Egypt in History: Louis XVI and the Tsar

[NorthwestUteFan]

Okay, but assuming 9/11 happens, what would he have done? I think he would have gone into Afghanistan, as would every president or person that has come close to becoming president in the least 30 or so years, without much thought.

I don't believe Al Gore would have wanted to do it, but would eventually have been persuaded to go along with it. When Wall Street and military industrial types says march, you lace up your boots and get stepping.

For all the money Reagan spent on building up the military, he sure didn't use it all that often. He did what was necessary in terms of military spending and sabre rattling to break the USSR, but was hesitant to do anything outside of the Western hemisphere - Grenada, Panama, etc (and expanded to include the Phillipines). In many ways he followed the Monroe Doctrine. That is my point.

Further, this whole situation depends on the chain of events leading up to it.

Would 9/11 have happened minus the 1991 invasion of Iraq and subsequent 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia (as seen by person in the Middle East)?

If Bob Woodward published his interview with Colin Powell (in which Gen. Powell expressed his opposition to the invasion) prior to the Senate vote, as opposed to writing it into a book AFTER the invasion, the 1991 invasion likely would NOT have occured. Would 9/11 have happened in that case? The public would have known one of the top generals was against the invasion, and perhaps pubilc opinion would have turned against it.

Had the invasion of Iraq in 1991 gone ALL THE WAY culminating in the toppling of Saddam Hussein (over the reservations of Gen Powell), and establishment of bases in Iraq (vice Saudi), would 9/11 have happened?

[TripletDaddy]

What an odd coincidence for this thread to pop up today.

I had a meeting this morning with 3 fellows....two from the US and one from London. The London guy introduced himself as Pierre and one of the co-workers with him joked that everyone calls him Robespierre. I extended the gag by asking if he was Patriot Robespierre or Reign of Terror Robespierre. I think they were appreciative of my efforts to recognize their attempt to incorporate what is likely a seldom-used arsenal of French Revolution humor.

Anyway, I come back after lunch and find a thread about this very thing.

Vive Le CUF!

[NorthwestUteFan]

It took France from 1789 to the 1950s (?) to set up a real republic that actually had power.

Following the French Revolution, they had more than their fair share of tyrranical democracies, tyrranical emperors, revolutions, counter-revolutions, etc. Both Napoleon and Robespierre were probably far worse to the people than Louis XVI.

[venkman]

He believed it in it domestically -

But he believed far more in the existential, philosophical struggle of freedom and open societies vs communism and centrally controlled societies.

That's why even though he cut taxes and controlled spending domestically he made a strategic choice break the Soviet Union with military spending and it forces a bit of an asterisk next to his label as a fiscal conservative.

Agreed. He was a fiscal conservative, but he's wasn't a dictator...he had to work with the big spending democratic machine in congress. The democrats wouldn't allow the military buildup AND the kind of domestic spending cuts Reagan desired. He had to choose one or the other. Even with that, however, he didn manage to slow the growth of domestic spending which sent libs into a tizzy (who can forget the seemingly endless news stories about "the homeless" during the 80's).

Reagan was a true believer, had he a GOP House we would've gotten both a stronger military and smaller federal government and probably no deficits, at least in his second term when the economy was humming.

[Maximus]

I don't believe Al Gore would have wanted to do it, but would eventually have been persuaded to go along with it. When Wall Street and military industrial types says march, you lace up your boots and get stepping.

For all the money Reagan spent on building up the military, he sure didn't use it all that often. He did what was necessary in terms of military spending and sabre rattling to break the USSR, but was hesitant to do anything outside of the Western hemisphere - Grenada, Panama, etc (and expanded to include the Phillipines). In many ways he followed the Monroe Doctrine. That is my point.

Further, this whole situation depends on the chain of events leading up to it.

Would 9/11 have happened minus the 1991 invasion of Iraq and subsequent 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia (as seen by person in the Middle East)?

If Bob Woodward published his interview with Colin Powell (in which Gen. Powell expressed his opposition to the invasion) prior to the Senate vote, as opposed to writing it into a book AFTER the invasion, the 1991 invasion likely would NOT have occured. Would 9/11 have happened in that case? The public would have known one of the top generals was against the invasion, and perhaps pubilc opinion would have turned against it.

Had the invasion of Iraq in 1991 gone ALL THE WAY culminating in the toppling of Saddam Hussein (over the reservations of Gen Powell), and establishment of bases in Iraq (vice Saudi), would 9/11 have happened?

yes, you still havent answered the question: What would he have done assuming 9/11 happened? I accept that there are many things the United States did before 9/11 that if they did not do, 9/11 never would have happened.

Back to 9/11, was the invasion of Afghanistan even an issue int he senate? Was there any debate? public debate or otherwise? I just dont see another option, given the taliban would not give up bin laden. Maybe secret ops into Afghanistan

[RobinFinderson]

He believed it in it domestically -

But he believed far more in the existential, philosophical struggle of freedom and open societies vs communism and centrally controlled societies.

That's why even though he cut taxes and controlled spending domestically he made a strategic choice break the Soviet Union with military spending and it forces a bit of an asterisk next to his label as a fiscal conservative.

In other words he was willing to spend like money like it was going out of style on those things he really believed in... and he proved pretty damn well what the American government is capable of doing when it dedicates sufficient resources to solving a problem.

[NorthwestUteFan]

yes, you still havent answered the question: What would he have done assuming 9/11 happened? I accept that there are many things the United States did before 9/11 that if they did not do, 9/11 never would have happened.

Back to 9/11, was the invasion of Afghanistan even an issue int he senate? Was there any debate? public debate or otherwise? I just dont see another option, given the taliban would not give up bin laden. Maybe secret ops into Afghanistan

Who knows. I don't believe he would have remained a strict isolationist. He may have tried the secret ops stuff, or just bombed the shit out of Tora Bora. He likely would not have held the military to the 'daylight hours only' rules of engagement (Taliban and other bad guys only move around at night, when it is forbidden to engage them).

I didn't believe this when it was happening, but now I see that Iraq WAS in fact a large distraction.

[NorthwestUteFan]

In other words he was willing to spend like money like it was going out of style on those things he really believed in... and he proved pretty damn well what the American government is capable of doing when it dedicates sufficient resources to solving a problem.

Lincoln effectively proved that a century before. As did many subsequent presidents.

[oxcoug]

In other words he was willing to spend like money like it was going out of style on those things he really believed in... and he proved pretty damn well what the American government is capable of doing when it dedicates sufficient resources to solving a problem.

I see where you're going there. It doesn't translate very well.

[Katy Lied]

And yet - there is almost nothing defensible in the outcomes of the French Revolution either. And the euphoric orgy of "liberty" that launched it was quickly followed by unchecked murder, destruction of property and then an aggressive dictatorship.

The idealistic students of the French Revolution soon gave way to proponents of pure redistribution.