9/11

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
The United States supported the Islamists, Taleban among others in Afghanistan against the Russians. This shows that for Reagan and Bush senior the fight against the Russians were more important than fighting radical Islam. And I can understand that, because 20-30 years, things looked rather different in the word. And this has been my point all a long that the real fight against radical Islam under the definition terrorism began first back in 2001.

But i have already noted that Islamic extremist groups and countries are supported by the US now, as well.

I'll cede that Russia is no longer perceived as a threat (it wasn't, in reality, by Reagan's time), but i doubt that was the crux of your argument? If it was, i'll agree right now, obviously.

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
But i have already noted that Islamic extremist groups and countries are supported by the US now, as well.

And what extremist groups are those?

Dirk said:
I'll cede that Russia is no longer perceived as a threat (it wasn't, in reality, by Reagan's time), but i doubt that was the crux of your argument? If it was, i'll agree right now, obviously.

Correct. The point of my argument is that the United States defended the Islamist movement in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Now 30 years later, that's all changed.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
And what extremist groups are those?

The Northern Alliance and the Saudi Arabian State, off the top of my head.

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
The Northern Alliance and the Saudi Arabian State, off the top of my head.

But the Saudi Arabian state is hardly an organization. But I get your point on the Northern Alliance, but again this is a tactic the Americans are doing to fight the Taleban. Although The Northern Alliance are not really good friends with the allied forces in Afghanistan today either, and have several times tried to bomb NATO interests.

David · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
The United States supported the Islamists, Taleban among others in Afghanistan against the Russians. This shows that for Reagan and Bush senior the fight against the Russians were more important than fighting radical Islam. And I can understand that, because 20-30 years, things looked rather different in the word. And this has been my point all a long that the real fight against radical Islam under the definition terrorism began first back in 2001.

The Taliban didn't exist until the mid '90s. Just thought i'd point that out. I think you mean the Mujahadeen.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
But the Saudi Arabian state is hardly an organization. But I get your point on the Northern Alliance, but again this is a tactic the Americans are doing to fight the Taleban. Although The Northern Alliance are not really good friends with the allied forces in Afghanistan today either, and have several times tried to bomb NATO interests.

Just like the US used the Mujahadeen to fight the Russians?

EDIT: And i'd argue that the state most certainly is an organisation. Why shouldn't it be?

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
Just like the US used the Mujahadeen to fight the Russians?

The difference is that back then they were fighting the Russians, now they're fighting the Taleban.

Dirk · Feb 5, 2010

GOP said:
The difference is that back then they were fighting the Russians, now they're fighting the Taleban.

Wow, they're fighting different people. Big shocker.

I suppose your point is that during the last war on terrorism, that war wasn't the focus of US foreign policy?

I agree, but it really doesn't impact that it's a very similar "war".

GOP · Feb 5, 2010

Dirk said:
Wow, they're fighting different people. Big shocker.

Exactly what makes the base for Reagan and Bush also different.

Dirk said:
I suppose your point is that during the last war on terrorism, that war wasn't the focus of US foreign policy?

Back then of course it was the focus of US foreign policy. Foreign policies change from world wars, to cold wars, to handling extreme terrorism. These are all different parts of our hard world.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

I don't think I get the conspiracy theory in the discussion? Was 9/11 a Bush conspiracy? Or a continuing conspiracy from Reagen?

GOP · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
I don't think I get the conspiracy theory in the discussion? Was 9/11 a Bush conspiracy? Or a continuing conspiracy from Reagen?

I think we partially left the conspiracy theories and started to debate international terrorism and when the war on that started.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

GOP said:
I think we partially left the conspiracy theories and started to debate international terrorism and when the war on that started.

So for interesting sake, do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy, and that the terrorist attacks were genuine ones planned and executed by El Qaeda?

David · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
So for interesting sake, do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy, and that the terrorist attacks were genuine ones planned and executed by El Qaeda?

I don't think OBL is spanish. :giggle:

GOP · Feb 8, 2010

deanhills said:
So for interesting sake, do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy, and that the terrorist attacks were genuine ones planned and executed by El Qaeda?

No absolutely not. I feel that these conspiracy theories are made by young leftists who are only out to hurt Bush. If this happened under Obama, none of it would've been his fault.

David · Feb 8, 2010

GOP said:
No absolutely not. I feel that these conspiracy theories are made by young leftists who are only out to hurt Bush. If this happened under Obama, none of it would've been his fault.

Leftists? I didn't think any sane person was pro-Bush anymore. :giggle:

GOP · Feb 8, 2010

David said:
Leftists? I didn't think any sane person was pro-Bush anymore. :giggle:

I'd call people who are pro-Bush very sane, considering Bush is a president who did very difficult, but understandable, choices for America. At the same time this was obviously against the majority of people around the world. People who support Bush dare to be different and make unpopular choices. I think that's very sane.

deanhills · Feb 8, 2010

GOP said:
I'd call people who are pro-Bush very sane, considering Bush is a president who did very difficult, but understandable, choices for America. At the same time this was obviously against the majority of people around the world. People who support Bush dare to be different and make unpopular choices. I think that's very sane.

Well said and totally agreed. For starters, he was able to make decisions quickly and decisively, and definitely not with reference to his marketing person for re-election purposes, such as Obama has been doing for example. I get the feeling Obama sometimes delays decisions so that he can wait "for the right moment" for the right kind of impact, or to delay it for political reasons. Bush always had the immediate safety and security of the United States in mind. No delays.

David · Feb 9, 2010

deanhills said:
Well said and totally agreed. For starters, he was able to make decisions quickly and decisively, and definitely not with reference to his marketing person for re-election purposes, such as Obama has been doing for example. I get the feeling Obama sometimes delays decisions so that he can wait "for the right moment" for the right kind of impact, or to delay it for political reasons. Bush always had the immediate safety and security of the United States in mind. No delays.

Ad at it's worst, his rule was borderline police-state. Once the Dems took over, he lost alot of his power but remember, before that point we were on the edge of theocracy with talks of deporting gays, allowing prayers at secular institutions and amending the Constitution in support of Fundi Christian doctrine.

GOP · Feb 9, 2010

David said:
Ad at it's worst, his rule was borderline police-state. Once the Dems took over, he lost alot of his power but remember, before that point we were on the edge of theocracy with talks of deporting gays, allowing prayers at secular institutions and amending the Constitution in support of Fundi Christian doctrine.

These are pretty hard accusations and I'd love for you to document this.

deanhills · Feb 9, 2010

David said:
Ad at it's worst, his rule was borderline police-state.

Can't be true. As one of the characteristics of a police state is curbing "freedom" of the press. During Bush's reign, there could not have been more Internet Websites and blogs that could have been more critical of him, not to mention the Press. Bush became the American people's excuse for not taking responsibility for their political participation. Much easier to blame everything on Bush.

Besides which, the political system just won't allow a President to have such a lot of power, i.e. to create a Politce State. Bush was given a role to play, and he did the best he could with the hand that got dealt to him. He did not do diplomacy well, but he did most of everything well, he never hesitated.

9/11

Similar threads