BF2S Forums My theory

4 times as many people in africa die from Hunger everyday, than the amount of people who died in the 9/11 " Attacks" 

it happens it happened thats the end of it.

Last edited by LostFate (2006-12-21 19:31:50)

LostFate wrote:

4 times as many people in africa die from Hunger everyday, than the amount of people who died in the 9/11 " Attacks" 

it happens it happened thats the end of it.

He wasn't talking about Africa.

dubbs wrote:

I personally think that Clinton dropped the ball when it came to terrorist.  In his 8 years in office, we had 3 attacks (1993 WTC Bombing, 1998 US Embassy Bombing, 2001 Cole Bombing), and we only attacked Bin Laden once.  I think that people over look this a lot.  I know that Clinton stated that he was prepared for war after the USS Cole attack, but he could not get an airbase in Pakistan.  I personally think that this is false.  I personally see Clinton more about trying to protect his image, rather then this nation.  Also, I think that the people who defend him, do a poor job by saying that he only has a few months left in office.  That does not matter, he should have at least started the attack.  I think that this alone could have effected 9/11.  There would have not been that great ability to communication the final plans for 9/11.  It would have at least postponed the attack, or made the US more aware of the attack.

Even though Clinton stated that he created the terrorist unit when he was in office, this does not mean that he did enough to stop attacks from happening.  After the 1998 bombing of the US Embassy in Kenya, he should have done something, IMO.

I also think that Bush could have fought a better war against terrorist.  I feel that he has really dropped the ball alot of things.  I think that he should talk about the Afghan front more, because that is where the true war on terror is being fought.  We should recruit more Middle Eastern desendents in our information network.  Since they are from the same region of the world, it looks less "fishy" then to have a Caucsian try to enter the network of terrorism.

More aware of the attack?  The US already WAS aware of the attack.  What more did you want?  Emails sent out to every US citizen specifying the date, time, and location of each attack?

Also, it's quite possible that Clinton was trying to protect his image by not attacking bin Laden.  Then this entire "war" would probably be blamed on him.

dubbs: How exactly would Clinton effectively respond to the Kenya attacks?

jonsimon wrote:

dubbs wrote:

If Clinton actually engaged into war, we may have found additional information about 9/11.  According to some information (I think the 9/11 Commission), 9/11 was planned as far back as 1993, right after the WTC Bombing.  If Clinton attacked after the bombing, then the plan would have not been completely planned.

Attacked who? The FBI agent that supplied the bomb? OOPS!

huh

dubbs wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

dubbs: How exactly would Clinton effectively respond to the Kenya attacks?

There are a few ways he could have.  This was the second attack on a US building by Bin Ladin with in 5 years.  He could have either invaded to get Bin Laden, or he could have tried to make a deal with the Taliban on turning over Bin Laden.  Either way, it would be better then shooting a few Cruise missles at a place where Bin Laden was thought to be.

jonsimon wrote:

dubbs wrote:

If Clinton actually engaged into war, we may have found additional information about 9/11.  According to some information (I think the 9/11 Commission), 9/11 was planned as far back as 1993, right after the WTC Bombing.  If Clinton attacked after the bombing, then the plan would have not been completely planned.

Attacked who? The FBI agent that supplied the bomb? OOPS!

I am assuming you are joking, but if you are not please read the above.

Keep in mind that the people known to be responsible for the original WTC bombing were all captured during the 90's and given life sentences.  They did not belong to Al Queda directly.  However, they did receive some financing from Al Queda.  Also, the bombing of the US Embassy in Kenya was organized in part by Islamic terrorist groups other than Al Queda.

You are looking back at these events with knowledge of 911.  It wasn't until the USS Cole incident that Bin Laden and Al Queda really started to stand out as a threat above so many other extremist groups in world.  After 911, Bin Laden claimed credit/support for the other events even though he and Al Queda were only loosely related.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Let's get one thing straight, I am not a fan of Bush or Clinton.....or any politician for that matter.  But this is the way I see things.

We can talk and argue about Iraq and other things, but only time is the true test.

For example :

Clinton was very passive.  Instead of going after Bin Laden after the Cole attack and the embassy attacks, he launched a few cruise missiles with little effect.  The people he was targeting were responsible for 9/11.  Now, if he would have been more aggressive and gone after them would 9/11 have happened?  Did it show a sign of weakness to the terrorists? Who knows.  That is defiantly up for debate.

Being passive or aggressive has its positives and negatives.  You can get angry and bitch all you want, but the only real answer is time.  I bet Jimmy Carter and Regan would have done things differently with the Taliban if they knew it was going to result in 9/11.


This is not a 9/11 thread...just an example.

Time does have a way of changing perceptions, but this mostly applies to social change, rather than warfare.

For example, Truman was hated by much of society for pushing through several racial integration incentives (mostly with the military and the postal service), but now that decades have passed, we look back on him as a visionary.

By contrast, the Vietnam War was hated while it was happening, and it is seen by most historians as a serious foreign policy mistake.  Iraq will likely fare in the same way with time.

I think history will praise Bush for his handling of Afghanistan, but most accounts will still imply that invading Iraq was going too far.  To be fair, I think history will also be very critical of the various individuals that advocated entering Iraq during the late 90s (many of whom were Democrats or influential European figures).  Clinton himself even said some things about it around that time as well, and he will likely be criticized for it just the same.

Overall, limited intervention generally has worked better for America throughout history than pre-emption.  For those of you that like to bring up WW2, we did enter that war under the pretense of defense (due to the attack on Pearl Harbor), and the late timing of our entrance may have harmed Europe more than we should have allowed, but it did give us a lot of lead time in the buildup of our own military.  Had we entered this war earlier, the Nazies might have been a weaker enemy, but we wouldn't have been able to split our forces between Europe and the Pacific so well.

So, even in dire circumstances like World War, it is still best for us to usually make a slow, calculated entrance into war.  Iraq has very painfully demonstrated what a lack of planning can do to an operation.

QuadDamage@U wrote:

dubbs wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

dubbs: How exactly would Clinton effectively respond to the Kenya attacks?

There are a few ways he could have.  This was the second attack on a US building by Bin Ladin with in 5 years.  He could have either invaded to get Bin Laden, or he could have tried to make a deal with the Taliban on turning over Bin Laden.  Either way, it would be better then shooting a few Cruise missles at a place where Bin Laden was thought to be.

jonsimon wrote:

Attacked who? The FBI agent that supplied the bomb? OOPS!

I am assuming you are joking, but if you are not please read the above.

Keep in mind that the people known to be responsible for the original WTC bombing were all captured during the 90's and given life sentences.  They did not belong to Al Queda directly.  However, they did receive some financing from Al Queda.  Also, the bombing of the US Embassy in Kenya was organized in part by Islamic terrorist groups other than Al Queda.

You are looking back at these events with knowledge of 911.  It wasn't until the USS Cole incident that Bin Laden and Al Queda really started to stand out as a threat above so many other extremist groups in world.  After 911, Bin Laden claimed credit/support for the other events even though he and Al Queda were only loosely related.

I have to tell you that you are very wrong about the bombing in Kenya.  It was known that Bin Laden was behind it.  It was also the first time that Al Qaeda was brought into the spotlight.

Also, Khaled Shaikh Mohammed who paided for the his cousin to preform the WTC bombings, was part of the 9/11 planning team.  He was also the one that came up with the idea to have airplanes hijacked in the US.  Clinton did not do anything to stop him. 

Another thing, if Clinton was to capture Bin Laden, then the whole 9/11 planing that took place in the Taliban's back yard would not have occured.  The Taliban protected Bin Laden because he helped them overthrow the the Soviets and allow them to control most of the country.  He was the one who supplied the guns and money to do this, and they gave him the freedom to do what ever he wanting in their country.

So let's recap, with Khaled Mohammed removed, Bin Laden removed, and the freedom to plan the attacks removed there would not have been a 9/11 as we know it.  Clinton could have went after Khaled Mohammed, and Bin Laden while he was in office.  Since Bin Laden would have been running from the US, he could not have had time to plan the attacks, and time to support the Taliban.  Also, Khaled Mohammed would have not been able to create the plans for 9/11, nor would he have been able to test the plans in 1995. 

This would have done a lot of damage in breaking the 9/11 planing, if not destoried it completely.  Like I orginally stated, Clinton could have done better.  Bush could do better.  There are still terrorist attacks today, even thought they are not targeted completely at the US, they still exist.  Like the London Subway Bombings, or the Madrid Bombings in 2002.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Clinton was very passive.  Instead of going after Bin Laden after the Cole attack and the embassy attacks, he launched a few cruise missiles with little effect.  The people he was targeting were responsible for 9/11.  Now, if he would have been more aggressive and gone after them would 9/11 have happened?

Passive, yet aggressive enough to do all he could legally do to avenge the Cole and embassy attacks?  Which is it?  Passive means he would have done nothing, aggressive means he would have launched cruise missiles.  Did he or did he not attack bin Laden training camps?  Did he narrowly miss bin Laden?  Was his attack the result of months of fear mongering to improve poll numbers first, or did he just do it because it was the right thing to do?  Was he criticized by the RIGHT and accused of wagging the dog?  Bush sat on his ass for 7 minutes, then run and hid for a few hours before addressing the public after our country was invaded for the first time since Pearl Harbor...then he took several months to respond to attacks.   Now contrast this with that small boat of explosives hitting the Cole and killing (i think) 18 soldiers (?) and he immediately identified and attacked the guilty on his own.  And he did it legally since his cruise missiles had to fly over Pakistan first.  Clinton almost got bin Laden.  Bush doesn't even care about bin Laden now...he's dicking around with how to not look like a loser "war president."

Oh yeah, he also PREPARED the newly elected president BUSH (via Condi) with war/attack plans for bin Laden..and what happened with that?  It was discarded. 

We can go round and round on this just as we could with Iraq.  For every dumb supposition you make, I can make 5 good corrections like I have above.   But alas, you will still be playing this blame game for years to come because for some reason, it matters to you who you think should get the blame.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Let's get one thing straight, I am not a fan of Bush or Clinton.....or any politician for that matter.  But this is the way I see things.

We can talk and argue about Iraq and other things, but only time is the true test.

For example :

Clinton was very passive.  Instead of going after Bin Laden after the Cole attack and the embassy attacks, he launched a few cruise missiles with little effect.  The people he was targeting were responsible for 9/11.  Now, if he would have been more aggressive and gone after them would 9/11 have happened?  Did it show a sign of weakness to the terrorists? Who knows.  That is defiantly up for debate.

Being passive or aggressive has its positives and negatives.  You can get angry and bitch all you want, but the only real answer is time.  I bet Jimmy Carter and Regan would have done things differently with the Taliban if they knew it was going to result in 9/11.


This is not a 9/11 thread...just an example.

Time does resolve debates from a certain perspective, but I don't think time really provides answers. There is always the question of how much time has to pass before we can evaluate the effects of a decision.

For example, imagine Clinton had been more aggressive, caught Bin Laden, and crushed the Al Qaeda leadership. Obviously it would have been a great thing if that prevented 9/11, but millions of muslims hate the US and crushing Al Qaeda would not have changed that widespread sentiment. So Clinton would have looked like a genius for preventing the attack on 9/11/2001, but it is not yet clear what effect 9/11 will have in the long run. Maybe it allowed Al Qaeda to lead the anti-US crusade and things would have been even worse if Iran had taken that leadership position. Stopping the clock at 9/11/2001 certainly gives one answer, but considering a longer time frame--2020? 2080?--might give different answers.

dubbs wrote:

I personally think that Clinton dropped the ball when it came to terrorist.  In his 8 years in office, we had 3 attacks (1993 WTC Bombing, 1998 US Embassy Bombing, 2001 Cole Bombing), and we only attacked Bin Laden once.  I think that people over look this a lot.  I know that Clinton stated that he was prepared for war after the USS Cole attack, but he could not get an airbase in Pakistan.  I personally think that this is false.  I personally see Clinton more about trying to protect his image, rather then this nation.  Also, I think that the people who defend him, do a poor job by saying that he only has a few months left in office.  That does not matter, he should have at least started the attack.  I think that this alone could have effected 9/11.  There would have not been that great ability to communication the final plans for 9/11.  It would have at least postponed the attack, or made the US more aware of the attack.

Even though Clinton stated that he created the terrorist unit when he was in office, this does not mean that he did enough to stop attacks from happening.  After the 1998 bombing of the US Embassy in Kenya, he should have done something, IMO.

I also think that Bush could have fought a better war against terrorist.  I feel that he has really dropped the ball alot of things.  I think that he should talk about the Afghan front more, because that is where the true war on terror is being fought.  We should recruit more Middle Eastern desendents in our information network.  Since they are from the same region of the world, it looks less "fishy" then to have a Caucsian try to enter the network of terrorism.

dont forget the 1996 Khobar towers bombing

usmarine2007 wrote:

Let's get one thing straight, I am not a fan of Bush or Clinton.....or any politician for that matter.  But this is the way I see things.

We can talk and argue about Iraq and other things, but only time is the true test.

For example :

Clinton was very passive.  Instead of going after Bin Laden after the Cole attack and the embassy attacks, he launched a few cruise missiles with little effect.  The people he was targeting were responsible for 9/11.  Now, if he would have been more aggressive and gone after them would 9/11 have happened?  Did it show a sign of weakness to the terrorists? Who knows.  That is defiantly up for debate.

Being passive or aggressive has its positives and negatives.  You can get angry and bitch all you want, but the only real answer is time.  I bet Jimmy Carter and Regan would have done things differently with the Taliban if they knew it was going to result in 9/11.


This is not a 9/11 thread...just an example.

Clinton made politics fun!