|
Author
|
Topic: Pretend YOU were in charge when 9/11 happened
|
lioneye68
unregistered
|
posted May 16, 2004 06:14 PM
 
Since so many feel that the Bush Administration did absolutely nothing right in response to 9/11, I'm curious to know how YOU would have handled it. Would you have done nothing? Turning the other cheek and simply bracing for the next big terrorist act? Would you have....I don't even know what the other alternatives would have been. Eithor you act, to pursue those who planned and carried out the attack, a pursuit which is incredibly far reaching and leads you to several different countries, with indications that the leaders of those countries were instrumental in aiding this group in some cases, or you do nothing. There are no other options, as far as I can see it. Maybe I'm missing something here, so I'd like to know what you would have done differently, if it were your job to protect your nation.And I won't be a bit surprised if I get no replies in this thread. IP: Logged |
raine6
unregistered
|
posted May 16, 2004 09:02 PM
i would have listened to those who told me about the realities in the first place, and possibly avoided the whole tragedyi would have followed the paper trail to see who benefitted from the intense trading activity just prior to 9/11--on only two of all the airlines: united and american i would NOT chronically juxtapose the 9/11 scenario with iraq, as bush did, particularly on the anniversary of the tragedy. (mourners grieve, bush eyes iraq) i would not exploit the tragedy in order to mislead the american people into this horrible, horrible war with unfounded claims of weapons of mass destruction i would look around me and seek to improve my own weapons of mass destruction, such as joblessness, hunger, lack of health care and other injustices i would listen to the rest of the world in their pleading to refrain from an illegal aggressive attack, such as this country has never known i would have sought to understand why the prosperous swiss were not attacked for their prosperity, rather than assume they were "jealous" of america. i might have learned that our hands were not clean and i might have continued to ferret out the real culprit, osama bin laden. anyone remember him?
IP: Logged |
Distantdrummer
unregistered
|
posted May 16, 2004 11:13 PM
IP: Logged |
lioneye68
unregistered
|
posted May 17, 2004 11:56 AM
thank you Raine, I really didn't expect anyone to step up. As much as I appreciate that you did so, I'm compelled to counter, in the name of 'perspective'.completely non-partisan here, not even American. No emotions involved on my part, strictly cerebral....but.... quote:
i would have listened to those who told me about the realities in the first place, and possibly avoided the whole tragedy
...Can't argue that this would have been the ideal thing to do, they could have, would have, should have...Hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it? quote:
i would have followed the paper trail to see who benefitted from the intense trading activity just prior to 9/11--on only two of all the airlines: united and american
I don't know anything about this, but if it's true, I find it hard to believe that this WASN'T pursued. The fact that this little golden morsel of 'information' has been tossed out here makes it quite apparent that someone is digging around this issue, or nobody would have even known this much. Could it be that they're not done investigating, and are deliberately not showing their hand in the meantime? quote:
i would NOT chronically juxtapose the 9/11 scenario with iraq, as bush did, particularly on the anniversary of the tragedy. (mourners grieve, bush eyes iraq)
Are you saying that the two are entirely unconnected? Oh, well that's a relief, because there was indications that led some to believed Saddam was kicking finances into the Al-Qaeda, as well as supporting them in other, more complex ways too. Thanks for pointing out that he was actually innocent of any of that, angelic and noble man that he is. I'll bet that he's never even MET Osama bin-Laden. quote:
i would not exploit the tragedy in order to mislead the american people into this horrible, horrible war with unfounded claims of weapons of mass destruction
Was it exploiting the tragedy, or was it merely reminding the public of what the first "act of war" was in this whole mess? Because the public has a notoriously short attention span, and not so good long-term memory eithor. It's good that those who were far removed from it all, and are NOT responsible for protecting the nation from it's enemies have been able to "let it go" and move on. And, I don't think it means the claims were "unfounded" at all, just because the weapons were "unfound". Geez, Saddam had plenty of fair warning before your troups arrived, of course he would have takens steps to 'cover his ass'. I wonder what would have been uncovered had there been NO warning issued beforehand, hmm? (side note: there has been recent developments on this issue, if I'm not mistaken) quote:
i would look around me and seek to improve my own weapons of mass destruction, such as joblessness, hunger, lack of health care and other injustices
No doubt, these are important issues. Much more important than homeland security, and the emminant threat your enemies pose to you, to be sure. The wolves are ripping through the screen door, but don't worry about that, it's more important to fix the leaky faucette it the kitchen first. quote:
i would listen to the rest of the world in their pleading to refrain from an illegal aggressive attack, such as this country has never known
Now, not everybody was opposed to it, lets not exagerate. Illegal, according to who? The UN? PAH...'aggressive attack' Is there any other kind, like maybe a docile attack? And there you are, advocating tossing cream-puffs in response to daggers again. quote:
i would have sought to understand why the prosperous swiss were not attacked for their prosperity, rather than assume they were "jealous" of america. i might have learned that our hands were not clean
The swiss may be wealthy, (I didn't even know they had this image going on internationally) but they're not the dominant world force that the US is. This is not apples to apples. I don't think anybody ever claimed that your country has never done wrong on the international playing field, but it's also done much good in the world. How many other nations can compare to the humanitarian efforts of the US, in governmental policies, US based non-profit organizations, and in individual volunteering of it's people to go abroad and do what they can for the people of developing nations? (besides Canada, that is)Your country HAS given much of it back to the world, don't overlook that. Has it balanced out in the end? How does one measure? Those who's lives have been enriched by an american person or policy don't plan terrorist attacks, and since 9/11 was the first, makes me think the good HAS outweighed the bad. Again, remember, completely unbiased here...it's not my country to defend. quote:
and i might have continued to ferret out the real culprit, osama bin laden. anyone remember him?
They ARE continueing to ferret him out, which is taking them into all kinds of dank little corners of the world, were all creepy crawly critters reside.
IP: Logged |
lioneye68
unregistered
|
posted May 17, 2004 03:32 PM
oops...wrong thread. IP: Logged |
pidaua
Knowflake Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 17, 2004 03:46 PM
Lioneye,
WOW!! You rock!! I would have responded but you NAILED everything!!!
I love my fire sister!!!!!
~Pidaua
IP: Logged |
lioneye68
unregistered
|
posted May 17, 2004 08:01 PM
 ditto, babe!IP: Logged |
lioneye68
unregistered
|
posted May 17, 2004 09:08 PM
But I don't think Raine is coming back. I do hope I've helped her to see her country from a less negative vantage point, as I do, an outsider looking in. I don't buy into the whole "lets hate the pretty girl" game that the rest of the world likes to pull on the US of A. Now the pretty girl doesn't even like herself anymore, and it's a sad thing. IP: Logged |
Isis
Newflake Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009
|
posted May 18, 2004 01:00 AM
Well put Lion. And it is sad. ------------------
“The good things which belong to prosperity are to be wished, but the good things that belong to adversity are to be admired.” Seneca IP: Logged |
paras
unregistered
|
posted May 18, 2004 10:24 AM
When the 9/11 attacks happened, my first thought was, "Oh no. Now I will get to watch while my country dickers and debates endlessly over what to do about it -- while it shows the world just how wishy-washy we are. Our weak and delayed response will invite every other lunatic terrorist group in the world that hates America to do likewise. They will think, 'Hey! Let's attack America! We won't suffer any consequences!'"Even though it contradicts every other belief I hold, I would have found out who was responsible for it as quickly as I could, and then FLATTENED them. I take the broad view, that if we send a strong message once we may avoid repeated violence in the future. I can only imagine the rebuttals I will hear of THIS. It is my opinion, and I am not trying to force it on anyone. I am not even advocating it as the Right Answer, for it is probably not. I am simply answering the question posed in the original post. Hmmm, now how did I miss the fact that this thread was started by lioneye? Now I really feel foolish, posting to a thread that was obviously started to give its creator something to argue over. Your comment, "but I don't think raine will be coming back", is too obviously Just Plain Mean. You think you "scored a point" against an "opponent" and "sent her running with her tail between her legs." Lindaland should not be made into a battleground for the working out of one's excess anger on others. I had thought it was for the purpose of raising the consciousness of all involved. But, as always, I could be wrong. Perhaps Randall will have something to say about this, since it is his site. Does such mean-spiritedness "honor the memory" of Linda Goodman? IP: Logged |
lioneye68
unregistered
|
posted May 18, 2004 11:08 AM
I only said that because I read in another thread that she told someone (Ozone) on IM that she's not coming around for a while. Not like to say "victory is mine" or anything like that. And I really didn't mean any of that in a mean spirited way. I'm just a sarcastic son-of-a-hoo-haw...Mercury in the 8th house may be the culprit(?)Too much fire in my chart perhaps? Sarcasm is never received well when it's read rather than heard. But I can't help it, I delight in irony, which sarcasm is.I started this thread because I really want to know how those vehemently opposed to everything about the Bush Admin. figured this should have been handled. Because, as I said...as far as I see it, they were faced with 2 choices only. Relentlessly pursue those who were behind it (which truly is a massive undertaking  ), or do nothing at all, except lick your wounds and point fingers for the next 3 decades. It's not that I want to argue, I was just hoping that if there were any other options that I've missed, maybe they could enlighten me. And I agree with what you said, how you would have responded...although in this case, it was a slippery slope just trying to deduce WHO to send that message to, because it was done by an organizational web that hangs over several countries , not one specific country. (and I guess that would make it's members arachnids, no disrespect intended toward spiders) IP: Logged |
juniperb
Moderator Posts: 856
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 18, 2004 11:41 AM
Extremely thought provoking Lioneye  ------------------
If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans. ~James Herriot IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 4782
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 18, 2004 01:34 PM
America didn't get to be a melting-pot of diverse races, religions, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds all united with a common goal of Freedom by backing down from a fight. Whether we like it or not, that's just the way it is.  ------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
paras
unregistered
|
posted May 18, 2004 05:32 PM
lioneye, thank you for having patience with me. And thank you for filling in the background on your comment. I can see that I misinterpreted your words. Please accept my humblest apologies. I say, not as an excuse (for there is none), but only by way of explanation that someone's negativity seems to have infected me from another thread, and my vision was clouded. I have been properly rebuked for my own indiscretions, and can see more clearly again. You show a lot of grace under fire, and for that I hold you in the highest respect.IP: Logged |
lioneye68
unregistered
|
posted May 18, 2004 06:52 PM
Thank you, Paras  I think it's mighty big of you to say that. (and I thank the Uni-Verse daily for my rational, emotionally mellow Aqua moon...)IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 15, 2004 11:01 AM
If you really want to know where all those fighter aircraft were that you thought were combat ready to fly air patrol missions over US cities on 9/11, read on..............Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:18 a.m. EDT
9/11 Commission to Question Air Defense Cutbacks For its final public hearing on Thursday, the Sept. 11 Commission will focus on why U.S. air defenses were unprepared to stop an airborne attack on America, a topic that could raise questions about the decision by the Clinton administration to abolish the New Jersey Air National Guard wing that had been designated to protect New York City airspace. When the Sept. 11 terrorists struck, the entire continent of North America was defended by just 20 fighter aircraft, arrayed in pairs in 10 locations, NORAD spokesman Lt. Col. Roberto Garza told the Associated Press on Tuesday. Of the U.S.-based fighters, two were in Massachusetts, two in Virginia and two in Florida. But before Clinton-era military cutbacks, the nation's air defense system also included an Air National Guard fighter wing that was stationed in Atlantic City, which had two F-16's ready to scramble 24-hours-a-day. Eleven days after the attacks, former Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler told the New York Times that the Atlantic City base was shut down in 1999, leaving New York City airspace defenseless. "Up until a few years ago we had an F-16 fighter wing here in New Jersey that would be capable of intercepting one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center," Schundler said in a follow up interview with WABC Radio. "They decreased the number of wings that were available to do that. So the result was that the closest fighter wing that had the capability to intercept one of those planes was in Massachusetts." Two F-16s had scrambled out of Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod after American Airlines Flight 11 slammed into World Trade Center Tower 1, but didn't arrive in New York airspace until 15 minutes after United Airlines Flight 175 hit WTC Tower 2. "They couldn't get here in time," Schundler complained. "And that's why the second plane flew into the World Trade Center." He pinned the blame for eliminating the air defenses that could have saved Tower 2 squarely on the Clinton administration, telling WABC, "The federal government in the last eight years cut down the resources. . . That's just a statement of fact." The 9/11 Commission has not called Schundler to testify and it's not clear whether its probe will focus specifically on the Clinton administration's decision to abolish New York City's air defenses.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/15/102331.shtml IP: Logged |
TINK
unregistered
|
posted June 17, 2004 09:20 AM
So jwhop, you're saying the conspiracy goes way back?  IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 17, 2004 01:52 PM
Hey TINK, it isn't me or conservatives who see a conspiracy behind every tree and under every rock; that's the far radical left.Call these cutbacks, both in military readiness and intelligence funding major lapses in good judgment. And keep in mind Kerry was right there voting for them both. IP: Logged |
TINK
unregistered
|
posted June 17, 2004 02:12 PM
Hmm. Speaking of "intelligence", if the CIA wasn't conspiring they wouldn't really be doing their job very well. I would be very disappointed.Actually, I notice that both the far left and the far right are given to conspiracy theories. Though not you personally, of course. You know, the whole far right fear of Federal power and the UN and commies and the religious right wackos and that One World Power thingy they're always talking about. I would think that any sort of extreme thinking, be it left or right, would lead to that mind frame. But don't you think that believing there are no conspiracies is just as silly as believing any old rumor that comes along? Was it a case of bad judgement or a false sense of security? Was it a bit of revenge(worst case scenario) or a desire to balance things out(best case scenario) after all the $ the Republicans had dumped on the Pentagon? IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 17, 2004 04:01 PM
Well yes TINK, I expect the CIA to get down and dirty with those plotting against the US. I expect them to penetrate those groups and governments, identify leaders and destabilize the group or government or it's leaders. That's exactly what they are trying to do to the US.Actually TINK, the Constitution defines the powers of government and they're way, way, way over the line already. The UN IS attempting to gain unwarranted and unconstitutional jurisdiction over the US, US citizens, the oceans of the world, space and even the airspace of the world. Time to put them in their place. No doubt, there are conspiracies. Some may have benign intentions, attempting to meddle in government(s) to bring about conditions they see as beneficial but most of us don't like having our strings pulled by a group or groups with a hidden agenda(s). Disarming America, militarily or in intelligence areas, in the face of repeated attacks on America at home and abroad goes beyond bad judgment, in my opinion. Those are not the actions of those properly upholding their oaths of office for elected Representatives, Senators or the President. Certainly those who are for an all powerful government would find my views extreme. Those who are for peace at any price, including surrender would also find my views extreme. But, most of America would find me only a little right of center...at least on those subjects  Extremism at either end of the spectrum, left or right cannot win at the ballot box and thankfully will not have an opportunity to put their ideas into practice in the US. I'm also thankful we have a government in 3 coequal parts. I enjoy it immensely when the 3 branches of government can't get together, especially Congress and the President. It means lots of proposed legislation is DOA. I think Jefferson had it right: The government is best which governs least."
IP: Logged |
TINK
unregistered
|
posted June 17, 2004 04:57 PM
God Bless Tom  IP: Logged |
batgirl
unregistered
|
posted June 19, 2004 01:25 PM
we all just want to crap in peace, i thinkbut i guess it's complicated it would be a full time job to keep track of what's going on, and even then how can i know if what i read is the whole truth, etc, i'm sure there must be editing . ..i've decided to not think of it. two cultures that inherently clash is what i see i reject both IP: Logged |
batgirl
unregistered
|
posted June 19, 2004 01:28 PM
ok maybe more than one--i reject those tooIP: Logged |
batgirl
unregistered
|
posted June 19, 2004 01:44 PM
america is a strange experiment. i think spiritual laws exist that we can either blindly accept or figure out are true through living. america is about figuring out the reasons for those laws, from my view (through much struggle with their existence, i have come to the conclusion that they cant be changed, while we are in this world). the middle eastern countries may have the spiritual laws established as Law generally, but they should understand that blind following doesnt lead to wisdom--and let america make its mistakes in peacemaybe i am ignorant of many things, and there is more going on than this, but as for the cultural differences which may be a lead-in to war, from my current understanding (limited as it is) americans need to have the freedom to figure things out for themselves .. . however long it takes. i would like to be more informed about this, however who threw the first punch? i really dont know i suspect my thoughts on this are old hat since i've been just trying to keep my mind on my own personal affairs and not get scared IP: Logged |
StarLover33
unregistered
|
posted June 19, 2004 05:47 PM
 IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
