The most selfish statement in history

[OctOct1]

The central front in terrorism

We are fighting terrorism there so that we do not have it here.

Any one hear the total arrogant selfishness in this statement?



Thank God Iraqis are dying and suffering and not us.
Thank God they have no electricity, water, or livelihood and not us.

“The Central front on terrorism” feeds into our deepest fears.

Another fear propaganda.

Our deep fears are evoked to justify death and destruction of others.
Fear that it could be here, so do not be critical of those that keep it away.
Heroic are they that keep it from me.
I am more important. You can suffer so that I do not.

Isn't there a part of you that feels good about keeping it there?
He got you too????
Is there a way to turn this on them or blow it out of the water

[noonwitch]

1. It only applies to Afganistan

We were right to invade Afganistan in the wake of 9-11. They were sheltering OBL, plus the Taliban had to go. If we put the effort into Afganistan to rebuild and assist the people in developing a strong economy, we would be fighting the war on terror in the best way possible. It is such a backwards and poor nation, that we could really make a difference there.

Iraq is a whole different matter. Kerry can't let Bush get away with linking the two together during the debates. The Iraqi people do not deserve what is going on in their country right now-yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he never required women to wear burkas, or stopped women from getting an education. We also had him contained-he hadn't done anything to cause trouble since the first Gulf War.

[snowFLAKE]

5. What about invading Afghanistan before 9-11

They were also sheltering OBL, plus the Taliban had to go.

Oh wait, the Taliban were our friends then - we were paying them millions of $$s !!

And about sheltering OBL, if that's a justification - why haven't we invaded Pakistan considering that they're sheltering him now?

Of course, by doing just a tiny bit of math, it's easy to see that no way in hell could OBL be running Al Qaida - but hey - Americans always seem to need a boogeyman to kick around, whether it be Quaddafi, Noriega, Saddam or whomever.

And if if provides justification for the bloodthirsty among us to start a war - so much the better!!

[stellanoir]

2. or. . .

maybe not verbatim but something like

"that's the interesting thing about being the pResident. I don't have to explain myself to anyone."

or

"It'd be easier if this was a dictatorship. That is just as long as I got to be the dictator."

you're right about the topic of the thread.

[CBHagman]

3. Pollster Frank Luntz came up with the following.

"September 11th changed everything. It's better to fight the terrorists in Baghdad than in New York and Washington."

Uh, who says what's happening in Baghdad won't stop sabotage, suicide attacks, and interference in the chemical industry or water supply? Doesn't the Iraq war merely increase the number of places people are dying needlessly?

I've heard GOP politicians recite Luntz's words regarding terrorism and Iraq. What disgusting exploitation of tragedy in the service of the party.

[OctOct1]

6. I agree. There is something very scary if we accept

the disposal of others to preserve out way of life.

Instead of being remorseful of the death happening in Iraq.
We are to view him as a hero for keeping our status quo.
The lack of remorse on the death and the ability to keep us placid is what scares me

[lukasahero]

4. That statement

has always been so horrifyingly offensive to me. Yes, it's a good thing that we're endangering and killing innocent Middle Easterners because they don't "count" as much as Amerikans. Simply despicable.

[Fleshdancer]

7. Not just selfish, it's a flat out lie

The sheer notion that bombing other countries keeps terrorists off our land is ridiculous.

First of all, I can't stand that this administration dismisses ALL domestic terrorism which has occurred before and after 9/11. It's as if terrorism from people who aren't Arab doesn't count. :wtf:

Second, what makes it difficult to terrorize America is simple geography. There's a whole lot of water between us and "them" and the planning (fortunately) is difficult.

Setting all tinfoil theories aside, it took 8 years from the first time the WTC was hit to when 9/11 occurred. Not getting attacked within years of the biggest terrorism attack in history doesn't mean we won't get attacked again in the future. It doesn't matter how many versions of the Patriot Act are in place, it doesn't matter how paranoid Americans get or how many rights we give up...if a group of people really want to attack us, then they'll find a way.

[CrispyQ]

8. Here's a good article.

Not exactly about that particular phrase, but it is about American's unwillingness to make any sacrifice in their lives. There are not enough resources for 6.4 billion people to live as we do. So, we've adopted the "I've got mine, too bad for you, sucker" attitude. And heaven help you if you have something we want/need to maintain our lifestyle. We will do ANYTHING to maintain our status. We are so incredibly selfish it is stunning.


<snip>
DURING A football commercial break, my TV turned into a kaleidoscope for a crazily spinning Hummer. During another timeout, a Cadillac spun around a dance floor, bullying several foreign luxury cars off to the side.

No other metaphors are necessary to understand the United States on the eve of the presidential debates.

About 1,050 US soldiers are dead in Iraq. Up to 15,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. None of that has persuaded us Americans to put down the kaleidoscope and stop spinning in our own orbits. No amount of mass sacrifice abroad has resulted in mass sacrifice at home. No amount of failure in the original mission of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has made us question the fantasy of bullying the world. Our toys really are us. We're big, we're bad, and you Euro girlie-cars, we're cutting in.

It would be sad to conclude someday that our leaders sent our soldiers halfway around the world to die for our cars. In the absence of weapons of mass destruction and in the absence of Saddam Hussein being tied to Sept. 11, there is not much left to conclude. On its current website, the Economist Intelligence Unit says "the biggest potential prize" and an "ideal prospect" for international oil companies is Iraq, home to the world's second- or third-largest oil reserves. In 1993, the deaths of a mere 18 Army Rangers in resource-starved Somalia made us flee that country.


more>>
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0929-05.htm