I think if I hear Daryl Worley's 9/11 tribute "
Have Your Forgotten" one more time this morning, I'm going to puke.
Yes, 9/11 was a tragedy. This entry isn't about degrading that. It's not another "truther" entry, either. Yes, I have questions about the official story of 9/11. No, I don't think the Rockefeller family planted nuclear weapons in the basement so the reptilian government could detonate them and blame Osama Bin Laden. Regardless, that isn't what this entry is about.
You see, the official story does blame Osama Bin Laden - NOT Saddam Hussein. It blames terrorists in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. So, even if we accept the government's official story of 9/11 at face value - there is a HUGE problem with our nation's response to the 9/11 tragedy.
After a few months of chasing Bin Laden around Afghanistan, we decided we needed to move the war to Iraq. Our President told us, "If we don't fight the terrorists there, we will have to fight them on American soil." The implication was, "just like the 9/11 attacks."
Of course, now the justification for staying in Iraq is that there are terrorists there. Yes, they are there defending a nation that we invaded without cause. They weren't there before we got there. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that you and I would be just as much "terrorists," attacking invading enemy troops on our soil, if the shoe were on the other foot.
Yes, Daryl - American has forgotten "just what we're fighting for." And apparently, so have you. Iraq didn't do 9/11.
Comments (29)
Amen.
What ever happened to going after Osama Bin Laden???
It didn't take long for it all to go off track. Did they even want to find him?
But, you have to admit, the lizard theory is pretty awesome. I really hope they have names like "Gunthar" and whatnot.
I remain undecided on the whole Iraq thing. Everyone has an opinion, but I have just come to the conclusion that I lack the wisdom/knowledge to make a truly educated decision on it one way or the other. I always understood Iraq wasn't behind the attacks, but that Saddam was all buddy-buddy with Al Queda, which if so, would count for something, I suppose. But even entirely disregarding that, there was that whole obvious "Saddam really really really wants to kill all us devil American pig-dogs" and would if ever given the chance. So if anything would sway me to the war-was-right-move side, that would be it. Him being plucked off the Earth certainly wasn't a bad thing. And, evidently, we dropped the ball last war in not following it through to the end, which is what I've feared happening again with this one.
But then again, it's hard to jump up and say "Yay war!" for that matter either. War is always bad, whether inevitable or not. So, all things considered, my stance is I don't know if we should've gone over there or not, but I support the soldiers who, for better or worse, are there now. And I fear the consequences of us abandoning the Iraqi people. But, then again, troops coming home is never a bad thing.
So see? I have no real opinion whatsoever. But at least I save myself the bother of controversy, I guess.
I was pretty hopeful when I heard that the efforts have been stepped up in Afghanistan and lessened in Iraq. I'm a bit torn about it since my friend is going to Iraq and I am afraid that it may be a prelude to her being deployed to Afghanistan. My understanding however is that Bin Laden may be somewhere outside Pakistan. Any country that is a safe harbor for Al Quaeda, the Taliban or any of these extremists - including our "ally" Saudi Arabia - is no friend of this country or of freedom.
I agree with you! I think going after that country didn't make sense. We were supposed to be after Bin Laden but that I don't think happened at all. What happened in 2001 is tragic but people should realize that life goes on. We won't forget our loved ones but we really need to put that to rest. War sucks no matter what but things will never change so long as there is hate and greed all over the world.
What bothered me about September 11 is that everyone was so quick to put up flags on their porches and show American pride. What does being proud have to do with the fact that hundreds of people were blown to pieces?!? I think if you are proud to be an American then let that flag up all year round not just when tragedy strikes or when we celebrate the 4th of July. I just find it ridiculous cause right after the chaos was over all the flags were down again.
So, are we proud to be Americans or do we just remember we are Americans when tragedy strikes?!? I liked this blog and I am glad to see that someone sees it like I do. Take care!
I think it's time to re-focus our efforts to destroy al Qaeda and top trying to protect the people of Iraq and Afghanistan from themselves.
Interesting.
I have nothing to add. We needed a pretext to invade Iraq. There it was. Never let a good crisis go to wast. My heart is sick over this crap. We need another investigation. PERIOD ( i guess I had something to add after all
)
Daryl Worley is from Savannah, TN which is 8 miles east of my hometown...and they only like him for that reason.
This is the first time I've ever fully agreed with you on anything you've written (as you can see, I don't comment much on your site because I'm too tired to argue about anything). Anyway, kudos on what you said....I only hope that we do put our focus back to where it belongs, finding Bin Laden.
BTW: Why do you have the American Flag posted upside down. If you mean "S.O.S." which is what is being said by an upside down flag, then the stars are still supposed to be on the left side, not on the right. So I'm wondering what you are trying to say by that and if you are saying "S.O.S." then why?
That is why a part of me dies every time someone talks about "soldiers defending our freedoms in Iraq" - what's going on in Iraq has NOTHING to do with out defending our country or our freedoms. It's a pointless waste of life and (sorry if I offend some people with this) more importantly, a huge waste of money that drastically harms our economic well being. *I wasn't saying in the previous sentence that money is more important than life, just that the massive harm it's doing to our economic security is even greater than the wasted lives*
@LydJaGillers - Well there *used to be* a link there that would explain exactly what it means. But Xanga keeps messing up my theme... I'll go put it back. AGAIN. In a nutshell, it is a sign of distress, which this nation is clearly in.
I thought that President Bush was in trouble the day he said he was declaring war on terrorism wherever it is and, "If you're not with us, you're against us." That was a shot from the hip that cost him dearly, because it through the gauntlet in the face of every nation we would need to assist us.
That said, if the overall objective was to rid the world of terrorism, then going into Iraq was a very good tactical move for all the reasons I set forth in 2006. The only problem was that the president couldn't follow through. He got bogged down in negotiations with the U.N. and the willingness of member nations to assist in the effort given his threat against them, with Congressional willingness to fund that massive an effort effort, and with the desire of the American citizens to see quick results. And he was crippled by a belief that he could actually do this thing by himself. Ultimately, all of this meant that the bag of scum that is Osama got away, leaving Bush with a war he could not win.
What a waste. Given the single, determined purpose of getting Bin Laden, I think we could have flushed him out quickly. Now we will probable never be caught.
I heard a quote on NPR a few years back. A Senator said, "Invading Iraq was like declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor." "No," said the radio host, "it was like declaring war on the Ukraine after Pearl Harbor."
@AibellFaeire - ROTFL ... I wish I knew what Senator said that. He's an idiot.
@thereluctantsinger - But wait, how is going into Iraq a good tactical move within the context of a "single, determined purpose of getting Bin Laden?" Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq... how can that possibly be a good related tactical move?
I agree. Good post. And I LOATHE that song. It just...ack. That's all I can say about it. ACK!
Iraq is kind of a messy thing... Even after all this time I'm still not sure what to think about us going there initially. We assisted Saddam in gaining power there and he became a problem to his own people. I am one who actually believes he did have WMD (putting the U.N. inspectors off for months gave him time to move them to Saudi Arabia...) but does that justify going there? I really don't know.
I don't think I'm familiar with this song... Is it country or something? (no offense if it is, I just don't listen to country)
But yes... For us to invade someone that had nothing to do with the attacks, it does seem as though we are the terrorists to them, doesn't it?
@BimmerPhile - I feel the same way. And I agree with radicalramblings in "we" are the terrorists in their countries. This is being said by someone who is a veteran and someone who has a son in the Marine Corps. Ron Paul called the acts against us "blowback". If you honestly look at this principal, you should come away with a different understanding of events on 9/11.
@Soul_Pizza - Links. Click them. They're fun.
@radicalramblings - I'll admit that I stubbornly looked right past that link, lol. But even if I had noticed it, I am currently at work and couldn't have listened at the moment anyway.
@radicalramblings - It isn't. That's why I said it's good if you want to stamp out terrorism. Maybe I should have said regardless of Bin Laden.
Just remember that, depending on who's side you were on, George Washington and all our other Founding Fathers were also terrorists. We also had no right to invade Germany in WWII, when we were attacked by Japan. Sometimes, we have to do things for the good of the world.
"We also had no right to invade Germany in
WWII, when we were attacked by Japan. Sometimes, we have to do things
for the good of the world."
Yet if we'd minded our own business and not gotten involved in WWI (which, despite the popular myth, was actually instigated by France and Russia), Germany wouldn't have had all the resentment towards the rest of the world and Hitler never would have come to power, thus preventing WWII.
"Doing things for the good of the world" massively backfired there.
@Covergirl_For_Sanity_Fair - I don't recall anyone using the Pearl Harbor attacks as a reason for invading Germany. I find no record of anyone even trying for a second to pretend that was justification for anything other than our entering the war. Once we were involved in the war - which was a world war - we fought various enemies in various locations. However, no historical account shows any attempt to invade Germany in response to the Pearl Harbor attack.