Quake3World

It would be a great thing if the Middle East was suddenly democratic and free. But it would not be worth it, in my humble opinion, for a few reasons.

First, no matter what the outcome is, I don't think any amount of other people's freedom is worth our government lying to us, and starting a war with our tax dollars under false pretenses - especially considering the number of people here who have lost sons, daughters, wives and husbands.

Second, I believe it's arrogant and foolish that the administration would actually believe that they would be come a prosperous democrcay just because we marched over there and told them we could. And even if they truly believed that would happen, it is still just their own opinions - they did not consult Congress or anyone else on this idea of democratizing the middle east - remember, the reason Congress irresponsibly wrote a blank check for war, was because at the time they were told there was an imminent threat - so they should be held responsible and accountable for the failed policy that they devised and implemented on their own.

Third, considering the above problems I have with the invasion of Iraq, there is no way I would find it acceptable to even use a tragedy like 9/11 as a false pretext for their pre-planned agenda, much less so if I thought that they somehow allowed it to happen.

Is that what you were getting at?

redfella wrote:Would it not be a good thing to win the battle of hearts and minds in this region, so that they will somewhat favor America and what it stands for? ...As opposed to continuing to allow hate for the West to be compounded exponentially day in and day out by the repressive regimes that foster these feelings towards their young?

And I wanted to say something about this part too. Your statement here assumes that the reason we are hated is because of the way the people are raised to think of us - and not because of foreign policy mistakes we might have made in the region, and refused to admit.
That is a big assumption.

redfella wrote:
I'm a bit of an idealist... But, could it really be that shocking if Bush was really trying to change the world, for the good?

Hey buddy...because you're an idealist you automatically believe there is an "evil" in the world that must be vanquished by the US to "change the world for the good". And that's the problem.

Right at the core...that is the problem and the cause of these misguided wars.

You really have bought into the neocon crap, haven't you?

Thanks again R00k for proving that it is possible to have a decent and considerate debate (by people with large degrees of opposing opinion) on q3w general discussion. This is the reason I keep coming back...

Anyways, you have made some great points here. And believe it or not, I agree with most of them. If 9/11 was, as in our example, the byproduct of our current administration's strategy to change the Middle East, I don't think that it is acceptable to hide it behind the public's knowledge and try to wing in on their own... regardless of their intentions (and how wholesome they may be).

As for the way people think of us over there... I am sure that it is a variety of things that influence their thoughts. Upbringing, culture, religon, and even U.S. foreign policy all have some effect, I'd suppose.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:You really have bought into the neocon crap, haven't you?

Nah, not really. I'm just an idealist. Stop trying to pin me into a corner.

redfella wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:You really have bought into the neocon crap, haven't you?

Nah, not really. I'm just an idealist. Stop trying to pin me into a corner.

Look up what a definition of a neocon is.

redfella needs to be banned...

strausscons can suck my balls...

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Look up what a definition of a neocon is.

I'd rather not. Bye.

redfella wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Look up what a definition of a neocon is.

I'd rather not. Bye.

Of course not. Pussy.

[edit] You don't even have the balls to explain what you mean by "idealist". Why do you even bother trying to discuss something when you can't even present your arguement's basis?

prolly cuz he is completely ignorant...to basically everything...

Much like yourself

GONNAFISTYA wrote:You don't even have the balls to explain what you mean by "idealist". Why do you even bother trying to discuss something when you can't even present your arguement's basis?

If I explain to you what I mean by idealist, you'll just call me a pussy anyways, or something else along those lines. You got to give respect in order to gain it, and in this case I don't respect anyone who calls me a pussy for absolutely no reason. Bye.

Whats up R00k?

twin towers, plane crash, big hole, a bit of screaming, bit of fire, big bang, end of story

not quite, you forgot the "massive nerds with tin foil wallpaper and roofing on their double-wides and their massive conspiracy theories" stage

innit.

lol@ the useful idoit wannabees...

R00k wrote: The remains of the towers were swept up and carried away immediately after the attacks.

Didn't you think it's appropriate to make sure all the bodies get found and interred safely? It still took them months, though.

R00k wrote:

chopov wrote:Steel carriers in buildings start to deform at 800 °C. This temperature can easily been reached during a fire, especially when kerosene is involved. And then factor in the extreme load pressing down on the "groggy" steel beams from the above floors...

[...]I don't claim to be a structural or civil engineer, so I try not to debate these things. [...]
I am talking about why the attacks happened the way they did.

I am professionally involved in this special field. That's why I couldn't restrain nitpicking a little bit about that concrete/steel/fire-issue. But you are absolutely right: why in the end they came down doesn't affect the question for the cause of the attacks.

chopov, has you seen any of the metallurgical analyses wherein the investigator found that some of the structural steel experienced temperatures so great that some of the metal was vaporized? The sample I saw had been thinned by the heat to a remarkable degree, and guy said that he'd never seen anything like it before in a structural fire.

Heard of it but don't know details about. Would be interesting to know to which extent vestiges (sp?) of these extreme temperatures were found or if these were more like individual cases. It for example needs only a plain oxygene gas bottle from a craftsman who did repairs/welding works in there to cause extreme temperatures in a fire. But then only in particular places.
If you take a look at the static system of WTC it doesn't even require these extreme high temperatures to bring them down. Some collapsed ceilings one upon the other (which braced the main carrying beams to a "3-dimensional carrying grid") combined with the heat can suffice to weaken the main carrying structure decisive.
In the end nobody will be able to prove which theory is true, but the non-conspiracy-only-jet-impact-and-fire-caused-breakdown one seems the most likely one to me...which is no statement about who really startet the actual attacks.

Yeah, I tend to shy away from involved discussions about responsible parties or their motivations for the most part. I'm more interested in the whys and wherefores of the impact and collapse.

Nightshade wrote:Yeah, I tend to shy away from involved discussions about responsible parties or their motivations for the most part. I'm more interested in the whys and wherefores of the impact and collapse.

See, I'm the opposite. I just don't understand how people can't be curious. The family members definitely are. And I don't mean that as a knock or a low blow, just saying there are plenty of reasons for investigation, but instead we are taking the word of this administration which has lied or seriously misled us - I would say almost pathologically - about every single other event that has occurred during their time in office, and every action or initiative they've undertaken.