How would the Democrats have reacted?

T

Ted

Active member
Missileer's post under the thread "american politics" got me thinking about a thing or two. It mainly boiled down to the widened gap between Europe and America and American national politics.
Hence my question: how would the democrats have reacted to 9/11 and the steps that needed to be taken. We know how Bush's administration picked up on this, but would the Democrats have done things much different?
 
They would have continued to do the same thing they did for 10 years. Go out and try to "arrest" the bad guys, or if they were really mad, launch a couple of cruise missiles. The massive military response to 9/11 came as quite a suprise to OBL and his Taliban hosts.
 
Ted, I don't see much that would or even could have been done differently. I know that with all the doomsday intel coming in, Congress would have pressured President Clinton but I don't think the initial strike would have been as swift. Maybe there would have a few more dissenters but in the end, whoever is in power becomes pretty hawkish during times like 9/11. IMHO.
 
Ted,

I think the democrats would have done exactly the same thing Bush did. There was no choice.The diference is simple. Since they are leftists, Europe would have strongly supported them without hesitation or question.

Perhaps that is why I personally no longer consider most European nations my friends. They hate what I love, and love what I despise.
 
At least this isn't some hypothetical discussion wherein we talk in generalities and paint with a wide brush.
:roll:
 
Ted said:
Missileer's post under the thread "american politics" got me thinking about a thing or two. It mainly boiled down to the widened gap between Europe and America and American national politics.
Hence my question: how would the democrats have reacted to 9/11 and the steps that needed to be taken. We know how Bush's administration picked up on this, but would the Democrats have done things much different?
Click to expand...
I think they would have been smart enough to avoid Iraq but other than that I suspect they would have done little else differently.

However the problem with your question is that it relies on impartial thinking and few people have that capacity when it comes to politics lets face it there are few republicans who are going to tell you the democrats would have done it better and vice versa.
 
It didn't mean it as a question of better or worse. Would they have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan (the latter being, in international law's point of view, more justified). I understand that they too would seek the perpetrators and destroy them after they found them. But would they have done it so brusque and stigmatising. Bush would have had my opinion if he wouldn't have depicted us as "being one of them" because we didn't say yes at a moments notice. The Dutch a no nation of warriors, we need time to get things ready. Once we fight we get the job done, we just need time to prepare for it.
So my question is more focussed on the almost coercing way to ask for immediate action, would the Dems have played their hand in the same way?
 
This is a seriously hypothetical question with no correct answer unless you have some clairvoyance. Honestly people... :roll:
 
Common sense answer to a complex question

In the aftermath of 9/11 I would like to think that the Democrats would have done almost the same thing.

The proof that AlQaeda was responsible for the Twin Towers disaster and the death of almost 3000 of our citizens and were being allowed unfettered shelter in Afghanistan by the Taliban would most assuredly have caused a Democrat administration to respond in an almost identical fashion as a Republican administration. First a diplomatic "demand" that the terrorists be turned over to US justice, and then a military response when diplomatic approaches failed.

After all, Democrats are just as American as Republicans and were just as po'd when information surfaced as to who carried out the attacks and who was stopping us from getting our "pound" of flesh.

Where the differences would have surfaced would have been in a Democrat's approach to the Iraq and Saddam issue. A Republican took it upon himself to look for an excuse to invade and then carried out a program of invasion as foreign policy with limited world support. A Democrat would have worked a little longer to get a larger coalition force with more countries participating and would have obtained a UN mandate to justify invasion of Iraq and Saddam's removal from power (the information was available to justify a UN mandate).

I grant you that the end result would probably have been almost the same, but I also believe that there would have been a clearer endgame policy laid out for post war reconstruction with more countries picking up the financial price tag and providing peacekeeper forces.

ALMOST ALL AMERICANS DEMANDED JUSTICE FOR 3,000 MURDERS.

America's citizens are still split on the Iraq War and Saddam issue.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of clairvoyance, I'm of the opinion, IMHO, as in no evidence, that if the US forces had gone into Afghanistan and stopped, the Taliban and Al Queda would have found a willing benefactor in Saddam Hussein and would have simply gone to Iraq for protection. Instead, they had to take to the mountains of Pakistan which is less dangerous but we know where they are.

Weighing that along with Saddam still having a large armed force, they could have made life miserable for the Allies and forced an action form us that could very well have been very costly in lives of Allied forces and civilians. Since he was hit with a Blitzkreig, there was panic and mass desertions by his forces. Given those reasons, I think that the decision to strike Iraq quickly, would have been a bi-partisan decision in the US but the reaction from Europe would have been the same whichever Party was in the White House.
 
Last edited:
I think that the decision to strike Iraq quickly, would have been a bi-partisan decision in the US but the reaction from Europe would have been the same whichever Party was in the White House.
Click to expand...

This would be worthy of a hypothetical discussion. I think that striking fast was an valid option, because the general conscensus was that this couldn't go unanswered. But during the build-up the troubles started to split up the allies...... So can somebody tell me why? I know my opinion on this one, but that is just mine.
 
Ted said:
But during the build-up the troubles started to split up the allies...... So can somebody tell me why? I know my opinion on this one, but that is just mine.
Click to expand...

Since you and I have discussed this topic at length, I know the answer so I'll let you get a few different responses. As Ira Glasser would always tell William F. Buckley on "Firing Line" when they argued themselves into the same corner, "you and I have had this argument too many times.":wink:
 
Ted,

I appreciate the fact that the Netherlands is not a world military power, and doesn't possess the rapid reaction military capability that some other nations do. I don't disagree at all that it would have taken time, perhaps a considerable amount of time, for The Netherlands to mount a powerful military campaign in Iraq.

My problem is with the poitical side. Political decisions of "I support you" or "I oppose you" can be made literally in seconds. The Netherlands chose to oppose the U.S. in Iraq. That decision was made in seconds, with little or no deliberation.

And I am convinced that descision was made on the basis of American, not Dutch, politics. Had the American president at the time been a far left democrat like Gore, or Kerry, I believe that political support from The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and others would have been strong and immediate, with actual military support coming shortly thereafter.

I would dearly love to see Churchill's "Grand Alliance" restored, but if the price for such an alliance is a left-wing government in the U.S., then I will oppose it bitterly.

To me, seeing the U.S. governed by the left is simply not worth any alliance, or any friendship. I do not like isolationism! I do not like having to "go it alone" without friends or allies. But isolationism it is preferable to left-wing politics and policies, IMHO.
 
I think there is significant evidence to speculate that Al Gore would not have been as agressive with Afghanistan as Bush was. Gore was around under four relatively failed Clinton operations; Somalia, Bosnia, Yougoslavia, and the missile strikes at suspected al-quaida sites.

I think he would have been more reserved about using millitary force since the administration he was in previously had such limmited success in their application.
 
One more chance

After careful consideration, I will give this thread one more chance to stay alive. At the first moment someone uses a generalization about "liberal democrats," I will lock this thread. EVERY thread that is related to talking about democrats ends up in flames. Skim the hall of shame for the proof.

I have a surgestion. Instead of saying "democrats would" or "democrats feel that," how about doing your homework and stating which leaders would say/do what. Prove your points with quotes or voting records. Recently, Joe Lieberman stood by the President in support of Iraq. Lieberman's actions proves not all democrats are peace loving wussies that some on this forum like to believe.

Be respectful or do not post at all!!

Doody
 
Doody said:
I Recently, Joe Lieberman stood by the President in support of Iraq. Lieberman's actions proves not all democrats are peace loving wussies that some on this forum like to believe.

Be respectful or do not post at all!!

Doody
Click to expand...

Agreed. Joe Lieberman is as liberal as any democrat in the congress, but he's as different from Kerry, Pelosi and Kennedy as day from night.
 
Doody
Thank you for relenting and giving this thread another chance. You know my views on this thread from my email and I CAN see what you were referring to earlier, but I still think it was rather mild so far as a "liberal bash feast" is concerned.

:read: This topic deserves to be discussed, Democrat and Republican philosophies differ in some respects but at the very basic level I believe they view an unprovoked attack on the United States from the very same point. When proof is offered as to who was responsible, both parties want somebody to pay and ultimately somebody does. The only difference between the parties that I can see, is the way the "balancing of the scales" would be approached and carried out.

:9mm: SOOO - guys remember Doody's admonishment and come out fighting (cleanly with no liberal bashing feastfest please!).:rambo:
 
Last edited:
I personally don't like the assumption that a Democrat could create an alliance with the Europeans since, as new evidence is showing, France was in bed with Saddam and Russia and China were trying to get a piece too, given that type of brick wall it would be impossible to get a UN mandate and the coalition forces would be only slightly larger with little more justification than we had. France was bought out and would not have supported an invasion, unless there was a major change in the political mindset in France.
 
Damien what do you mean by "bought out"? Do you have any evidence of a buyout? Not doubting, just asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top