A Chance For A New Design Of The World Trade Center

[Xzyx987X]

Look, I may be against both George W. Bush and the terrorists, but I don't think building a new building to replace the world trade center is such a bad idea, even if we do make it the largest building in the world. I mean we shouldn't have to call it the freedom tower and rub it in the terrorists faces or anything, but if our country wants to build a really tall building I don't see why we shouldn't. It's not like we didn't already have a buch of potential terrorist targets such as the white house and pentagon. Besides, I think our security has improved enough that another terrorist attack of that scale is unlikely. Heck, 9/11 was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil period, and if they were going to lauch another big attack they've had plenty of time to try. Not doing things out of paranoia is just as bad as doing the things to spite the enemy in my book, at least if we ever want to get our country back to normal.

[DudeCuda]

Originally posted by Xzyx987X
Look, I may be against both George W. Bush and the terrorists, but I don't think building a new building to replace the world trade center is such a bad idea, even if we do make it the largest building in the world. I mean we shouldn't have to call it the freedom tower and rub it in the terrorists faces or anything, but if our country wants to build a really tall building I don't see why we shouldn't. It's not like we didn't already have a buch of potential terrorist targets such as the white house and pentagon. Besides, I think our security has improved enough that another terrorist attack of that scale is unlikely. Heck, 9/11 was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil period, and if they were going to lauch another big attack they've had plenty of time to try. Not doing things out of paranoia is just as bad as doing the things to spite the enemy in my book, at least if we ever want to get our country back to normal.

yeah, like i said, i have nothin against the rebuild of it i just dont think calling it the freedom tower is such a great idea as its really just a provocation for another attack in my opinion. but there is no reason at all why the rebuild shouldnt happen, and im actually happy its being rebuilt

[Drageuth]

Why is it that when we bash the Americans, we're evil, but when we bash the Iraqis, or Afghans, we're fighting for freedom?
And if this will be your last post, does that mean I can block you?

[DudeCuda]

Originally posted by Jet Black New Year
Yeah thats why none of your countries are on top.

Good Game

you claim we're anti americans for throwing in our opinions but isnt this anti-everyone else forr lack of a better word? i mean really by saying that your saying tat US is better than every other country in every aspect.

o well, your choice is your own. im not weaping too much about your leave.....

[KnightofNachos]

Well, I know what office building to stay clear of if I visit New York.

[Norgus]

hahaha, nice attached image. I didnt feel I was American bashing. More I just dont think that the 'freedom tower' is a good idea. Just calling it the freedom tower makes me doubt how serious the whole situation must be.

[((KvN))]

Man, I didn't know this thread gets this interesting.

[Schutzstaffel]

That's the ugliest thing I have ever seen.
Spending tons of money to build something called a "Freedom Tower" is just a silly idea.

[((KvN))]

it'll also take over a few billion to build it.

[31337D00D]

Originally posted by ((X ZreX))
it'll also take over a few billion to build it.

Which puts the us even more into debt than it already is

[((KvN))]

And was it just recently Bush gave how many billions to do something to the Iraqies? I forgot, maybe helping the people or something like that? US is so under debt.

[Xaenn]

Here's the thing. In general if you're pro-American you're anti everyone else.

However if you're anti-American it seems that you're for peace, unity, etc....I wonder why that is.

The only reason we're "on top" is by abusing everyone else.

[Mistral]

Xaenn, why is it automatically such an absolute issue? One can support American actions in the Middle East without hating European economic policy. Similarly, one can condemn said American actions without extending this hatred to their political system. I'm sure dictators in Africa are quite anti-American; peace in a foreign sense is what keeps them in power. Does this make continental Europe populaces pro-dictatorship? I would advance this idea, revolutionary as it may seem to you, that issues rarely have only two sides. The world situation is not America versus The World in all issues; it is closer to America vs. Other democracies vs. Autocracies/Oligarchies (Which happened to ally itself with Other democracies), and only in the sense of opinions regarding American foreign policy.

In Iraq, the only reason Saddam remained on power was by abusing his people and any UN attempt to search his nation. When he couldn't stop another country from coming in, he was rather quickly toppled. Even present insurgency against American garrisons is not because of Saddam, but because of religious fundamentalism (Shi'a or Sunni) or separatist movements (Iraq was a colonial hodgepodge similar to Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, or Rwanda). Now, contrast this with a theoretical invasion of Canada by major country comparable to it in government (Say, the United Kingdom). Even if Ottawa and the Parliament were to fall into enemy hands, it is a popular government. Insurgency in occupied regions would not be because of those reasons in Iraq, or a distaste for the system of government being brought in, but because their government is still popular, and still is in power so long as the people follow it instead of that of the invader's. The idea behind most dictatorships is that if you have the people cowed, they will follow you; this only works so long as the people are cowed. The idea behind most democracies is that they follow because they wish to; this works even if the democracy is gone, because the people will want it back and work accordingly.
Is it, thus, right to condemn the present US government for acting where others advocated profit-making (Note major arms deals made by Europe, Russia, and several prior US presidencies where action was not taken against Iraq) and taking a massive hit to its economic income to topple Saddam Hussein, even if this was only a result and not necessarily the reason?

But I digress from the main topic. I believe that the building of a larger tower on the place of the WTC is an excellent idea, as it can fulfill many of the same functions the WTC once did. Naming it the Freedom Tower is a symbolic function, to say that we are not cowed by terrorist threats. Sure, it will make it a target, but it would already be a target whether it was named the Freedom Tower, WTC Mk2, or Large Structure Symbolizing Absolutely Nothing At All. Its symbology is not in the name, but that it's there to promote economic prosperity internationally with a hub in NYC.

[Schutzstaffel]

But I digress from the main topic. I believe that the building of a larger tower on the place of the WTC is an excellent idea, as it can fulfill many of the same functions the WTC once did. Naming it the Freedom Tower is a symbolic function, to say that we are not cowed by terrorist threats. Sure, it will make it a target, but it would already be a target whether it was named the Freedom Tower, WTC Mk2, or Large Structure Symbolizing Absolutely Nothing At All. Its symbology is not in the name, but that it's there to promote economic prosperity internationally with a hub in NYC.

It's not the symbolic quality that concerns me, but rather the actual cost of such a building would be enormous.

[Drageuth]

I agree with Schuzstaffel. I think that US should actually focus on getting itself out of debt and whatnot before it starts any sort of large-scale project such as building the Freedom Towers. Once it has a generalized surplus, go ahead, make whatever the **** you want, but right now they're somewhere over a trillion dollars in debt - and no, I'm not kidding about that number. I believe that's what it was, anyways - and that, my friends, is a lot of money. If they were to bankrupt Donald Trump and Bill Gates they likely would still need more money to finish getting them out of debt.

The problem? All of the "influence" that US has over other countries and how much it costs to maintain said "influence" which basically stems from military power. That costs a lot of money; this whole War on Terrorism is bleeding the treasury dry, then crushing stones to get the last trinkle of water so that it can keep bleeding. It's preposturous on a gargantuan scale. I believe it was Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com) who stated that it would be cheaper to drop rolls of pennies from airplanes to act as bombs than it would to toss in hundreds of thousands of dollars of warheads. And then, they could collect all the pennies and rebuild their country on that, having hundreds of thousands of dollars of the damned things.

Also, the things look damned stupid, but I'm having trouble discerning what's what in that picture anyways, so bleh... it looks like a giant triangle.