Hatrack River Forum: Trepidation

This is topic Trepidation in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021943

Posted by The_Chaser (Member # 6266) on :

I sat silently viewing the television screen. Upon that screen, thousands were dying. It was the infamous day of September 11, 2001. It seemed unreal to me. Nine-eleven affected U.S.. in such a real way. The masses were fearful of all most anything within possibility. I knew the years after the incident would be as chaotic as the collapse of the Twin-Towers. So it was.

A frightful child will believe anything from a comforting adult. Even if that child was convinced that more destruction would follow. So how was it that a nation could be deceived to go to war ? Threat of mass destruction was burned into the hearts of people. The fearful consumers soon purchased all the latest defense gear. It was mass hysteria that was gripping many hearts, and the media only fueled that flame of fear.

It was by fear the President Bush proposed to attack Iraq. He claimed there were weapons of mass destruction with a foreign country. At once the American imagination went to work. All kinds of theories spewed out. Amidst the speculation a physiologically bruised America sided with the fear of the unknown. Yes, there was some opposition, however no one wanted to stop to listen to the wise.

September 11th did was not the cause of a fear driven society. 9/11 only fueled the fire. The media, nationalistic additudes, political methods are all contributing factors. We as a people should pay more attention to what we consider normal.

It seems that american history is full of trepidation these days. Just watch the television. You'll notice that a man could be shot in the streets and no one would think twice.

Is this the world you want to live in ?- The_Chaser

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

Well, yeah, it IS the world I want to live in. None of the other ones have a suitable air supply, or DSL access.

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :

I kind of agree, but it would be rude of me to say it because I'm French and I don't want anybody to think I'm attacking the USA.

[ March 02, 2004, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :

My biggest problem is that you are pretty much just repeating Micheal Moore word for word. I wouldn't be surprised if half of that was lifted directly from a book he wrote. Linking to the comic by the South Park guys doesn't help either, I think that was the lamest part of Bowling for Columbine.

Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :

President Bush was not he only one nor the first one to claim that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And who are the "Wise"? The UN? Michael Moore? Anyone who disagreed with the president? And I am afraid that really don't see how nationalism effects your claims.

Yes this is the world I would like to live in. While I do not always agree with the actions my county takes, they are nearly always backed up a good reason. (and yes attacking iraq did have a good reason, thing like ethenol handouts don't).

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :

Do all Canadians play guitars?
[Wink]

@twinky

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :

quote:
President Bush was not he only one nor the first one to claim that iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Well, maybe, but France wasn't the all country to shout there wasn't. You could have trust the UNO, for exemple. Anyway... [Roll Eyes]

[ March 02, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :

The UN didn't say there wasn't. France, Germany, Russia, and a few others said there wasn't. France and Russia had very, very large oustanding debts owed them from the current Iraqi government. Russia was waiting on an outstanding 330.8 million, and France was owed 104.3 million. There are other countries in the list, including the United States (with 17.5 million), but the two who had the most to lose financially from Hussein falling besides Hussein himself were the two countries who spoke out loudest against going into Iraq. The rest of the UN was arguing to slow down the chariots and form a better timetable for finding out if there were indeed weapons and whether or not a direct assault should take place.

In hindsight, there were no weapons there, but when there was no luxury of hindsight, the only nations that were defending Iraq the loudest had vested interest. Not exactly a convincing argument.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

You know, they had plenty of opportunity to show us that they didn't have any WMD, which they had promised to do, but they didn't. It's like blaming a cop fo killing a suspect that had his hand in his coat as though holding a gun and the suspect refused to remove his hand or put down his "gun".

Edit: fixed my lame html code so that the bold showed up

[ March 02, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :

Anna:
(IMHO), feel free to express your opinions here. I pretty much like France. I freely admit that without the help of France back during our revolution, the USA probably wouldn't exist.

Of course, I don't really trust France right now, and haven't for a long time [Cry]

but they helped us to get started.

Here's the thing that gets me:
Why didn't Saddam just come clean? IMHO, those weapons had to have been there (maybe they're in Syria now?). He could have prevented the whole thing if he had just let the inspectors do their job, that is, IF indeed he had no WMD's.

Edit:
Mr Porteiro Head said it better (and more succinctly) than I did. [Smile]

[ March 02, 2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :

Just a question: Was "Bowling for Columbine" a comedy? Because I didn't see the movie yet, but that little clip was comical if taken as a farce.

But if the movie was suposed to be a politcal statement, as I previously thought it was, then judgeing by that clip I must say it is a pathetic attempt.

But maybe the rest of the movie is better? [Dont Know]

I shall have to watch it...

Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :

The movie was mostly hyperbole or extreme rhetoric.

And I want to point out, mostly to Anna, that I'm not bashing France with my post. The thing is, the protestations of the the governments seemed dubious at best. There was no proof either way, or else the whole event would have been different.

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :

No, AJ, only the exhibitionists.

[Wink]

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :

couldn't get the link to play, could someone tell me what it consisted of, so I can see what message this person's trying to get across?