remember 9/11

[WindFish]

Do you know what is funny?

America is heading for financial ruin and has to either raise taxes or massively cut social and military spending

 

[Murky]

Do you know what is funny?

America is heading for financial ruin and has to either raise taxes or massively cut social and military spending

What does this have to do with 9/11?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the OP's application of the purely American MM-DD date format to the Chilean coup is quite insensitive. Must we simply view the event through an American lens?

He just wanted to 'provoke' Americans. I get that his attempt at this led to interesting conversation, but I'm at a loss for why this didn't qualify as a troll thread from the start.

Oddly enough, regardless of Holy King's intentions, most of the discussion has nothing to do with Chile.

What does this have to do with 9/11?

Those were things OBL wanted to cause through the WTC attacks. He succeeded.

 

[Quackers]

OBL got exactly what he wanted a nice burial with the fishies

 

[hobbsyoyo]

OBL got exactly what he wanted a nice burial with the fishies

Maybe not that, but definitely this:

America is heading for financial ruin and has to either raise taxes or massively cut social and military spending

 

[Borachio]

Those were things OBL wanted to cause through the WTC attacks. He succeeded.

Is this what he wanted? It could be - though I don't remember where this was a stated aim. Was the al Qaeda PR effort a complete failure, or was it intentionally stifled by the West, or what? Or have I simply missed all this?

But my understanding is that the economic down-turn was nothing to do with the WTC attacks, and more to do with toxic debt.

Is the "success" just a complicated, almost fortuitous, coincidence, then?

And, if financial collapse was an aim, why would that help OBL's aims? And his ultimate aims were...?

 

[WindFish]

But my understanding is that the economic down-turn was nothing to do with the WTC attacks, and more to do with toxic debt.

Then you are wrong

The WTC attacks caused the FED to lower interest rates to stop a financial crash that was going to happen in late 2001, early 2002 and this policy caused the toxic debt.

And, if financial collapse was an aim, why would that help OBL's aims? And his ultimate aims were...?

OBL saw that the Soviet Union was bled dry economically by invading Afghanistan, as he was there, and thought the same would happen to the USA.

 

[Murky]

America's financial problems are largely the result of George W. Bush's tax and economic policies. Did 9/11 hurt? Sure but not nearly as much as the Bush tax-cut(mostly for the wealthy) and spend policy. His war of choice in Iraq was very costly and it diverted resources away from the war in Afghanistan.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I didn't blam OBL for the recession. Just the wars that caused massive deficits.

 

[warpus]

America's financial problems are largely the result of George W. Bush's tax and economic policies. Did 9/11 hurt? Sure but not nearly as much as the Bush tax-cut(mostly for the wealthy) and spend policy. His war of choice in Iraq was very costly and it diverted resources away from the war in Afghanistan.

Without 9/11 there likely wouldn't have been enough momentum or "justification" to invade Iraq.

 

[Murky]

Without 9/11 there likely wouldn't have been enough momentum or "justification" to invade Iraq.

The neocons were focused on Iraq from the moment George W. Bush was inaugurated. They would likely have found some excuse to make the case for war without 9/11.

I'm not a 9/11 truther conspiracy theorist, but I think there was some neglect with intelligence reports prior to 9/11 as far back as May 1, 2001.

 

[civver_764]

Hmm. I mean, really, what concrete effect did they hope for?

Did they hope the US would say, hang on, looks like we must've been mistreating the Islamic world, it's time to change our ways?

Equally, what do the US et al hope to achieve in Afghanistan? Do they expect the Taliban to say, hang on, we do mistreat our women and so forth? Thank you for showing us the error of our ways?

You mean violence actually doesn't solve anything?

 

[Borachio]

Well, yes. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it only makes things worse. But this is an extremist view, I know.

 

[warpus]

The neocons were focused on Iraq from the moment George W. Bush was inaugurated. They would likely have found some excuse to make the case for war without 9/11.

It would have been a lot harder though. 9/11 was the scapegoat that created the geopolitical & political climate to allow them to invade.

 

[Dachs]

I have to say, holy king accomplished exactly what he wanted to do with this thread. Well done.

 

[Murky]

I suppose now we'll never know for sure if the Bush Administration would have made a compelling case for war without 9/11. It certainly made the case easier, especially among those who already bought into the idea in the first place.

Makes you wonder if we'll be at war with another regime by 2014 if Mitt Romney wins (or steals) the election. Many of his top advisers would be neoconservatives like with the Bush White house.

 

[Borachio]

Then you are wrong

And not for the first time, by any means. (Nor, I fully expect, for the last time.)

The WTC attacks caused the FED to lower interest rates to stop a financial crash that was going to happen in late 2001, early 2002 and this policy caused the toxic debt.

I suppose this might be true, but can you provide a citation please. My understanding was that toxic debt was caused by lending money to people who couldn't repay. Lowering interest rates would have made them more likely to repay, no?

OBL saw that the Soviet Union was bled dry economically by invading Afghanistan, as he was there, and thought the same would happen to the USA.

This is more interesting and might have some mileage in it. Certainly the SU came unstuck militarily in Afghanistan (like a great many others over the centuries), but I'm not sure how significant this was in economic terms. I think the SU had major economic structural difficulties going back - ooh - to when, 50's or 60's?

Still, it's an interesting hypothesis. Again, can you back it up?

 

[WindFish]

I suppose this might be true, but can you provide a citation please. My understanding was that toxic debt was caused by lending money to people who couldn't repay. Lowering interest rates would have made them more likely to repay, no?

It made it more attractive to lend subprime mortgages and more profitable to do it.

This is more interesting and might have some mileage in it. Certainly the SU came unstuck militarily in Afghanistan (like a great many others over the centuries), but I'm not sure how significant this was in economic terms. I think the SU had major economic structural difficulties going back - ooh - to when, 50's or 60's?

Still, it's an interesting hypothesis. Again, can you back it up?

The Soviets threw money trying to prop up the DRA and threw money at trying to dislodge the Mujahideen who were fighting a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union. This guerrilla plus the build up of the US military which the Russians countered plus the reducing price of OPEC oil met that whats his face had to try to modernise the Soviet economy. He failed and this led to the bankrupting of the Soviet Union and the breakup

 

[Borachio]

Well, I'll take your word for it. I shall have to research the matter myself (if I find time), unless, of course, you can provide a handy link or two to substantiate all this.

(Gorbachev)

 

[Dachs]

The Soviets threw money trying to prop up the DRA and threw money at trying to dislodge the Mujahideen who were fighting a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union. This guerrilla plus the build up of the US military which the Russians countered plus the reducing price of OPEC oil met that whats his face had to try to modernise the Soviet economy. He failed and this led to the bankrupting of the Soviet Union and the breakup

The war in Afghanistan never consumed a sizable portion of the Soviet Union's available financial resources, let alone its military ones. The Soviet Union was also never "bankrupted" in a meaningful sense.