9/11 - was there an alternative response?

Manic Moran

edanto wrote: »

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

I have no idea, and there's not much point in worrying about it now.

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

US holdings are smaller than that of Russia, I do believe. I could be wrong, of course.

NTM

Overheal

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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".

He did say Commander in Chief, not Leader of the Free world. Commander in Chief is another title held by the President. It's not an exclusive title/concept to that of the United States either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief

Similar in context I can get away just fine by referring to someone as Prime Minister, or Taoiseach.

Liam Byrne

Overheal wrote: »

He did say Commander in Chief, not Leader of the Free world.

Incorrect :

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?

Overheal wrote: »

Commander in Chief is another title held by the President. It's not an exclusive title/concept to that of the United States either.

Precisely my point. There is no excuse for using either phrase without context, because....

Overheal wrote: »

Similar in context I can get away just fine by referring to someone as Prime Minister, or Taoiseach.

.....when in Ireland, the president is Mary McAleese, etc.

The only three times "the president" refers to the President of the USA is (a) in American media (b) if you're in America or (c) if you're an American elsewhere (it should still be put in context in this last one as it's open for interpretation, but it is forgiveable).

edanto

Of course, it's also OK for me to refer to 'president', 'commander in chief' in a thread about 9/11 and presume that people will know who we are talking about. Well, I think it's reasonable, and it's my thread.

Can we put down the handbags and get back on topic?

Here is the text of an alternative response that the President could have made on Sept 12th

Fictional US President in Before & After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis, by Phyllis Bennis wrote:

Our people have been the victims of a horrific crime, a crime against humanity.

We recognise even at the beginning of this crisis that we cannot answer this crime alone. This was not an act of war, carried out by a country, and we will not turn to war against any country. That will not find the perpetrators or bring them to justice, nor will it prevent future such crimes from occurring. Instead, we need a legal framework that is international in scope and that relies on international law and the United Nations Charter for its legitimacy.

We approach this crime internationally because we know that the only sustainable justice is international justice. And justice - not war and not vengeance - is our goal. We will seek the perpetrators and bring them to trial in a legitimate and fair court...

Personally, I think that response would have been far more effective in terms of national security, but of course there is much more profit in destruction than in justice and the people around Bush were set to make a lot of that profit if they got some wars started.

JustinDee

edanto wrote: »

Personally, I think that response would have been far more effective in terms of national security, but of course there is much more profit in destruction than in justice and the people around Bush were set to make a lot of that profit if they got some wars started.

???
How would sitting on hands have been more effective a response?
If a country such as Afghanistan harbours an organisation that attacks your own, it is more than enough reason to focus reprisal at them. There is no other way of getting to the organisers. If they reside in a 'friendly' country, there is.

One can bleat about the semantics of what they're called all one wants but it changes nothing.

Iraq on the other hand . . .

A Primal Nut

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Incorrect :





Precisely my point. There is no excuse for using either phrase without context, because....



.....when in Ireland, the president is Mary McAleese, etc.

The only three times "the president" refers to the President of the USA is (a) in American media (b) if you're in America or (c) if you're an American elsewhere (it should still be put in context in this last one as it's open for interpretation, but it is forgiveable).

d) If its blatantly obvious which President you are talking about.

finnegann

sxt wrote: »

You do realise that America Sponsored Saddam Hussein for decades, and gave him billions of dollars of weapons ,including the ingredients to make chemical weapons

According to the lancet report approx 655,000 dead Iraqis between 2003 -2006 .Why are they dead? because 19 people ( as mentioned above, 14 from Suadia Arabia) fuelled with hatred against America, commited a horrific attack on the twin towers and the pentagon. Eye for an eye?

There are were estimated 4-5 million refugees as a result of this illegal war on Iraq .The crippling sanctions on this country and the bombing of all its infrasture mean Iraq is a devastated hell hole now, and will remain so for generations to come.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton, goes down in infamy not only for admitting that 500,000 innocent children were starved by sanctions on Iraq but also for admitting the atrocity

Her notorious answer was later answered by Bill Richardson, who has now been tapped to serve under Obama.

Do you think about starving 500,000 children has a place in US policy?

When did America decide it was OK to wage war against children?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

America originally supported Saddam. Absolutely. The WMD fiasco was a stupid mistake. America has, as I continually admitted, made horrendous mistakes. The most significant mistakes however, are often made in other directions. One of the biggest mistakes in my opinion was abandoning the people of Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war. When the Americans pulled out, the coast was clear and Saddam promptly annihilated tens of thousands of his own people. Again.
If you like- America owed those victims and should be criticised for taking so long to get back there and finishing the job they started.
As for the cheap shot about the waging of a war on children... Honestly, this is a Michael Moore tactic. Do you know how many children died in the bombings of Berlin during world war 2? I hate confirming Godwins law but I presume we're both agreed that the American intervention against the nazi's was a positive one... Nobody is claiming that war is black and white.The war in Iraq was particularly grey in various respects but come on... Do you not feel that Iraq is even marginally better off without Saddam? Did you not feel even the slightest glimmer of hope when Iraq finally held free democratic elections in the aftermath of Saddam's deposition? Would you seriously wish to wave a magic wand and send the country back to the Saddam days?

edanto

This thread is about 9/11 - was there an alternative response.

In regards to Iraq, there are many more options other than (a) what happened and (b) doing nothing.

johngalway

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.

1. Listen to Richard Clarke et all and fully act on their advice.
2. Invade Afghanistan.
3. Don't alienate most of the rest of the world by invading Iraq, knock off Saddo by other means.

hatrickpatrick

In my opinion, for politicians to spit on the graves of those dead victims by using their deaths to promote a war the dead may not even have supported, is absolutely, wholly and completely sick.

If I was killed in a terrorist attack and I knew my death was being used to promote violence and imperialism... It's so utterly disrespectful I don't even know where to start.

snafuk35

mike65 wrote: »

The right approach would have been to have kept the gun in the holster and to use all that intelligence that hadn't been corrected collated and disseminated to track down the leadership of Al-Qaeda (not just Bin Laden). At that time the US would have had the goodwill of just about everyone, bar the likes of North Korea and Afghanistan to work with. As such the actual military invasion might not have ever been considered necessary (even though the Taliban were quite clearly a bloody awful regime).

While I was perfectly happy to see Saddam toppled at the time that was of course a completely separate matter from Sept 11, 2001. Bush/Cheney conflating the two was idiocy of the highest order.

So they would have simply flown over a bunch of FBI agents to talk to Mullah Omar and negotiated the hand over of Osama Bin Laden?

How long would they have lasted before they were beheaded and their murders broadcast over the internet?

snafuk35

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my opinion, for politicians to spit on the graves of those dead victims by using their deaths to promote a war the dead may not even have supported, is absolutely, wholly and completely sick.

If I was killed in a terrorist attack and I knew my death was being used to promote violence and imperialism... It's so utterly disrespectful I don't even know where to start.

Thousands of people were killed on 9/11 and American citizens did not know where the next attack would be or if the next attack would involve chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The Americans knew Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan surrounded by thousands of terrorists and he had the protection of the Taliban who had their own army of loyal and fanatical fighters. He had a network of thousands of terrorists around the world who were plotting new attacks.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Americans and their allies should have done NOTHING????

Are terrorists attacks supposed to be tolerated like the weather and thousands of dead after repeated attacks in city after city?

Your post it utterly idiotic.