9/11: What if America turned the other cheek?

[SiMey]

I thought at the time that an alternate response could have been for "W" to take some time out to grieve, rather than lash out in anger. Perhaps Al Gore might have responded differently?

What would have happened if America simply forgave the aggressors, for they knew not what they did? What if the USA made a statement that it was wrong to inflict such casualties for a political cause and would not stoop to retaliate?

[Marcus]

What do you mean by retaliation? Actively seeking Osama and fighting Al-Qaeda?

[SiMey]

Retaliate:

To return like for like, especially evil for evil.

To pay back (an injury) in kind.

[md21017md]

Well, Slick willy (AKA Bill clinton) turned the other cheek and we got 9/11. What happens on the school yard when you don't stand up to the bulley? You get your ass kicked every time he feels like it.

That said, I am not a bush fan, I think he took every golden opportunity and totally screwed it up. Not so much by action but by perception. Iraq is a clear example. He took us in there on some trumped up WMD bullshit and made us to think it would be in and out. I think had he been frank with the public more people might be in support of the curent situation. I think most people are pissed that the initial expectations are not the current situation.

I see the current bush going down in history as one of the worst US presidents, unfortunately I do not see anyone on the horizon of the level we need to turn things around any time soon - if ever. Maybe we are all witnessing the fall of the american empire?

[Marcus]

Retaliate:

To return like for like, especially evil for evil.

To pay back (an injury) in kind.

OK, but against who?

[SiMey]

Sorry, I'm ignorant of when sick willy turned the other cheek? More information and how this led to 9/11?

Who was bullying the USA?





SiMey added to this post, 3 minutes and 35 seconds later...

OK, but against who?

I guess that would, in part, be my question.

Did the US just lash out and retaliate, perhaps against Iraq whilst still hurt and angry and could the US have taken a deep breath, thought for a while and then returned with a more measured response? eg "Actively seeking Osama and fighting Al-Qaeda?"

[phantasma]

Turning the other cheek would have been pointless. Muslim extremists wouldn't give that reaction any reverence. They'd just keep attacking. Mind you, I don't approve of the way Bush went about retaliating.

[Marcus]

Did the US just lash out and retaliate, perhaps against Iraq whilst still hurt and angry and could the US have taken a deep breath, thought for a while and then returned with a more measured response? eg "Actively seeking Osama and fighting Al-Qaeda?"

The problem with Iraq that they were not involved. So it wasn't a retaliation but a casus belli.

[konec]

Well, Slick willy (AKA Bill clinton) turned the other cheek and we got 9/11. What happens on the school yard when you don't stand up to the bulley? You get your ass kicked every time he feels like it.

That said, I am not a bush fan, I think he took every golden opportunity and totally screwed it up. Not so much by action but by perception. Iraq is a clear example. He took us in there on some trumped up WMD bullshit and made us to think it would be in and out. I think had he been frank with the public more people might be in support of the curent situation. I think most people are pissed that the initial expectations are not the current situation.

I see the current bush going down in history as one of the worst US presidents, unfortunately I do not see anyone on the horizon of the level we need to turn things around any time soon - if ever. Maybe we are all witnessing the fall of the american empire?

How would you translate that analogy to the situation around 9/11?

What were the reasons for a terrorist attack? Were they standig up to what they considered a bulley? To military presence in the middle east? To a global capitalist economy closing in on them, changing the way their society is organized?

If this certain group of terrorists is the bulley, what would be the most effective way to deal with them? Invading countries, taking out some of them and their leaders, but also creating them (collateral damage)? What drives them? Is it ideological or practical (terrorist organisations take care of the families of suicide bombers)?

[Ool]

What would have happened if America simply forgave the aggressors, for they knew not what they did? What if the USA made a statement that it was wrong to inflict such casualties for a political cause and would not stoop to retaliate?

That’s what they did, isn’t it?

Last time I checked they still haven’t caught Bin Laden or retaliated against Saudi Arabia…

Or the United Arab Emirates…

Or Egypt…

Or Lebanon…

Or any of the countries from which any of the 9/11 hijackers came…





Ool added to this post, 25 minutes and 8 seconds later...

Well, Slick willy (AKA Bill clinton) turned the other cheek and we got 9/11. What happens on the school yard when you don't stand up to the bulley? You get your ass kicked every time he feels like it.

He had the military launch a missile attack on Bin Laden’s hideout in 1998. He had a Pakistani commando unit led by the CIA go after him in 1999. He launched another rocket attack on his convoy in 2000.

You guys have a strange definition of “turning the other cheek…”

Bush didn’t even try to get him before 2001, ignoring all terror warnings and then staying frozen behind a schoolbook for seven minutes when he was told the country is under attack. And after that he failed just as abysmally to catch the culprits, whether deliberately, to sell the Iraq invasion, or due to incompetence.

I’m just startled by notions such as this one:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Come on, you guys, after all that’s happened in the last 7½ years, compared to, say, the peacekeeping successes in Yugoslavia by the Clinton administration or the successful prosecution of the first WTC bombers in 1993 (let alone the Oklahoma City bomber), do some people still see the Republicans as good warriors and protectors rather than merely the most loud-mouthed bullies and the Democrats as pussies? Quick history quiz: Who was in charge when World War Two was won? Who was when Vietnam was lost…?

Sometimes I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone with some people…

[Beery Swine]

I don't think The Decider did retaliate. I think he mainly sent a bunch of troops to a bunch of places that had nothing to do with the attacks.





Beery Swine added to this post, 3 minutes and 44 seconds later...

That’s what they did, isn’t it?

Last time I checked they still haven’t caught Bin Laden or retaliated against Saudi Arabia…

Or the United Arab Emirates…

Or Egypt…

Or Lebanon…

Or any of the countries from which any of the 9/11 hijackers came…

This is what I was alluding to.

[md21017md]

Sorry, I'm ignorant of when sick willy turned the other cheek? More information and how this led to 9/11?

Who was bullying the USA?

Sorry, slick willy. How many terrorist events happened when willy was in office? We had an attack on the USS Cole and several embasies, as well has attacks on night clubs overseas frequented by americans.


What were the reasons for a terrorist attack? Were they standig up to what they considered a bulley? To military presence in the middle east? To a global capitalist economy closing in on them, changing the way their society is organized?

If this certain group of terrorists is the bulley, what would be the most effective way to deal with them? Invading countries, taking out some of them and their leaders, but also creating them (collateral damage)? What drives them? Is it ideological or practical (terrorist organisations take care of the families of suicide bombers)?

All good questions. As much as I dislike Bush and what he's done, I have to give him the benefit of doubt. I am sure there is a wealth of info on the subject we don't have, and without that info we are simply playing monday morning quarterback. It's hard to make an informed decision with only partial facts. Granted those facts could in fact more support that he made a mistake going in, but it could just as easily support going in.

What ever you want to say, we have not had any more attack on americans outside of combat soldiers.


That’s what they did, isn’t it?

When?

Last time I checked they still haven’t caught Bin Laden

No, but we seem to have cut his ability to be a pain in the ass


or retaliated against Saudi Arabia…

Or the United Arab Emirates…

Or Egypt…

What did these countries do - as a country - to the US? Just because individual citizens of these countries commited crimes against the US, do you advocate punishing the entire country?

Or Lebanon…

Lebanon as a country was screaming bloody murder to Iraq to leave the americans alone. Apparently they learned the hard way via Ronnie.

Or any of the countries from which any of the 9/11 hijackers came…

Again, do we punish an entire population of millions for the acts of a few?


He had the military launch a missile attack on Bin Laden’s hideout in 1998.

He blew up some desert, big deal. It didn't stop them 1 bit. They continued to attack us. As far as I recall the "hideout" was long empty when we hit it.

He had a Pakistani commando unit led by the CIA go after him in 1999.

Given Pakastans track record, can't imagine this was more than a long hike no where in the desert.

I’m just startled by notions such as this one:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is funny as hell. Funny or not, traditionally democrats are weak on war, strong on domestic social programs. It's a known fact, and why this concept is true. I personally think a terror attack aside, Obama is going to win - or at least the election right now is his to loose.


Come on, you guys, after all that’s happened in the last 7½ years, compared to, say, the peacekeeping successes in Yugoslavia by the Clinton administration

I thought that was NATO? You are talking about 2 different peoples. Yougoslavs are not the religous zealots of the mid east, they do not have religous leaders running the country.

do some people still see the Republicans as good warriors and protectors rather than merely the most loud-mouthed bullies and the Democrats as pussies?

An apt description, though there are exceptions. Bush comes to mind on the repub side, and JFK on the democratic side.


Quick history quiz: Who was in charge when World War Two was won?

Granted both were democrats, and both did everything to keep out of the war until it landed on our laps. Gee isn't that what clinto did? No action at all until Pearl Harbor I mean 9/11 happened?

Prior to our involvement in WWII China was screaming for our help as the Japanese raped and destroyed the city of Nanking killing 200-300,0000+ non combative citizens - women and children. By our inaction, Japan was able to expand and dig in through out the pacific and germany was able to get a foot hold in Europe. Had we been involved earlier maybe there would have been less deaths on both sides.

I can't comment on WWI, my knowledge is not that deep there.

Who was when Vietnam was lost…?

Nixon with a democratic congress that pulled funding for the war. Hard to fight a war if you don't have the money.

"Once in office, he proposed the Nixon Doctrine, a strategy of replacing American troops with the Vietnamese troops, also called "Vietnamization." In July 1969, he visited South Vietnam, and met with President Nguyen Van Thieu and with U.S. military commanders. American involvement in the war declined steadily until all American troops were gone in 1973. Although the South Vietnamese were well supplied with modern arms, their fighting capability was limited by inadequate funding, low morale, and corruption. The lack of funding was primarily because of large funding cutbacks by the U.S. Congress. Nixon was widely praised in the United States for having delivered 'peace with honor', and ended American involvement in the war in Vietnam."

Nixon encouraged Augusto Pinochet's military overthrow of the elected socialist government of Chile in 1973.

Israel, a powerful American ally in the Middle East, was supported by the Nixon administration during the Yom Kippur War. When an Arab coalition led by Egypt and Syria—allies to the Soviets—attacked in October 1973 Israel suffered initial losses and pressed European powers for help, but (with the notable exception of the Netherlands) the Europeans responded with inaction. Not so with Nixon, who, cutting through inter-departmental squabbles and bureaucracy, initiated an air lift of American arms. By the time the U.S. and the Soviet Union negotiated a truce, Israel had penetrated deep into enemy territory. A long term effect was the movement of Egypt away from the Soviets toward the U.S




Sometimes I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone with some people…

[Marcus]

retaliated against Saudi Arabia…

Or the United Arab Emirates…

Or Egypt…

Or Lebanon…

Or any of the countries from which any of the 9/11 hijackers came…

I don't get it, why would you retaliate against a whole country? Wouldn't that be some extreme fascist behavior?

[knock7]

Sometimes I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone with some people…

I agree with everything you said. Slick Willy's successes were less expensive than George W Bush's failures - economically, politically, and militarily.


What would have happened if America simply forgave the aggressors, for they knew not what they did? What if the USA made a statement that it was wrong to inflict such casualties for a political cause and would not stoop to retaliate?

The mistake wasn't retaliating, It was thinking we had to solve someone else's problems, particularly the people who attacked us.

[kevintr]

I think we should have retaliated agenst the Talaban for harboring al-qaeda we just did it the wrong way. On 9/12 the CIA had a plan to topple the Taliban, bribe a few Afgan cheiftians to get them to act on there hatred for the Taliban and use a few arstrikes and specal forces units to take out the parts of the Taliban the Afgans coulden't get to. Cheny and Rumsfeld convinced Bush to use the military to do the full job and now we have NATO in a gurilla war in afganastan.

Saddam was a bit of unfinished busness we shold have taken care of in 91 when we had a coalition to back us up. The invasion of Iraq was a catastophy. It's way too expisive, and it gives the Arabs another reason to hate us. Also while we were busy with Iraq, N. Korea got nukes, Iran saw that and now there next in line for the nuclear club.

The United States needs to unedstand why Arabs hate them so mutch and address those problems so the Arabs that arnt crazy won't support the ones that are.

[Phalanx]

Arabs that arnt crazy won't support the ones that are.

You will find that this is difficult in countries where more than half the population is below age 21. For example: Iraq, median age 19; Afganistan, median age 17; Syria, 21. Most Muslim nations tend to have median ages below 25 with a few exceptions. For reference, the median age of the US is 35. Most of Europe has a median age above 35.

Perhaps the problem is the fact that the majority opinion in those countries is formed by poorly educated teenagers and early 20s kids? Or am I being politically incorrect?

[kevintr]

Perhaps the problem is the fact that the majority opinion in those countries is formed by poorly educated teenagers and early 20s kids? Or am I being politically incorrect?

People of that age can be more idealistic than practical but in North america and Europe how meany of them think it is ideal to attack the United States to bring it down a notch? I beleve alot of europieans think the U.S. has often played the bully but arn't too angry about it. Weve made alot of mistakes in the middle east, Isreal, Iran, Lebanon, Lybia were all handled poorly. That has given Arabs reason to be relly angry with us.

The poor education is one of the issues the U.S. has to face if it dosen't want people trying to attack it all the time. Of course in order to do that something probly has to be done about the economic disparity in the world. I doubt meany people would willingly accept the sacrifices necessary to bring that about.

[Phalanx]

in North america and Europe how meany of them think it is ideal to attack the United States to bring it down a notch?

Remember that worldwide, over 100 people died because some obscure cartoonist drew a comic poking fun at Islam. Churches were burned to the ground. A guy actually blew himself up at a Danish Embassy. People were mere murdered in front of their children because they were the same race as the cartoonist. Would the same thing happen in Europe if some guy somewhere made fun of European culture? I am merely pointing out that you can't place the entire blame on the US.

That has given Arabs reason to be relly angry with us.

I admit that we have made a lot of mistakes over there, but if they kill 100 people and call to arms because of a stupid cartoon made on the other side of the world.... part of the problem is their culture (oh no I am blaspheming western liberal multicultural relativism!!! I must be wrong by default!). A culture of people who blow themselves up at the slightest sign of free speech is not healthy and will be angry an awful lot. I also postulate that the median age difference between Europe and the Middle East is partly why Europeans and North Americans are able to behave and deal with problems more maturely than resorting to violence immediately.


The poor education is one of the issues the U.S. has to face if it dosen't want people trying to attack it all the time. Of course in order to do that something probly has to be done about the economic disparity in the world.

Absolutely. But the catch is we would have to change their culture for their economy grow. If women have no rights, than half their workforce is crippled. If we change their culture, they will hate us with far more passion than they would for our policy mistakes.

[Ool]

The mistake wasn't retaliating, It was thinking we had to solve someone else's problems, particularly the people who attacked us.

Really? At what point did the US force the Saudis to give up their corrupt monarchy and their fundamentalist, misogynist, overpopulating ways and to adopt a Western style democracy in its stead, because I’ve totally missed that one…





Ool added to this post, 17 minutes and 35 seconds later...

You will find that this is difficult in countries where more than half the population is below age 21. For example: Iraq, median age 19; Afganistan, median age 17; Syria, 21. Most Muslim nations tend to have median ages below 25 with a few exceptions. For reference, the median age of the US is 35. Most of Europe has a median age above 35.

Perhaps the problem is the fact that the majority opinion in those countries is formed by poorly educated teenagers and early 20s kids? Or am I being politically incorrect?

The problem isn’t even that but the slow-motion Malthusian car-crash behind that demographic. Or should I say “freeway pileup…?”

Saudi Arabia: About 20 million people ten years ago. About 30 million people today. (About 10 million in the Eighties.) And all the country has to support those teeming, disenfranchised masses is oil revenue, which may be peaking any day now or possibly has already and no one’s acknowledging it…

What will happen once the oil money runs out, do you think? What will happen if the masses grow disgruntled and follow a fundamentalist leader into an Iranian style ’70s revolution, turning on the America-friendly dictatorship and reverting the country into a populist-appearing Muslim Caliphate, possibly slaughtering or evicting their Shi’ite minority and trying to get other Sunnis in the Middle East to follow suit? Considering a war on Iran would lead to $400 million oil a barrel, can you imagine what upheavals on the Arabian Peninsula itself would do?

That’s another reason why the Neocons, in their naïveté, tried to open up a whole different region of ample oil reserves, to hedge themselves against that eventuality and to have a base of operations from which to influence such goings-on…





Ool added to this post, 6 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Absolutely. But the catch is we would have to change their culture for their economy grow. If women have no rights, than half their workforce is crippled. If we change their culture, they will hate us with far more passion than they would for our policy mistakes.

Giving them the tools to change their own culture might go a long way. A few years ago I’ve heard that there are more books translated into and published in Spanish every year than there are into Arabic since 900 A.D. …

[knock7]

Really? At what point did the US force the Saudis to give up their corrupt monarchy and their fundamentalist, misogynist, overpopulating ways and to adopt a Western style democracy in its stead, because I’ve totally missed that one…

You misunderstood and made assumptions. I don't think any of those things are a United States problem.

RETAILIATION
The United States retaliated for 911 and toppled the Afghanistan government. Once the government was routed and infrastructure destroyed, the United States should have left and returned home and never attacked Iraq. In addition, the United States should stop propping up Israel as well. If someone attacks us again, we blow up that country or group, too. It is cheap, economical and effective.


INTERVENTIONISM
The United States should stop trying to run the world and mind its own business. It pisses me off to see countries and people hating the United States openly and then asking the United States for welfare - economic, military, etc. These countries need to stop blaming other countries for there problems and do something about it themselves. What ever happen to personal responsibility globally, culturally, and personally?

I would agree with giving foreign aid to a country that agrees to follow development guidelines in creating efficiency and order and allows us the right to audit the progress. If you don't like it, don't take the aid.


VALUES
Everyone doesn't have to be democratic and christian. It is beginning to look like a bad idea in the middle east. I don't think the United States should judge other countries and I don't think we should be judged or attacked for ours.

[kevintr]

Heres my reasoning as to why some people think it is a good idea to engage in acts of terrorism. Some people are very angry and full of hate, I was that way when I was younger. They don't want to consider themselves evil and won't or can't deal with there issues. Since they insist there good but are full of anger and hate it must be that they were wronged, so they go find an enemy who has "wronged" them. Now that they have an enimy to destroy they can have great fun doing things to reach that end, and they have a compelling reason to live or die, destroy the enimy so the world will be warm and fuzzy.

These people are in every culture. When I expressed anti-goverment views in the U.S. where I lived the most sypathetic responses I got were "Yes the goverment is a pain in the neck but we need it, so grow up." Wich I eventually did. I think part of our probem is in Arab countrys these crazy people get support, most Arabs have something better to do than attack americans but they have sutch a poor opinion of the U.S. that they think giving a terrorist some help is a donation to a worthy cause.

I agree that there are aspects in Arab culture that increase the likelehood of terorist acts. Islam's idea of jehad must be the most butiful idea in the world to a these angry people, hate and religion, what an intoxicating mix! I also agree that the young median age will increase the propensity for violence, young people are more idealistic and want things fixed now, comprimises for the reasons of praticality can be seen as a comprimise of integrity.

They won't hate us for forcing there culture to change, they will hate us for our futile attemps to do so. A clever policy could cause an impitous for change from withen there culture, this would probably be expisive and slow.
Turky is often pointed out as a successful Middle Eastern democracy, sixty years ago a turk got to vote for the goverment canidate or make his choice in an election that didn't matter anyway. In the sixtys the military kept staging coups because radicals were getting a dispaportanate amount of power in parlement, in there wisdom the always had new elections and returned to civilan rule but it took a while for Turky to become a democracy.

Our other alternative is to fight these people forever or ignore there attacks. Fighting is going to be very expinsive and forever. Ignoring them is just going to make it easyer for them to attack, though they might get a bit less support from the average Arab.

[md21017md]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMey
What would have happened if America simply forgave the aggressors, for they knew not what they did? What if the USA made a statement that it was wrong to inflict such casualties for a political cause and would not stoop to retaliate?



Maybe with some people this would work. But as has been eluded to (ok, I am going to be politicaly incorrect, and if I offend, I call it as I see it) islam is a religion based on vengence. Look at islamic law. Steal and you have you hand cut off. Adultery, you get stoned. Have a drink and get lashed. The religion just seems laced with hate for any non-islam and not much better for those that do believe. Add all this hate to a mass of people with no hope - the average Saudi, Iraqi, syrian etc is dirt assed poor. You then have a corrupt government with no interest in the welfare of it's people, only keeping power and money for then self. All these mideast governments (Saudi in particular) are worried about an Iranian style coup. In many of these countries the mullahs have more power that the royal families. So the easiest thing to do is staunchly enforce islam, beat or kill anyone that gets the slightest bit out of line and give them an enemy. For Palastine it's isreal. For the rest of the mid east it's the US and isreal. All the mideast problem would go away if you just direct all your anger over there to the west - far away from us.

The Arab - European problem has been going on for over 1000 years. Why anyone thinks they can sove it in 5 is beyond me. Until these people have some hope beyond poverty and a government that will accept them as equal citizens and offer a chance at prosperity we are going to have this. Until thier religous leaders stop preaching violence and hatered toward non islams we are going to have this. In case anyone didn't notice, there was not 1 terrorist involved in 9/11 from Dubai was there? Why not? If you have a future are you going to casually throw it away? Dubai is a good example of what the mideast could be, but probably will not be in anyonereading this' lifetime.

[zibber]

Last time I checked they still haven’t caught Bin Laden

Waiting for September/Octoberish to give the McCainiac a little boost?

As for the Saudis, you know what they say about bombing the hand that feeds you.