It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How would the liberals handle a Post 9/11 world?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I hear so much from liberals here on this board of how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong. How the US is evil and the rest of the world is benevolent. So what I want to know is how a liberal would have handled the world after 9/11? I want to know how a liberal president should have acted and your ideas of what Bush did wrong.

I want to know about the Patriot Act. I want to know about Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Iraq. What would you have done differently to make this world a better place?

Prediction: Not many liberals will respond because not many have an answer.




posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
A lot of reps. and senators on both political sides voted for the Patriot Act. The only thing that would have been different would be some domestic issues. Economic wise we would probably be the same. As for Iraq and Afganistan we would probably be in the same place. However we might have better international realations. Things might be a bit different but not much better.

[edit on 11/16/2004 by cyberdude78]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I wouldnt have gone into Iraq for starters. I would have finished the job in Afganastan first. I would have continued to hunt Osama the peter licker to the ends of the earth. I would have put 200, 000 troops in Afganastan and they would have stayed untill Osama the peter licker was caught. Then I would have turned my attention towards N. Korea. I would not have singed the 300 billion dollars worth of tax cuts for corporations. I would not have passed any tax cuts for the wealthy. As a matter of fact, the wealthy would be charged a flat 35% tax.

That good enough for starters?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
A lot of reps. and senators on both political sides voted for the Patriot Act. The only thing that would have been different would be some domestic issues. Economic wise we would probably be the same. As for Iraq and Afganistan we would probably be in the same place. However we might have better international realations. Things might be a bit different but not much better.

[edit on 11/16/2004 by cyberdude78]


How could we have better international relations, even with a democratic president, if countries like France, Russia, China, NK and others just didn't want a war in Iraq?...they just wanted the UN sanctions to continue, so they could keep making money selling banned weapons and technology to Iraq while the Iraqi people died. The only way these countries would have been happy is if we agreed with them, never went to Iraq and allowed the sanctions to continue...



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
First of all, I would have destroyed all the training camps in Afghanistan, and would have let the inpectors finish their work in Iraq.

I would not have went into Iraq, until completely finishing the job in Afghanistan (including the capture of Bin Laden, instead of going into Iraq, proving his point, and making him a huge icon).

The Partriot Act would be modified to not allow some of the overly obtrusive measures, and there would have been no John Ashcroft who hasn't convicted any of his "terrorists." The number I hear often, is 0-5000, or something like that.

Iran would have been negotiated with, instead of giving them reasons to call America the devil, I would have opened up some dialogue, instead of calling them evil and giving them a cause.

I would be more even handed in the Middle East instead of giving them more of a reason to be angry towards the West.

Libya just folded to Bush, which may not be the case with that which I described above, but it's a small price to pay to lessen the hate towards the US, and work for ACTUAL PEACE.

N. Korea would also be negotiated with, instead of me being too proud to give in to him by talking to him "because that's what he wants" I would talk to him, feel him out. And if he still wants to be crazy, then we go from there, but at least see what we can do.

Bush's N. Korea policy has achieved the opposite of the desired effect.

Obviously my approach is a little less, "We'll kill you" and a little more "What's your problem?"

Liberal is the opposite of "Shoot first, ask questions later."

If you like the "go kill 'em" policy" you know who to vote for.
If you like the "thoughtful approach" you know who to vote for.

Obviously, America has chosen, and we will bear the fruits, or the burdens, of this choice.


I don't consider myself Liberal, by the way...I would have the National Guard patrolling the borders (Guarding the Nation).
I would encourage more of what Bush says with the personal investment and less welfare, but I would not be bending over in front of big business whose sole agenda is to have lobbyists change laws to maximize profits at the expensive of American Taxpayers, and the citizens of the world.


[edit on 16-11-2004 by cstyle226]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I'm not a "liberal" but I do have a response.

1. Conduct a rigorous, no-stone-unturned, comprehensive investigation into the worst national security failure in US history (9/11), identify those responsible for the failure and have their disciplianry and justice systems deal with them, sack those at the most (ir)responsible levels including the key people in the administration that were charged with the responsibilities that they failed to deliver on, institute procedures to ensure that nothing of this kind could happen again, restore public confidence in government through openness and disclosure in solving the problem.

2. Avoid fear and terror as political tactics, as they breed like response.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I'm not a "liberal" but I do have a response.

1. Conduct a rigorous, no-stone-unturned, comprehensive investigation into the worst national security failure in US history (9/11), identify those responsible for the failure and have their disciplianry and justice systems deal with them, sack those at the most (ir)responsible levels including the key people in the administration that were charged with the responsibilities that they failed to deliver on, institute procedures to ensure that nothing of this kind could happen again, restore public confidence in government through openness and disclosure in solving the problem.

2. Avoid fear and terror as political tactics, as they breed like response.



YOU!!!! you took the words STRAIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH!!!! how'd you do that? yes, I am being genuine. i was really about to say that.


"post-911 world"... yeah... how about dropping the facade and uncovering the fact that who caused that destruction wasn't the 19 high jackers who are SOMEHOW STILL ALIVE

[edit on 11/16/2004 by AlnilamOmega]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
1. Conduct a rigorous, no-stone-unturned, comprehensive investigation into the worst national security failure in US history (9/11), identify those responsible for the failure and have their disciplianry and justice systems deal with them, sack those at the most (ir)responsible levels including the key people in the administration that were charged with the responsibilities that they failed to deliver on, institute procedures to ensure that nothing of this kind could happen again, restore public confidence in government through openness and disclosure in solving the problem.



So you would not have invaded Afghanistan and went after Bin Laden?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I hear so much from liberals here on this board of how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong. How the US is evil and the rest of the world is benevolent. So what I want to know is how a liberal would have handled the world after 9/11? I want to know how a liberal president should have acted and your ideas of what Bush did wrong.

I want to know about the Patriot Act. I want to know about Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Iraq. What would you have done differently to make this world a better place?

Prediction: Not many liberals will respond because not many have an answer.


ok, mr. ideal liberal? or republicanized democrate liberal?

If it is Mr. Ideal Liberal, whose ideals?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cstyle226
Libya just folded to Bush, which may not be the case with that which I described above, but it's a small price to pay to lessen the hate towards the US, and work for ACTUAL PEACE.

N. Korea would also be negotiated with, instead of me being too proud to give in to him by talking to him "because that's what he wants" I would talk to him, feel him out. And if he still wants to be crazy, then we go from there, but at least see what we can do.

Bush's N. Korea policy has achieved the opposite of the desired effect.



You see the thing with Libya is that no one knew they had a Nuclear Program they just got scared that they were next. So if Iraq had never taken place then there would be no Libya disarmement

Bush does want Multilateral talks, I don't understand your point?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal

So you would not have invaded Afghanistan and went after Bin Laden?



All I can say is, if I put myself in charge of the biggest cowboy posse of all time and failed to deliver the target, I would not be expecting to be re-elected as so-called "Commander In Chief".

Bush is a failure at everything he touches. Except when the score card is rigged.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
An excellent question BJ.

After 9/11 I would hope that any President, regardless of affiliation, would have gone into Afghanistan. This situation is different in that we were directly attacked by the group controlling much of that country and they needed to feel our blade. Any president who would have balked at this would have been lynched.
Saddam was a pain in the butt and deserved to be removed from power, but I argue with the manner in which it was done. We came across as conquerors and invaders forcing our will upon an entire culture. There had to be a better way.
In regards to the other countries, I am not versed well enough to comment, primarily because I do not know exactly what Bush has done in regards to those countries, aside from use Iraq as an example of what happens when our will is not heeded. Educate me.

I too look forward to responses to this, as Id like to hear what alternatives there were.

Peace,
BG



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
We would have led a coalition into Afghanistan.

We would not have invaded Iraq.

We would have used our credability and the world's call to arms after 9/11 to create a global organization of nations threatened by fundementalist Islamic terrorists, including Europe, Russia, and India. If the most powerful nations in the world are all in agreement that Jihadists are a problem, than the Arabic league would have no choice but to comply...which would have led to limited, multi-national military assault teams to infiltrate and kill the bad guys. No borders. No airspace. A terror cell is born and in the middle of the night, a team of Delta Force Commandos wipes out their camp.

No nation building. No sitting ducks. No easy targets.

I'm more of a hawk than you are, twelve times a day in fact. But, I want it done right. And Republicans have failed at the one thing they're supposed to be better at than anyone else. War. Not only did they fail, they failed miserably. It's a disaster of Light Brigade proportions. It's a classic blunder that will be taught in military schools for the next hundred years.

The best trained, best equipped, most advanced fighting force in the history of the world can't stop a suicide bomber. They can't.

And before anyone says, "no, Europe and Russia wouldn't have helped us". Yes, they would. They might be corrupt, but it's still in their best interest to stop Osama and his Jihadists. It wasn't in their best interest to invade Iraq, so they balked.

The one thing Conservatives can't seem to wrap their brain around is that we support the war in Afghanistan. Everybody does. The French have troops there! We support going after the guys who attacked us. We don't support these little adventures like Iraq that do nothing other than waste American lives and destabilize a region already wobbling on the edge of sanity.

You guys are like the bull in the china shop, and because of it, the days of America as the world's only superpower are coming to end.

Thanks a lot, guys.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   


So what I want to know is how a liberal would have handled the world after 9/11? I want to know how a liberal president should have acted and your ideas of what Bush did wrong.


Bush had tons of support from both sides of the fence post 911, I have never seen our country so united in my life. It's a shame that it could only happen after something so tragic...then last only 2 months.

My big beef with the president was how he handled the war in Iraq...I think a liberal president would have taken what the UN thought into serious consideration. Personally, I value other countries opinions...ESPECIALLY when it comes to something serious such as war! Having a leader who value's foreign policy and takes it seriously is important in this liberal's book.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
First off, whether they were "liberal" or not, I'd like to think a competent analytical mind wouldn't draw on false dichotomies for viewing the world like pre and post 9/11, as that's a perfect example of the black and white thinking of this particularly inept administration that's fumbled practically everything it set out to do in the War of Error. It goes further than calling whole nations "evil" and the UN a "debating society," although that's a good place to start with explaining how a lack of common diplomacy leads to ruin for the hearts and minds of both allies and the people we're trying to win over.

Had the actual intelligence officers that continued to track extremist ideological movements and leaders (both during Clinton and Bush) been taken seriously, then 9/11 itself wouldn't have been such a shocking world altering event. It was pretty much inevitable in some form or fashion, though I happen to think the particular large scale incident was avoidable with one phone call from Condoleeza to the FAA after the Bin Laden memo, but her ineptitude aside, something of some scale was indeed inevitable and predictable.

Considering all that though and the decades prior including Reagan and Bush 41 advacements of characters like Bin Laden and Saddam, I'd say a fundamental examination of the US history of intervention in the Middle East (including Israel) would be warranted, with some pretty blunt public discussion, both within the US and abroad (including the UN). It's harder for any Republican President to be forthcoming about US mistakes since so many are owned by the party's ideological heros. Not to mention, even leaving Reagen/Bush's horrible precipitous mistakes out of it (which we shouldn't), it's impossible for Bush to have an honest discussion about Saudi involvement (or even Iran for that matter) due to family business ties and Cheney's Halliburton involvement. Rumsfled has a similar problem in North Korea, but let's not complicate matters too much as I could bitch all day about the disasters at Abu Gharib. :shk:

Basically, the current administration (especially the one's staying) are definitionally the worst representatives you could possibly name from America to deal with the issue of Terrorism and Middle East turmoil from a grounds up assessment, because they were part of the problem.

How much more obvious could something be? Yes, a "liberal" would be better. So would a moderate. Even a real Republican would be better than Bush, and that's saying something from me because I pretty much consider them all worthless Pharma-Oil shills.

Would they have invaded Afghanistan? Most definintely. And more than that they wouldn't have been giving millions to the Taliban in the months running up to the war like Bush did for "aid." Why? Democrats are strong on human rights. Would they have invaded Iraq? Probably not until after Afghani elections. What's the damn rush? They were contained. It's been proven a million times over by Bush's own people. WOuld they have gotten Saddam? Most definitely. I'm beginning to doubt Bush wants to. Something's up with him and Saudi Arabia and it's obvious to the rest of the world if not 51% of America. North Korea? I tell you one thing. Any President not in the middle of an unneccessary Iraqi quagmire would have more clout with NK or Iran. We messed up, shot our wad, blew the whole PNAC plan. Nothing is as easy as it looks on paper is it Condi? And as I understand it, NK didn't take the cameras out of the nuclear plant until Bush committed troops elsewhere. See how it's all related?

Bush. Worst Republican ever.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I think the first thing I would have done is reflect on the situation. Why has this happened?

In retrospect, the fault lies at the feet of both Reagan and Clinton. After Soviet attempts to invade Afghanistan the country was left in shambles (upwards of 2 million dead). Geographically there was an Afghanistan, but geopolitically the country was run by warlords and gangs. Gun and heroin smuggling were the only staples of the economy. Enter the Taliban in the '90s. Although they managed to (by most accounts) eliminate a majority of the drug trade and impose some sort of order, their strict imposition of sharia law left much to be desired in respect to human rights. Stonings and beheadings were daily occurances and women were treated like dogs. So we have roughly a twenty year span where we could have eliminated this risk, but the US (and the rest of the world) did nothing. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.

I think that few understand the plight of the Afghani people. These were probably the poorest, most uneducated, war-torn people in the world. They had no exposure to wester culture or ideas, they were spoon fed a fundamentalist education from birth. Nothing of science or culture, only religion. This is why Bin Laden was so successful. He fed them, built schools and homes and told them that we are the cause of their plight. He told them that we steal their oil and support their enemies like Israel. It was a perfect match for him to spread his message. People wonder why the Taliban did not give him up after 9/11, but why would they? He was the only one did anything for their people in the last two decades.

So before I answer your question I think people should be careful when they talk about "finishing" Afghanistan or how "Islamic Fundamentalists" hate us. It was already finished, and it was our fault for not giving them reason to like us.

To answer your question:

1. I would have said "We are going to do what ever it takes to fix Afghanistan and make sure this country will not be an option for terrorists in the future." By this I mean invest in their economy and agriculture, build schools to educate their people, instate a legitimate government ,etc. etc. All these people want is peace and with our help they would have had no reason to harbor people like Bin Laden. We did not do this. Instead we wasted all of our resources on a country that was not an option for terrorists anyways and turned out to be no threat to us.

2. Pursue bin laden, but with intelligence and special forces, not tens of thousands of soldiers roaming through the mountains. Even with us basically ignoring him it still took years for him to plan 9/11. Why is their this huge fear that he can do something catastrophic when we are pursuing his ass all aroung the world with the most highly trained people in the world?

3. AFTER Afghanistan is well on the way to recovery, POSSIBLY worry about Iraq.

4. Continue diplomacy as usual with other nations. It's like Rant said, its not pre 9/11 / post 9/11, black/white. Too many people are hypnotized by the fear campaign, but that will wear off eventually and people (in America) will start to see through Bush and company.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I hear so much from liberals here on this board of how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong. How the US is evil and the rest of the world is benevolent. So what I want to know is how a liberal would have handled the world after 9/11? I want to know how a liberal president should have acted and your ideas of what Bush did wrong.

I want to know about the Patriot Act. I want to know about Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Iraq. What would you have done differently to make this world a better place?

Prediction: Not many liberals will respond because not many have an answer.


Ok, since you didn't bother to respond to my questions, lets play pretend. The first situation is the Mr. Super Liberal was elected president before 9/11. Well, Mr. Clark runs in, "Osama determined to attack the US"

First reaction. Why? Ok well it seems that we have a few million racist pollicies going on in the world. End those policies now damn it. Bring them to the attention of the american people. Stop supporting millitary run governments such as columbia and the occupation of palistine. Lift sanctions off of iraq and refuse to deal with saddam. Extend an olive leaf to osama and ask him what his issues are and how we might be able to resolve them non violently.

Hmmmm maybe 9/11 could have been prevented. Could it be our policies that have been causing famine and wars through out the world was the problem?

Next ban Blood Diamonds. Extend real effort to get rid of Aids in africa. Cut the military budget in half. Bring troops from alround the world home and give them a nice pay raise, retrain them, send them to college. Fire the Carlyle group and most other weapons manufacturers except for conventional weapons. Nukes are useless against terrorist anyway.

This is getting fun. Use the money i have freed up on education and the social safety net and while i am at it why not try to impliment universal health care. It seems to work in just about every other developed nation.

If thier isn't enough money now, well, i can raise taxes by the average that everone pays for private health insurance. After all now we won't need it.

Heck why don't i pay for all the people who want to got to college.

Mandate that all new cars have to be hybrid cars. Invest in solar, wind and tidal energy sources.

Next i'll increase the minimum wage to lets say 11 dollars an hour. After all the minimum should at least match the the national poverty level.

And if after all that thier is still a 9/11, then i'll be pissed. First things first though, i'll talk to the UN to get my buddies on board, then i'll go to the women's movement in afganistan to ask for thier sugestions for how best to deal with the talaban and al queda. I'd also make sure i hire pleanty of mulsim experts in order to understand how best not to distroy the dignity of the muslim poeple thus thawarting possible recruts for future terrorst.

I would also mandate an education in all schools of the whys of 9/11 so that we won't amke the same mistakes that lead to 9/11 such as funding terrorist, distroying nations and causing famine.

Afganistan wouldn't be a mess as it is now. The first thing i would do is send in food, and medical supplies and build houses and infastructure. I would get our allies to do the same. Imagine that, we get attracked and instead of lashing out wildly creating more people that hates us, we turn them to our cause.

Now with the entire world turned against osama and his lackies being persuaded by kindness, he would have been caught by now.

Imagine that. doing the right thing and helping people.

then i would try to end the US backed UN sanctions in Iraq, they haven't help and multitudes of people have died.

[edit on 17-11-2004 by Acecool79]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join