James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Aug 15, 2018 19:09:06 GMT
The 9/11 attacks defined events in much of the world after they occurred. The War on Terror, Iraq and then the Arab Spring followed.
What would the defining moments of history / events without an attack like that?
I suspect that there would still be a Bin Laden issue as it was there before. Would environmental concerns, different Middle Eastern conflicts, the resurgence of Russia or China's economy be even more prominent shaping the world? Or something else?
In the US would Bush 43 have seen his administration hit by scandals - Enron maybe - leading to a defeat in 2004 for him? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 15, 2018 19:14:22 GMT
The 9/11 attacks defined events in much of the world after they occurred. The War on Terror, Iraq and then the Arab Spring followed.
What would the defining moments of history / events without an attack like that?
I suspect that there would still be a Bin Laden issue as it was there before. Would environmental concerns, different Middle Eastern conflicts, the resurgence of Russia or China's economy be even more prominent shaping the world? Or something else?
In the US would Bush 43 have seen his administration hit by scandals - Enron maybe - leading to a defeat in 2004 for him? I think we would still see smaller terrorist atacks being funded from Afghanistan and because Bush is so fixated on completing the job his father did not do a 2003 Iraq War. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 15, 2018 21:21:58 GMT
Al Gore might run again in 2004 if it wasn't for 9/11. It's also possible that Hillary Clinton runs in 2004 without 9/11, though that is probably less likely than having Al Gore run again since Hillary promised on December 11, 2000 that she wouldn't run for U.S. President in 2004--instead promising to serve out her six-year U.S. Senate term.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Aug 16, 2018 1:15:17 GMT
I've heard people saying that the American neoconservatives were looking at China as the main threat to the US before 9/11. You may well get more stuff like the Hainan Island Incident. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Aug 16, 2018 8:36:18 GMT
I've heard people saying that the American neoconservatives were looking at China as the main threat to the US before 9/11. You may well get more stuff like the Hainan Island Incident. I remember that well. Seeing what China has done since in the South China Sea, I can see an earlier and more serious set of standoffs. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Aug 16, 2018 12:19:23 GMT
No 9/11 still mean that Bush junior would start a war with iraq, say a bag of rice fell of a table in vietnam or a bretzel looks evil...
The terrorism would concentrate on the european nations, often forgotten in the US-centric world are the huge attacks of London and Madrid, you will see propably more of this kind.
The USA could save lots of democratic elements (no patriot act would be a HUGE benefit for democracy in the USA), but on the other hand sometimes later such terror attack would happen. it was obvious that such thing could and would happen... maybe not with 4 planes (that showed the failure of the security methods of US-internal flights), but if you have 2 and they hit the towers later and deeper, we talk about 30-40.000 deaths maybe.
Other countries could face huge terror attacks, think about germany (very lax) and a soccer game. Place some nasty gas bombs in the schalke areana if it is closed, fire em, use 20-30 terrorists to close the main entrances and voila - 10-20.000 deaths, either by gas, machinegunning or panicked (trampled to death). Repeat such events in Madrid, London (hard) or Paris, maybe at a world cup or european championship...
YOu also could operate biological weapons... say Christkindl Market in Nürnberg, 4 weeks, 1 Million visitors.. if your bioweapon works with a 14day-delay you could kill (say 30% mortality rate) 3-10 million people...
The terrorists just thought not big enough... gladly for the civilised world. After they emptied their chances things turned worse for them (GOOD!), but if they plan it smarter, longer and they gain more and better methods, they could kill MUCH more people. Poison the water of NewYork? - some claimed that could have worked pre9/11...
We all could not belive that such BIG strike was possible, neither from the terrorists (often seen as "Liberty fighters" by some (mad) persons in the western world) nor from the governments... Not even a passenger plane was used as a flying bomb, before they allways tried to get people "free"...
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Aug 16, 2018 16:19:29 GMT
No 9/11 still mean that Bush junior would start a war with iraq, say a bag of rice fell of a table in vietnam or a bretzel looks evil... Not necessarily. The invasion of Iraq was brought about because the US lost most of its intelligence in Iraq after Desert Fox in 1998. Since they were blindsided by 9/11, there was a fear that Hussein was planning something and so Iraq was invaded preemptively. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Aug 16, 2018 20:03:21 GMT
No 9/11 still mean that Bush junior would start a war with iraq, say a bag of rice fell of a table in vietnam or a bretzel looks evil... Not necessarily. The invasion of Iraq was brought about because the US lost most of its intelligence in Iraq after Desert Fox in 1998. Since they were blindsided by 9/11, there was a fear that Hussein was planning something and so Iraq was invaded preemptively. Not something that I knew. Rummy certainly wanted war with Saddam but the whole idea that Bush 43 was all set to avenge his daddy just seems rather too simplistic. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 16, 2018 20:08:05 GMT
Not necessarily. The invasion of Iraq was brought about because the US lost most of its intelligence in Iraq after Desert Fox in 1998. Since they were blindsided by 9/11, there was a fear that Hussein was planning something and so Iraq was invaded preemptively. Not something that I knew. Rummy certainly wanted war with Saddam but the whole idea that Bush 43 was all set to avenge his daddy just seems rather too simplistic. Funny, Rummy is the same person who once met with Saddam.  |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Aug 16, 2018 20:09:49 GMT
Who hasn't met a genocidal dictator while on their travels?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 16, 2018 20:11:53 GMT
|
|
insect
Banned
Posts: 380
Likes: 71
|
Post by insect on Aug 16, 2018 21:35:42 GMT
Gore suceeds bush as 44th president of the united states,,
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Aug 16, 2018 22:13:04 GMT
Interesting. Thanks for that. Depressing that the 2008 crash, or something like it was very likely to happen anyway. At least without some drastic changes in economic policy in the US especially, which probably would be unlikely.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Aug 17, 2018 11:33:18 GMT
No 9/11 still mean that Bush junior would start a war with iraq, say a bag of rice fell of a table in vietnam or a bretzel looks evil... Not necessarily. The invasion of Iraq was brought about because the US lost most of its intelligence in Iraq after Desert Fox in 1998. Since they were blindsided by 9/11, there was a fear that Hussein was planning something and so Iraq was invaded preemptively. We agree to disagree about this. My personal view about this is different, based on the behaviour of the USA after 911. For me it was a brutal war of agression, fueld by an angry kid (Bush junior) who wanted to kill the person who had tried to kill his daddy. If we keep in mind that bush junior was a mental wreck and heavy drug addicted (alcohol) and his father saved him, he had a very strong personal tie to him. All stuff that happened make crystal clear that the USA knew exactly that Saddam had 100% nothing to do with the 911-terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. So the people who blame the USA for creating the IS are quite true, because even if i agree about the evilness of Saddams regime (brutal dicator), the USA were gigantic diletants in not doing it right, leaving a mess that created the IS in iraq. So no, they knew exactly what they did, that it was illegal and that they were lying as much as one could lie. From the level of "nastiness" it is on par with "seit 5:45 Uhr wird zurückgeschossen". Not in the sense of comparing Bush with hitler, but the level of rude lying was the same. The UN basically laughed loud as they presented their "evidences"... everybody knew 100% that it was a lie... Powell itself showed clearly that he was ashamed about telling that brutal nonsense. So, as long as bush junior was president he would have started a war with iraq, with or without 911. It is ironical that Saddam would have fought the IS or better it never would have been created if the USA had not removed him. Not that i mourn about his dead or that his regime was destroyed, but it was still a brutal lie that ruined ANY credibility the USA had. Now, if the USA claim something everybody in the world just think "these liars tell lies". So Bush junior destroyed the credibility of the USA for 30-40 years at last. Only if the next 3 presidents all appologize, blame bush as a brutal liar and that they appologzie in public for these criminal lies they could hope to rebuild some credibility in the world. Sorry to say it in these "brutal" way, but if the USA claim something it is allways just a lie. Thanks to Bush junior and his lies about Iraq. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Aug 17, 2018 11:37:20 GMT
Not necessarily. The invasion of Iraq was brought about because the US lost most of its intelligence in Iraq after Desert Fox in 1998. Since they were blindsided by 9/11, there was a fear that Hussein was planning something and so Iraq was invaded preemptively. Not something that I knew. Rummy certainly wanted war with Saddam but the whole idea that Bush 43 was all set to avenge his daddy just seems rather too simplistic. Not only he, but the whole military branch was upset about the "missing chance" to remove Saddam. Bush junior was the needed president, who wanted to take "revenge" for Daddy, the whole important and influencing people just wanted that war, too. Still it was based on lies, ruined the credibility of the USA in any other aspects - they are called the "liars" behind their backs - rightfully - if you do what the USA did after 911 with iraq you have lost any credibility... only a true 180 degree change - impossible because of false honor feeling in the US - could rebuild that in the next 30 years. The problem is, sometimes even the USA is right with pointing onto problems, but the world will ignore it. |
|
