I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

Dook · 2004-08-13 17:09:21

The UN chose to allow ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. They allowed Saddam to attack Iran and did nothing. Finally when Iraq invade Kuwait they approved action. Saddam commited environmental crimes, the UN did nothing. Saddam used chemical weapons against innocent Kurds, women and children. The UN did nothing, oh wait, they took bribes and allowed Saddam to cheat on the oil for food regulations.

What good is a police force that never gets involved?

Ian Flint · 2004-08-13 17:36:27

I miss 9/10/1977.

Ahh yes, the good 'ol days...

I hadn't a care in the world. My life was full of optimism. I desired nothing but life's necessities. People adored me. I was 5 months old... :;):

REB · 2004-08-13 19:36:01

Okay class, your assignment for the weekend is to rent Oliver and Company and watch it. Then report back on what you felt.

And check out Escape From New York. The part where the plane crashes into New York was very hard to watch.

REB · 2004-08-13 19:40:35

As for the Iraqis fighting for their freedom. They were in no position to fight for their freedom. They had a KGB type government watching then (and killing them). They had no weapons and were poorly fed.

The people who fought and died for American’s freedom 228 years ago were well fed and armed. Their opposing government was across the Atlantic. If you are an American, don’t ever forget someone died for your freedom. We take it for granted as we enjoy the freedom others died for.

And I will get off my soap box.

Gennaro · 2004-08-13 19:41:07

And check out Escape From New York. The part where the plane crashes into New York was very hard to watch.

Maybe the primal source of inspiration?

They allowed Saddam to attack Iran and did nothing.

You are aware that the US supported Iraq in fighting Iran? Such things influence how the UN might react.
Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was largelly portrayed as a rather nice fellow in world media. Then, over the course of a few of weeks, Hussein turned into Saddam.

But I agree that the UN often has shown itself more inept than can be reasonably tolerated. However, it doesn't alter RobertDyck's argument in principle, does it?

Euler · 2004-08-13 21:03:30

9/10 was a simpler time, but it was time where we were enshrouded in a false sense of security. We now see the face of the enemy bent on destroying us, we recognize it rather than pretending it doesn't exist or can't hurt us. It's a shitty situation all around.

9/10 was a time when terrorism was an annoying thing that couldn't really hurt us. In the post 9/11 world terrorism still can't really hurt us but we believe it can.

I saw a political rally on TV where Kerry spoke; he sounded like more of a war-monger than Bush. Will the American people ever convince their government to stop declaring war on the entire world? Will you ever get the military to arrest, not bomb, Al Queada members and bring them to trial? Will you ever bring Osama bin Laden to justice?

I was at a Kerry rally today. He didn't sound like a war monger, and he said that he will make sure that "America will never go to war because we need to, only because we have to." He also stressed the need for better intelligence and international cooperation to fight terrorism.

Interestingly, Bush was also in town giving a speech at the same time. This has been happening a lot recently, the Kerry people say that Bush is following them around, but the Bush camp claims it's all just a big coincidence. Anyway, the styles of the two campaigns were very different. Bush had a private rally for a few hundred people, while Kerry had an open rally with about 50,000 people.

Actually, the war was not a big issue for Kerry's speech. He did talk about it, but only about the same amount that he talked about other issues such as jobs, the environment, taxes, the budget deficit, education, stem cells, health care, energy independence, etc. I thought he did a fairly good job in his speech, but I think that Teresa Heinz Kerry was actually more impressive. It is easy to underestimate her because she is not a native English speaker, but she seems like a very smart and tough person.

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-14 05:51:57

9/10 was a time when terrorism was an annoying thing that couldn't really hurt us. In the post 9/11 world terrorism still can't really hurt us but we believe it can.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. What I am seeing in Cleveland, OH in the way of security is almost silly. The coast guard on lake erie just got a new, fast boat with 20mm cannons all over it to stop terrorism. From where? Canada is not exactly what I would consider a state sponser of terrorism. And I doubt the quebecists would be interested in blowing up some abandoned buildings in our rust belt city.

Quote
And check out Escape From New York. The part where the plane crashes into New York was very hard to watch.

Maybe the primal source of inspiration?

*sigh. I found the plane crash in Die Hard II to be emotionally difficult to watch. They show the passengers in the plane as it blows up. Not very nice.

The UN chose to allow ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. They allowed Saddam to attack Iran and did nothing. Finally when Iraq invade Kuwait they approved action. Saddam commited environmental crimes, the UN did nothing. Saddam used chemical weapons against innocent Kurds, women and children. The UN did nothing, oh wait, they took bribes and allowed Saddam to cheat on the oil for food regulations.
What good is a police force that never gets involved?

Better half a loaf than none. I think it would probably be worse to junk the UN and go with a regional alliance system than to let it remain the way it is today.

Unfortantly, I doubt that anything other than staying the course can be done in iraq. They WERE invaded and, I honestly think not much can be done about this fait acompli. All we can do is work to the future.

RobertDyck · 2004-08-14 21:23:34

I miss 9/10/1977.
Ahh yes, the good 'ol days...
I hadn't a care in the world. My life was full of optimism. I desired nothing but life's necessities. People adored me. I was 5 months old... :;):

In 1977 I was 15 and in grade 10. I tried to study computers in high school, but was told I couldn't for another year so I took typing: mechanical typewriter. My favourite TV show, Star Trek, had been cancelled for 8 years and the first movie hadn't been made yet.

Apollo was cancelled, Apollo-Soyuz was complete, Skylab mission 4 was complete, and Shuttle was being built. Skylab was just discovered to be in an unstable orbit and the hope was Shuttle would boost it back up, but all Apollo missions were cancelled.

The cold war still existed, and a Canadian lieutenant told me that Winnipeg was a target; probably 3 small nukes aimed at us: the airport/military base, downtown, and the big railroad yard that all east-west rail lines went through. Considering the Winnipeg airforce base has fighters intended to take out Russian bombers headed for the U.S., and all ICBMs would have to pass over us to reach missile silos in North Dakota, we're definitely a target. American Anti-Ballistic Missiles would detonate small nukes in mid-air to take out incoming Soviet warheads; ABM detonation just 30 miles from Winnipeg. If a nuclear attack came we would have 15 minutes from confirmation of Soviet missiles until they hit. Do you think we could evacuate a city of 650,000 in 15 minutes? Image the traffic jams.

It was a mixed time, not all that innocent.

Palomar · 2004-08-14 22:01:48

I miss 9/10/1977.
Ahh yes, the good 'ol days...
I hadn't a care in the world. My life was full of optimism. I desired nothing but life's necessities. People adored me. I was 5 months old... :;):
In 1977 I was 15 and in grade 10.
The cold war still existed, and a Canadian lieutenant told me that Winnipeg was a target; probably 3 small nukes aimed at us: the airport/military base, downtown, and the big railroad yard that all east-west rail lines went through. Considering the Winnipeg airforce base has fighters intended to take out Russian bombers headed for the U.S., and all ICBMs would have to pass over us to reach missile silos in North Dakota, we're definitely a target. American Anti-Ballistic Missiles would detonate small nukes in mid-air to take out incoming Soviet warheads; ABM detonation just 30 miles from Winnipeg. If a nuclear attack came we would have 15 minutes from confirmation of Soviet missiles until they hit. Do you think we could evacuate a city of 650,000 in 15 minutes? Image the traffic jams.
It was a mixed time, not all that innocent.

*Oh great; I'm old enough to have been Ian's babysitter. :;):

I was 12. And if I had it to do all over again I would have snuck in to see "Star Wars" in the theater with or without my parents' approval (their religious convictions barred my sister and I from going into movie theaters). I should have rebelled! It's an opportunity I've always regretted missing.

Robert Dyck: Yeah, I hear you -- to a point. But as I've said before, I'd rather go back to the Cold War and Soviet-U.S. frictions than dealing with all these "free agent" multinational terrorist crackpots who don't belong to any one national entity.

--Cindy

P.S.: Also, in 1977, at least in my neck of the woods, most of my friends' parents were still married and are to this day. People were generally friendlier and the 1970s were much more laid back and relaxed compared to subsequent decades.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-15 17:27:23

9/10 was a time when terrorism was an annoying thing that couldn't really hurt us. In the post 9/11 world terrorism still can't really hurt us but we believe it can.

Okay, this opens up a big can of worms. If you mean terrorism "can't really hurt us" in the sense that it can't totally destroy America by killing so many of us that the "Great Satan" ceases to exist, you're right. But killing a few thousand people in one go certainly falls into my definition of "hurt us." Even if we look at its damage in relation to the national "us" rather than the collective, personal "us" the government still has to do everything in its power to prevent further attacks.

But there's a deeper philosphical issue here that could have very serious political consequences. The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens from outside and internal threats, that is the primary purpose for which government evolved. As society developed we added new duties and obligations, but defense is still the foundation on which it all rests.

So if we accept the premise that terrorism "can't really hurt us" it follows that we should only allow ourselves to use certain limited means in fighting it. This is perfectly consistent with a "law enforcement" approach, but it involves an implied admission that government can't protect us given that law enforcement almost invariably takes place after the fact. Hardly reassuring, particularly when our "perps" have an annoying habit of not surviving the crime.

So if the government admittedly cannot fulfill its primary function, on what grounds does it tax to provide for other functions? On what does its authority then rest? Such a government admits its failure to uphold its prime responsibility and thereby voids its authority. It becomes a hindrance and at times a danger to those it is charged with protecting. Not a recipe for stability, or peaceful relations. The American people won't miss this little conundrum if such a course is followed, even if it's only sensed on an an emotional level.

BWhite · 2004-08-15 17:46:10

1977 was the year I purchased a Peter Frampton 8-track.

Was that a good year? You all be the judge.

= = =

As for Cobra's point. Many in my family suffer auto-immune diseases. Arthritis, colitis and the like. I do not, thus far. Fingers crossed. Auto-immune diseases are where the bodies own defenses over-react to theats and the body's own immune system attacks itself.

IMHO, the Patriot Act can be seen as an auto-immune disease, metaphorically speaking. Our over-reaction to 9/11 causes more harm than 9/11 did.

Imagine a team of Islamic hackers sitting in cyber-cafes in the Middle East. Feign some chatter about a new attack, persuade Bush/Ridge/Ashcrfot to raise the terror alert level.

Voila' - - that sound is billions of dollars being drained from the US economy through delays and inconvenience.

bin Laden is engaged in psy-ops. He seeks to manipulate how we react. Since we have already regime changed Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it NOW a law enforcement matter?

Organized crime task forces (mafia hunters) dont wait for crime to happen, they act pro-actively.

Euler · 2004-08-15 18:56:05

This is perfectly consistent with a "law enforcement" approach, but it involves an implied admission that government can't protect us given that law enforcement almost invariably takes place after the fact.

You can't protect everyone all the time from every threat. It just isn't possible. Instead you have to concentrate on reducing the biggest threats by as much as possible in an efficient and economical fashion.

Terrorism is a very minor threat. The average American is many times more at risk of things like domestic crime, Aids, car accidents, pollution, etc. then they are at risk from terrorism. However, while we are spending enormous resources in an ineffective fight against terrorism, we are neglecting these other much more serious dangers. If we saved the money that we are spending on the “war on terror” and instead used it to work on a cures for AIDS, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, etc., it would be a much better investment.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-15 19:52:25

IMHO, the Patriot Act can be seen as an auto-immune disease, metaphorically speaking. Our over-reaction to 9/11 causes more harm than 9/11 did.

I agree in principle to what you're saying. Still, strong action is needed, it simply must be balanced.

Organized crime task forces (mafia hunters) dont wait for crime to happen, they act pro-actively.

Ah, but they do. They simply wait for lesser crimes to be committed by underlings in order to make deals with them to bring down bigger players. And it often takes years to make any significant porgress.

Terrorism isn't strictly a military problem, we don't always have convenient national targets with borders and hardened installations to hit. However it is also not a strictly law enforcement issue either. If we treat it as such we'll find ourselves in the predicament of A: waiting for an attack to occur so we can prosecute the accomplices, or B: using the CIA and FBI to try the exceedingly difficult task of trying to amass enough evidence to convict terrorists on conspiracy charges or some other such thing, and then only those currently in the country. It's intentionally binding both hands.

If we can prove that a terror cell is plotting a specific act, by all means lets go arrest them. But that isn't a solution that really addresses the problem nor does it help us much given the difficulty of determining, apprehending and proving intent before the fact. No actual crime has been committed after all. Even if convicted, we probably just deport them. So they blow up an American target somewhere else in the world while a new team takes their place here. Back to waiting for it to happen.

Unless we want to make discussions or analysis of certain subjects illegal. ???

Terrorism is a very minor threat. The average American is many times more at risk of things like domestic crime, Aids, car accidents, pollution, etc. then they are at risk from terrorism. However, while we are spending enormous resources in an ineffective fight against terrorism, we are neglecting these other much more serious dangers. If we saved the money that we are spending on the “war on terror” and instead used it to work on a cures for AIDS, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, etc., it would be a much better investment.

Meanwhile we have some nutjob blow up a few hundred people from time to time. No biggy. ???

I understand your point, but we're still left with people willfully attempting to kill us and if our government willfully limits efforts to protect its citizens, it undermines itself. Again, if they refuse to stop some Jihadist wacko from blowing up buildings downtown why the hell would I or anyone else give them any credit (or tax revenue, I might add) in their attempts to cure AIDS or other such things? If a government can't protect its citizens from external attack it has failed in its purpose.

Put it this way, some armed hoodlum walks into your house. You call the cops and they tell you "well, if he hasn't actually hurt anyone there's nothing we can do. We've got statistically more significant problems to deal with first. But if he steals something or kills someone call us back."

I wouldn't be alone in shooting the bastard myself and ignoring the police from then on. You can only let so much crap go down on your watch before people do something drastic about it out of frustration.

REB · 2004-08-16 06:12:10

Ah yes, the Cold War. We knew who our enemy was and they stayed on their side and we stayed on our side. We threaten each other as we flexed our muscles but we never punched each other.

It was nice to know who your enemies were and where they lived. I never thought I would prefer that over these thugs who throw sucker punches and hide in various counties including our own. I do remember being a kid in the early 1980’s and wondering when the Soviets would annihilate my city with a nuke. That probably had more to do with watching all those post nuclear war movies like mad max (The nuke scene in Terminator II, where LA was nuked, looked terrifying on the big screen.)

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-16 06:48:53

Yeah, the Cold War. Soviets made good bad guys, but you know who was a really good enemy? Nazis. All around goose-stepping, torch carrying, France invading, Europe stayin' in excellent bad guys. Not a nuke to be seen either.

But such is the nature of war, and human progress in general. Things get harder. Victories have unintended consequences.

I'm sure that no one here is lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union... well, maybe one or two out there :;): But its demise is a net gain for human freedom, as was the defeat of Nazi Germany even though it led to the Cold War. Whenever something as big as the Soviet Union collapses there's going to be some roaches scurrying. We can deal with them too, and enjoy a few brief years of quiet until the next threat rears its head. Such is the way of things. Slog on.

Grypd · 2004-08-16 07:34:23

Interesting comment Cobra we have peace until the next big threat comes our way.(of couse the world has never been at peace always a war going on)

The general consensus in europe was that if it had not been for 9/11 the USA had already decided that the next big threat was to be China. It was noted that the USA had already turned its attention away from the atlantic and towards the Asian states. It might have been this attitude that allowed everyone to be blindsided by the events of 9/11 no one was expecting it to happen. It is a little ironic that the needs to fight terrorism has meant cooperation with China as they have borders and areas at risk of trouble.

Of course China is becoming a greater and greater world power it is the increased use of oil of it and India that has pushed oil prices up so much. And this demand for oil to power its commercial advancement that is going to keep increasing its need for oil. So prices for oil will keep going up as oil supply cannot keep up with demand. Bad news this means more cash for the centers of terrorism and it means that any insecurity there has a global impact.

Palomar · 2004-08-16 07:50:01

Whenever something as big as the Soviet Union collapses there's going to be some roaches scurrying. We can deal with them too, and enjoy a few brief years of quiet until the next threat rears its head. Such is the way of things. Slog on.

Interesting comment Cobra we have peace until the next big threat comes our way.(of couse the world has never been at peace always a war going on)

*Yep. If it's one thing humans excel at it's treating each other like crap and making each other miserable.

But I have to say, I am tired of the terrorist threat already -- I mean this post 9/11 stuff. I rarely pay attention to Homeland Security's "terror alert system." A good part of me is in denial and doesn't want to deal with it.

I will, though. ::shrugs::

--Cindy

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-16 18:20:54

I'm sure that no one here is lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union... well, maybe one or two out there But its demise is a net gain for human freedom, as was the defeat of Nazi Germany even though it led to the Cold War. Whenever something as big as the Soviet Union collapses there's going to be some roaches scurrying. We can deal with them too, and enjoy a few brief years of quiet until the next threat rears its head. Such is the way of things. Slog on.

Slog on, indeed. The collapse of the Soviet Union has netted a very small net gain in human freedom.

Consider the state of the CIS; squabbling, contentous states fighting each other and plotting for total seccession. Each state is crammed to the walls with racketeers and rouge "poltical" generals out for themselves. There is no law and order; the democracy of the CIS is anarchy. The only law and rule of the day is violence. And while the Soviet Union was able to bring these factions into line for its own purposes; the CIS cannot do that. Every faction for themselves, and no law, no ethics, no nothing to stop them from pillaging the country side.

This, unfortantly, is a reflection on how throughly the former USSR was able to "Soveitize" the people.

Even the most powerful buisnessman in russia today is able to hold his sovereign right to property, something essental to capitalism and democracy. When personal property is suborinated to the whims of the government without recompense, what good can come from that? And if the greatest fall to that terrible trap, how, possibly can the peasant do so?

The CIS is not enforcing justice, and is subverting it when it "adminsters" it. It appears that the CIS is a rather big roach to deal with. . . . . . .

How is that a net gain for human freedom? It is no better than the USSR.

Oh well. Time may heal all wounds.

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-16 18:32:15

As for Cobra's point. Many in my family suffer auto-immune diseases. Arthritis, colitis and the like. I do not, thus far. Fingers crossed. Auto-immune diseases are where the bodies own defenses over-react to theats and the body's own immune system attacks itself.
IMHO, the Patriot Act can be seen as an auto-immune disease, metaphorically speaking. Our over-reaction to 9/11 causes more harm than 9/11 did.

IMHO, you are right.

In the last ten years, 580,000 people in the USA have died from automobile accidents. Essentially, every decade, a large city the size of Cleveland is wiped out due to car crashes.

In the last ten years, about (guessing here) 10,000 people in the USA have died from terrorism.

If we responded to automobile crashes the way we did to terrorism, it would really, really, really suck to live in the good, old USA.

Of course, terrorists are sworn enemies of the USA, and their goal is to destroy it. They need to be stopped; but not at the expense of civil libertys and ungodly amounts of money, time and hassle. Perhaps the money spent on homeland security could better be spent by the coast guard?

And why are we in such an hurry? Rash and unnecessary action will only aggravate the problem, when other, longer avenues could accomplish the same goal at far lesser cost, in gold and lives. What, indeed, is the great emergacy to eradicate global terrorism?

A blockade can last many years; but if successful, it will almost allways bring about the destruction of the enemy. A rash attack like Pickett's charge straight down the cannons of the enemy will bring more immediate results, but less often the one desired.

The fate of our nation does not rest on the successful conclusion of finding Bin Laden; he is the fly on the elephant. Even at his most terrible, he could not even begin to bring the USA to submission, and only sealed his own doom when he did so.

The united states has the right, and the might, to act in its own accord. But I do not beleive that the present course is one that will benefit it.

However, the automobile companys are not sworn enemys of the states. But thats a story for another day. . .

Euler · 2004-08-16 19:34:01

In the last ten years, about (guessing here) 10,000 people in the USA have died from terrorism.

According to the State Department, 2817 Americans died from international terrorism from 1993 through 2003. The vast majority of them died in the 9/11 attacks (2001 was the only year where the death count was above 50).

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-17 05:39:39

The CIS is not enforcing justice, and is subverting it when it "adminsters" it. It appears that the CIS is a rather big roach to deal with. . . . . . .
How is that a net gain for human freedom? It is no better than the USSR.

The newly independent former Soviet states have problems, certainly. They're new to this, they've been ruled by monarchs, dictators or communist "committees" for centuries, then suddenly... they aren't. It takes time, you can't take a population used to obeying without question, hold an election, and expect everything to be smooth. But it will happen in time. The people of the former Soviet Union have a chance at making better lives for themselves on their own terms. That's more than they had before.

If we responded to automobile crashes the way we did to terrorism, it would really, really, really suck to live in the good, old USA.

It's a silly analogy. Automobiles don't plot to kill us.

Again, if we treat terrorism as a traditional military problem we'll end up invading half the planet. If we treat it as law enforcement problem we'll have terrorist attacks on a regular basis, and some severe instability, maybe a little insurrection.

Sometimes we need to investigate and apprehend. Other times we need to go in full bore and pound somebody into dust. Discarding either option is unwise.

RobertDyck · 2004-08-17 07:48:45

Again, if we treat terrorism as a traditional military problem we'll end up invading half the planet. If we treat it as law enforcement problem we'll have terrorist attacks on a regular basis, and some severe instability, maybe a little insurrection.
Sometimes we need to investigate and apprehend. Other times we need to go in full bore and pound somebody into dust. Discarding either option is unwise.

I still like to use the response to the FLQ as the example. On October 10, 1970, provincial labour minister Pierre Laporte was kidnapped. On October 16 the government proclaimed the War Measures Act. On October 18 he was found dead in the trunk of a car in Montréal. In a raid on November 6, Montreal and Quebec police found one of the four members of the FLQ cell who kidnapped Laporte. The other three were arrested on December 28. The House of Commons approved a new, limited emergency powers measure on November 2, the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, to replace the War Measures Act. The new measure enabled police to arrest FLQ members without a warrant. However, arrested persons may not be held without charge for longer than seven days, as opposed to 21 days under the War Measures Act. The Public Order Act expired April 30, 1971, but action was over December 28, 1970.

Let's see, that's 6 days from first terrorist action until response, and 79 days from first terrorist action until it was all over. There are those in Quebec who hate the War Measures and Public Order acts, but the response was quick, firm, and everything was over in 79 days. There are more details and they aren't pretty, but it was all over in 79 days. This was a law enforcement action with special powers, not war.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-17 10:02:25

Robert, good example. But it really illustrates my point. Action was taken in response to a terrorist act already committed, culminating in the arrest of a single terrorist cell without seriously damaging the organization as a whole. This is of even greater concern given the terrorists we currently face, who have this habit of dying during the commission of their attacks.

Again, if we can catch 'em, great, but that doesn't protect anyone. Eliminating al Qaeda at the source is more effective than picking up individual cells on the chance they make a mistake.

BWhite · 2004-08-17 10:20:57

Again, if we can catch 'em, great, but that doesn't protect anyone. Eliminating al Qaeda at the source is more effective than picking up individual cells on the chance they make a mistake.

Essentially this is a cultural or even religious undertaking. And since the defiant martyr is a powerful figure, crushing our opponents militarily doesn't help much.

I also disagree with conventional "leftist" or Marxist analysis that al Qaeda is a product of the rich capitalist West versus poor Muslims since the leaders of al Qaeda are by and large upper middle class or upper class, well educated people. Yet they do manipulate poverty for their advantage.

Using our military in a clumsy fashion makes mattes worse, not better. Our reaction to Sadr has transformed a minor cleric despised by esteemed leaders like Sistani into a symbol of national resistance.

And a quote from Juan COle:

Now that we are on Cheney, I wanted to respond to his recent sarcastic criticism of John Kerry for saying that we need to fight the war on terror sensitively.
' "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney told an audience of veterans in Dayton, Ohio. '
Many pundits pointed out that George W. Bush had used exactly the same language about a sensitive approach to the war on terror, so that Cheney was implicitly criticizing his own superior.
But as a historian, I have to say that Cheney's statement is bizarre and uninformed. Let me just give one example. The practice round for World War II was fought in North Africa, then controlled by the Vichy French. Dwight Eisenhower developed Project Torch, involving the landing of US troops in Morocco and Algeria.
It was essential to the US effort that the French colonial soldiers be quickly won over and convinced not to put up stiff resistance to the invasion. The original plan would have explicitly used British naval power. But the Free French objected loudly to this plan, since they did not want the British Empire's ships anywhere near their North African possessions. The French and the British had old rivalries in this regard.
So Roosevelt and Eisenhower asked Churchill to keep the British navy in the background off Gibraltar and out of sight of the Moroccan coast. Churchill agreed.
That is, Roosevelt and Eisenhower had their successful landing in North Africa precisely because they were entirely willing to bend over backward to be sensitive to French feelings.
And that is the big difference between Cheney and Bush as wartime leaders on the one hand, and on the other Roosevelt and Eisenhower. Cheney and Bush are diplomatically tone deaf, projecting nothing but arrogance and being all too willing to humiliate traditional allies. They have no sensitivity. And it is for that reason that they have the U.S. stuck in Iraq with only one really significant military ally, the U.K. (the Italians only have 3,000 troops there, and most countries just a few hundred, which makes their presence a token one). They have perhaps permanently alienated all the countries that might have lent the U.S. a hand.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juan … 82175]Link

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-17 14:27:46

It's a silly analogy. Automobiles don't plot to kill us.

true. But those who die from automobile deaths are just as dead as those who die in terrorist attacks.

I am not advocating that we ingore these terrorists, only advoacting means of destroying them without doing so much harm to ourselves.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-08-13 17:09:21

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#27 2004-08-13 17:36:27

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#28 2004-08-13 19:36:01

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#29 2004-08-13 19:40:35

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#30 2004-08-13 19:41:07

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#31 2004-08-13 21:03:30

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#32 2004-08-14 05:51:57

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#33 2004-08-14 21:23:34

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#34 2004-08-14 22:01:48

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#35 2004-08-15 17:27:23

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#36 2004-08-15 17:46:10

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#37 2004-08-15 18:56:05

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#38 2004-08-15 19:52:25

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#39 2004-08-16 06:12:10

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#40 2004-08-16 06:48:53

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#41 2004-08-16 07:34:23

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#42 2004-08-16 07:50:01

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#43 2004-08-16 18:20:54

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#44 2004-08-16 18:32:15

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#45 2004-08-16 19:34:01

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#46 2004-08-17 05:39:39

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#47 2004-08-17 07:48:45

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#48 2004-08-17 10:02:25

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#49 2004-08-17 10:20:57

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#50 2004-08-17 14:27:46

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

Board footer