america's worst disaster in recent history

[curious]

i thought of this after hearing 'our' presidents comments this morning from his visit yesterday to katrina effected areas. comparing the plight/progress of hurricane victims to a professional sports team underlines many problems but most noticably the lack of understand of just how severe katrina's after effects were. so my poll is to see how most people way all the effects on, purely a national level, both the immediate and longer term effects of both disasters.

*note
don't worry i opted not to show who voted for what on this poll as i thought this poll has much more personal feelings attached to it.

[txa1265]

Katrina is a huge tragedy in terms of the event and the way in which it showed how ill prepared we were to deal with it.

But Sept 11th changed our country and the entire world ... and not really for the better. The Iraq war is part of that tragedy, as is the death threats of cartoonists in other countries, as is the inability for Islam to isolate itself from radical nutjobs ...

[magerette]

Yes, 9-11 is the big one. We are far from the end of the consequences of those few hours in time. Katrina is a disaster which occurred without human input and as such was unavoidable, and to that extent 'natural'. You may say initially more people were killed or suffered great loss, but the toll in lives and misery from 9-11 and it's aftermath in the MidEast has only begun.

[curious]

oh i know the global effects of september 11th are worse which i why i said "purely a national level". the poll is to try to establish what the sentiment is on an imaginary value of loss that resulted only directly from disaster and the seemingly inequality placed on the value of loss. you don't hear about to many 'heroes' of katrina and that to me signals a huge disaster. septermber 11th changed the world but it could have not happened. katrina while preventable to some degree could not have been averted, only its follow up. also its much harder to pin those global effects on september 11th and the not the global policies of many countries that fueled the horrific act of terrorism in the first plact. the simple truth is there are less places to easily place anger/blame for katrina and anger/passion are often useful tools in enabling effective responses. without those 'positive' (only in the sense that it promotes action rather than not) emotions to attach it resides itself to those feelings that people would rather not focus on or remember.

[dteowner]

Although I 'm confident 9-11 will be the runaway "winner", there could have been a few additional poll choices. WTC bombing (in the parking garage), Murrah City Building (Oklahoma City), California earthquake, space shuttle explosion. Granted, those go back a little more, but probably still merit mention.

Clearly the impact of 9-11 has been far more reaching than any of the others, economically, politically, and socially.

[txa1265]

oh i know the global effects of september 11th are worse which i why i said "purely a national level".

I just don't think that you can draw such arbitrary lines - Katrina was changed by 9/11, as was the fact that I spent 45 minutes in line for a 20 minute visit for my kids to see the liberty bell ... as was the way in which I packed my bags for my current trip and have to get a taxi to the airport at 4AM rather than 5AM tomorrow ... sure there are all of those national changes, but even those are reflective of reactionary response rather than direct impact. A woman sitting in the next cube block lost her sister-in-law in one of the planes ... tons of people I work with knew people or were related to people ... being in the northeast means it has more direct effect. But I think that the much larger impact is the global change - in terms of the world Katrina had little impact but the entire global landscape has changed since 9/11

[magerette]

Good points, curious. I think there was much less outrage and "heroism'-a somewhat overused word, imo-in response to Katrina, but the media blitz on the subject has worn it thin for me. A great many of the refugees from the big K ended up here in Oklahoma(along with the Hornets) and they aren't suffering a whole lot or getting in the news. They are rebuidling their lives and most are not all irate because a government agency hasn't come in and personally rebuilt their house and found them a job.

One could also argue that a great deal of the damage from Katrina was indeed preventable, had the city of New Orleans and the government of the state of Louisiana been more proactive and concerned in the aginig dykes, the lack of infrastructure to respond to such a foreseeable disaster, etc. (Foreseeable because you have a city with an elevation below sea level and sinking, in a known hurricane zone.)

We had a tornado here in Oklahoma that wiped out about one-third of a heavily populated area of OKC a few years ago on May 5( Category f7--biggest there is) and we had the Murrah building bombing by genuine homegrown american nutcase terrorists. Those areas are now all rebuilt, and we have a local foundation which has built a memorial to the Murrah building victims and their families. I don't recall a big outrage that the federal government didn't come in and clean everything up and hold our hands while we all got counseling .

Anyway, I'm still sticking to 9-11. :)

[curious]

its easy for us to debate which is worse, though like i've said septemeber 11th (besides being my mom's birthday) will be forever etched in the minds of most (not just americans) but even i can't remember the date of katrina, not that i don't want to. the facts are though that more people/families have been directly affected by katrina. sure their are unfortunate disasters all the time but natural ones the magnitude of katrina and worse are on the horizon. personally i fear the force of 'mother nature' ability to wield weapons of mass destruction than i do of terroists or rogue states. both levels of 'fear' though are notably on the rise but only one of them is guarenteed to happen and 'fortunately' is the easier crisis to solve though requires considerably more awareness.

[curious]

i respect all your opinons which is why i delight in having these conversations:)

[magerette]

Same here, curious. It's a discussion, not a monologue. :)

[Corwin]

Katrina was bad, but there have been horrendous hurricanes sweep through Florida several times. The Tsunami which wiped out whole communities on Boxing Day a couple of years ago was far worse too I think. To me, events which affect the WORLD are far more important than ones belonging to one country, even if some of the residents of that country think the world ends at their borders!! :) (But that's a different debate!! :biggrin: )

[mudsling3]

Just to be a devil's advacate... some might consider 9/11 the best thing ever and they aren't who you think. I am talking about defence contractors :) There are always a few manage to win no matter what.

[dteowner]

*sigh*
Back to the commune you go.

Defense contractors take no joy in 3000 deaths, nor do they need such a tragedy to make money.

[mudsling3]

commune??? I suggest you to stick your head back to where it was...all is well *sigh*

[curious]

@dte -i think he was referring to the evil links that were made to the lands of iraq and september 11 which along with other contrived info which gained false support and has led to those contractors making insane amounts of money with the rest of the world at best no better off and 100,000's of iraqi's up more than a creek. i'm sure they take no joy in the tragedy of september 11 but not only don't they care about the iraqi's they also seem to show no concern over the lives of their mercenaries. i long for the days of my nieviety when the name blackwater was associated purely with the imaginary corporation headed by a despicable/evil man in the gamespace colony.

so yes i agree that the only 'winners of the world' from the iraq war are the war profitters but i don't think there are any winners from the madness of september 11 at least not in any reasonable amount of indirectness.

[dteowner]

*sigh*
OK, let's make this simple. Is this world a safer place without a guy that will use nerve gas on his own citizens? Are you willing to bet your life that he had no designs on the rest of the world, in spite of his invasion of Kuwait and repeated, blatant disregard of the ever-popular UN?

The idea that anyone, even someone as admittedly dumb as Dubya, would go to war to put a little extra cash in Halliburton's pocket is insulting and naive. Halliburton's pockets could have been lined quite nicely without thousands of deaths and a graveyard in the middle of NYC. Say the war is a lie--we're all allowed an opinion around here, although I wonder just how many opinions were allowed in Saddam's Iraq. Say people are profitting from death--Michael Moore made a pretty penny, indeed. Just don't manufacture some BS accusations just to justify your position.

[Ionstormsucks]

Does the first choice include the Iraq war? Cause somehow I have the feeling that this is America's worst disaster in recent history....

[mudsling3]

Ok, simpleton. Is the world safer now? And who were the idiots put him on the pedestal in the first place? Trust and obey? You can take your Faith back to your synagogue or wherever it belongs. When is being content a trademark of business? You have to collect some interest like The Man said. Anyone heard of complains from Defense contractors during a war? Anyone no heard of complains of inadequate service from war veterans after a war? Don't BS around here just because picking up a bit more bread crumbs off the table.

[magerette]

Ok, simpleton. Is the world safer now? And who were the idiots put him on the pedestal in the first place? Trust and obey? You can take your Faith back to your synagogue or wherever it belongs. When is being content a trademark of business? You have to collect some interest like The Man said. Anyone heard of complains from Defense contractors during a war? Anyone no heard of complains of inadequate service from war veterans after a war? Don't BS around here just because picking up a bit more bread crumbs off the table.

I'm not sure I understand your argument here, mudsling3, let alone why you are so angry. A commune is not such a horrible place you know. I lived in one in the 60's and the nastiest aspect was getting somebody to do the dishes.

The war was not started by Big Business in all it's evil black colors. It was started by a group of individuals who fanatically hate the U.S. and believe that all of us here should not exist. Would you feel better if this country had done nothing to counter the 9-11 attack? Do you think we would be safer then?

The U.S. government, the Evil Dubya and the Mean-Spirited Republicans are none of them faultless in the situation, but if you would rather put your money on the opposition, it's a free country. I guarantee that every war ever fought has had it's profiteers. Where the bodies lie, the vultures gather.

And what is with the synagogue remark? That was just rude, as well as not making any sense. :S

[Corwin]

Yes, let's have debate, but NO insults either directly, or INDIRECTLY!! ( The synagogue remark was DEFINITELY uncalled for). Take that as a gentle warning. We all know that big business loves a good war and will cheerfully supply and finance both sides. That, however, is not the issue here (though it would make for another lively debate in a different thread) (hint, hint :) ) I don't think the Iraq debacle is actually as bad as the Vietnam conflict, which many of you likely don't remember. Since I was living in Canada at the time, I remember it VERY well!! Simply put, 9-11 changed the WORLD, Katrina didn't. Iraq is having multiple repercussions, but we'll have to wait a few more years before we can judge it properly. Hindsight is 20/20.

[Danicek]

You can take your Faith back to your synagogue or wherever it belongs.

I don't like this type of insults (and I would feel the same if you used mosque, church in that place).

[dteowner]

I'm decidedly agnostic (thinking organized religions of all creeds are the root of much evil in the world), so I'm afraid my "faith" lies purely in the fact that man is a warlike critter. I believe the radical muslim culture (as opposed to main-stream muslim teachings) lends itself to and emphasizes a war-like approach. The whole doctrine is "us versus them", which I believe is in place because it's an excellent way to recruit, rally and control a population. Just as 9-11 solidified the US populace for a few years, "us versus the infidels" has solidified a portion of the muslim population for 2000+ years.

Take a look at the whole Israel/Palestine mess. Regardless of which side of the debate you land on, it's safe to say that nobody can reasonably expect peace in the region. Those folks have been killing each other for thousands of years and that will not be changing any time soon. Both sides have committed enough atrocities thru the years that some brokered piece of paper signed by a handful of politicians (assuming we ever got that far, which would be a surprise to me) will not magically make the nutcases forget and play nice. That's not to say it's not worth a try, but to place one's safety purely in the political process is naive and dangerous.

When a pivotal plank of a culture is the elimination of another culture (see Iran, see Saddam, see ultra-conservative Israeli factions, see the PLO, see Nazi Germany, and if you're Michael Moore see Dubya), violence WILL follow. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Now, there's decent folk like Corwin that think man has the capacity to be a decent critter and that peace is a reasonable goal. I respect folks like that (and even bear a little jealousy), but that ain't me. I'm decent enough to take the first punch, but after that I'm going to beat the bahjeezuz out of you. I've domesticated, but at my core I'm still a violent critter, just like every other animal on this planet.

I suppose the thing that really makes me angry when this issue rears up is that the folks that are screaming about the "unjust war" are the exact same folks that were screaming that Dubya "let 9-11 happen". Either you want someone to take action and you accept the consequences or you want someone to turn the other cheek and you accept those consequences. You simply cannot have it both ways. Similarly, it's always harder to take action than to sit back and bitch about the actions taken, particularly when the vast majority think that bitching doesn't obligate you to offer a better strategy (and "leave Iraq" is not a strategy for keeping the world safe, even if it's possibly a component of such a strategy).

[mudsling3]

I don't like this type of insults (and I would feel the same if you used mosque, church in that place).

My statement is all inclusive and you can substitute anything you want. I just happen to pick the head of an unholy trinity… mother and her two daughter-in-laws. But that’s besides the point I was making: Anyone places his faith on the government and those big bosses behind it is a little... Yeah, I am sure that they wiped off those tears then went to a mall and did some shopping.

[dteowner]

I must be one of the blind, stupid materialists then, cuz I can't figure out what in the heck you're trying to say in that post, mudsling3.

[Corwin]

Me neither!! The difficulty for me, is walking the tightrope between being an idealist and a realist!! I know my history, heck I have an honours degree in it, and I've studied church history in great depth, not only Christian (Caths vs Prots in particular), but that of other faiths. I want to believe that we can all live together in harmony; we do it easily on a small scale in many of our local communities. I've had very close friends who were Jews, Atheists, Hindu, etc, even Catholics!! :biggrin: Why then can't the World as a whole manage to do it? After all, we're just people; we're really all the same in everything that matters.

However, I'm realist enough to learn the lessons of history that there will always be people who want to destroy, who want to tear down, who see everyone who is different ffrom them in anyway, as an enemy!! My problem here, is that I just don't understand that thinking; it's outside my comprehension. I LIKE people of all cultures and I enjoy learning from them; it enriches my life. Why can't others do the same?

[Danicek]

My statement is all inclusive and you can substitute anything you want. I just happen to pick the head of an unholy trinity… mother and her two daughter-in-laws. But that’s besides the point I was making: Anyone places his faith on the government and those big bosses behind it is a little... Yeah, I am sure that they wiped off those tears then went to a mall and did some shopping.

That's particulary interesting. Now, you may try to explain what you are trying to explain. Why were you mixing synagogue in that argument if you were trying to say that noone should place it's faith into the government bosses? This last post of yours seems to indicate that you don't believe they are honest in what they do that they are hypocrites. So what was the sinagugue insult up there? Or are you part of that hilarious group that is preaching about the "seek a Jew behind everything"?

[magerette]

Me neither!! The difficulty for me, is walking the tightrope between being an idealist and a realist!!....

However, I'm realist enough to learn the lessons of history that there will always be people who want to destroy, who want to tear down, who see everyone who is different ffrom them in anyway, as an enemy!! My problem here, is that I just don't understand that thinking; it's outside my comprehension. I LIKE people of all cultures and I enjoy learning from them; it enriches my life. Why can't others do the same?

Maybe because secure and rational people who have the ability to think for themselves instead of swallow whole a lot of propaganda are few and far between? Most people seem to need the support of the hive mind to feel secure.

People are routinely pitted against each other by those who seek power. People living in a state of fear are far easier to control. Demagogues and profit seekers play on the fear of the unknown, or play to their audience's vanity--"Only you are pure. The others are all corrupt." :pout:

No one's better at this than the media, as Geist pointed out in another thread. It tells us who to admire and who to look down upon so we don't have to worry about any painful personal moral dilemmas. What we're hearing from many people like mudsling3 is the result of exposure to this; a mix of inexperience and flattered vanity.

A wonderful example of the confusion of motives in the media is Al Gore, the man who" invented the internet," passing himself off as a scientific clearinghouse on global climate change, playing on people's guilt while spending over $30,000.00 a year on utility bills for his Tennesee mansion. (I'm not arguing the pros and cons of any actual global warming that might be going on, btw, just saying who in their right mind would appoint Al Gore to be an authority on living a simple, energy-conscious lifestyle. )

But I digress. :)

I agree with Corwin. Every culture and every human being is unique and has something to offer. If the species is going to survive, sooner or later a greater level of tolerance and understanding has got to happen.

[dteowner]

Jealousy is a great motivator, and there will always be "haves" and "have nots" in the world, even if it's just on a relative scale. Particularly these days when people think they're entitled to things (and the USA might be the biggest offender on that front), you'll always hit the convergence of a "have not" that also favors violent responses.

[abbaon]

"us versus the infidels" has solidified a portion of the muslim population for 2000+ years.
Your math is a little off.

[mudsling3]

dteowner, you don't have to jump infront of every flying bullet. If you read my first post, I just suggested that a few can always capitalized on misfortune of the mass. Since Corwin and others have elaborated so well, I don't have anything more to add. I did slip in my opinion of organized religions to further emphersis my suspicion of those in power...jews or not

[Moriendor]

Personally, I think that "worst disaster" and 9/11 are terms that don't go hand in hand very well at all. 9/11 was a disaster for roughly 3000 folks and their families but for "America" as a country, it was like hitting the jackpot. What more could you ask for than to be a nation that stands above all law (even above the self-made ones)?
The USA was a super power on paper before the events of 9/11 but 9/11 allowed them to show the world what exactly being a "super power" means in practice. That must have been and -despite the small difficulties along the way- probably still is a dream come true for the powers that be.

Also, the invasion of Iraq will pay off long term. I believe that you have to think about this stuff on a larger, longer term scale. The invasion of Iraq is like killing two (or more) birds with one stone.
There is the issue of creating a buffer zone between Iran and Israel and generally providing protection for Israel which is surrounded by aggressive Muslim nations.
Then there is the issue of easier access to Iran and Syria, countries that are arch enemies of the US and are likely to become a problem in the near, mid-term future.
There's also the issue of the proximity to Afghanistan. Just look at a map of the region. Controlling Iraq and Afghanistan and thus "sandwiching" Iran is strategically important.
Same goes for exercising a certain level of control over Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan (who got nukes).
Next, there is also the issue of oil but not on a short term basis as some people might think. I strongly believe that the plan is to be right there or at least nearby when oil becomes a scarce resource in 70, 100 or 150 years (no one really knows, right?) so establishing a presence in the region now makes sense in that regard. The US and its economy rely very much on a steady stream of oil from the Arabian peninsula.
And finally there is the political issue of converting a Muslim nation over to democracy (or at least something vaguely resembling democracy like Turkey) which could set an example for other nations in the region. This will only succeed if Iraq becomes a healthy and wealthy state so that other Muslim nations will want to follow their shining example (long way to go obviously).
That's a very risky experiment that the US have started there in my opinion. Pulling out now is the worst that the US could do. They've made the mess and now they need to clean it up. Kinda like Gordon Freeman :biggrin: .

So in summary, I do believe that the US has only profited from 9/11. The country is now able to exercise an unmatched level of control over its own citizens, foreign citizens and over whole nations in the mid East. What more could the political leaders of the US ask for? 9/11 has opened the gates to their dream world.

[magerette]

Moriendor, you are definitely a pragmatist!:)

[dteowner]

Your math is a little off.
Yes and no. True, the Muslim religion hasn't been around that long so technically 2000+ years is inaccurate, but I would offer that the folks that would eventually become "Arab Muslims" have been banding together to repel outside invaders since the days of Greek and Roman dominance.

@Moriendor- Even as a Dubya defender, I think you might be giving him and his cronies a little too much credit for forethought. ;) Right, wrong, or indifferent, you certainly make a compelling case.

@mudsling- No harm done. I'm used to carrying the flag and falling on the grenades around here. Dubya's policies are not terribly popular, particularly in a forum with a large European contingent. I think Dubya has flubbed a few things, but I feel much better with our nation doing something rather than sitting back waiting for the next attack.

[abbaon]

If you understand the difference between the terms 'Arabs', 'Muslims', 'Arab Muslims', and 'the folks that would eventually become "Arab Muslims"', then you have no excuse for using them interchangeably.

[dteowner]

I probably don't understand the true finer points of the terms, but either way it was sloppy--guilty as charged. My apologies.

[Corwin]

The problem with language, is that we frequently use (and confuse) the same terms to mean different things. I remember when German and Nazi were synonymus (sp?). Now, no-one would confuse the two. I think the media has done a 'wonderful' job of confusing terms like Arab and Muslim as well. It's so much easier to 'keep things simple' for the poor, mindless plebs!!

[Ionstormsucks]

Well, just my 2 cents on the whole 9/11 thing. As someone said, it was an act commited by "a group of people that fanatically hated the United States." How that justifies to invade to countries is beyond my understanding. The aftermath of 9/11 is a sad play that the American Government should be ashamed of (and believe me - I'm not anti-American, I love America for many reasons, but these were terrible acts). We should not forget that both wars cost the lives (and limbs) of many people that were not involved in the acts of 9/11. And they will continue to cost lives when most Americans have forgotten that these wars happened, thanks to cluster bombs, and all that crap that is still lying around in these countries.
No doubt, the Taliban, as well as Saddam Hussein and his Bath party were terrible regimes, but one should not forget who established them in the first place. It is aslo very questionable if these countries were actual threads to the US.
The fact that the American Government again and again tried to link Saddam Hussein to Al Quaida (a connection that is totally off since Saddam was a worldly leader), and the justification that the Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (although the U.N. clearly said that it has none) makes you curious what was really motivating the American government. Personally, I would be very surprised if it were not economical reasons.
Ironically, the U.S. government started the war by linking Iraq to Al Quaida, a connection that did not exist, until the U.S. started the war. Cause it is now that members of Al Quaida and other fundamentalist groups are entering Iraq to fight side by side with former Bath party members. Chances are also quite good that Iraq will see a shift back to theocracy over the next few years... maybe not an official one, but tendencies are already obvious.
Anyway, guess 9/11 was America's worst disaster in recent years. Sad that they also made it the world's worst disaster (cause this will sooner or later affect all western countries - if it does not already). It's also sad that America (or better its government) worsened that disaster to a yet uncalculable degree by showing a reaction that was absolutely inappropriate.

[txa1265]

I wouldn't say that Afghanistan was inappropriate, but Iraq certainly was. I remember in the months leading up to it thinking that he was taking us on a direct and deliberate course towards invading Iraq on flimsy pretenses at best. Afghanistan was ruled by a group that was essentially a terrorist organization itself. And unfortunately the distraction and negative world impact of Iraq has hurt the efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

[dteowner]

So then, Spain' leadership, making such a big deal about not taking part in Iraq, sure made their citizens safe, right? Those train bombs didn't happen because the nutcases were so impressed with the peaceful approach. Could that massive loss of life been prevented had Spain taken a more proactive approach to the problem?

[Gorath]

@Moriendor- Even as a Dubya defender, I think you might be giving him and his cronies a little too much credit for forethought. ;) Right, wrong, or indifferent, you certainly make a compelling case.


Not GW Bush. ;) Jeb Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and many others. The Wikipedia articles on them and the FNAC are really interesting. Especially Rumsfeld and Cheney are deeply involved in the "history" of the current conflicts with Iraq or North Korea - and have not long ago lead companies with significant business interests in the energy and infrastructure sector especially in high-risk countries.

For certain industries 9/11 was a godsend. The military sector delivers the weapons, the tax payer pays for the war, "infrastructure" rebuilds the country, "energy" signs long-time contracts to secure cheap oil for the USA and the money needed to pay back the depts for the infrastructure contracts.
Brilliant plan. The only thing they didn´t expect was that the war was impossible to win. Now they´re in trouble. Staying there is not good, and pulling out is equally risky.

For the industry nations 9/11 was a huge disaster. It was a signal that we are not invulnerable - and that we´ll never be.
On a global scale, outside the political spectrum, it was insignificant though. A few thousand people dead. Compare this to starvation in Africa, people killed in civil war everyday, the number of people killed by alcohol, tobacco or traffic accidents every year, the flood catastrophy after that earthquake a few years ago.

Reg. "democracy":
It´s not clear that democracy is a viable political system in in that region. Most (all?) countries over there have no experience in democracy yet. Their leaders certainly don´t want democracy. Even the advantages for the people is unclear, and the consequences for the rest of the world even more. What happens if extremists really win an election in a country which has nuclear weapons?

[Maylander]

Getting George W. Bush as president for eight long years is by far the biggest disaster. Economy going down, thousands dying, schools and hospitals deteriorating, diplomacy with the rest of the world down the drain. I'm not saying Bill was the greatest guy in the world, but the overall impression of the US was a whole lot better back then, and the country was trusted by the rest of the world to act as a representative for democracy.

[Moriendor]

So then, Spain' leadership, making such a big deal about not taking part in Iraq, sure made their citizens safe, right? Those train bombs didn't happen because the nutcases were so impressed with the peaceful approach. Could that massive loss of life been prevented had Spain taken a more proactive approach to the problem?

What got Spain the bombs wasn't their role in Iraq but the fact that they were part of the "coalition of the willing". Not only that. They were screaming "We are with the U.S. and we're part of the coalition" from the top of their lungs back in 2001/2002, using the same rhetoric as the Bush administration ("if you're not with us then you're against us" and all that blabla). That's why they became a prime target of Al-Kaida.
Well, that... and the fact that Spain is a very liberal country where it's relatively easy to work in the underground to pull off a bombing. Also, I'm pretty sure that the geographic location of Spain helped a lot as well. Spain is quite easily accessible from Northern Africa. The country has a lot of problems to keep the illegal immigrants from the Canary Islands and Northern Africa at bay. If there is one European country (that openly advertises its alliance with the US, that is) where you would most expect that Al-Kaida terrorists will slip through the cracks occasionally then it's Spain. With Italy a close runner-up.
It's not surprising at all that Spain got hit. What's more surprising is that there haven't been more bombings across Europe yet (especially in Italy).

[magerette]

I personally don't believe in war being a very productive solution to any situation, and I have to agree that it is powered by idealism but steered by cynicism.

I also think it's highly questionable to believe that one can invade another country and foist one's own system of government on them and succeed without a massive use of force. As was said in another thread, we all get the government we deserve, unless someone "gives" us another one. The whole operation is a cocked-up nightmare as far as I'm concerned.

But rhetoric and denial aren't going to solve the issues in the MidEast. I would love to see them solved by the people involved--but their solution at present seems to include some rather aggressive behaviour towards each other and many other nations as well as the U.S.

I think we had little choice about Afghanistan, but I also believe that invading Iraq was a very unfortunate decision. The American people(as distinct from the leadership we no doubt deserve :embarrassed: ) were manipulated into it-- not for the first or last time--and it's obvious the manipulation was motivated by economic factors.

Thus the anger and desire to reject the war that we now have. But because of our responsibility for the very act of aggression that caused the outcry, don't we have a committment to stabilize the situation, not just walk out on a chaotic reign of terror and let the biggest dog win?

Unfortunately, I don't think anybody is very sure on how to do this.:uneasy:

[dteowner]

Getting George W. Bush as president for eight long years is by far the biggest disaster. Economy going down, thousands dying, schools and hospitals deteriorating, diplomacy with the rest of the world down the drain. I'm not saying Bill was the greatest guy in the world, but the overall impression of the US was a whole lot better back then, and the country was trusted by the rest of the world to act as a representative for democracy.Anyone in the manufacturing sector could tell you that the US economy was headed for an iceberg over a year before Dubya took office. Our media, in typical fashion, chose not to say a word about it during Clinton's reign and then screamed bloody murder two days after Dubya took office.

Slick Willie was, overall, a horrible president, but he was also the most skillful politician I've ever seen. The guy was absolutely brilliant at deflecting trouble and shifting blame. Reagan was the best politican since FDR, but Clinton blew both their doors off.

[txa1265]

If there is one European country (that openly advertises its alliance with the US, that is) where you would most expect that Al-Kaida terrorists will slip through the cracks occasionally then it's Spain. With Italy a close runner-up.

That would mean a lot more if they weren't savagely blowing up their own children in schools, women in markets and peace seekers in mosques ...

[Ionstormsucks]

I think we had little choice about Afghanistan, but I also believe that invading Iraq was a very unfortunate decision. The American people(as distinct from the leadership we no doubt deserve :embarrassed: ) were manipulated into it-- not for the first or last time--and it's obvious the manipulation was motivated by economic factors.


I agree on most of what you're saying, but on Afghanistan I have to disagree. You always have a choice. War is a terrible thing. We tend to push the horrors of war away, because its not happening here - not in modern western countries. It's happening in the middle east or somewhere even further away. But fact is, just because the media doesn't show the dead or wounded it doesn't mean they don't exist. How do you want to explain to a child that just lost her legs due to a cluster bomb that she was just unfortunate, but that overall the war was just and right?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that getting rid of the Taliban wasn't a good thing. But I had the privilege not to be in Afghanistan when it was attacked by the U.S. What I want to say is - it's easy to say "Let's go to war!" if that war doesn't take place in your own country and you don't have to fight in it. But if you're in the middle of things... I don't know. War is a dirty business, and I'm glad I never had to fight in one.

[txa1265]

I agree on most of what you're saying, but on Afghanistan I have to disagree. You always have a choice. War is a terrible thing.
I feel terrible for the people of Afghanistan - they have spent more than two decades embroiled in conflict after conflict because of their leadership and the choices they have made to play on the world stage.

[dteowner]

ISS, what would you say would have been an appropriate response to 9-11 if going after the Taliban was not the right choice?

[txa1265]

ISS, what would you say would have been an appropriate response to 9-11 if going after the Taliban was not the right choice?

The problem is this - the 'Bush Doctrine' as stated after 9/11 was to go after terrorists wherever they are hiding. I support that well enough, so long as it is properly tactically executed and justified. Problem is that has turned into nation building, which I do *not* support.

[Ionstormsucks]

ISS, what would you say would have been an appropriate response to 9-11 if going after the Taliban was not the right choice?
Mate, I'm not saying I have answers to all questions. I'm just saying it's easy to call for war if you're neither a soldier that has to fight in that war nor is that war fought in your own country.
I would have prefered if the U.S. had at least tried to use other options first (like economic pressure, etc.). I'm not quite sure if just getting rid of a system (no matter how bad it might actually be) is enough in such a complicated case like Afghanistan.
The world is damn big and there will always be a country that will hide terrorists. You cannot fight them all. You drive them out of Afghanistan and they'll go to another country to continue their fight. Even after the U.S. got rid of the Taliban various bombings all over the world happened.
Do you believe that the world is a safer place that it was before 9/11? I don't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pointing with fingers here and saying it's all your fault. I like the fact that the Taliban and Saddam and his Bath party are no longer in control of these countries. I'm just not sure if it had not been better to try a non-violent solution. After all violence breeds more violence and that seems to be exactely what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment.

[Dhruin]

ISS, what would you say would have been an appropriate response to 9-11 if going after the Taliban was not the right choice?

I would say going after the actual terrorists themselves rather than obliterating an already devasted country. I am convinced the attack on both Afghanistan and Iraq were motivated by political expediency (with bonus points in nation building and a nice profit for Haliburton) rather than actual necessity because neither even attempts to address anything remotely connected to the root problems and the second is largely built on a rickety platform of misinformation (WoMD).

As far as I know, Saudi Arabia continues to pump out brainwashed west-haters from government funded madrassas...what has the US done about that? Isn't that where most of the 9/11 terrorists actually came from? I can appreciate it's a minefield that is just too difficult to tackle in practice but that just underscores the reality: the courses of action were designed to show action rather than redress the problem or undertake real justice. And to divert attention from the fact that Bin Laden remains at large.

Just on a side-issue (and I'm sorry to smack you over the head dte) but I noticed your snide reference to the UN earlier in the thread...it is indeed a lame duck on many issues (although more effective on others) but the US is one of the obvious problems. You don't want me to bore you with a list of treaties that other countries accept as basic tenets of law or human rights (a simple example: UN Charter on the Rights of the Child) that the US won't sign. So, the UN is forever doomed to fail in some areas because our various countries (mine included) don't like to be told what to do, even for the greater good of humanity.

[Maylander]

In my opinion, war is never a good option. The only thing you achieve is to make even more people angry - terrorism has gone up quite a lot since the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the terrorists have never had an easier time to recruit lots of members. So how to fight it?

Enlightenment is one way to go. These people do not have the medias we do, they do not have access to any source of information about anything other than what they are told.

Scenario: Your child dies from polluted water because of bombing in the area. Because you have no computer, internet or TV, you have no idea why these strange people just bombed nearby areas, causing the pollution. Suddenly, you get approached by a friendly man who not only offers you the chance to avenge your child, but also pay you well enough to get out of poverty.

Is it so hard to understand that this man, with no knowledge of why his child was killed, will take this opportunity? Will further bombing really solve the problem and stop scenarios like this from occurring? If these people had access to proper schools, liberated medias and internet, things would have been very different, but the fact of the matter is - they don't. They consider the US the big enemy because that's all they see - they see American soldiers and bombers invade their country and kill innocent people, without having the slightest idea why.

Like I said, enlightenment is the way to go. Helping the world become a better place by giving people education will also fight terrorism in the process - it is a lot harder to turn an educated man with a good job into a suicide bomber than someone with nothing to live for.

I know this is not exactly a flawless plan, but the consequences will never be as horrible as those of a war, it certainly won't cost more money, and it won't get as many people killed. For 10.000 years we have been fighting each other, without any good coming from it, maybe it's time to try a new approach?

[txa1265]

Enlightenment is one way to go. These people do not have the medias we do, they do not have access to any source of information about anything other than what they are told.

It is a great thought, but idealistic and - I think - naive. Look at this week - Sunni Muslim savages blowing up peacefully praying Shiite Muslims. These are people who have access to everything they need to be enlightened, but choose to mass-slaughter innocents instead.

[Maylander]

They are religious fanatics, not your average terrorist. All religions have such fanatics, and there is very little to do about that I'm afraid. However, if we can reduce their access to resources and recruits by enlightening everyone around them, they'd be less of a problem themselves.

Fanatics are, and always will be, a problem, whether it's sports fanatics rioting, religious fanatics on various crusades or political fanatics who so strongly believe their way is best they are willing to kill for it.

[magerette]

On a more uplifting note, here is someone who is trying to do something positive about the situation--you youngsters probably haven't got your issue of AARP magazine handy :) :
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/big_idea_peacetalk.html

[Maylander]

Always good to see that some people still prefer a non-violent solution. The world definetly needs more Gandhis. :)

[Bartacus]

I choose the Hurricane as worst dissaster. It made painfully clear that in response to environmental dissasters the US isn't prepared at all. A similar thing(don't know for sure it's the same hurricane) happened to Mexico, but like 3 months later most of the stuff was rebuild. There was some logic however a very cruel one. In New Orleans most of the people are Collored if I'm not mistaken. Now I know for whom they usualy vote for -> Democrats. The President is of the Republican party and cares less (I don't say that he doesn't care at all) for people that don't vote for him anyhow.
In this dissaster precautions could have been taken and off course you can't fprsee everything, but in this perticular event almost none were taken. This lead to a storm of protest against the Bush administration.

9/11 had a serious impact, but now when I look back, I think it was suspected. I mean by this that a terroristic attack on US soil was just waiting to happen. It strikes me as odd that Al Quaeda used the planes like Tom Clancy(Jack Ryan series) described it. Still it's not something one can really protect himself from.

[Zaleukos]

The boxing day tsunami killed what, 250 000 people?

I would have voted Iraq if it had been on the list. Among the two 9/11 is the more damaging in terms of lives (3000 vs how many?) and in terms of fallout.

It could have been managed better if it had stopped with Afghanistan, but at a minimum suspect regimes like China, central Aisan -stans, Egypt, Russia, and various tinpot middle east regimes have been given a carte blanche for their own little "wars on terror", generally persecuting any kind of opposition.
If you include Iraq the process also severely undermined American leadership of the world and hurt unity among the western countries that should be allies.

[qu0te]
9/11 had a serious impact, but now when I look back, I think it was suspected. I mean by this that a terroristic attack on US soil was just waiting to happen. It strikes me as odd that Al Quaeda used the planes like Tom Clancy(Jack Ryan series) described it. Still it's not something one can really protect himself from.[/quote]

Very much correct. Some form of attack was pretty much unavoidable. Increasingly spectacular attacks were carried out (or sometimes foiled) ever since the gulf war (I recall the first major Al-Quaeda bomb against a US base in Saudi in 91 or 92). The middle east is in a mess and a lot of people have an interest in blaming that on the biggest guy in the world rather than dealing with their own corruption and shortcomings... And dont discount Clancy:) He is a patriotic pulp writer, but he has a very good grasp of what kind of scenarios the military and intel community actually consider.

By comparison Katrina mainly caused material damages and a (huge) temporary relocation of citizens. Luckily the US society is strong enough to handle that, and I doubt any significant fallout will remain five years from now. More Americans had their daily lives affected by it compared to 9/11, but the long terms effect will be far less problematic.

[JemyM]

Re-electing George W. Bush is not on the list.

[Sir Markus]

Re-electing George W. Bush is not on the list.

Why should it be? He's the only one with enough stones to face fundamentalist islam, oh and I'm sorry, but violence is the only language these folks understand. So if we're going to get our point across, violence is going to be a necessary evil.

The democrats want to run away like little girls and not face some DAMNED serious issues.

[Corwin]

yeah, but what do you really think!! :)

[Maylander]

Violence has never, ever solved a conflict in a good way. We've been fighting for 10.000 years, and not once has a war had a good outcome. Not once. Often they seem justified at the moment, and may even seem like they achieve something, but as time passes the true consequences become clear.

[txa1265]

Violence has never, ever solved a conflict in a good way. We've been fighting for 10.000 years, and not once has a war had a good outcome. Not once. Often they seem justified at the moment, and may even seem like they achieve something, but as time passes the true consequences become clear.
American Revolution?
French Revolution?
American Civil War?
WW II?

[curious]

as much as i agree with Maylander in my heart and soul, Mike's comment is hard to refute. i would argue that sometimes violence is the only way in which to deal with a situation. granted i believe that over 90% of the time that it is used it is not necessary or at least at the scale to which it is implemented. war however i completely agree with Maylander in that because of its scope/scale it is not necessary and it is the product of bad diplomacy, weak tacticians, and an overall failure to understand and be prepared for reasons for the conflict.

[txa1265]

i completely agree with Maylander in that because of its scope/scale it is not necessary

Absolutely agree - when you see conflict as 'part of the package' rather than something to be avoided at all costs you end up with ... um ... Iraq ...

[bjon045]

September 11 was worse in my opinion, as it could have been avoided if airlines had decent security checks and the pilot areas were completely separate as security experts have been advising for the last 20-30 years.

Iraq is going to be a problem for the next 10 years at least, because in my opinion the war was never actually won. The US military is constrained by a too tight a code of conduct to actually do what has to be done. They need the full army in there and set up a secure border and then perform house to house sweeps and completely destroy every last piece of resistance, of course this would never happen as it would offend peoples sensibilities back home.

[dteowner]

As I've said several times, it's always easier to sit and second-guess someone than it is to be the one to take action.

[bjon045]

As I've said several times, it's always easier to sit and second-guess someone than it is to be the one to take action.

Agreed, I am interested in who you think is the one taking action though, the soldiers? their commanding officers? or the white house?

[dteowner]

Yes to all 3. The commanding officers are doing a decent job considering they're constrained by modern day "gentleman's war". Dubya stepped up and did something about Saddam. While Europe wrung its hands and the UN rattled its swords, Dubya made the decision to take action against a murdering tyrant who had consistently thumbed his nose at the "savior-of-mankind UN" (see Kuwait, see weapons inspections, see food-fer-oil disception). I'm not so blind to believe all of Dubya's motivations were righteous, but I think the result was a good one, and the ultimate result of a democracy in the Middle East will be stellar assuming the Democrats don't shove thru a cut-n-run before the Iraqi government can stand on its own.

[Fenris]

Still I think if Saddam reigned another 100 years he wouldn't have the body-count that the americans have caust with their invasion.

[Fenris]

American Revolution?
French Revolution?
American Civil War?
WW II?

The French Revolution was a massacre that only enabled Napoleon to rise and to start another great war. At the end of Napoleons Wars everything was like it was before the Revolution - with the exception that a lot of people were killed... (oh... and my homeland franconia was swallowed by bavaria :( )

I think WW II could have been avoided if the victors would have been wiser at the end of WW I. The victorious nations have basically doomed the new german democracy with their conditions for peace. Their only Intention was to punish Germany for their losses and IMO this was the Seed that Hitler has reaped. Not that WW II could be avoided when Hitler was in power... if the americans wouldn't have come to us, we would have attacked America as soon as possible, that is if we wouldn't be beaten by the Sowjets alone and the Result would have been a communistic Europe...

The American Wars seem to have good outcomes though...

[dteowner]

Still I think if Saddam reigned another 100 years he wouldn't have the body-count that the americans have caust with their invasion.I would say his slaughter of the Kurds might already outnumber all the deaths which you lay at the feet of the US, even though the VAST majority of violence is now Iraqi vs. Iraqi.

[Ionstormsucks]

The American Wars seem to have good outcomes though...

"Good outcomes" sounds cynical in this context. I admit that for Germany, and on a greater scale the outcome of WWII was decent, but as soon as you look at other countries, later wars or a more individual level, the term "good outcome" seems to be utterly strange and inappropriate.

If you think about the wars that were fought during the cold war in peripheral countries of the world (sucks if your own country is destroyed, therfore you fight your war in poor countries, preferably far away) than I'd think all these wars had negative consequences for the directly involved parties. Think about Vietnam, think about Afghanistan, think about Iraq. Especially Afghanistan and Iraq are interesting in this context since both regimes that the US fought so vehemently lately were indirectly established or directly backed up by the US.

I have to admit that I find it disgusting to discuss war on such an abstract level, sitting comfortably in a safe and rich country behind my laptop. Nonetheless I'll give it a try.
I have the feeling that wars like the recent Iraq war are very problematic because politically impossible. The main problem is not to invade Iraq, the problem is to establish another political system. To do such a thing you need a tremendous amount of money and a political stability in your own country that is hardly given in any modern democracy. Just imagine what will happen if the US withdraws the US forces now... I fear that in the forseeable future the political pressure will become so strong that the US government will have to exactely that - in my opinion with absolutely devastating long-time consequences for Iraq. I hope I'm wrong...

What makes wars like the ones named above especially scandalous is the fact that every expert on the middle east or arab world with half a respectable reputation foretold the things that are happening right now.

[Fenris]

I was only talking about the 4 Wars txa 1265 mentioned... no doubt Americas recent military Adventures are a disaster and some actions taken against smaller nations in the cold war were outright evil - but hey, it was a war, even if it was only a cold war. Evil things are necessary in any war.. you can't fight a clean war, not even a cold one... on the other side IMO the war in Afghanistan was necessary.

[txa1265]

I think WW II could have been avoided if the victors would have been wiser at the end of WW I.

Absolutely agree - one of the lessons learned early in history class ... we need to send more world leaders to history class.

[Corwin]

We'd need to teach most of them to READ first!! :)

[magerette]

Yes, as we say here in Oklahoma--"Buy em books and buy 'em books, and they just eat the covers.""

[Dez]

September 11 was worse in my opinion, as it could have been avoided if airlines had decent security checks and the pilot areas were completely separate as security experts have been advising for the last 20-30 years.

While it is true that security measures were somewhat lacking... No matter what measures are taken, terrorists will always find a way. You can put all the passengers in narcotic sleep and even then you can't be 100% sure that everthing goes like planned. At the moment travelling via airplane isn't very comfortable... All those security checks only cause huge delays at the airports and these latest regulations are plain rediculous. They make us passengers take off our shoes, disallow carrying drinks to airplane etc..whats next?

I don't know how to prevent future terrorist acts, but I do know this security show at the airports won't stop it.

[mudsling3]

HLS are bunch of bloodsuckers don't do sh*t, are as effective as cops preventing crimes in a rundown neighborhood. What needed is common sense... how can those f*ckers who accepted big cash to train future-hijacker-to-be got so numb? Why would someone want to fly without learning how to land? External threat only strengthens oneself, but how to deal with something is rotten within?

[bjon045]

While it is true that security measures were somewhat lacking... No matter what measures are taken, terrorists will always find a way.

It is actually possible to prevent planes from being able to be hijacked, all that is required is a completely separate compartment for the pilots with only one-way communication available.

Yes, the potential hijackers can still shoot out the windows and kill everybody on-board and probably even cause the plane to crash, but they cannot gain control of the plane and crash it into a building or take the plane to a hostile airstrip.

Security experts have been saying this for DECADES, hijackings used to happen once a week in africa, and I recall a particular case where a pilot who had to ditch his plane after it was hijacked (killing about 90% of the passengers) a few years back had been hijacked 3 times(!!!!!) before that incident.

[curious]

unless pilots are replaced by robots programmed to not open the door i seriously doubt that a pilot would allow the crew and passengers to be slaughter for the safety of the plane and its hijacked destination. i have no idea how many planes have been hijacked but i'm not aware of too many that were ever used weapons and i doubt a rational pilot would assume as much. a pilots duty is to protect the plane, crew, and passengers. if the plane itself becomes a threat it is up to the government to 'take it from there'. personaly i would rather have defensive measures taken on the plane itself rather than some of the current parades. would people get upset if they had the cabins rigged with knock out gas so at the mere sight of a weapon it could be released, and everyone gets a free plane ticket, and the offenders change their names to sally.

[magerette]

curious wrote:
would people get upset if they had the cabins rigged with knock out gas so at the mere sight of a weapon it could be released, and everyone gets a free plane ticket, and the offenders change their names to sally.

Great idea, except...I'm sure the legal profession would find that this violated hijacker's civil rights. :pout: And can you imagine what would happen if it were a false alarm and somebody bumped their head ---- whiplash!!!:boogie:

On second thought, most of the airlines are so close to bankruptcy that it probably wouldn't be worth anyone's while to sue. ;)

[curious]

granted if someone got hurt there could be legal trouble, but i would much rather know that hijackers would be less likely to succeed. and if people don't have there seatbelts on then sucks to be them. but overall and even if it happened as a false alarm it would give people a story to tell their grandkids and coworkers, which everyone can always use more of. i also thought about a robot attack dog( or other hearty animal) , but that might have more complications;)

[bjon045]

unless pilots are replaced by robots programmed to not open the door i seriously doubt that a pilot would allow the crew and passengers to be slaughter for the safety of the plane and its hijacked destination. i have no idea how many planes have been hijacked but i'm not aware of too many that were ever used weapons and i doubt a rational pilot would assume as much. a pilots duty is to protect the plane, crew, and passengers.

The point is if airlines followed what the security experts have been saying is there would be no door to open!! Pilots would never know anything was wrong in the passenger compartment, that is why they are completely isolated. A pilot CANNOT do anything to resolve a hijacking situation. If hijackers know they cannot alter the destination of a plane then they will not attempt to hijack it, of course it can still be used for a terrorism act but that is completely different than the plane being hijacked.

A pilots duty is to fly the plane, not protect anyone other than to perform due care while flying. If it was their duty to protect anyone they would receive training as such.

[curious]

since the dawn of transportation it has been the duty of the pilot/captain/whatever to protect the crew/passengers/cargo. if the the person at top is not responsilbe then who the hell is. saying the captain is not responsible is like saying the president isn't responsible for the safety of the citizens in their country. does he need to be steven segal? no. what he/she needs to be is always knowledgable and certainly not ignorant to;) any situation that arrises. why on earth would anyone travel on a plane, bus, or train if they new their lives meant nothing the instant that a terroism threat arose. that is bloody terroism!

[bjon045]

Hijackings would cease to happen if they did what security experts have said, so I think your point is moot.

As for saying a captain is responsible for the safety of passengers outside the scope of his duties (to fly the plane) that is absolutely ridiculous. This is not the Age of pirates where the captain was expected to go down with the ship and fight on deck with his men, this is an age where the captain is responsible for getting people from point A to point B and that is all.

Under current US aviation legislation I believe Air Marshall's outrank the Pilots if an act of terrorism or a hijacking occurs (in US airspace at least).

Pilots are not trained to negotiate with terrorists, they are not trained to fight terrorists, if they actually tried to do something they would probably make the situation worse not better.

Comparing a pilot to the president isn't really very accurate, how about a bus driver? Not all bus drivers are like Sandra Bullock in Speed.

[Corwin]

I wish all bus drivers at least looked like Sandra Bullock!! :biggrin:

[JemyM]

Why should it be? He's the only one with enough stones to face fundamentalist islam, oh and I'm sorry, but violence is the only language these folks understand. So if we're going to get our point across, violence is going to be a necessary evil.
The democrats want to run away like little girls and not face some DAMNED serious issues.

What have Bush done against fundamentalist Islam so far?

[Ionstormsucks]

The point is if airlines followed what the security experts have been saying is there would be no door to open!! Pilots would never know anything was wrong in the passenger compartment, that is why they are completely isolated. A pilot CANNOT do anything to resolve a hijacking situation. If hijackers know they cannot alter the destination of a plane then they will not attempt to hijack it, of course it can still be used for a terrorism act but that is completely different than the plane being hijacked.

A pilots duty is to fly the plane, not protect anyone other than to perform due care while flying. If it was their duty to protect anyone they would receive training as such.

The problem with experts is that they often create causal relationships that work out very well in theory, but prove erroneous in real situations. And there are other aspects to consider in what you mentioned above - for example the moral aspect.
I think that such a plan - to completly isolate the pilots from the passengers -would never work out. Just imagine there would be an emergency in the passenger compartment of an airplane, e.g. a person with a heart attack. There are many situations in which the pilots just have to know what's going on, since they might be forced to land on another airport. An in these cases a one-way communication might just prove fatal. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what kind of experts came up with such a plan, but to me it sounds like something from a cheap action movie.
I also think that from a moral point of view something like that would never work out - just imagine something would happen in the passenger compartment. Indirectly the pilots would always be responsible since they are the highest authorities in an airplane... that's just a fact. Imagine if criminals would hijack a plane and threaten to kill every single passenger if the pilot does not change course.

The problem with causal relationships like "criminals won't try to hijack a plane because they cannot alter the destination of the plane" doesn't really work because it's based on logic, but acts of crime and violence are prodominantly based on emotion which overrules logic. There are very few ciriminals who take into account that their plan could go wrong and that they might be caught.
Logic does very seldom apply for "normal" criminals and it certainly does not apply for fanatics or fundamentalists, and I would think that most airplane hijackings are politically motivated crimes.

I'm also not quite sure why not being able to change the destination should criminals from hijacking a plane... after all at some point of other there will be a contact with the outside world. At the latest when the plane has landed the hijackers would be able to communicate their demands. And then they would probably ask for the plane being fueled and a pilot who will fly them to their desired destination. So I don't see the big advantage in separating the pilots from the passengers...

[bjon045]

I also think that from a moral point of view something like that would never work out - just imagine something would happen in the passenger compartment. Indirectly the pilots would always be responsible since they are the highest authorities in an airplane... that's just a fact. Imagine if criminals would hijack a plane and threaten to kill every single passenger if the pilot does not change course.


There isn't a moral dilemma as you have a cabin manager who relays the request to the command center which then gives the pilots new orders.

The problem with causal relationships like "criminals won't try to hijack a plane because they cannot alter the destination of the plane" doesn't really work because it's based on logic, but acts of crime and violence are prodominantly based on emotion which overrules logic.

I'm am not sure I agree with this. Maybe hijacking a bus might work that way, but hijacking a decent size plane takes planning and the hijackers will have a clear plan most of the time, i.e. in africa they normally get the pilot to fly them to a safe country, or in the middle east they might plan to land the plane at a friendly airbase and take the passengers hostage. If they know this cannot happen they will plan something else (i.e. hijacking a smaller plane or perhaps a bus - hopefully not driven by Sandra Bullock).

I'm also not quite sure why not being able to change the destination should criminals from hijacking a plane... after all at some point of other there will be a contact with the outside world. At the latest when the plane has landed the hijackers would be able to communicate their demands. And then they would probably ask for the plane being fueled and a pilot who will fly them to their desired destination. So I don't see the big advantage in separating the pilots from the passengers...

That might be the case in an african airport but somehow I can't imagine that happening at JFK or heathrow where they would have an elite military force ready to take out the hijackers. ;) (this might be wishful thinking on my behalf)

Eitherway the situation is a thousand times better than it currently is, where ANYBODY can easily gain access to the pilots, kill them, and then fly the plan straight into a building or the ground.

[curious]

i know since 2001 but possibily before every plane i have flown on has had a locked cockpit. i wouldn't step within five feet of one either unless i have a deathwish.

[bjon045]

i know since 2001 but possibily before every plane i have flown on has had a locked cockpit. i wouldn't step within five feet of one either unless i have a deathwish.

If you have a child there is a pretty good chance they will let you and your kid up into the cockpit to meet the pilot and have a look at the controls. I've been up there twice, this wasn't on an american plane, I imagine it wouldn't be that easy there.

[Ionstormsucks]

There isn't a moral dilemma as you have a cabin manager who relays the request to the command center which then gives the pilots new orders.

Well, but this would again mean that there actually IS a link (although indirect) to the passenger compartment. Hijackers could just talk to the command center and therefore indirectly to the pilots... I don't see much of an improvement here - at least not when it comes to hijacking in the sense of kidnapping passengers and taking them hostage.
I therefore would argue that there is a moral aspect because at some point someone has to take responsibility - and it doesn't matter if it's the pilot or the guy in the command center.

The model you're proposing does only work if there is no way of communication between the passenger compartment and the "outside" world... and this kind of model seems a bit too artificial to me.

I'm am not sure I agree with this. Maybe hijacking a bus might work that way, but hijacking a decent size plane takes planning and the hijackers will have a clear plan most of the time, i.e. in africa they normally get the pilot to fly them to a safe country, or in the middle east they might plan to land the plane at a friendly airbase and take the passengers hostage. If they know this cannot happen they will plan something else (i.e. hijacking a smaller plane or perhaps a bus - hopefully not driven by Sandra Bullock).

When I was taking about emotions about this context I didn't mean to imply that plane hijacking is a spontanous act. Let me give you an example: The chances that you get away with a capital crime like murder, kidnapping, hijacking, etc. are relatively low. Most western governments will not negotiate with terrorists, especially not if their demands are nonmonetary (e.g. release of prisoners, etc.). And although everyone knows that, there still is murder, there still is kidnapping, hijacking, and terrorism. Criminals and terrorists do just not take into account that their plan could fail. Take capital punishment for example. Why would anyone ever commit a murder in a state where there capital punishment? But if you look at these states you'll see that there still is muder... all because emotions overrule reason.

If you look at the world today then you have to acknowledge that there are very few safe havens left for hijackers. Almost no country in the world can afford to engage into a conflict with the US or Europe over a few kidnapped tourists. I know it still happens, but such kidnappings are of a rather harmless nature since it's mostly about money - in most cases the hostages go free after several painful weeks or months.


That might be the case in an african airport but somehow I can't imagine that happening at JFK or heathrow where they would have an elite military force ready to take out the hijackers. ;) (this might be wishful thinking on my behalf)

I guess you're right there. Since the late 70's most countries in Europe have such special forces. But these are really the last option - if all else fails it's their turn. I would think that most governments will go the way of de-escalation first.


Eitherway the situation is a thousand times better than it currently is, where ANYBODY can easily gain access to the pilots, kill them, and then fly the plan straight into a building or the ground.
Now, we're talking about terrorism - I think that's a somewhat different situation. There are no demands involved. Terrorists just use an airplane as a weapon. I think that the whole discussion about using planes as weapons is totally exaggerated. The media really presents this as some new way of terrorism and politics give in to that crap.
You cannot fight terrorism by just improving the safety measures on one very specific field. Because then terrorists will just go over to another tactic. Instead on flying planes into towers they'll go back to bombing trains or whatever. Acts of terrorism have to be stopped when they are still in the phase of planning - that is the duty of secret agencies... unfortunately for the US almost all western agencies (not only the American ones) made a pretty shabby job when it comes to 9/11.

[Cm]

Acts of terrorism have to be stopped when they are still in the phase of planning - that is the duty of secret agencies... unfortunately for the US almost all western agencies (not only the American ones) made a pretty shabby job when it comes to 9/11.

I agree. I think the mere fact that 9/11 was a purposeful act done by men rather then an act of nature is what makes it worse for all of us.

[bjon045]

I agree. I think the mere fact that 9/11 was a purposeful act done by men rather then an act of nature is what makes it worse for all of us.

Agreed, and even worse it could have easily been avoided if they couldn't gain access to the cockpit.

[Cleric]

Re-electing George W. Bush is not on the list.

I'll second that! That HAS to be the worst!

I'll never understand why people re-elected him. The Downing street letters and other evidence was out in 2004 that showed pretty conclusively that Bush had cherry picked the information used to make his case to take the US to war in Iraq and that any sane person sitting down and looking at all of the intelligence he had access to would never have made the decision to go into Iraq.

Why so many people choose to ignore this until 2006 I don't understand. I'm proud to say that I've never cast a vote for Bush.

[Corwin]

Hey, neither have I!! :)

[dteowner]

So then, Cleric, were you part of the lynch mob that accused of Bush doing nothing about 9-11?

[Cleric]

Nope.
Actually, I did support his decision to go into Afghanastan after Bin Laden. Shortly after that what few screws he had came lose and he decided to go after Hussein instead.

[magerette]

Has anybody read George Tenet's tell-all about the CIA and WMD? I saw him on 60 Minutes last week and one thing he said really blew my mind.

If I am remembering his words correctly, he said that when he was first called to the White House after 9-11, in the aftermath of the attack, there was already an assumption that the war would be taken into Iraq. That no one ever asked the CIA or intelligence community whether there was any reason to do so...other than the likelihood that Saddam was funding of Al-Quaida.
Naturally, no mention of this was made until..what, six years after the fact?

[Squeek]

George Tenet was getting an advanced degree in International Affairs from Columbia University at around the same time that George W. Bush was developing an alcohol problem and experimenting with cocaine. How could he, or anyone else for that matter, not take the Director of the CIA seriously?

The White House rejected the notion that Sadam Hussein could possibly be arrogant enough to allow millions of his countrymen to suffer for nothing, but it seems it matched his arrogance with its own.

[Ionstormsucks]

If I am remembering his words correctly, he said that when he was first called to the White House after 9-11, in the aftermath of the attack, there was already an assumption that the war would be taken into Iraq. That no one ever asked the CIA or intelligence community whether there was any reason to do so...other than the likelihood that Saddam was funding of Al-Quaida.


Do you honestly think it would have made a difference? The government knew that Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Quaida... and they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. I mean, all this wasn't a big secret... The UN always said there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and every expert on the middle east said that it is very unlikely that Saddam had anything to do with Al-Quaida.
The US government wanted this war - reasons are pretty obvious. It's what all governments do - they manipulate people. And they'll get away with it... that's really the sad part. I mean Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Price - if that isn't ironic I don't know what is.

[magerette]

Do you honestly think it would have made a difference? .

It would have made a difference to me.

If you had been in this country at the time, ISS, you wouldn't have believed the emotions. And that is the best time to manipulate people. Somehow though the karma comes home to roost. There's not a Republican politician in the country who doesn't feel about Bush the way the Dems did about Bill Clinton after the Monica circus. :blush: :p Some of the analysts on PBS(Public TV) were remarking on how none of the candidates at the Republican debate had the stones to even mention the 'B' word.

It says a lot that a professional cynic/aging hippie like myself can still be shocked by knowing without a shadow of a doubt that we were blatantly lied to from the day after the attack, and that the sons and husbands of women all around me have died, been blown up, had various body parts destroyed...because of one man's personal agenda. I worked with two young guys who had done tours in Iraq--one of them has just been sent back. They are not evil war-mongers, just in the National Guard for college money. They seem...unbelievably young, I guess, to me, to have to deal with what they are dealing with. For a lie, a personal vendetta, a profiteering scam, while the old men sit home safe and make the money...

I guess some part of my mind had taken in the WMD argument flaws, but it just didn't penetrate the brainwashing of the time 'til I heard Tenet.

[Ionstormsucks]

If you had been in this country at the time, ISS, you wouldn't have believed the emotions.
Don't get me wrong, I don't judge people... I'm not saying US soldiers are evil or the people that voted for Bush and trusted him are stupid. I'm just saying that this is a very old concept... it's like politics works, long before Bush. You take something that bugs people, something they are not content with or something they fear and then you use it to drive your campaign.

[Squeek]

The US government wanted this war - reasons are pretty obvious. It's what all governments do - they manipulate people.That's right. That's what governments do if they can get away with it. I'll never understand why, really. Government could do so much good.

I think Bush wanted to do the right thing. From his point of view, Sadam deserved to be captured and put on trial. We all know what a bad guy Sadam was, and let's not forget that he violated the terms of surrender in the first Gulf War, shot missles at US jets that patrolled his border, and plotted to assassinate a former US President (Bush's own father).

Iraqi expatriates living over here assurred everyone that the Iraqi people aren't fools. They pointed out how well-educated Iraqis are and how they would never get caught up in religious extremism, how they would welcome a chance at democracy and freedom.

I think Bush saw his chance and took it. To get away with it, he had to manipulate some people into believing there was just cause. And that's what governments do.

[Corwin]

Which is why I dislike politicians so much; they're ALL the same!! Doesn't matter who you vote for, you elect a politician!! What's worse, is that the country (almost any country) isn't really run by the politicians, but by the big moneyed people behind them and their party!! They call the shots and pull the strings; the pollies obey their masters or else!!

[Kayla]

I think Hurricane Katrina was worse from the aspect of the lack of intervention by the government until it was too late. It is not just the death toll, it is the rebuilding process required to get the community back up and fully functioning that has not been fully provided, however, the media attention and internation profile of Katrina was nothing like September 11.
I remember getting out of the car to get the early morning train and hearing a news report that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Centre tower. I travelled the hour into work and when I got there a small group of people were already in the building and were watching the TV. I could not believe what I was seeing, it really took a minute to comprehend. I remember seeing people on the street trying to escape the dust and debris when the tower went down, I remember seeing the people on the street and in nearby buildings screaming as others jumped out of windows to escape the flames. I remember the phone calls from people trapped in the towers, and from people on the plane that was forced down by the crew and passengers to prevent another target being hit by the plane. I remember the voices and transcripts of the calls. There were tears, and people were scared and didn't want to die, but even with their situation, they wanted to call someone they loved, and tell them they loved them, that everything would be ok and to pass on messages of love to others that they would not be able to farewell themselves. People on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania rang their loved ones and one of the flight attendants called hr husband, told him she loved him and to look after the kids and asked for suggestions of what else the passengers and crew could use as weapons to try and get the upper hand and reclaim control of the plane.
For me, the sacrifice and bravery shown by ordinary people and the emergency services was incredible, and the images and voices affected me deeply and even 6years on I still think of the phone calls, the people searching for relatives and friends that worked in the tower, the removal and sifting of rubble from the WTC site to identify remains and the people jumping from the building to avoid the flames and I still cry. As terrible as September 11 was, and still is, I also see a little bit of hope that people going through a horrendus time can band together, think of others and respect the memory of the dead.
Without being an American, I remember the date September 11, and think of these people I did not even know, whose voices I only heard for a few seconds, and I am affected, and will be forever by what I saw and heard on TV and read in newspapers.