What if we had done nothing after 9/11?

[Courtesy Flush]

What if we'd only mourned the dead and re-built the buildings? What if we'd ignored the call for revenge? What if we'd have just wimped out?

We wouldn't have bankrupted our nation.

We wouldn't have killed countless Iraqis and Afghans

We wouldn't have lost thousands of our own troops

We wouldn't have lost the respect of the international community

We wouldn't have lost more of our rights as citizens

We might not have had Iran and North Korea rushing to build nukes to defend against OUR aggression

We didn't make ourselves safer, or more secure by over-reacting. Yet even here on DU there are calls for over-reaction.

[sharp_stick]

1. Free association, baseless conjecture

and hindsight are totally pointless and wonderfully self fulfilling aren't they?

I'm sure Al Queda would have just stopped and joined in once they figured out that were all singing Kumbaya by the pit in NYC.

[peace13]

17. No mention that we did not go to war with Al Queda after 911!

See how screwed up the logic is here! We made ourselves safer by attacking a country that did not attack us. You are correct that there is some base less conjecture here!

[gtar100]

39. Hindsight is how we learn from the past.

Conjecture is how we imagine new possibilities. I don't think labeling this op with those words is much of an argument against the point of it, which I did find.

What if we had taken the path of nonviolence instead of revenge? Or as the op suggests, to do nothing but heal ourselves. The world would be a very different place. Even though we can't change the past, we can at least learn that being motivated by revenge generally leads to more suffering - a very old but obviously a very easy lesson to forget. I hope we don't repeat that mistake, but I'm not holding my breath given the amount of anger and fear so many of us carry around. It doesn't hurt us to imagine different outcomes if the reason for doing so is to learn better ways and not just lament over the past.

[frylock]

45. "singing kumbaya" is a bullshit right-wing meme..

usually used by dumbshits who only see in black and white.

[sharp_stick]

48. using the term meme and right wing incorrectly

and without evidence is a bullshit ploy often used by morons that can't think of anything better to say.

just sayin'

[HangOnKids]

60. Frylock did not use meme and RW incorrectly

Got some more personal attacks to lay out for us stick?

[MrBig]

62. Without commenting on the merits of the argument

Clearly personal attacks are going both ways within their conversation.

[HangOnKids]

67. How Astute MrBig!

I'll stand by my post, but thanks for playing.

[MrBig]

70. Why thank you

Just trying to keep hypocrisy at a minimum

[HangOnKids]

71. Is that what you were doing?

Gee, try harder.

[MrBig]

72. And how would you suggest I do that?

I saw a comment chastising one poster for making a personal attack without mentioning that the prior poster made the first personal attack. I suspected that the only reason one personal attack was called out was because the commenter agreed with the merits of the original post containing the first personal attack. Thus, I made my response.

Pretty straight forward.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

55. Actually, we could have done it the Liberal Way....

Meaning GO to the United Nations and actually MEAN IT.

Draft a resolution when we had the sympathy of the world to make International Terrorism an International Crime and form a group dedicated to investigating and identifying those responsible. This group would be made up of the best of the best from member nations and would have jurisdiction over local authorities and be authorized to cross borders and access local records to track down responsible parties and bring them before an International Tribunal to answer for their crimes.

[truebluegreen]

58. Amen to that.

[librechik]

81. funny, Bush always REFUSED to do that, endlessly delaying the resolution

nothing suspicious about that--if you don't notice it was not the only investigation of 9/11 he killed.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

82. Like the 28 pages he redacted linking his father to terrorism.

[sabrina 1]

59. We went to war with a country that had nothing to do with Iraq and are now at war 12 years later

all over the world. With all that war, surely by now we should be 'safe'? Well, if you believe that violence brings peace. But apparently we are nowhere near safe because the Great War on Terror will never end, we are told. So we will keep doing what has failed so far, well it must have failed if we still have to keep doing it 12 years later, until maybe, someone wiser figures out that you can't kill your way to peace. But just reading your own comment here on a democratic forum, tells me we are no more likely to figure this out than the likelihood of hell freezing over.

That 'kumbaya' thing you wrote, reminds me of Rush in the days of Bush. It was directed at Liberals by Rush's ditto heads for pointing out back then, ten years ago, that this 'war' would fail and we would still be there ten years later if we thought that killing people would make us safer.

Turns out the 'kumbaya' contingency was correct. Apparently we are no safer now than we were ever were.

[geek tragedy]

2. Does that include not passing any terrorism-related legislation?

The answer would be:

Al Qaeda would be thriving and operating from a safe haven in Afghanistan/Pakistan, with plenty of financial and human resources to deploy against the US.

There doubtlessly would have been more attacks inside the US.

[el_bryanto]

3. There are calls for appropriate reaction as well

We don't know what's going on here - and its unwise to speculate (although it's also human nature). But to do nothing after 9/11 would have been foolish (which is not to say that what we actually did was the right thing).

Bryant

[cbdo2007]

4. and these bombings would be a weekly occurance all around the country....

rather than a rare occurance.

[WinkyDink]

20. Oh, please. Ever heard of the 70's?

[cbdo2007]

32. The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70's!

[FSogol]

37. +1. True. n/t

[gtar100]

40. Against Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd? No way!

Ten years can pack a wallop.

[Scuba]

5. What if we had declared it a crime instead of an act of war?

What if we had leveraged the internation good will that the US was feeling and mobilized the world's police forces to capture the criminals?

Creating the 'war on a feeling' was a bad idea.

[geek tragedy]

6. It's considered both. The world has mobilized its law enforcement

tools against AQ.

At the same time, in areas that have literally no law (Taliban-era Afghanistan, modern day Pakistan and Somalia) law enforcement is irrelevant to the situation.

[whatchamacallit]

7. This ^

It was deemed a war because they needed one.

[kudzu22]

13. Pretty sure all the perpetrators were killed

in the crashes. So who you going to capture?

[WinkyDink]

21. Pretty sure they weren't.

[Scuba]

30. Nope. Just their tools.

[davidn3600]

18. The Taliban was going to hand over Bin Laden based on "good will?"

The American people would not have rested unless that man was captured or dead. End of story. Period. After that attack on 9/11, 90% of this country was ready to wipe Afghanistan off the map.

The only way war could have been prevented is if the Taliban captured Bin Laden and his lieutenants and handed them over. And that was never going to happen.

[WinkyDink]

22. Bush said he "really wasn't concerned about" him, so why would "the American people" have been?

[Scuba]

31. Not the Taliban, no. International law enforcement.

I thought I said that.

[truebluegreen]

57. As I recall, the Taliban did offer to hand him over--but not to us.

Funnily enough, they claimed to trust the international criminal court more than the US justice system.

And in case, it didn't matter anyway since the preznit wanted his precious war.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Cleaning out Al Qaeda was a positive step. The rest? Not so much.

[whatchamacallit]

19. There is no 'cleaning out'

As Boston illustrates, whether foreign or domestic, terror will always exist. The "war on terror" only exacerbates hostilities and multiples the body counts.

[WinkyDink]

24. That's a joke, right, about Al qaeda? Like it was an army or something?

[Buzz Clik]

28. Yeah, it was a joke.

ha ha.

[Coyotl]

35. Wow! You mean making many more enemies than before is a good thing?

What you call cleaning out is actually compounding the problem of hatred.

[Buzz Clik]

41. You're referring to the endless drone program. I was not.

Yeah, blowing the hell out of innocent people with unmanned aircraft is horrible.

[Coyotl]

42. No, I'm referring to starting wars, occupying nations, and killing innocent people

Thank you very much, but i don't need you to explain my thoughts.

[Buzz Clik]

61. Our success in taking out Al Qaeda had nothing to do with wars or occupations.

We defeat them when we play at their level -- small scale, covert, lethal.

That's what I'm talking about.

[Coyotl]

65. So, why is there an Al Queda and why do they not love the USA?

You might want to rethink your assertion with a few more years of history as context.

[Buzz Clik]

69. Assertions, if well considered, are always a work in progress.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. Uhm, from what I remember, Al Qaeda has bases in Iraq it didn't have before...

it still exists, after a fashion, in many countries, in what way is it "defeated".

[frylock]

46. kinda like "cleaning out' a hornet's nest by chucking a rock at it

[Buzz Clik]

64. Chucking a rock at a hornet's nest is mistake. We've done that several times. However, ...

... we also have had success by being patient, focused, and surgical.

[slackmaster]

9. The collapse of the economy after 9/11 was a foregone conclusion. Government spending...

...was less of an issue than general loss of confidence.

[unblock]

23. no way, not at all.

economies easily shrug off short-lived dips after single incidents like this or even prosper in the aftermath. a bad hurricane might be a good comparison. short-term damage, mostly local/regional, but an opportunity to rebuild.

the government's reaction of fear and panic and vast misdirection of resources had far much to do with the damage to the economy than 9/11 itself. had a real president shown true strength and resolve and said america is a strong and fearless nation and our greatness will not be altered by the crimes of a few madmen, and while we will hunt down and bring the perpetrators to justice, we will go forth with our lives as before because we refuse to live in fear, then the economy would have been just fine. all the government should have done was appropriate some funding to hunt down al qaeda and get back to normalcy.

[Javaman]

10. we had a drydrunk moron* incharge with a daddy complex who was unconstitutionally installed as prez*

do you really think that option was actually on the table?

[TimberValley]

11. It would have been tremendously unpopular.

Can you imagine the approval rating from such a policy?

[peace13]

29. This is the funniest line so far!

The war was tremendously unpopular, sold to Americans by the fake news of all kinds. We bankrupt ourselves and are paying dearly for it now. But hey the money trouble was all Obamas fault. For sure!

Many people spoke out and demonstrated against the wars. The administration didn't give a crap about approval ratings. A stolen election and a hijacked country, Cheney did not give one crap about anything but the money! It is time to wake up!

[MrBig]

68. The first phrase, as it relates to the US, is factually incorrect

The war eventually became tremendously unpopular, but throughout the lead up to the war and the beginning of the actual war itself, support for the war ranged from about 45% to as high as 79% as of May 2003. Whatever statistic you choose, the war was not tremendously unpopular until much much later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#March_2003

The War in Afghanistan remained supported by a majority of Americans until 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_on_the_war_in_Afghanistan#Growing_American_opposition_to_the_war

[peace13]

74. Sorry!

The war was sold by the media on lies. Say what you will, I attended demonstrations and spoke out before the war. As high as 79% after a feast of lies and manipulation. Whatever makes you feel better.

[HangOnKids]

75. LOL!

I was right. Here you are defending the invasion of Iraq with wiki. LOL!!! Priceless.

[MrBig]

76. Huh?

Where am I defending the invasion of Iraq? All I did was point out that the statement that no one supported the war is factually incorrect.

Honestly, I dislike it when people try to claim they were against the war all along when, in fact, many of them were supporting the war from the beginning.

If we don't acknowledge our mistakes, we are prone to repeat them. Unfortunately, the wardrums worked in 2003 and we invaded Iraq without any cause or reason. Hopefully people can look back at that time and remember it the next time it happens. But to pretend no one supported the war when it started is simply not true.

And to say I'm "defending the invasion of Iraq with wiki" is, again, simply not true. I posted a simple article that contains many links to polls debunking the original statement in question.

I won't say you took my comment out of context because that would assume it was an accident. Something tells me you read what you want to read to fit your agenda.

[HangOnKids]

77. Bye Bye

So not interested in what you have to say. Bye now.

[MrBig]

78. Later!

[Coyotl]

38. You reveal the neocon thinking to the letter. War was all about taking power, winning elections, and

solidifying political control. Without going to war, Bush and the Republicans were doomed. They did not care about the real consequences, just the next-day politics.

[peace13]

12. Some see no correlation between our bombs, wars and drones and the violence here at home!

The US has been in the killing business for a long time and it is interesting that so few of us can tolerate public violence at home. How hard is it to understand 'what goes around,comes around'.

We have done this to ourselves. I agree with you. Attacking a country that had nothing to do with 911 put us in more danger and left us unsafe! We either need to adjust to the violence at home or stop killing globally as a nation.

Americans need to take ownership of the killing that we do. If we don't like having blood on our hands then do something about it!

[cali]

14. We should have treated it like it was a crime

not gone to war.

[WinkyDink]

15. There's a huge gap between "Illegal Attacks" and "nothing."

[Courtesy Flush]

83. I agree

Yet "nothing" would have been less destructive than what we did.

Somewhere in the realm of possibilities was a better answer. Doing nothing would have been a bad thing, but doing it Bush's way was even worse.

[TimberValley]

16. So, you'd basically be telling the families of the 9/11 victims.........

"Your loved ones died in a terrible act of terrorism, but we're not going to do anything about it?"

[WinkyDink]

25. Oklahoma City? Did those families get millions from the govt?

[Courtesy Flush]

26. See, there we go again.

People want to be told there will be vengeance. Let's destroy the country, rather than tell people what they don't want to hear.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that we SHOULD have done nothing. But I do believe that doing nothing would have been an improvement over how it was handled. Everything was done wrong, and we're less American because of it.

The world is waiting to see how stupid we're going to be because of this.

[peace13]

27. Ahhh...it would be good to read what the victims families wanted ......

Before using them as an excuse to wage war. Many of those folks spoke out against the way the entire 911 investigation was handled not to mention starting a war with a country who had nothing to do with 911. But of course we would have to bring up the unmentionable here in order to even have a discussion about that.

[hrmjustin]

33. It is a good point. A decade ago I would have said it was a crazy thought but from what we

know now it is a very good point.

[Courtesy Flush]

47. I would have too.

But again, let me repeat. I'm not saying we should do nothing. I AM saying that doing nothing looks pretty good in retrospect, compared to how we handled it.

[blackspade]

34. Wishful thinking.

[G_j]

36. Juan Cole offers some sane thoughts,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2683433

<snip>

There is negative energy implicit in such a violent event, and there is potential positive energy to be had from the way that we respond to it. To fight our contemporary pathologies, the tragedy has to be turned to empathy and universal compassion rather than to anger and racial profiling. Whatever sick mind dreamed up this act did not manifest the essence of any large group of people. Terrorists and supremacists represent only themselves, and always harm their own ethnic or religious group along with everyone else.

<snip>

[bvar22]

43. At that time, there were calls on DU to treat it as a crime,

let International Law Enforcement and Special Forces handle a handful of Saudi Criminals hiding in some warlord's desert instead of invading and occupying the entire country of Afghanistan.

I remember the Drop Bic Macs, Sat TVs, and Dollar BIlls instead of Bombs thread at DU.

[Malone]

44. we did that thru the 1990s

Technically we did "nothing" (or handled it as a crime as suggested) after the first WTC bombing in 1993 and other terrorist attacks during the 1990s (USS Cole, embassies etc.), and 9/11 still happened.

It bothers me when people act like 9/11 was the first terrorist event involvng BinLaden/AlQ to happen to the US.

[RedCloud]

49. Does anybody remember how many buildings fell that day?

Seems they only want the "convenient" explanation ones to be remembered.

[GoneFishin]

54. Are you implying that it is odd that the building that wasn't hit by a plane is also

the one that got left out of the 911 report? WTC7.

Or that the first 3 steel structure buildings in history to collapse due to fire all occurred on the same day and the same event?

How cynical of you!

[GaYellowDawg]

51. I don't think you can just overlook the deaths of over 3,000 people.

If we had limited our actions to pursuing and killing bin Ladin,

We wouldn't have bankrupted our nation.

We wouldn't have killed countless Iraqis and Afghans.

We wouldn't have lost thousands of our own troops.

We wouldn't have lost the respect of the international community.

We wouldn't have lost more of our rights as citizens.

We are not responsible for Iran and North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Had we done nothing after 9/11, Iran would still seek nuclear weapons for the purpose of threatening or nuking Israel. North Korea would have pursued them because their government is completely mental.

[treestar]

52. I think we'd have had to do something

Iraq was the problem. We could have skipped that entirely.

IMO Iran and NK would do the same things. Has nothing to do with 911, they hate us with or without 911.

[drm604]

53. It's an interesting question.

There is, however, a wide gulf between overreaction and doing nothing.

We definitely could have reacted differently, and I don't think that's just hindsight, as some are saying. The Bush administration used it as an excuse to do things they were looking for an excuse to do.

[truebluegreen]

56. I wouldn't say that we should have "wimped out" after 9/11

but what if our response had been from a law enforcement stance (including international), instead of a military one? We all would have been better off, I think.

But of course, Darth and Dumbya didn't give a rip about what actually happened and who was actually responsible, they just wanted their little war....

[cynatnite]

63. It's not just a matter of what we should have done...

It's also a matter of look at who was in charge at the time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. And, Dumbya would have been a one term president without the "Smoke 'em out" PR.

[ecstatic]

73. Strange wording. Why do you say "wimped out?"

I don't think handling 911 the same way as any other crime (while avoiding war, etc.) would have been wimping out. It would have been a much smarter approach. Individuals and countries who respond to murder/violence with maturity and through legal, nonviolent means should be applauded.

[markpkessinger]

80. On the contrary . . .

. . . The Bush Administration came to power intent upon going to war with Iraq, and would have found a way to do so even if 9-11 hadn't happened. 9-11 simply made manipulating public opinion a whole lot easier.