What if 9/11 never happened?
Yesterday got me thinking about this, what if 9/11 never happened? Where would the world be in regards to fighting terrorism? Would something else have happened by now? In other words, would some kind of massive terrorist attack on the US be inevitable?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
i disagree BR, i do consider it a "massive" attack. when close to 3000 people die, i consider that pretty massive. when 300 people die, i still consider that massive. sure, it was only carried out by a few people, but it's effects definitely altered the world and are still being felt today on so many different levels
<<<<<Most people just choose not to know why things like 9/11 happen.
this is such a disturbing thought to me, albeit true. People SHOULD want to know why these attacks take place (whether here in the USA or elsewhere in the world). Ignorance is bliss I guess.
I'm just surprised how many people have turned back to that way of thinking, which is how most people felt before the attacks occurred. Up to that point, there was this sense of invulnerability here in the USA, thinking that we as a country couldn't be hurt. It was that line of thinking that made us lax in our security, since then security has increased at least ten fold. I'm trying to envision what our lives would be like today if we still thought that way. No full body scanners at the airport? Less restrictions on items allowed on the plane, less islamiphobia?
<<<<<Most people just choose not to know why things like 9/11 happen.
this is such a disturbing thought to me, albeit true. People SHOULD want to know why these attacks take place (whether here in the USA or elsewhere in the world). Ignorance is bliss I guess.
I'm just surprised how many people have turned back to that way of thinking, which is how most people felt before the attacks occurred. Up to that point, there was this sense of invulnerability here in the USA, thinking that we as a country couldn't be hurt. It was that line of thinking that made us lax in our security, since then security has increased at least ten fold. I'm trying to envision what our lives would be like today if we still thought that way. No full body scanners at the airport? Less restrictions on items allowed on the plane, less islamiphobia?
People SHOULD want to know why these attacks take place...
I agree, but how pleased would the majority be if they really understood how deviously we betrayed OBL and his religion. (At least, it should be clear how OBL saw it that way; and we were pretty devious about it.)
Tom
I agree, but how pleased would the majority be if they really understood how deviously we betrayed OBL and his religion. (At least, it should be clear how OBL saw it that way; and we were pretty devious about it.)
Tom
Pearl harbor was a "massive" attack, counting on the number of Japanese that took part. The response to it was, unlike 9/11, intelligent, in that not having the heavy navy but a few carriers, the strategy of using these upfront supplied by jeep carriers revolutionised the war and lead ultimately to success. The post 9/11 strategy of making Afghanistan and then Iraq somehow "responsible" was literally a disaster.
Syria is another example of unintelligent handling. Instead of simply and quietly taking out Assad (or paying him into retirement) we make loud noises about retaliation and then stand there with egg on our faces when that all turns into huff and puff.
The US has had some appalling foreign policy gaffs in its history, things which the average American would be ashamed about, and that is probably why people surpress memories. My own opinion is that this stems from the system, where the State Department is effectively run by the executive and not the legisature. The responsibilty for foreign policy is in the hands of an essentially non-elected secretary of state, who reports solely to the president. Whereas in all the other G8 countries (and more) the "foreign minister" is an elected member of parlement. Foreign policy then tends to become a party matter and is therefore less whimsical.
Syria is another example of unintelligent handling. Instead of simply and quietly taking out Assad (or paying him into retirement) we make loud noises about retaliation and then stand there with egg on our faces when that all turns into huff and puff.
The US has had some appalling foreign policy gaffs in its history, things which the average American would be ashamed about, and that is probably why people surpress memories. My own opinion is that this stems from the system, where the State Department is effectively run by the executive and not the legisature. The responsibilty for foreign policy is in the hands of an essentially non-elected secretary of state, who reports solely to the president. Whereas in all the other G8 countries (and more) the "foreign minister" is an elected member of parlement. Foreign policy then tends to become a party matter and is therefore less whimsical.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
The responsibilty for foreign policy is in the hands of an essentially non-elected secretary of state...
Since few voters could make a reasoned choice, it seems almost certain that popular election would be worse. I can't imagine who voters might choose.
Regardless, essentially none of the G8 are any more 'elected' to the position than the U.S.A. Secretary of State. The fact that choices are limited to elected officials should pretty much guarantee a drastically reduced pool of talent and skill. The U.S.A. position has generally been more stable and predictable than any of the others.
And technically, foreign policy is the responsibility of the President. The Secretary of State can't do much without the President's agreement. The Secretary does the work of putting the (President's) Administration's policy into words, on paper and in speeches or testimonies before Congress. And the Secretary of State is always approved by at least two-thirds of the Senators, i.e., by the representatives of the 50 States that make up the union. (If we could get away again from having Senators be popularly elected, we might get back to having decent Senators.)
The Secretary of State is often taken from some elected office, but the higher requirement is competency. There's no reason to think that being elected is related to competency in foreign policy. It could even be seen as counter-indicated, especially when better choices are not among active politicians.
Whereas in all the other G8 countries (and more) the "foreign minister" is an elected member of parlement. Foreign policy then tends to become a party matter and is therefore less whimsical.
I haven't seen evidence of that, the 'whimsy' element, that is. I see it more that the whimsy in policies of some other G8 nations acts more as a brake. Policies don't tend to build as much momentum. Swings tend to cancel each other out. In the U.S.A., the two-thirds requirement results in somewhat more of a consensus among all elected parties and of all States in the Union.
In the U.S.A., history has tended to keep much of foreign policy in reasonably steady directions, with obvious lurches such as the World Wars where specific changes were needed. It tends to follow profit. There is less whimsy to it. Regardless of the major party in power, behavior in and towards foreign nations stays fairly constant.
Rhetoric, especially during campaigns, might be subject to whimsy; but actual policy actions tend to remain fairly constant.
Except perhaps for Russia in the most recent decades and Japan, the other G8 nations haven't seemed to maintain any consistent foreign policy during the past 50 years. And if we go back much more than that, it's much more radical.
The U.S.A., though, seems about the same over much of the past century.
That's hardly saying that foreign policy has been particularly good. It's just been more consistent for good or bad.
Tom
Since few voters could make a reasoned choice, it seems almost certain that popular election would be worse. I can't imagine who voters might choose.
Regardless, essentially none of the G8 are any more 'elected' to the position than the U.S.A. Secretary of State. The fact that choices are limited to elected officials should pretty much guarantee a drastically reduced pool of talent and skill. The U.S.A. position has generally been more stable and predictable than any of the others.
And technically, foreign policy is the responsibility of the President. The Secretary of State can't do much without the President's agreement. The Secretary does the work of putting the (President's) Administration's policy into words, on paper and in speeches or testimonies before Congress. And the Secretary of State is always approved by at least two-thirds of the Senators, i.e., by the representatives of the 50 States that make up the union. (If we could get away again from having Senators be popularly elected, we might get back to having decent Senators.)
The Secretary of State is often taken from some elected office, but the higher requirement is competency. There's no reason to think that being elected is related to competency in foreign policy. It could even be seen as counter-indicated, especially when better choices are not among active politicians.
Whereas in all the other G8 countries (and more) the "foreign minister" is an elected member of parlement. Foreign policy then tends to become a party matter and is therefore less whimsical.
I haven't seen evidence of that, the 'whimsy' element, that is. I see it more that the whimsy in policies of some other G8 nations acts more as a brake. Policies don't tend to build as much momentum. Swings tend to cancel each other out. In the U.S.A., the two-thirds requirement results in somewhat more of a consensus among all elected parties and of all States in the Union.
In the U.S.A., history has tended to keep much of foreign policy in reasonably steady directions, with obvious lurches such as the World Wars where specific changes were needed. It tends to follow profit. There is less whimsy to it. Regardless of the major party in power, behavior in and towards foreign nations stays fairly constant.
Rhetoric, especially during campaigns, might be subject to whimsy; but actual policy actions tend to remain fairly constant.
Except perhaps for Russia in the most recent decades and Japan, the other G8 nations haven't seemed to maintain any consistent foreign policy during the past 50 years. And if we go back much more than that, it's much more radical.
The U.S.A., though, seems about the same over much of the past century.
That's hardly saying that foreign policy has been particularly good. It's just been more consistent for good or bad.
Tom
As long as various societies go along as they have been, there will be conflicts. As long as no resolutions are reached, conflicts will be ongoing. Most people just choose not to know why things like 9/11 happen.
Tom