• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

21-gun salute for ship built with 9/11 steel

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
21-gun salute for ship built with 9/11 steel - Military- msnbc.com

article said:
NEW YORK - The new Navy assault ship USS New York, built with World Trade Center steel, arrived in its namesake city Monday with a 21-gun salute near the site of the 2001 terrorist attack.

First responders, families of Sept. 11 victims and the public gathered Monday at a waterfront viewing area, where they could see the crew standing at attention along the deck of the battleship gray vessel.

The big ship paused. Then the shots were fired, with a cracking sound, in three bursts.

Honoring those who fell with a ship of war. Nice.
 
Actually, I thought he was paying a compliment. Am I wrong?

Given the two useless wars being fought right now, the dollars and lives lost doing it, and the political strife in the aftermath, I find it incredibly ironic and twisted that the steel from the fallen towers was used to make another apparatus of war.

It doesn't honor them. It disgraces them.
 
Given the two useless wars being fought right now, the dollars and lives lost doing it, and the political strife in the aftermath, I find it incredibly ironic and twisted that the steel from the fallen towers was used to make another apparatus of war.

It doesn't honor them. It disgraces them.
It's more of the Twin Towers being an iconic symbol of the USA, not about simply the victims but about the US's lost as a nation.

The ship making shows that even the ashes of the destroyed towers will be there to protect the people.

But that's just a wild guess. :mrgreen:
 
Given the two useless wars being fought right now, the dollars and lives lost doing it, and the political strife in the aftermath, I find it incredibly ironic and twisted that the steel from the fallen towers was used to make another apparatus of war.

It doesn't honor them. It disgraces them.

Then I disagree with you. I would find it quite ironic, and good, if that ship eventually laid waste to a terrorist training camp. The symbolism would be huge. Screw with America and you die.

NOTE: Sorry for questioning you, Reverend. You read it right.
 
While I appreciate the gesture, I don't like interfering with warship construction for political causes. The name is a fine way to honor the towers, the functional details of the warship should be decided only on its pragmatic merits.
 
Given the two useless wars being fought right now, the dollars and lives lost doing it, and the political strife in the aftermath, I find it incredibly ironic and twisted that the steel from the fallen towers was used to make another apparatus of war.

It doesn't honor them. It disgraces them.

Thank God you live in Canada, where you can rely on those ships to defend you, without having to trouble your conscience about actually paying for them.
 
Honoring those who fell with a ship of war. Nice.
It is nice.

A potent rendering of... “Don't Tread On Me”
 
So, honouring the dead of the Twin Towers = okay and acceptable for conservatives.... guess it is because Bush ordered the ship.

But honouring returning dead from war = horrible political photo op...?

Interesting double standard there...

One would think that honouring both would be on the mantra of the US right wing.. guess not.
 
It is nice.

A potent rendering of... “Don't Tread On Me”

I find it interesting that there are people who WOULDN'T want to be revenged after being heinously murdered. All I can say is that their path is not mine. :shrug:
 
While I appreciate the gesture, I don't like interfering with warship construction for political causes. The name is a fine way to honor the towers, the functional details of the warship should be decided only on its pragmatic merits.

I don't think anyone really sees this as being a "political cause." The government builds warships and names them to honor people and things. This one was built after the WTC. They named it to honor NY. As a nice symbolic gesture, they used some WTC steel. This is the type of thing that people can read about in the paper, smile, and then forget about.

Really not a big deal, IMO.

So, honouring the dead of the Twin Towers = okay and acceptable for conservatives.... guess it is because Bush ordered the ship.

But honouring returning dead from war = horrible political photo op...?

Interesting double standard there...

One would think that honouring both would be on the mantra of the US right wing.. guess not.

Not that I'm defending the people criticizing the president's trip to Dover, but one would hope that even through your biased glasses, you'd be able to recognize the difference between those two scenarios.
 
*salutes*


Sail well, USS New York ...
 
So, honouring the dead of the Twin Towers = okay and acceptable for conservatives.... guess it is because Bush ordered the ship.

But honouring returning dead from war = horrible political photo op...?

Interesting double standard there...

One would think that honouring both would be on the mantra of the US right wing.. guess not.

Dude, you're the king of double-standards. Get a clue...
 
Thank God you live in Canada, where you can rely on those ships to defend you, without having to trouble your conscience about actually paying for them.


:roll:

I guess I missed that news. What are you defending us for again?
 
I don't agree with Catz's assessment. It's a mutual thing...:2razz:

Well I can agree with that. As far as I know, it is our tax dollars that are paying for our involvement in Afghanistan. And as far as I know, we are there to support our friendly neighbour.
 
I don't think it's stretch to assume the victims would want us to get those bastids for making their children mother and/or fatherless or for making their parents bury them way before their time. The ship is certainly a better use of that steel than a statue that pigeons and bums are going to sh*t on.
 
Well I can agree with that. As far as I know, it is our tax dollars that are paying for our involvement in Afghanistan. And as far as I know, we are there to support our friendly neighbour.

We love our Canadian neighboUrs. :2wave:
 
Well I can agree with that. As far as I know, it is our tax dollars that are paying for our involvement in Afghanistan. And as far as I know, we are there to support our friendly neighbour.

England may have been our patriarch, but Canada is our BFF!
 
Well, there's likely to be obfuscation of the fact that jingoistic interference in others' affairs by the ruling political regimes here provides a strong motivation for terrorist attacks perpetuated by this...but our resident neocons could have done that anyway. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom