Are We -Already- Conquered and Ruined?

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"tim gueguen" wrote in message
news:kqzGc.969780$Pk3.439395@pd7tw1no...

"Brett" wrote in message
. ..
"tim gueguen" wrote:

"Bill & Susan Maddux" wrote in message
om...
The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of
terror
to
change the out come of an American Election like they did in
Spain.
I
believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal
with
the
same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).

********.

The Embassy bombings in 1998 didn't generate much of a response from
the
Clinton Administration (remember Gore was part of it)

Which was not a direct attack on United States territory,

A US Embassy is considered US territory so it would be a direct attack.

But not to Joe Q. Public, and certainly not the way an attack on New York
is.

didn't cause
billions of dollars of damage to New York City and the Pentagon, and
didn't
kill 3000 plus US citizens in their own country.

so your comment should
be directed at you, since the Maddux comment is probably closer to the
truth
than yours.

If you really think a Gore admin wouldn't have gone out and stomped on
the
Taliban

A couple of cruise missiles directed at nearly empty training camps.

They would have done a lot more than that. They would have had no choice
given public opinion.

as the Bush admin did you need to take those partisan blinders off.

The person with the blinders on is you.

Got it backwards. Looking at US foreign policy from the outside one doesn't
see huge differences in behaviour between the 2 parties.

tim gueguen 101867

"tim gueguen" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"tim gueguen" wrote in message
news:kqzGc.969780$Pk3.439395@pd7tw1no...

"Brett" wrote in message
. ..
"tim gueguen" wrote:

"Bill & Susan Maddux" wrote in message
om...
The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of
terror
to
change the out come of an American Election like they did in
Spain.
I
believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal
with
the
same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).

********.

The Embassy bombings in 1998 didn't generate much of a response from
the
Clinton Administration (remember Gore was part of it)

Which was not a direct attack on United States territory,

A US Embassy is considered US territory so it would be a direct attack.

But not to Joe Q. Public, and certainly not the way an attack on New York
is.

You wouldn't have guessed that from Clinton's speech to the people on the
day he ordered the strike against the Sudanese asprin factory and the camps
in Afganistan where he implied that was only the start. The record for the
rest of his term supports the view that it wasn't really a start.

didn't cause
billions of dollars of damage to New York City and the Pentagon, and
didn't
kill 3000 plus US citizens in their own country.

so your comment should
be directed at you, since the Maddux comment is probably closer to
the
truth
than yours.

If you really think a Gore admin wouldn't have gone out and stomped on
the
Taliban

A couple of cruise missiles directed at nearly empty training camps.

They would have done a lot more than that.

Doubtful, if a campaign led by Gore would have continued for much longer
than that.

They would have had no choice
given public opinion.

So 90+ days of bombing and no commitment of US ground troops because it
might result in US casualties. Blair couldn't convince Clinton to even
threaten the use of ground troops in Kosovo and the quoted estimates on US
casualty figures for the troops deployed by Bush to support the Northern
Alliance would have given Gore a heart attack. So the Taliban would still be
in control and a previously devastated country has fewer structures intact.



as the Bush admin did you need to take those partisan blinders off.

The person with the blinders on is you.

Got it backwards.

No.

Looking at US foreign policy from the outside one doesn't
see huge differences in behaviour between the 2 parties.

Strange, the difference between how US forces were misused in an unnecessary
(to US interests) conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia and real attacks against
the US were ignored (the Embassy bombings) is the difference we are talking
about now.

"Brett" wrote in
:



The person with the blinders on is you. Gore would still be running an
opinion poll today to determine what should be the countries future
course of action following the attacks.


Or looking for "permission" to do something after surrendering US
sovereignity to the UN.
(Permission from a majority of non-democratic countries.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

tim gueguen wrote:

If you really think a Gore admin wouldn't have gone out and stomped on the
Taliban as the Bush admin did you need to take those partisan blinders off.

Perhaps.

But I think a Gore admin would have been more "multi-lateral",
waiting for the world to dictate what a "proper" American
response should be.

It would have been considered more a criminal act, requiring
evidence to be gathered, persons apprehended and trials being
conducted. Not the act of war response of Bush.

I'd call attacks against US embassies and naval ships to be acts
of war, but they didn't seem to elicit much of a response
beyond the "we will hunt down the perps" speeches and a few
cruise missiles landing *somewhere*, where the act of launching
is the response, and the effect they have secondary.

In all fairness to Clinton, there was no popular support for
an attack against Afghanistan or anywhere else. A cruise
missile launch was about all that would have been supported
I think.

However, it is the job of a President to lead, not do what
polls tell him to do, and I think Clinton did pretty much
what the polls told him to do.


SMH

But I think a Gore admin would have been more "multi-lateral",
waiting for the world to dictate what a "proper" American
response should be.

It would have been considered more a criminal act, requiring
evidence to be gathered, persons apprehended and trials being
conducted. Not the act of war response of Bush.

Yes it would definitely have been more of a law enforcement (FBI, Interpol,
etc) response.

Only problem with that , it requires excellent intelligence, or else you find
yourself investigating and pursueing terrorists after they have struck.

Our Humint was too emasculated in the past to be able to rely on police and
intel to stop terrorists. Acting preemptively overseas to kill terrorists, is
going to be a part of modern Anti terrorism operations. Other countries might
get their feelings hurt, but so be it.

European public showed sympathy when we were struck, but that changed as soon
as we opted to do something about it in Afghanistan, even though many european
countries are involved in Afgh.





Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

"Ron" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

European public showed sympathy when we were struck, but that changed as soon
as we opted to do something about it in Afghanistan, even though many european
countries are involved in Afgh.

I disagree. The European governments that make up NATO supported us in our
attack on Afghanistan and they still do, to the point that many of them have
committed their troops to one facet or another of our operations there. We lost
their sympathy and support when we opted to do something about Iraq, which was
widely viewed as being substantially uninvolved in terrorist activities in
recent years. Their support of us in Afghanistan continues largely unchanged.

George Z.





Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

I disagree. The European governments that make up NATO supported us in our
attack on Afghanistan and they still do, to the point that many of them have
committed their troops to one facet or another of our operations there. We
lost
their sympathy and support when we opted to do something about Iraq, which
was
widely viewed as being substantially uninvolved in terrorist activities in
recent years. Their support of us in Afghanistan continues largely
unchanged.

George Z.

Oh the governments still do, but I am quite sure even Afghanistan was very
popular with the Euro public.




Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

European public showed sympathy when we were struck, but that changed as soon
as we opted to do something about it in Afghanistan, even though many
european
countries are involved in Afgh.

Europeans are not stupid,they learned fast that 9/11 is nothing but another US
PSYOP,originaly intended to stop Gore Presidency and to make US a more
disciplined country,later some others hijacked 9/11 to realize their foreign
policy goals.

"as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society,it may find it more
difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,except in the
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat"

Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Grand Chessboard,1997


"..the process of transformation..is likely to be a long one,absent some
catastrophic and catalysing event,like a new Pearl Harbor"

Rebuilding America's Defenses,Sep.2000

Ron wrote:
I disagree. The European governments that make up NATO supported us in our
attack on Afghanistan and they still do, to the point that many of them have
committed their troops to one facet or another of our operations there. We
lost
their sympathy and support when we opted to do something about Iraq, which
was
widely viewed as being substantially uninvolved in terrorist activities in
recent years. Their support of us in Afghanistan continues largely
unchanged.

George Z.

Oh the governments still do, but I am quite sure even Afghanistan was very
popular with the Euro public.

Your point being what? .....that we've lost public support in Europe for our
reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan even though we still retain the support of the
governments that supposedly represent that public? Do you have any evidence of
that and, if so, would you mind producing it? I'm not sure I understand what
you're getting at....it'd help if you rephrased what you said above a little
less cryptically because I'm not following you.

George Z.

Your point being what? .....that we've lost public support in Europe for our
reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan even though we still retain the support of
the
governments that supposedly represent that public? Do you have any evidence
of
that and, if so, would you mind producing it? I'm not sure I understand what
you're getting at....it'd help if you rephrased what you said above a little
less cryptically because I'm not following you.

George Z.

Hal I meant it was UNpopular in Europe what happened in Afghanistan. Sorry,
the UN part seemed to not make its way from my brain to the keyboard. Typical
Keyboard Actuator error.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India