"Everything changed after 9/11"

[leftist.]

It's a common and still-powerful argument, but is it actually true? I mean, of course *everything* changed immediately afterwards ... hell, if nothing else we are paying closer attention to what's going on around us, both domestically and abroad. And I dare say you'll never see another commuter plane hijacked again in this country if for no other reason than passengers would no longer allow it. We know the stakes now. Things DID change, and we adapted because that's WHAT WE DO, right? We made personal changes, we allowed for additional risk in life and take precautions against them ... and on the federal level, we re-routed money to deal with this "new" issue, we're watching people at the border a little more closely ... we even sort of kind of tried to get the guy who took my buildings down.

But this is three years out now, and I'm still hearing the same lines from republikans and many democrats who are asking me to accept that not only *did* things change, but that they are *still* in the process of changing. Well, "still in the process of changing"? Isn't that just life? I mean things aren't the same now as they were 10 years ago, with or without 9/11. And here's Miller, Koch, Lieberman, and even my former favourite radio host Phil Hendrie (democrats/liberals all), *still* selling me this line about things changing ...

I mean ... I am NOT worried about this country being invaded and taken over. I *am* however now concerned about outside threats that intend to disrupt our way of living. Miller is telling me that this issue alone is several magnitudes of importance HIGHER than the host of other issues that Mr.Bush and I disagree on, that even Mr.Bush and *Miller* disagree on! That's a pretty big threat we are talking about then! But, I just don't see it as *that* big of a threat (in context, of course). Am I wrong?

And please, it's NOT because I've f-ing forgotten, and Darryl Worley and Hannity and Limbaugh and Matthews and every other douchebag that even TRIES to propose this as the case can all take their pious, self-righteous opinions and pound them. People are simply not programmed to forget life-changing events, but rather to adapt and keep moving. It's like, these guys are cromags asking us to stop eating food for a few decades until we get this 'Dinosaurs can eat us if we leave the cave' problem figured out. And I'm not saying we don't have the right to protect ourselves from this threat; OF COURSE WE DO, as does anyone, and as WOULD anyone be it Ike, JFK, Clinton, Gore, or Jesus H. McGovern.

Anyway, before this gets too long, this is our place to talk, to hash things out, right? So, am I just way off or what? I mean, saying "things changed" is hardly a reason to pursue an un-winnable war, or attempt to make time stand still while we bend over and tie our shoelaces. Aren't we better off forging ahead (part of which is IMO getting rid of Mr.Bush) as humans are wont to do? Or am I just too young to get things?

[mark414]

1. i believe that to be false

EVERYTHING did not change. we are still not learning from our mistakes and we are still as arrogant a nation as we ever were.

the only thing that has changed is the rhetoric.

and the only reason that anyone now gives two shits about what goes on in the middle east is because of the 'terra'ists'

but they hate us for our freedom remember???

we are still a clueless nation. the tied polls indicate that.

[jimshoes]

2. Welcome to DU p0X

I feel the same way for the most part. There is always going to be the possibility we will suffer an attack. There isn't enough gold in the universe to make us 100% safe no matter what shrubnuts tells us. The pugs have found the golden goose in the bogey man.

[leftist.]

5. Thank you for the welcome!, and ...

I *wish* I could say what I wanted with a little more brevity as you did =) I'm still learning though ... I'll get it eventually.

Very practically speaking, in my eyes a neocon Supreme Court is exponentially more dangerous then outside threats of terrorism ... and I say that because we've seen what both can do. Terrorism is a threat, make no mistake PLEASE, but look what a *single* slightly *moderate* SC ruling (5-4) has already done ... 2,000 women are going to die each year, and 1,000 soldiers have already died trying to take over another country. And that's just ONE ruling!

... paris

[ramapo]

3. Everything changed for a couple of months

What is different today than on 9/10/01?

That we're at war in Iraq? Been there, done that in the early '90s. This is just Act II.

Sure we do a little bombing here and there in Afghanistan and have more troops in more countries but that all is pretty much out of sight and out of mind.

Americans are for the most part oblivious to most that goes on in the world, are extremely self-centered, superficial, and arrogant. We are at least as divided, probably more so, than pre-9/11.

The U.S. leans a bit more to authoritarian rule but we've seen that before also.

If there was a major terrorist event, there'd be the same shock and disbelief as there was on 9/11.

The country continues merrily along the path of self-deluded thinking that everything will be ok because this is the USA and after all, God is on OUR side.

No need to really worry about the environment, the economy, energy sources, education, housing, our cities, transportation, health care or any of the other issues facing us. Just turn on the TV and tune out.

[opiate69]

4. That's funny... I was just thinking about that earlier today...

"The world changed on Sept 11".. No, it didn't.. the world has never had any shortages of man's inhumanity to man. The only thing 9-11 did was wake up an oblivious nation to the fact that, yes Suzy Creamcheese, the world is a fucked up place, and whether you decide to ignore that fact or not, if you don't take steps to make it a better world, you will get bitten in the ass..

[fujiyama]

6. In the long run

little has changed. At first I hoped that at the minimum, people would try to become more informed of the world around them, maybe pay attention to US foreign policy. Instead the administration morphed Osama into Saddam and made Iraq the focul point on the War on Terror. Soon everyone bought the propaganda that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

People seem just as ignorant as ever. Many have bought into jingoistic nonsense and have stopped thinking straight.

Welcome to DU.

[progressivebydesign]

7. No. Did not change.

But, the politicians of the GOP persuasion have attempted to take over the world, because of it.

[Must_B_Free]

8. This is the statement of indoctination.

911 never was about foreign policy. 911 was about an attack on America in the form of a culture war.

Bush Sr. coined the term New World Order. That was what you weres indoctrinated into. The eexcuse for everything you were made to accept "That was before 911".

This is a war of symbols. Symbols are what reach people and motivate them. The fact that it is said that "3000 died" plays right into Biblical history. "The death of 3000" is magical biblical touchstone that is associated with indoctrination.

God orders people to slaughter their own relatives because they rejected Moses' religion; 3000 killed. Moses tells the killers that God would bless them for doing this by making them ordained for his service - Exodus 32:27-29.

[salib]

9. Excellent post

Also, I understand your long-windedness, as much of it was to avoid getting flamed. Isn't it a shame that one has to apologize and/or explain again and again anytime one questions these assumptions of the neo-con zeitgeist. I think you hit on a particularly pernicious one here.

Thanks, and welcome to DU.

[calimary]

10. Well, if they want to go there, okay, but then they are declaring that

the terrorists HAVE INDEED WON. Wasn't the idea that they would NOT be allowed to change our way of life and change who we are as Americans? Unfortunately, that's PRECISELY what has happened anyway.