Could you really say that 9/11 would have been avoided if we hadn't been focusing on missile defense? Assymetric warfare is very hard for a large, organized military to defend against.
Printable View
Could you really say that 9/11 would have been avoided if we hadn't been focusing on missile defense? Assymetric warfare is very hard for a large, organized military to defend against.
i don't know if 9/11 could have been avoided, but maybe. We could have recognized the need for heightened security. there was concern of a potential attack in the intelligence community during the summer of 2001 but the government decided not to do anything. I don't think the focus on missile defense is bad in itself. It's the focus on missile defense to the exclusion of terrorist threats.
I was as surpirsed as anyone by 9/11 but I knew there was a man named Osama bin Laden who was a potential terrorist threat to the US before 9/11 and that something like that could happen to us any day, although maybe not on such a scale. If I knew this, I sure hope the government knew this. I find the fact that 9/11 cuaght our government completely by surprise very scary. It's hard to have faith in an administration that let something like that happen under their noses. I don't know if an Al Gore White House would have fared any better, but I don't see how they could have done any worse. To me, Bush saying he is strong on national defense is a joke. That's like Nicholas II saying he was popular with the peasants.
A big screwup happens on your watch, you have to take some responsibility for it.
Once again, I must agree with Dr. Strangelove. Even if you weren't entirely to blame, you must assume SOME responsibility.
Take care all.
Weird, as I recall Clinton was taking decisive action against Al Qaeda back in the mid-to-late 1990s. After the embassy bombings in 1997, where 200 people were murdered, there were cruise missile strikes on terrorist bases in and around Afghanistan. The threat was there and it was known, just out of the public eye because it wasn't actually visible in America back then.Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Unne
Everyone was ignorant back then. No one saw it coming. People pretended that the threat didn't exist, and it did, and we paid.
The counter-attack went on for a while; only problem was 'cause terrorists like that are so mobile and spread-out. They couldn't really get them all, only a few training camps in the desert and a factory in Afghanistan - intelligence said it was a chem-weapons plant, the Taleban tried to claim it made pharmaceuticals.
A well known principle in American history, we don't care until you hit us. It took something as terrible as 9/11 to actually realize the danger. The threat has always existed, it didn't just appear out of thin air.
Take care all.
With the exception of a few world wars and post-9/11, America has always been very isolated from the rest of the world.
The American people have often been very isolated; however, the country's government has often done its best to contribute to world events and affairs, be they diplomatic or military. Trade, wars, peacekeeping, diplomacy... the US has often played a leading role, in proportion to its strength. It's just that the citizens of the US haven't often had any need to care much.
Too late though, do we often get involved. I just watched a heart-breaking piece on PBS about the genocide in Africa that occured in the early 90's, and America, as well as every other government in the world it seemed, reacted very slowly, and only came when it was obvious that nearly a million people had been killed. I believe Bush had the pre-emptive strike in Iraq, partially to end that speculation that America was always getting involved too late, but now, in what appears to be a Catch-22, it appears he rushed in under, false pretenses, and is now in a no-win situation. Such a sticky situation, the world is.
Take care all.