twords being bullyish, instant gratification, and playing loose and fast with the truth. This guy just does not have the personality or temperment to be a uniter. And because of that, the U.S. has been divided even worse than normal durring an election year.

I disagree Echo. The Honorable Mr. Reagan had to deal with a lot of indifference. A Democratically controlled Congress, his plan for dealing with the Cold War/USSR, there was a lot of division then.... The state of the nation was pretty bleak to say the least (after the contributions of that damned georgia peanut farmer...) Anyway, class division and welfare..... All the bleeding heart liberals and tree huggers were constantly bashing him. To their dismay of course. He got a second term, brought the Soviets to their knees, etc....

Originally posted by NoFlakjacket
All the bleeding heart liberals and tree huggers were constantly bashing him. To their dismay of course. He got a second term, brought the Soviets to their knees, etc....

Well this "bleeding heart liberal" voted for him both times. The first because I couldn't stand Carter and the second because Reagan made sense, was reasonable, communicated what is plans were, actually kept the majority of his promises and owned up to his mistakes. Comrade bush has none of those qualities.

ummmm.... great Echo. good for you..... And I still stand by my response to the young lad from Kentucky.

Originally posted by NoFlakjacket
It's called an Election JJB.... There's nothing wrong with our nation, there's nothing wrong with the people.... So the people don't agree, the politicians don't agree, it's America, that's what makes our country the Greatest Nation on Earth.

I'm not sure what you are addressing with your post, but let me respond.

I never said something was wrong with our country, I said that we were vulnerable. We had been attacked, of course we were vulnerable. That is not taking anything away from America, its just the truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by its called an election JJB....um, I know what an election is, but what does that have to do with the post? We are talking about George Bush dropping the ball well after he was elected into office.....the election (that is what its called, right?:rolleyes:) in November will start to correct this problem, when John Kerry is voted into the White House.

JJB,
Did you forget what you posted kiddo?


Isn't it funny how times have changed in three years?

On September 12th 2001, our nation was so unison. So together.
So patriotic. There was no politics, there was no feuding, there was no disgruntalment. It was just everyone uniting for the greater good.

So what changed?

What has caused us to abandon the loyalty we all found together?

What has happened to the America of September 12th, 2001?

For future reference if you would like to discuss something thats not even on the same thread page, please use your quote button.

Furthermore, I completely disagree with your notion that partisanship makes our nation the greatest...call me old fashion, but I believe in coming together for the greater good.

Kid,
I shit bigger than you.

If your no more of a man to make such a comment, I am wasting my time debating you.

Good Day.

Yeah, that's right little one. It's probably in your best interest. You post a message, you don't like a sensible response (from the right...) so you resort to this.... I'll say it again:
NOT A THING WRONG WITH THIS GREAT NATION
If you want to use your precious lil' quote button, knock yourself out.
If you don't like my responses, then use your "ignore" button.....

Originally posted by Echo2
Remember Ronald Regan's presidency? He was a hard core republican but he knew how to unite people of different backgrounds and beliefs for a common cause. He brought this country together. Even democrats respected and loved him. He was a true "uniter". Taking the time to listen to the other sides points of view and making them feel like their oppinion mattered even if he didn't follow it. In contrast, we have comrade bush who doesn't have the capacity to get two horney dogs to play nice, let alone foriegn countries or U.S. political rivals.

They weren't united behind Reagan, he was just so popular that they had to play nice. Besides, it takes two sides to play nice. This is as much on the democrats as it is on the republicans.

Originally posted by NoFlakjacket
Yeah, that's right little one. It's probably in your best interest. You post a message, you don't like a sensible response (from the right...) so you resort to this.... I'll say it again:
NOT A THING WRONG WITH THIS GREAT NATION
If you want to use your precious lil' quote button, knock yourself out.
If you don't like my responses, then use your "ignore" button.....

Telling me about the size of your crap is your ideal of sensible responding? If you would like to actually debate, and respond sensibly, than by all means, we will.

JereJere stated:
but I believe in coming together for the greater good.

um, yeah right (as you roll your eyes....) and you also believe that Noah built the first ship...... hmmmmmm
"Don't be a fool, stay in school"- Van Wilder

Like I said......if you are not going to make a sensible debate, why waste mine and your time?

Like he said " ... why waste mind ... ". Cryptic messages again?

This is the kind of excuseless partisanship that stains our country.

Originally posted by Brooks
The reason the world supported us on September 12th was because, for the first time since 1812, we were scared and vulnerable. So for one brief shining moment, they were on our level again.


Your vision of the rest of the world is pretty sad. There is more that resentment and envy against the USA.

The whole world awoke on sept, 12th, in a state of shock, sadness and anger. There was a feeling of compassion and proximity with the WYC victims and their families, exactly like in the rest of the USA.
I felt the same during the hostage crisis in Russia or the bombings in Madrid. Didn't you ?

If the rest of the world really had sympathy for us, why did France sell components to Iraq to aid in defeating our missile guidance systems? Why did France, Russia and China continue to deal illegally with Saddam Hussein even while we were at war? Their duplicity can't be blamed on their feelings about George Bush.

I won't use the word jealousy, but there is definitely a resentment of the United States because of our strength, standard of living and influence on the world (an influence France hasn't had in 90 years). Just last week Mr. Chirac said there should be state efforts to fight the influence of the United States on other nations. That sounds childish and jealous.

So although other nations ostensibly said they were with us, they didn't act as such, and there was definitely some shadenfreude hiding behind their sympathetic smiles

I think your downplaying the fact that most nations do not want us tampering with their polocies. We are America, we need to get our own kinks worked out, before we go into the world to fix all their problems.

Which nations; which policies and what tampering?
If you're referring to Saddam Hussein, I agree, he probably didn't appreciate it. Who else?

Bosnia, Germany, Afghanistan,etc., etc.

Bosnia? Who complained, the genociders or the genocidees? I think I can guess.

Germany? Are you referring to WWII? I guess they did mind our "tampering" at the time. Or are you talking about the tampering during the Berlin Airlift. Or the overthrow of the East German Government.

Afghanistan? Who got mad, the Taliban?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Are you forgetting Pearl Harbor?

Not to be a stickler, but I think we were vulnerable then. The difference between the leadership Roosevelt showed then, and Bush is now, is that we went after the right person.

Its like Kerry said Thursday night, what we did in Iraq would be like Roosevelt attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.


Let's see, Rosevelt went after the right person? yeah ok,
So the right person was the 100,000 Japanese Americans that he had intered here in the U.S. American citizens..... ok.....

So you have a problem with this, but dont with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?

Those scumbags at Gitmo are POW's (Prisoners of War) that means they're enemy combatants, fighting, got caught/captured.... Not private citizens right here in our own country.... Roosevelt was a democrat, wasn't he?
That was quite a display of leadership........

They're not POWs, to be a POW you have to of fought in a war, hence the term Prisoner of War. They're criminals. International criminals. There is no war going on. We have not declared war with any governing party. And many of them at Gitmo weren't even caught fighting, many never even fought at all.

Yeah, ok Blib.... there is no war.... say that three times and click your heels together..... it all just goes away...

Not this is not a war. A war must be declared. There are two sides in a war. The lines are clear, you fight a governing party. They have soldiers. What we are fighting are a bunch of civilians who live in hundreds of countries around the world who swear allegiance to nobody except Allah. Declaring war on a god?

Hey Blib,
Maybe about the time you read this, we'll have killed a shit ton of "NON ENEMY COMBATATNTS" in Fallujah.... It's a beautiful thing... Can you imagine these lil bastards in front of your home?
Maybe you could take them some koolaid or something else cool to drink.... yer funny kiddo... oooowww, my bad...yer not a kiddo
just kidding Blib..... we'll only kill "combatants"..... then there will be no worries aout how well we take care of POW's.....

What the hell did you just say? That made no sense to me at all... Way too many ellipsises.

Originally posted by Blibblob
What the hell did you just say? That made no sense to me at all... Way too many ellipsises.

Actually, I think it was way too many beers...:D

oowwwww... you liberals stop beating on the drunk republican types.... come on... you can do better than that...
like Rush limbaugh, I can beat ya with half my brain tied behind my back.............................
vile, com' on, throw some of that liberal wisdom out there..... heh heh eh....
right.......

Maybe you should go back to school and learn how to write in proper english, then we wont get confused.

so weak..... come on...... don't mistake this for trolling either....
you have no argument, nothing to support your "claim", face it....
there should be rules on this board for "no whiners".... ya whiners...
Blib, don't even attempt to "critique" my english... you obviously need to finish elementary school....

BTW Blib is right. Guantanamo detainees have no legal status - they are not POW. That's precisely why Bush decided to put them away from american territory - to avoid international legal obligations.