One does wonder how world affairs would be today if in the post 9/11 attacks if a real statesmen were at the helm of the US.
(Supposing the attacks would have been done independently of the president in office. I doubt any US president would have made Bin Laden cancel those well planned attacks.)
Well imagine if either Churchill, Blair, Mandela or Roosvelt types were in command ? How would things have gone after the WTC ? How much better would the future prospects be ? Even if things went more or less the same way… how would less economic lobby meddling have changed things in a Iraqi invasion.
Feel free to speculate, debate and dream... but do so with some substance behind your arguments.
Well, first of all, what do you mean by “world Affairs”?
what actions have been taken by the US that one could logically say actually occurred as a direct result of 9/11. The most important that immediately come to mind are:
Invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the Taliban regime
Formation of Homeland Security Agency
More stringent enforcement of visa requirements, particularly for persons of Middle Eastern origin
Invasion of Iraq and toppling of Ba’ath regime
Use of the term “support of terror” to justify threats of military action against Syria and Iraq
Other events, such as the legally-iffy detention of “enemy combatants” at Gauntanamo Bay, and the cooling of relations with some European countries are consequences of these events.
Of the above IMO the only ones that might not have taken place if someone other than the Bush administration wrere at the helm would be 4 and 5. If the invasion of Iraq had not occurred, the bulk of the political animosity that has been focussed towards the US by the rest of the world over the past year would have been much less likely to have occurred.
Some sort of increase in internal security would have been inevitable no matter who was head of state. I think the invasion of Afghanistan and maybe the detention of supposed terrorist suspects would be a given if anyone, short of Gandhi himself, were head of state, although perhaps subject to civilian trials rather than the military tribunals the current administrration is advocating.
Afghanistan surely was doomed… that I agree. The international community was fully behind the US on that one.
The Homeland Security Agency not necessarily would have been formed… (is it doing any good ? Sound like bureucratic excess…).
Iraq might in fact have been invaded… but surely it would have been a real UN coalition of sorts. Maybe some kind of arrangement on Saddam going to exile ? US muscle flexing would have been better directed to warn many countries who too easily help out terrorists too.
Saudi Arabia I think would have been subjected to much greater “demands” for explanations. Most arabs dont have that much respect for the Saudis… might actually get kudos for the US in the region.
Still overall do you think intelligence services of most countries would help out more root out Al Qaeda ?
As to the first point, while most nations (that I know of) at least mouthed support for the war in Afghanistan, the far left was as ignorant as ever with its anti-war protests.
As to the second, the HSA is just a new ‘umbrella’ agency, which is composed of several old agencies. Other than airline screeners, I don’t think they actually have any ‘new’ people. More of a cuttting-out of bureaucracy than a proper formation of a new agency.
Why don’t you present an OP devoid of partisan ranting?
I guess we could assume that if Roosevelt were President, that all Arab-Americans (men, women and children) would have been rounded up and moved to camps in the desert for the duration of the War on Terror. Isn’t that what was done to the Japanese in WWII during his Presidency?
And Blair. Hmmm. Isn’t he the guy who praised Bush’s leadership just a few weeks ago in his address to Congress?
You might want to think about the contradiction in your beliefs before exposing them so blatantly in public.
Well at least Blair seems like a Leader and a diplomat… thou he might be taking his nation the wrong way. He deserves way more respect than Bush, so I included him.
As for the Arab Americans… they might not be rounded up and moved to camps… but they might feel just the same being pressured, discriminated and kept under surveillance.
Feel free to defend Bush as a statesman if you can…
Uh, its basic History 101. Him and his wife are both responsible for the rape and murder of hundreds of women and men during his past before he was jailed. Ill see if I can find some info for ya.
Please keep in mind it was a Democrat who had the Japanese rounded up and placed in camps during the great war.
I would applaud Bush for not deporting many of these immigrants after what happened.
His estranged wife that he divorced soon after leaving 25 yrs in prison ? Who cares what she did ? She is irrelavant. I am talking of NELSON Mandela one of the most respected men in the world. I am not sure he could be called a Marxist either…
As for safe sex and condoms… I thought Bush was against those too. He favors “teaching” abstinence.
Republican, it is suggested that you provide a link to your source, and maybe just quote a relevant line or two.
Granted, I agree with you. The ANC is a terrorist organization, but has the vaunted status of being popular with the Left, so its transgressions are ‘overlooked’.
Yes, but it is what he did BEFORE his prison term that matters.
The information is freely available. Try using google to search for this subject and your eyes will definately be opened. Rape, murder, and torture were all a part of his game.
The man is respected these days because most of the American public is, sad to say, stupid.