Profile
Search
Register
Log in
What should the US have done?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
reanimator



Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 287
What should the US have done?  Reply with quote  

I've got a question...

Suppose, the Bush administration would've listened to Clarke and treated the Al Qaida threat as more serious prior to 9/11. What should the Bush administration have done? Start infringing on civil liberties of people earlier? Gone on a pre-emptive strike of Afghanistan before 9/11? I want to hear from anyone who has been supporting Clarke in the past week. I want to hear some possibilities on actions you think they should've taken.
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21601
 Reply with quote  

No, maybe they should have followed the leads to who they were tipped off to.

They had information about the people taking flight classes.

In all seriousness, the govt gets what they want (or need) by breaking civil liberties all the time. But it's not on such a wide scale as it is being done now.

Clinton had Bin Laden pegged as the man to look out for, and when the Bush administration stepped in they turned their noses up to Richard Clark and his whole program. They thought Clinton was paranoid, plus they had their own agenda to tend to.

What should they have done? They should have ACTIVELY persued possible terrorists to quell an attack.

They would also have to buckle down on international terrorism but not by attacking a country. There are other ways of doing such things.
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

I don't know or completely understand the resources the federal government has available. This is no accident.

As such, nobody can adequately answer your question. It's all speculation.

That said, sure...we could have taken out the Taliban pre 9/11. It would have seemed MUCH less reactionary - and if it was put on the table to the American people as fixing a Reagan-era blunder (training the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and getting the Taliban in power in the first place), I can't see how many people would have rejected it.

Who knows, there's plenty of things that could have been done all the way back to Reagan. I think pointing the finger of blame SOLELY on the Bush administration is incredibly short-sighted when the roots of this type of terrorism are grounded in events that occured (and have continued to occur) for the past 50 years or so. The Bush administration is only one of many that have contributed to all of this. It's really been a buyparti$an effort, this whole nurturing and feeding terrorism thing.

- Shane
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rhino



Joined: 10 Apr 2003
Posts: 4798
Location: Square of Despair
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

What should the US have done?


Mybe of not been involved in our own sponsored terrorism over the past who the fuck knows how many years.
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
reanimator



Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 287
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
No, maybe they should have followed the leads to who they were tipped off to.

They had information about the people taking flight classes.

In all seriousness, the govt gets what they want (or need) by breaking civil liberties all the time. But it's not on such a wide scale as it is being done now.



I think that this gets really tricky though. Flight classes are legal, being Arab is legal, being born in Saudi Arabia and living in the US is legal. Then you hit a brick wall unless you choose to arrest them on suspicion only and send them to Guantanamo for a year without bringing charges.

Terrorists have it all figured out and use it to their advantage. They're typically not serial killers in the sense that they have a history of murder - by the time they commit an actual crime, they're dead. The strategy is incredibly advantageous. As far as the 9/11 hijackers go, I believe that the only crimes the majority of them had committed prior to the planes being in the air were conspiracy (which is tough to charge someone on unless A) one of the conspirators drops a dime; or B) the government somehow records conversations of the conspiracy after having obtained probabe cause to tap their phones - finding the box cutters on them wouldn't have done the trick) and some of them had some Visa violations I believe.

So, I think that pursuing the terrorists would've only gotten the government so far prior to 9/11 because people weren't as accepting of racial profiling and invasions on privacy. Personally, I'm still not in favor of it (I was stopped at random in a roadblock in Chicago last week) and am dissapointed that society is willing to do a trade-off for security.

It also seems to me that the same people that are now saying that the government should've done something based on Clarke's recommendations are the same people complaining about their civil liberties being compromised.

Out of curiosity, has Clarke given any recommendations on what his view is on what the US should've done?

Ryan.
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
reanimator



Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 287
 Reply with quote  

The_Rhino wrote:
Mybe of not been involved in our own sponsored terrorism over the past who the fuck knows how many years.


Perhaps this all started with Jews colonizing Palestine after WWII with British (& US) backing when they were displaced from Europe. Perhaps it goes backj to Abraham. But, if it either of these are true, then Clarke's testimony means very little in the grand scheme of things.
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21601
 Reply with quote  

as I said, civil liberties WOULD have been infringed upon.

But when you are actively persuing terrorist leads with the kind of resources the American govt has at its disposal, there is much less chance of something like 9/11 happening.

There's no question that we are so deep in a hole from sponsoring terrorism and creating enemies worldwide, and maybe this DOES all go back to Abraham, but that does not render Clarke's efforts useless. This is a very good start. This COULD be the beginning of tearing down a gigantic wall of lies and deceipt that the world continues to be victims of.

"The truth shall set you free"


Last edited by Sage Francis on Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Rhino



Joined: 10 Apr 2003
Posts: 4798
Location: Square of Despair
 Reply with quote  

Its going to take more the Clark just testifying about it. Middle America needs to wake the fuck up and open their eyes to information that is so accessible that it would take a blind ape to miss it. Shit pisses me off daily. I want to do more but I dont exactly know what.

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21601
 Reply with quote  

What Clarke is doing is a very essential step obviously. Which is why the administration is in a frenzy at the moment.

Last edited by Sage Francis on Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Awww mn



Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 2511
Location: barbary coast
 Reply with quote  

reanimator wrote:
Out of curiosity, has Clarke given any recommendations on what his view is on what the US should've done?

I would say so. Clarke says that by invading Iraq and not continuing an aggressive search for bin Laden, our government has greatly undermined that War on Terrorism. Why? because not only did Saddam Hussein have nothing to do with 9/11, we have become distracted by shifting the focus off of al Qaida and we also had spread our resources too thin and endangered our soldiers' lives by not allowing more ground troops. So what we have now in Iraq is a complete lack of control, a lawless atmosphere in the Middle East region that seems to entice islamic extremists of that region to come to iraq to kill Americans in guerilla-type warfare which is a lot more easier and accessible than attack on US land. By a) using military force without UN support and then b) not finding WMDs that they were so certain existed, they have angered many people all over the world and caught the ire of the middle east. I am sure many Iraqis are happy Saddam was ousted, but when you have contant violence and rioting and are not afforded basic amenities like water and electricity, those same people who are grateful for the end of Saddam can still have strong resentment towards the US for the sudden instability to their homeland. Do I think that undermines the War on Terrorism and makes us more vulnerable to extremists? Yes, I do. Because now, who knows how many more bin Ladens this is going to spawn. Clarke's point is that we had a chance with 9/11. With 3,000 people murdered and people all over the world feeling deep sympathy for the US, it was the tragedy that seemed to suggest to arabs in the middle east that maybe the extremists had gone too far this time. That sympathy was not only squashed when the US invaded Iraq, but it also angered many arabs and created even more extremists. Now finding bin Laden isn't going to matter. You aren't going to eradicate terrorism from the face of the earth by killing one man.


Last edited by Awww mn on Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
name



Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 955
 Reply with quote  

as much as i hate bush, i have to say that i don't think he is at all to blame for 9/11. as sush, i guess i'm not really a "supporter" of clark because i think that the artrocity that is the bush administration is the result of other things.

i will say that, in some significant way, the blood of current and future terrorist fatalaties is very much on bush's hands. it's sad that the general public only responds to scandal in hindsight, though. that's why the whole clark thing is becoming so popular. yet, few people blame our president's policies for the loss of lives in iraq, or even spain.

the "hypocritical" clark supporters that you're talking about are, like sage mentioned, mostly sick of the lies. for instance, for rice to say that there was absolutely no thought (pre-911) that someone could fly a plane into the world trade center is preposterous. the administration will do anything to save face on the 9-11 issue because they know it's their ticket to reelection. that's what is pissing many people off. most of the victim's families aren't out for political blood... they simply want the administration to admit that something more could have been done.
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 1:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

Clarke has given plenty of specific criticisms of Bush and his administration both before and after 9/11.

Clarke also made the administration look like assholes by being the first person to apologize to the American public for the government's failure!
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 2:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
reanimator



Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 287
 Reply with quote  

awww damn wrote:
By a) using military force without UN support and then b) not finding WMDs that they were so certain existed, they have angered many people all over the world and caught the ire of the middle east.

Wasn't this the same reason that Clinton did not want to assassinate bin Laden during his administration? He thought that it would cause an influx of extremism and general unrest in the Middle East.

awww damn wrote:
shifting the focus off of al Qaida and we also had spread our resources too thin and endangered our soldiers' lives by not allowing more ground troops


So, other than Clarke being against an attack on Iraq, did he want a larger military action taken against Afghanistan? If so, did he want this action to occur before 9/11?
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

reanimator wrote:


So, other than Clarke being against an attack on Iraq, did he want a larger military action taken against Afghanistan? If so, did he want this action to occur before 9/11?


He said that he was pressing to take action in Afghanistan during the very tail end of the Clinton administration into the beginning of the Bush administration.

- Shane
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Awww mn



Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 2511
Location: barbary coast
 Reply with quote  

reanimator wrote:
awww damn wrote:
By a) using military force without UN support and then b) not finding WMDs that they were so certain existed, they have angered many people all over the world and caught the ire of the middle east.

Wasn't this the same reason that Clinton did not want to assassinate bin Laden during his administration? He thought that it would cause an influx of extremism and general unrest in the Middle East.
Actually, that is not completely accurate. Clinton did bomb certain parts of Afghanistan where they believed bin Laden was hiding. However, it was unfortunately timed with the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" and he was lambasted by his politcal enemies for trying to distract from his Monica problem by bombing afghanistan and did not pursue military action again under the immense scrutiny for his sex life problems.

Secondly, it is not comparable because it was in retaliation to the USS Cole bombing and the first WTC bombing which al Qaida and bin Laden were responsible for. This time around, how did the US retaliate against bin Laden for 9/11? It bombed Iraq which had nothing to do with bin Laden. This in turn was not perceived worldwide as a retalitation against bin Laden (due to the lack of connection btwn Iraq and 9/11) but rather an attack on Islam and against arabs. That is how it can be seen as inflaming the Islam world. Where it might be understandable to some for the US to pursue an aggressive military campaign against the persons responsible, the US instead loses its focus and declares war with a (oil-rich) country that had nothing to do with it. Another thing that undermines the seemingly strict stance this administration has on "evil regimes" is that the Bush family has a long standing cozy relationship with the Saudi gov't, also a very corrupt and "evil regime" and incidentally, the country that housed these 9/11 hijackers. If this administration genuinely believed in looking out for the best interest of the Iraqis by removing their dictator, why isn't it making a ruckus over the beheadings of citizens in public squares by the saudi gov't?


Quote:

So, other than Clarke being against an attack on Iraq, did he want a larger military action taken against Afghanistan? If so, did he want this action to occur before 9/11?
Yes, he did. Clarke is no dove - He actually wanted it to happen covertly during the Clinton administration and was disappointed when they abadoned this operation due to the PR problem Clinton had with this Lewinsky hubbub. That's the thing, the media is spinning it as if he is only critical of the Bush admin, but he is critical of both. He actually believes in using force when there is an imminent threat against the US, unlike this admin which claims that but goes to war with Iraq which isn't an imminent threat.

I am in no way a hawk and am not behind Clarke 100% phiosophically. I believe in diplomacy and only believe in force as an absolute last resort.
Post Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2014 11:43 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon