# What do you think of these post 9/11 quotes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2002, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-these-post-9-11-quotes/128059 "2002-09-12T01:15:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2002, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-these-post-9-11-quotes/128059/21 "2002-09-21T01:41:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cainxinth \*America and Africa are not nearly analogous. Mailer said “When you have a great country.” Sorry I was unclear. I meant to refer to African-American people. > [@](#): > > And you don’t see much patriotism? Maybe not massive parades but its still pervasive. As far as I know, there’s less patrotism today than there has been during mosts of my life, going back to 1942. I would agree that there’s more patriotism than there had been prior to 9/11. However, the Mailer quote seems to imply that patriotism today is so unusually high that America is in danger of becoming fascistic. That’s a ridiculous position, particularly at a time when patriotism is lower than average, by historical standards. Rather than historical standards, Mailer seems to be applying hysterical standards. > [@](#): > > I don’t think most Americans really know what they’re celebrating other than that they love their country. I think Americans are celebrating racial tolerance, sexual equality, democracy, rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, opposition to discrimination based on sexual preference. These are values notably absent in our enemies. > [@](#): > > But why didn’t we overthrow Saddam in 91? Shwartzkoff said he was ready and waiting when the Bush 1 abruptly ended the war. Then Saddam was left with military resources to slaughter the Iraqi’s we told to rise up against him. IMHO Congress and the UN must share the blame. Bush carried out the exact mission authorized by these two groups. > [@](#): > > I think its naïve to think that we are devoting as many resources as possible to renewable fuels. According to this Wired [article](http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50237,00.html) from February the budget for renewable fuels is $291 million dollars. What do you mean by “we”, white man? The Federal Gov’t is devoting $291 million. The _country_ is devoting a huge amount. There are all sorts of businesses and universities working with alternative fuels. > [@](#): > > We have two men that made their money in oil in office. The trouble is that renewable fuels just aren’t that promising. Your assumption that oil men won’t support non-oil fuels is wrong. The Bush energy plan gave great emphasis to nuclear. > [@](#): > > We aren’t playing the game of brinksmanship with dictators in poor countries. But here, in many regards my opinion is changing. Unexpectedly Bush is making _some_ sense. I appreciate your honesty. Of course, it wasn’t unexpected to me. > [@](#): > > He didn’t catch OBL More and more reports suggest that OBL is dead. In any event, the only people pissing and moaning about OBL are anti-Bush partisans. There’s no groundswell of opposition based on OBL that needs covering up. > [@](#): > > and he has no clear solution for the economy Actually, his solution is to make the temporary tax cuts permanent and to add other tax cuts as well. > [@](#): > > the American people are clamoring for action I’m unclear on what sort of action you’re referring to. > [@](#): > > Plus, his cabinet is perfect for the job, they’ve done it once already. What does this mean? > [@](#): > > I still haven’t heard Bush’s plan for preventing terrorists from using dirty nukes, bio weapons, or simply flying a few more planes into buildings (have you been to the airport recently? Security most closely resembles a sieve). Bush doesn’t seem to want to address that it’s very possible that no amount of money for a Homeland Security can prevent terrorism. You have laid out the argument for preemptive military strikes against potential enemies. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2002, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-these-post-9-11-quotes/128059/22 "2002-09-21T06:54:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Sorry I was unclear. I meant to refer to African-American people.** I don’t think anyone would argue that African-American’s are doing particularly well either. > [@](#): > > **As far as I know, there’s less patrotism today than there has been during mosts of my life, going back to 1942. I would agree that there’s more patriotism than there had been prior to 9/11. However, the Mailer quote seems to imply that patriotism today is so unusually high that America is in danger of becoming fascistic. That’s a ridiculous position, particularly at a time when patriotism is lower than average, by historical standards. Rather than historical standards, Mailer seems to be applying hysterical standards.** > [@](#): > > \*\*I think Americans are celebrating racial tolerance, sexual equality, democracy, rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, opposition to discrimination based on sexual preference. These are values notably absent in our enemies. \*\* As you attest patriotism has been steadily decreasing the past 60 odd years yet right now Americans and buying and displaying patriotic merchandise at a fevered pitch. I’ll agree that the reason for this is Americans are proud of their country and its many freedoms. Domestically America is a wonderful place, but our external image is quite dissimilar. If Americans were made familiar with any of the things our CIA has done in the Middle East that have led to the formation of Anti-American terror groups I wonder if they would be so proud to display their flag. Of course that’s not remotely possible. I think the point Mailer is making is that super-nationalism is a precursor to fascism. A lot of these patriots are quite closed to criticism of America right now. It’s unfortunate that individuals such as myself are called traitors and un-American when I couldn’t be more concerned with safeguarding, supporting, and improving my country. That repressive attitude is also symptomatic of fascism. > [@](#): > > \*\*IMHO Congress and the UN must share the blame. Bush carried out the exact mission authorized by these two groups. \*\* I don’t believe restrictions placed on him by either group played a great role in any aspect of the Gulf War. The Bush administration wanted war with Iraq, they created the public support for it, and they executed it. If Bush wanted to remove Saddam do you really think he couldn’t have made a case for that? The Gulf War wasn’t fought to end the rule of tyrants, it was fought to protect Western oil interests. After the war the cease fire lifted all restrictions on Iraqi military operations. Saddam had planes and helicopters kill thousands of Kurdish rebels who had risen up against him. The US had encouraged the rebels to fight and promised to support them, but they looked the other way as they were massacred. Bush’s official explanation was that it was an “internal matter.” This is especially ironic, as the US has been intervening in internal matters in the Middle East for the past 50 years. The unofficial rationale was that a successful Kurdish coup of Saddam might inspire revolts by Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Syria, and the Soviet Union. No one seemed to care that the chance of success for those Kurdish minorities without the support of an advanced military like the US was virtually nil. Kurdish rebels can join the ranks of Cuban exiles, Nicaraguan contras, and Afghan Mujahideen as other “freedom fighters” recruited by the US to serve their interests and then left twisting in the wind. The latter case obviously came back to bite us in the ass. > [@](#): > > \*\*What do you mean by “we”, white man? The Federal Gov’t is devoting $291 million. The country is devoting a huge amount. There are all sorts of businesses and universities working with alternative fuels. \*\* I was referring to America and specifically the federal government. I can’t account for academia and business but I can look up how Bush and the OMB choose to ration out our tax dollars. $291 million dollars for research that will eventually remove our dependence on fossil fuels is sickeningly short sighted to the point of drawing suspicion. > [@](#): > > \*\*The trouble is that renewable fuels just aren’t that promising. Your assumption that oil men won’t support non-oil fuels is wrong. The Bush energy plan gave great emphasis to nuclear. \*\* They also gave great emphasis to “Fossil Energy Research” which got nearly twice the funding of renewable fuel research. And renewable fuels aren’t that promising? We have 20-50 years of oil left on this planet depending on who you ask. Find me one person that doesn’t think hydrogen or another fuel will begin supplanting oil in the next 10 years. > [@](#): > > \*\*Actually, his solution is to make the temporary tax cuts permanent and to add other tax cuts as well. \*\* There’s a lot of evidence that the tax cut will make a positive difference in the economy. But, Bush never proposed the cut because he thought it would solve our economic downturn. When he proposed it he was counting on the largest ever budget surplus and used the cut as campaign tool to garner votes. You asked what I meant when I said that Bush’s cabinet was experienced at war with Iraq. Cheney was Sec. Of Defense for Bush and Powel was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. Finally, yes I described Bush’s strategy for preemptive strikes and why I believe in some cases it was a valid tactic. However, I also said that it would be impossible to find and incapacitate every person that poses a threat to the US, preemptively or otherwise. I also made the case that preemptive attacks might instigate further violence from radical Islamists, and we have absolutely no sure way to prevent all terror attacks without closing the borders and instituting far-reaching limitations on personal liberties and privacy. So what’s the solution? As I said I think it is to support moderate Islamists and to remove support for friendly despots that we perceive as necessary to protect our oil interests. Of course, Bush only made minor mention of that in his speech. Its clear to everyone that war justified or not is his solution. It’s going to be very interesting to see how successful he is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-of-these-post-9-11-quotes/128059.md?page=1)