9/11 - was there an alternative response?

Matt Holck

I thought the had to sign off on executions

thebman

nacho libre wrote: »

He was trading oil in Euros at the time of the invasion.

A Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.

The tender for which bids were due by June 10 of that year, switched the transaction back to dollars - the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar

the Bush administration implemented the currency transition despite the adverse impact on profits from Iraqi’s export oil sales a the time. this fact provides insight into one of the crucial – yet overlooked – rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

Been saying this for years. Saddam wanted to trade oil in Euro's undermining the US dollar. Now if China or someone does it, the US can't argue because that would be too large a conflict to get into really and they hold so much US debt anyway but if a little middle east country with a dictator ruling where it would be easy to launch a propaganda campaign against wants to undermine the dollar, its game on.

Manic Moran

Matt Holck wrote: »

I thought the had to sign off on executions

I don't believe Governors have to sign off on them, as much as they just have to decline to commute the sentence. As a matter of course, the condemned will make an appeal for clemency to the Governor. Unless the Governor has reason to believe there has been a miscarriage of justice, or that the sentence is excessive under the law's guidelines, he will decline the appeal and the sentence is carried out as per the Judge's instructions. About the only exception to this I can think of is when the Governor has a moral issue with the death penalty to begin with, and uses his authority to commute all death sentences as a matter of course. The US Supreme Court similarly refuses to hear appeals routinely, so by your argument, they also sentenced people to death.

I am reminded somewhat of Schwarzenegger's position. He took some PR hits in Austria for refusing to commute death sentences. His position was that he was going to see that the laws of the State were upheld, not enforce Austrian values on California.

NTM

Matt Holck

by my argument,
I am responsible for the actions of my government
after all we elected them
and I do not endorse government killings

edanto

Moran, do you think Iraq would have been invaded even if 9/11 didn't happen?

Matt Holck

they were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq

blahfckingblah

Deepest sympathy to the families of those who have died, 10 years on,, RIP

Mr.Micro

blahfckingblah wrote: »

Deepest sympathy to the families of those who have died, 10 years on,, RIP

Not to forget the estimated 600,000 plus who died in Iraq and Afghanistan as well in revenge for the 3000 who died in the towers.

blahfckingblah

Of course not, you see I didnt mention them as I wasnt trying to do an exhaustive list of condolonces, I'm not the death notices.

Mr.Micro

blahfckingblah wrote: »

Of course not, you see I didnt mention them as I wasnt trying to do an exhaustive list of condolonces, I'm not the death notices.

No you were just being selective. I mentioned the 600,000 plus in a sentence, an exhaustive list is not necessary, thank you.

edanto

edanto wrote: »

I've just come across a link to a Noam Chomsky article of that name and I'm about to read it. But what are your first - 3 line - reactions to whether or not there was a better alternative response to 9/11? If you were the leader of the free (trade) world, what course would you have chartered?

I would have considered it a police matter, not a war excuse. Interpol and UN police agencies would have had an international mandate to follow all money trails and evidence and those responsible would have been caught and tried.

I would have nuked pretty much the whole middle east, it would have saved western lives both from a troops on the ground level and from Islamic attacks after 9/11.
The costs would also have been dramatically reduced.

blahfckingblah

I never have or never will respect the "war on terror" don't tell me what I was or wasnt doing. Its 10 years on TO THE DAY since these attacks and I was paying respect to the VICTIMS not the american government and its love for being in war perpetually. I will as I see fit respect those 600,000 people too when I see fit and it won't be dictated by you, thank you very much.

RandomName2

MagicMarker wrote: »

Bombing the right country would have been a good start.

What are you talking about? No, seriously.

Wrong country either means Afghanistan or Iraq? :pac:

Right country means... Pakistan? What? Or maybe you mean pick a random country in the world?

So... if you do mean Pakistan (and that would be the most logical thing you could be saying), you would be advocating bombing an allied country that possesses intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles.

Smart.

Although if you were referring to some other random country you would have to elaborate. :cool:

RandomName2

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not to forget the estimated 600,000 plus who died in Iraq and Afghanistan as well in revenge for the 3000 who died in the towers.

I know. Al Qaeda were hard to defeat in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Thankfully they have been fully defeated in Iraq... although their Taliban allies remain in control of the vague overlap of tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

RandomName2

Armani Square Tribe wrote: »

I would have nuked pretty much the whole middle east, it would have saved western lives both from a troops on the ground level and from Islamic attacks after 9/11.
The costs would also have been dramatically reduced.

Well pretty much all of the Middle East, with the exception of Iraq and Syria, were allies of America at the time of 9/11 (and still are). Iran and Afghanistan are not in the Middle East afaik.

Mr.Micro

Armani Square Tribe wrote: »

I would have nuked pretty much the whole middle east, it would have saved western lives both from a troops on the ground level and from Islamic attacks after 9/11.
The costs would also have been dramatically reduced.

What an heroic notion. Whose lives would you have saved and how many millions would have died? Nukes leave no after effects of course. Good thing you are not or were not President.

edanto

@ Mr Micro - what would you have done as President?

Liam Byrne

If you were the leader of the free (trade) world, what course would you have chartered?

I missed this earlier! Who is this fictional "leader" of "the free world" ?

I don't remember voting for or electing anyone.

edanto

Ah Liam, don't be awkward.

Seriously - what would you have done if you were commander in chief on September 12th 2001; what orders would you have given?

Mr.Micro

edanto wrote: »

@ Mr Micro - what would you have done as President?

I would have given the UN inspectors more time for one. In hindsight, we can now see Saddam was on his last legs and had little or no real firepower and no WMD, even before the invasion. The intelligence would have know that Iraq was defunct and the reign of Saddam was nearing its end. Blix was making progress but Blair and Bush did not want to know. Unfortunately it has been convenient for the USA to blame 9/11 on Saddam and al-Qaeda, and avoiding confronting itself on the reasons why it was attacked. Bush and the cronies manipulated the tragedy for their own political and financial ends. In the end its the US citizens who will have to endure ever increasing intrusions into their lives from Homeland Security, and loss of their liberties.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well pretty much all of the Middle East, with the exception of Iraq and Syria, were allies of America at the time of 9/11 (and still are). Iran and Afghanistan are not in the Middle East afaik.

Iran is and Afghanistan and Pakistan are greater middle east.
I was joking anyway.

Although regarding your point about the countries being "allies", they may be but are their citizens allies of America or the west in general?

Pakistan is an allie of America but its pretty clear its people arent and the government dont really do anything to control al qaeda there.

caseyann

It is both USA and Arab nations fault for allowing eachother into eachothers countries.
On the one side those people who attacked the country that gave a home to millions of muslims and gave them work and freedom of speech attacked the same country.
On the other hand USA stick their nose in way to much in affairs that they are never ever going to be thanked for.They free them and then they will burn the American flag.
I would have not attacked the country but banned all of those from traveling from said countries into USA unless they pledged to USA.
And on the other side i would ban all Americans and foreigners from going to Afghanistan etc.. etc..
Any body who had the believe that western nation men and women are not good should stay in their own countries and USA should leave them to live the lives they want.
They trade for oil if they want it but that is it.
Leave them to it is what i would have done.
Anyone who has the higher than thou attitude should not go to that country nor should they come to ours.As i dont like their ways i have no intention of ever going there as so should they be to.Turn off their tvs and dont look if you dont like us.
I would not have attacked them just found who followed same ideas and threw them out of USA.

nagilum2

The response posture being currently employed, I think, is the correct one. Withdrawal from Iraq (which the US never should have gone into in the first place) combined with liberal application of drone strikes, bombings, and special forces operations are the right approach to deal with this decentralized but still deadly threat. At least, from a military perspective.

Nearly equally as important are coordination with foreign intelligence services to the degree possible, continued disruption and tracking of financial channels to identify funders of the terrorist organizations and tee those funders up as new targets for drone strikes, and added scrutiny for certain persons entering the country: immigrants and visitors from middle eastern and/or Islamic countries (and sadly, even Muslim citizens from western countries where no visa is required, ala Richard Reid).

None of this will ever be able to catch and stop every possible plot, but the layered series of intelligence and defense structures enacted since 9/11 have stymied dozens of attacks all over the world, and al-Qaeda - as it once was - has now been completely decapitated from a leadership perspective, operationally limited from a capabilities perspective, and organizationally decimated from a manpower perspective.

The thing I would change, is the provision of the patriot act which allows law enforcement organizations to spy on US citizens without warrants. The system the US has had in place forever, which stipulates that a judge must sign off a search warrant for any domestic surveillance on a US citizen, has worked since its inception. There's no reason why that can't be returned to.

The world should come to terms that this posture is probably going to have to be maintained for at least another decade or two. Though much of the Al Qaeda organization has been annihilated, the broad propensity toward violence and fomenting of terrorism remain throughout a large portion of the Islamic world, and the "lone wolf" terror event is something that is extremely difficult to guard against. This, is the new normal.

The developments of the Arab Spring will be interesting to watch. My hope is that true democracy begins to take root. My fear, and probably the more realistic position, is that 5 years from now we'll look back at regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc. and see that tyranny has increased rather than decreased.

Liam Byrne

edanto wrote: »

Ah Liam, don't be awkward.

Seriously - what would you have done if you were commander in chief on September 12th 2001; what orders would you have given?

Not being awkward - there is no leader of the free world, and that is a fact. There is enough lies and misdirection and mis-association involved with this atrocity and its follow-up atrocities already without adding to them.

So again, "commander in chief" of what ?

If you're going to refer to American stuff, prefix it with the word "American".

As for what would I have done.....well I wouldn't have lied about WMDs or Saddam Hussein or invaded Iraq for a start - that has killed off any level of sympathy that America had.

I'd have organised a crack elite crew - as big or as experienced as it took - who were under orders to seek out and capture Bin Laden and bring him back alive for trial.

After all, that's the correct response when someone commits a horrendous crime.

Bush, however, was a deluded, murderous and vengeful bas**rd who even claimed that God told him to invade Iraq in order to sell his lies to even the most religious redneck fundamentals.

RandomName2

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I would have given the UN inspectors more time for one. In hindsight, we can now see Saddam was on his last legs and had little or no real firepower and no WMD, even before the invasion. The intelligence would have know that Iraq was defunct and the reign of Saddam was nearing its end. Blix was making progress but Blair and Bush did not want to know. Unfortunately it has been convenient for the USA to blame 9/11 on Saddam and al-Qaeda, and avoiding confronting itself on the reasons why it was attacked. Bush and the cronies manipulated the tragedy for their own political and financial ends. In the end its the US citizens who will have to endure ever increasing intrusions into their lives from Homeland Security, and loss of their liberties.

Interesting response -

One of the worries however was the idea of Uday getting control after Saddam's death - a very likely scenario. More to the point, Saddam was a convinced enemy of the West and postured in a manner to suggest he had every intention to develop a means of revenge against his American nemesis.

Any attempts to tie Saddam to 9/11 were delusional, idiotic, or bogus. I don't think all that much of a case for Saddam being any way involved with Al Qaeda was really pursued by the US Government - rather the case to oust Saddam was founded on the WMD case; a relatively powerful one had it been true.

Of course there is a tide in the affairs of men, and if Saddam was to be ousted by the US it should have been at a time of national uprising and conflagration, not relative peace and stability. The neo-conservatives confused what impetous was required for intervention, believing that their own tragedy was as good a catalyst as a smoking gun. They also believed that the end justified the means in terms of Homeland Security; but if you look carefully, that level of erosion of civil liberties in terms of the heavy hand of federal authority is nothing new in America (even if government interference would be more of a Democrat diktat than Republican)

Matt Holck

- rather the case to oust Saddam was founded on the WMD case; a relatively powerful one had it been true.


except that the US is the greatest carrier of WMD tech and Nuclear warheads

caseyann

nagilum2 wrote: »

The response posture being currently employed, I think, is the correct one. Withdrawal from Iraq (which the US never should have gone into in the first place) combined with liberal application of drone strikes, bombings, and special forces operations are the right approach to deal with this decentralized but still deadly threat. At least, from a military perspective.

Nearly equally as important are coordination with foreign intelligence services to the degree possible, continued disruption and tracking of financial channels to identify funders of the terrorist organizations and tee those funders up as new targets for drone strikes, and added scrutiny for certain persons entering the country: immigrants and visitors from middle eastern and/or Islamic countries (and sadly, even Muslim citizens from western countries where no visa is required, ala Richard Reid).

None of this will ever be able to catch and stop every possible plot, but the layered series of intelligence and defense structures enacted since 9/11 have stymied dozens of attacks all over the world, and al-Qaeda - as it once was - has now been completely decapitated from a leadership perspective, operationally limited from a capabilities perspective, and organizationally decimated from a manpower perspective.

The thing I would change, is the provision of the patriot act which allows law enforcement organizations to spy on US citizens without warrants. The system the US has had in place forever, which stipulates that a judge must sign off a search warrant for any domestic surveillance on a US citizen, has worked since its inception. There's no reason why that can't be returned to.

The world should come to terms that this posture is probably going to have to be maintained for at least another decade or two. Though much of the Al Qaeda organization has been annihilated, the broad propensity toward violence and fomenting of terrorism remain throughout a large portion of the Islamic world, and the "lone wolf" terror event is something that is extremely difficult to guard against. This, is the new normal.

The developments of the Arab Spring will be interesting to watch. My hope is that true democracy begins to take root. My fear, and probably the more realistic position, is that 5 years from now we'll look back at regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc. and see that tyranny has increased rather than decreased.

That is not a fear,that is a prediction.

RandomName2

Matt Holck wrote: »

except that the US is the greatest carrier of WMD tech and Nuclear warheads

FACEPALM

Matt Holck

The thing I would change, is the provision of the patriot act which allows law enforcement organizations to spy on US citizens without warrants. The system the US has had in place forever, which stipulates that a judge must sign off a search warrant for any domestic surveillance on a US citizen, has worked since its inception. There's no reason why that can't be returned to.

would it please the court
if the government publicly posted their actions

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

- rather the case to oust Saddam was founded on the WMD case; a relatively powerful one had it been true.


except that the US is the greatest carrier of WMD tech and Nuclear warheads

Not exactly a fair comparison. Not to elaborate on the entirety of the Cold War or anything, but the idea here is that too many people (US, Russia, China, etc) already have nukes and other WMDs as it is. And the idea is to resist/prevent other groups from throwing their own imbalance into the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction.