h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When considering their reactions to this event, the leaders must consider a number of things: why do so many Muslims dislike America? What will the reaction of the civilians near the target sites be? Attacks can only lead to more hatred.

Also, it is important to remember how many innocents have lost their lives in 'collatoral damage' from airstrikes.

The key question for the USA is not, "Who?", or "How?", but "Why?". It is only attention to this question that will lead to a fundamental examination of foreign policy and of the ethics of American business. It is in these areas that the seeds of terrorism are to be found, not simply in some undifferentiated 'evil' - though evil there most certainly is.

As for George Bush's inept performance: Channel 4 news described him as 'scuttling' from one place to another - can anyone doubt that Bill Clinton would have been in New York within hours of the strike? As for Bush's speech today - it was nothing but some speech-writer's attempt at a "statesman's" words - totally unengaged political rhetoric. One got the impression that George didn't have a clue - but what is new about that? Compare Tony Blair's heartfelt and moving expression of sympathy. All we can say is that with leadership like this, "God help America"

The main reaction by leaders everywhere seems to be 'attack America and you attack all of the 'free and democratic world', which seems a bit dramatic.

Frankie

Why you ask? Try sick fanatics!

Because nothing really helps a crisis like having politicians standing around and seeking photo opportunities.

The proper place for the president is to coordinate the national response and let the subordinate and local officials do their job.

I've said this in other places, I don't like Bush (hate him), but his reaction was appropiate.
Did you see his face when he first heard the news in Florida? He was dumb founded. I'd say that was the only natural reaction that could be conceivable.
Air Force One and the White House were targets, too. It would have been irresponsible to have handled things any differently.
And no, Clinton wouldn't have been there sooner.

I don't know, he may have been.

I too think Clinton would have headed there sooner, but that's not to say Bush did the wrong thing. Dubya doesn't really have that empathy thing going for him and America could do without the embarrassment of him trying right now.

Talking about reactions by world leaders, what did people think of Yassar Arafat's reaction?

To me, he looked just as shell-shocked and horrified as everyone else, and the advisers surrounding him during the TV coverage looked plain scared. I think they are more aware than anyone else what this could mean to Islamic nations if things get out of hand. The dreadful work of a few extremists could have far-reaching repercussions for them.

Ok, I'm not Bush's biggest supporter. I think he's a twit. I'm assuming from the comment about channel 4 that the fellow who made the coment about clinton getting there sooner was British. I'd just like to point out, that the function of the secret service is to keep the president safe. After all, we need a leader in such a time. It would have been dangerous for Bush to be anywhere near NYC or Washington D.C.. They didn't know what was going to be attacked next, if anything.

Regardless, Bush had no say in where he went. That was the secret service's doing, and they did a damn fine job if you ask me.

I totally agree with 'Wolf's e-mail. The Americans have to understand what it is that drives muslim hatred of their country. Otherwise, I fear this is only the beginning.

When you vote for a government one of the prime things expected from a government is for them to protect you from both internal trouble and external trouble.
With this in mind I think it's almost inconceivable that George Bush will not go to war over this. It would quite possibly be seen as a betrayal of his people if he did not Unfortunately the reality is that he may have to.
I hope it is not too far reaching and does not escalate but as a friend of mine put it yesterday "all bets are off".
As for the UK and others saying "if one is attacked all of us are attacked". This is not over the top its one of the prime clauses in the NATO treaty.
Consider this, the NATO countries have unanimously and for the first ever time, invoked clause V of the NATO treaty which is exactly that. If one country in NATO is attacked by a foreign power then all are and we are all obliged to take part in the ensuing struggle. In addition the UN security council has UNANIMOUSLY voted to support the USA in this - can anyone remember the last unanimous resolution passed by the UN. Both Russia and China have added their support to those of the UK and the european union.
Someone in the Arab world is in BIG trouble. As you say, Yasser Arafat looked scared, well should a lot of the Arab world.
This is all a damn damn shame but I'm sure that at the very least the USA will declare war on Afghanistan.

I'm worried - big time.

The problem with attacking Afghanistan is finding the right targets. The Soviet Union couldn't win the gorrila war, there is no reason why the Americans can. Air superiority is useless against this type of force; look at Vietnam if you don't believe me.

The only way that the Taliban can be found and civilian casualties (who have suffered enough under Taliban rule) is commando raids.

Yasser Arafat has just seen how the clock was set back 10 years.

TM.

I think there's more to Arafat's reaction than that. If I were in his shoes I'd be profoundly worried that someone close to me had something to do with the attack and the consequences that might ensue for him and his organization. The clock could get wound back a lot more than 10 years.

I'm willing to take Arafat's gesture at face value. I think there's a realization among some people in the Middle East that a giant has been awakened. I think the reaction of some of these nations is, "Please don't bomb me."

If we to attack Afghanistan, which I don't think is inevitable, I don't think we're going to have the same problems we had in Vietnam or that the Soviets had. This will be fought differently. Neither the government nor the people ever really supported the Vietnam War. I think we're committed to this one. It will be properly resourced. We won't tie our hands behind our back. We're going to allow our military to do what it does best: break things, kill people, and hold territory.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
War is capitalism with the gloves off. - Tom Stoppard

True, Afghanistan is being ruled by lunatics, who may or may not be have anything to do wih the WTC tragedy. But the people of Afghanistan are among the poorest in the world. The Pakistani border is congested with the most destitute and miserable people on earth. What good will come of bombing such hopeless wretches. The fight against terrorism is just. But increasing the suffering of ordinary Afghans would be unpardonable.

JTG

I too take Arafat's gesture at face value, and it wouldn't surprise me if some helpful information discreetly wends its way from the PLO to the CIA to ensure there are no misunderstandings. I don't think it's just a case of "Please don't bomb me" though, and more a case of "Please don't park your tanks in my capital".

I take Arafat at his word as well. I think he was very surprised. The bombers were planning this years in advance. It was right during the time when the Arab/Israeli chances for peace never looked better.

These men and woman bombers who planned this were never interested in a peaceful resolution. They were only looking to kill.

John, you're right, of course, and nobody wants to see that happen, but giving the military a freer hand may well ensure it doesn't come to that. If it's not obvious to them by now, it won't take long for the Taliban to realize that America isn't bluffing and that a full-scale invasion is a real possibility. Even if it does come to a conflict, it's not likely to consist almost exclusively of the protracted and relatively undiscriminating aerial bombardment that's characterized recent US battles.