How Should We Have Reacted to 9/11

[saysmydoctor]

In my opinion, 9/11--after you tear through the rhetoric--was really an attack on the US' imperialistic nature. With that being said, I still do believe that Osama Bin Laden is a rogue who even if we worked to appease would still be problematic. However, we could at least make his PR methods less effective. In my belief, he will forever win the PR war against the US and therefore have the support of enough people to justify what he is doing.

What would have been a proper course action instead? Was the invasion of Afghanistan justified? Is the 'you're either our friend or our enemy' mentality understandable even though unreasonable?

[Yellowcard2006]

I don't have enough training or understanding to make such decisions or comments.

[Praetor]

Well, I'll tell you what we shouldn't have done. We shouldn't have gotten ourselves even more involved in the Middle East. That was the worst thing that we could have done. We should have kept a level head and should not have given in to such obviously shitty and just plain offensive trespasses against our rights (ie the Patriot Act). We should not have adopted an "ends justify the means" mentality and drafted shocking torture memos and butter them up by calling them "enhanced interrogation techniques". We should not have placed so much trust in our administration acting without oversight or any sense of accountability to other branches or to the people themselves. We should not have given up freedoms that we may never get back. We should not have established secret prisons outside of US law where we could fuel terrorists' ideas of the evil, oppressive USA.

The problem with the whole War on Terror is not only that we're fighting an unwinnable war (a war on an idea), but that by fighting it we're actually fueling the idea that we're fighting.

[saysmydoctor]

For once, I agree with Ron Paul when he argues that the War on Terror is an ambiguous term and how you can't have war on a tactic.

The USA PATRIOT Act, the enhanced interrogation, the full-scale invasions, Osama Bin Laden I think foresaw this reaction. I hate Michael Scheuer but he is right that continued support to Israel is detrimental and that this post-Cold War drunken stupor that the US is in is also detrimental.

[Praetor]

For once, I agree with Ron Paul when he argues that the War on Terror is an ambiguous term and how you can't have war on a tactic.

The USA PATRIOT Act, the enhanced interrogation, the full-scale invasions, Osama Bin Laden I think foresaw this reaction. I hate Michael Scheuer but he is right that continued support to Israel is detrimental and that this post-Cold War drunken stupor that the US is in is also detrimental.
Yes. I think of everything that is going on right now, the fact that the Patriot Act still exists upsets me the most. I honestly don't see us ever getting those freedoms back. Seriously, when would it have exhausted all of the value that it supposedly has? When the 'war on terror' :rolleyes: ends? When will that be? How will we hypothetically tell when it's ended?

[Praetor]

Oh, and on the topic of enhanced interrogation: John Yoo gets punk'd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#32093365

[GuitarR0cker1]

I think that a good strategic way to react to 9/11 would be to focus on security at home mixed with the invasion of Afghanistan. There didn't need to be a War on Terror or the Patriot Act, obviously there had to be some patriotic type sentiments present by the president but they didn't have the be idiotic. There should have been a bigger questioning of any policy put forth against terrorism as well and more open thoughts about it. The Patriot Act could have been changed significantly and been made into a good bill more easily than you think. Everything could have been run so much better there wasn't fearmongering and patriotic dick waving right after 9/11.

On Afghanistan there should have been a sea change in strategy there. The idea of using NATO was good and so were most military tactics right after the invasion but we really are failing to prop up the government. After we basically finished off the Taliban, we should have focused on building an Afghan economy that could run seperatley from poppy farming and basically the mafia the Taliban have to been running to raise money. We also should have had a slight drawdown in troops for combat purposes. We couldn't treat this like Iraq in any way because the Pashtun people are inherently anti-imperialistic and their sympathies lie with the Taliban. If we could give them some form of economic stability and aid but less combat I think things would have improved remarkably. Of course there shouldn't have been any invasion of Iraq and this would give us the oppurtunity to put more funding and troops, when needed for offense in some cases, to Afghanistan.

[loveisdead]

I would've liked to see us work closer with the UN. Having some support for what we wanted to do would have been nice.

[Love As Arson]

We should have approached it in a law enforcement manner, but also used it as a time of self-reflection. Instead of saying they hate us for our freedom, we should have surmised that they despise us for what we inflict on their people. Do we think a person in Egypt, for example, is at a loss that we defend their leader who represses them? Do you think it is lost on the people in the region that Madeline Albright said that two million Iraqis due to sanctions was worth it? If this is the view that is extended through foreign policy, why do we expect them to value our lives? This doesn't mean that the attack of the Twin Towers was moral, but it does explain the framework through which it is justified; the dark secret is, by most standards, the Pentagon was a justifiable attack because it is the center of imperial planning. If we desire to eliminate this enmity, it must be done by creating a standard that even superpowers are held to, so that we realize things like the war in Afghanistan is unjustified, as it would be similar to having the US attacked because it protected a terrorist who blew up a Venezuelan airliner. Really, I think there must be an elimination of the entire concept of superpower, since the term implies it has extra-legal authority.

[xshady121]

In my opinion, 9/11--after you tear through the rhetoric--was really an attack on the US' imperialistic nature. With that being said, I still do believe that Osama Bin Laden is a rogue who even if we worked to appease would still be problematic. However, we could at least make his PR methods less effective. In my belief, he will forever win the PR war against the US and therefore have the support of enough people to justify what he is doing.

What would have been a proper course action instead? Was the invasion of Afghanistan justified? Is the 'you're either our friend or our enemy' mentality understandable even though unreasonable?

Agreed.

I'm not quite sure.
Not really. It was kneejerk.
Absolutely unreasonable.

[xshady121]

I would've liked to see us work closer with the UN. Having some support for what we wanted to do would have been nice.

The UN is a joke. While the foreign occupations may be wrong, trying to be buddy buddy with the UN is even more wrong. The idea of a foreign entity being able to dictate our own foreign policy is frightening (and quite hypocritcal).

read (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html).

[loveisdead]

The UN is a joke. While the foreign occupations may be wrong, trying to be buddy buddy with the UN is even more wrong. The idea of a foreign entity being able to dictate our own foreign policy is frightening (and quite hypocritcal).

read (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html).
I wasn't trying to say that invading Iraq would be fine if the UN supported it. When something happens that nearly everyone can say was wrong, I think we would've done ourselves better to try and react with a solution that more countries agreed with.

[xshady121]

I wasn't trying to say that invading Iraq would be fine if the UN supported it. When something happens that nearly everyone can say was wrong, I think we would've done ourselves better to try and react with a solution that more countries agreed with.

Wasn't trying to make it about Iraq. It was more so to show that asking for UN approval (on anything, really) is a joke.

[loveisdead]

Wasn't trying to make it about Iraq. It was more so to show that asking for UN approval (on anything, really) is a joke.
Gotcha. I'd rather that than just acting on our own ridiculous agenda.

[xshady121]

Gotcha. I'd rather that than just acting on our own ridiculous agenda.

While our agenda is certainly ridiculous, it seems a bit odd to ask permission from a panel made up of other countries with their own interests at heart. It's almost as absurd as China and India not being part of the G8.

[loveisdead]

While our agenda is certainly ridiculous, it seems a bit odd to ask permission from a panel made up of other countries with their own interests at heart. It's almost as absurd as China and India not being part of the G8.
I agree it isn't the best option, but it's the best I could think of.

[saysmydoctor]

We should have approached it in a law enforcement manner, but also used it as a time of self-reflection. Instead of saying they hate us for our freedom, we should have surmised that they despise us for what we inflict on their people. Do we think a person in Egypt, for example, is at a loss that we defend their leader who represses them? Do you think it is lost on the people in the region that Madeline Albright said that two million Iraqis due to sanctions was worth it? If this is the view that is extended through foreign policy, why do we expect them to value our lives? This doesn't mean that the attack of the Twin Towers was moral, but it does explain the framework through which it is justified; the dark secret is, by most standards, the Pentagon was a justifiable attack because it is the center of imperial planning. If we desire to eliminate this enmity, it must be done by creating a standard that even superpowers are held to, so that we realize things like the war in Afghanistan is unjustified, as it would be similar to having the US attacked because it protected a terrorist who blew up a Venezuelan airliner. Really, I think there must be an elimination of the entire concept of superpower, since the term implies it has extra-legal authority.
I agree with this.

Should we go after Osama Bin Laden, though?

[saysmydoctor]

While our agenda is certainly ridiculous, it seems a bit odd to ask permission from a panel made up of other countries with their own interests at heart. It's almost as absurd as Spain and Brazil and South Africa and Mexico and China and India not being part of the G8.
Fixed.

[GuitarR0cker1]

We should have approached it in a law enforcement manner, but also used it as a time of self-reflection. Instead of saying they hate us for our freedom, we should have surmised that they despise us for what we inflict on their people. Do we think a person in Egypt, for example, is at a loss that we defend their leader who represses them? Do you think it is lost on the people in the region that Madeline Albright said that two million Iraqis due to sanctions was worth it? If this is the view that is extended through foreign policy, why do we expect them to value our lives? This doesn't mean that the attack of the Twin Towers was moral, but it does explain the framework through which it is justified; the dark secret is, by most standards, the Pentagon was a justifiable attack because it is the center of imperial planning. If we desire to eliminate this enmity, it must be done by creating a standard that even superpowers are held to, so that we realize things like the war in Afghanistan is unjustified, as it would be similar to having the US attacked because it protected a terrorist who blew up a Venezuelan airliner. Really, I think there must be an elimination of the entire concept of superpower, since the term implies it has extra-legal authority.
None of that is realistic though. America is an empire by definition. Besides in the present Middle East, I would say our actions are significantly different than our actions in Latin America during the early to late 1900's. We would frequently coup democratically elected socialist or populist governments because we wanted better trade relations with them or because our US owned corporations would have to pay their works a 2 or 3 more dollars a day. We don't really even come close to that in the Middle East. Yes we prop up governments that do terrible things but I think in the end our support for Israel and the oil producing nations will end. In the end I think our foriegn policy will change significantly in the future. At least I hope so, there is no "socialist" threat anymore, people don't shit their pants because of terrorism as much as they used to.

Anyways I think the invasion Afghanistan was necessary. The taliban really were screwed up fundamentalists. A whole nation of them poised to disrupt Pakistan and create huge amounts of instability would be terrible for the whole world. Most people in the Middle East don't really dislike us for that anyways, it has everything to do with our support for Israel, the invasion of Iraq and some of our meddling in their internal affairs.

[simensays]

Wipe Afghanistan off the face of the earth. We should have then gone to Iraq and been like:
America "give me all your oil"
Iraq "Why?"
America "Because I fucking said so, now give it."
Iraq "I refuse"
America "Do you want to end up like Afghanistan?"
Iraq "Who?"
America "Exactly!"

[saysmydoctor]

Wipe Afghanistan off the face of the earth. We should have then gone to Iraq and been like:
America "give me all your oil"
Iraq "Why?"
America "Because I fucking said so, now give it."
Iraq "I refuse"
America "Do you want to end up like Afghanistan?"
Iraq "Who?"
America "Exactly!"
Nah.

[Praetor]

Wipe Afghanistan off the face of the earth. We should have then gone to Iraq and been like:
America "give me all your oil"
Iraq "Why?"
America "Because I fucking said so, now give it."
Iraq "I refuse"
America "Do you want to end up like Afghanistan?"
Iraq "Who?"
America "Exactly!"
This would not exacerbate problems. This is an extremely appropriate reaction.

[simensays]

Nah.

the war is something I can't get into. not that i'm a conspiracy theorists, but i know that their is corruption in the world, especially America. This kid tried to point it out
sE76LQwT6qA

[saysmydoctor]

the war is something I can't get into. not that i'm a conspiracy theorists, but i know that their is corruption in the world, especially America. This kid tried to point it out
sE76LQwT6qA
What the fuck are you on about? You just proposed wiping out an innocent group of people off the face of the Earth.

[simensays]

What the fuck are you on about? You just proposed wiping out an innocent group of people off the face of the Earth.
I guess i wasn't completely clear in my followup.
I don't know or care what the war is about. I don't care that 9/11 happened except for the loss of life. Its tragic. I don't know the reason of it, nor do I think i'll ever know the reason for it. I don't know the reason for the War in Iraq, nor do I care anymore. America is corrupt and certain things will go unanswered. This is one of the many things that will go unanswered, even though there's answers.

Who killed B.I.G lol

[simensays]

What the fuck are you on about? You just proposed wiping out an innocent group of people off the face of the Earth.
Oh, and to show more of my beleifs and opinions. I'm a pacifists, and i believe that in order to end all wars, a country has to be so powerful that they have the ability to easily wipe out all others.
For me to be happy, a kind country must have the ability to end all wars.

[saysmydoctor]

The superpowered country is the reason behind the tension.

[Animalhill]

I am curious as to what you all think of the many conspiracy theories reguarding 9/11 being an inside job. I shrugged it off until I saw testimony from demolitions experts around the country stating that for a building as large as the towers, it takes YEARS of planning to make it fall straight down- let alone a plane hitting the side of it.

[saysmydoctor]

I think they are utter bullshit. The government isn't even capable of running a war right. Like they'd have been able to contain this kind of plot.

[Animalhill]

I think they are utter bullshit. The government isn't even capable of running a war right. Like they'd have been able to contain this kind of plot.
Who is to say that it was the central government? I'm not saying I necessarily believe this to be the case, but there is evidence to support it.

[saysmydoctor]

There is enough counterevidence that destroys any evidence that supports the conspiracy.

I've said this in another thread. How would a government--any government--spend the resources it would take wire these two buildings to fall to the ground and be able to contain? You'd have people in the building who would see these people installing the explosives, there would be intelligence workers, there simply would be too many people involved in this intricate plot, then on top of that these people--if they managed to keep it contained--would wire WTC 7, a virtually unknown worthless tower--why?

There are so many variables in this situation, there is simply no way.

[Animalhill]

There is enough counterevidence that destroys any evidence that supports the conspiracy.

I've said this in another thread. How would a government--any government--spend the resources it would take wire these two buildings to fall to the ground and be able to contain? You'd have people in the building who would see these people installing the explosives, there would be intelligence workers, there simply would be too many people involved in this intricate plot, then on top of that these people--if they managed to keep it contained--would wire WTC 7, a virtually unknown worthless tower--why?

There are so many variables in this situation, there is simply no way.
I agree- but how did WTC 7 even fall?

[saysmydoctor]

_kSq663m0G8

[Animalhill]

_kSq663m0G8
sorry man- you tube is blocked at my work.
In any case, I really am just playing devil's advocate (HATE that phrase) here.