re: What should the USA have done after 11 September 2001?

Jesus is going to place millions in hell fire! !!


You have these ignorant bastards horboring terrorist and funding these evil terrorist.

A threat of future Nukes, with a couple dropped nukes 100 miles outside of a couple of major cities would have brought about the necessary capitulation by these Arab nations.

If countries know you mean business they will acquiesce in a hurry. As long as liberals and dumb conservatives pussy foot around you get more of the same BS.

Two nukes on Japan brought about the end of the war quickly.

The nuclear option can be argued to save the most lives, long-term. That's what I'm saying.

seriously ... scrub has an answer that is as logical as anyone's (even if he might be trolling - don't know scrub that well) ... we got stung, and decided to start two wars that had no ending, spending trillions of dollars we don't have, creating government bureaucracy and increasing NSA surveillance, instead of something that makes far more sense in light of aq's inability to create anything more than an aircraft attack, thus far ...

quote:

---

Had we not decided that Iraq taking over Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia was such a bad thing, then 911 may never have happened. The Gulf War was not necessary. Why? Because there are no "good guys" in the oil countries. Would Saddam have attemepted to take over SA? Probably. Then what? Well he's now a huge threat and buffer to Iran, Hezebollah, Al Quaeda, and any other Jihadist group. Would he attempt to cut off the US from ME oil? Hell no, who want to alienate the world largest consumer? 

No US troops would have lived and died in Saudi Arabia and in the process enraging the radicals. US companies could still have done biz with Saddam and there would have been no long embargo, which resulted in the death of up to 500,000 children. 

Doing absolutely nothing would given us a better result and most likely 911 never happens. Saudi Arabia goes from being ruled by a corrupt royal family to being ruled by a mafia regime. 

We succumbed to fear - just like the invasion of Iraq and the current ISIS crisis. 

---

Petrodollar.

quote:

---

Reinforced cockpit doors.

The End

---

Richard Gere agreed with you. He got booed by NYPD and NYFD.

But, it's still a solution to the issue.

quote:

---

For those of you who want to kill all Muslims, would allowing a Stalinesque dictator repress, torture, and kill his own countrymen be all that bad in exchange for stability?

---

Good and logical point. Those who say "Nuke the Muslims" can't argue that Saddam had to be deposed because he was killing and abusing Muslims.

BUT, you are off topic. We are thinking about the US course of action after 11 Sep 2001. I'm a little disappointed that the most popular suggested solution is "Nuke the Muslims" but this thread is not yet over.

Saddam's biggest sin was continuing to support the Palestinians after 9/11. This is why he is dead.

Send spec op units after OBL and every member of al-queda and use lots and lots of drones during the campaign.

Absolutely stay away from invading Iraq and Afghanistan and leave Saddam alone to ensure stability across the Mideast.

quote:

---

Send spec op units after OBL and every member of al-queda and use lots and lots of drones during the campaign.

Absolutely stay away from invading Iraq and Afghanistan and leave Saddam alone to ensure stability across the Mideast.

---

Very interesting. Perhaps this was the best option.

It would not be a lasting solution, however, because, AQ would suffer losses, disperse and then reappear some years later in the form of ISIL or some other named group.

Bush seems to have been going for a LASTING and permanent solution. If we give him the benefit of the doubt, he saw removal of Saddam as a way to deny AQ a possible future safe-haven to regroup.

I am willing to concede for the sake of discussion that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam was a mistake. I have to concede that the costs outweighed the benefits. As such, I'd like to move on from that for the sake of this thread at least.

I'd like to continue to think about what the US should have done besides continue to contain Saddam, suppress him, keep UN inspector pressure on him, occasionally bomb him when he shoots at us, etc.

Destroy the Taliban without occupation of A-ghan. That's a popular idea. A good idea, I think. Sure, we may have had to go back there in a future time to again destroy the Taliban, but, perhaps we should have been realistic enough to set aside the notion that the USA could establish lasting peace and stability in the ME. Perhaps the USA should have pursued a course of action that did not have lasting peace and stability as a primary objective.

That said, what should the USA have done?

We haven't heard from many of our most active posters. I know that they have some thoughts on this.

quote:

---

Send spec op units after OBL and every member of al-queda and use lots and lots of drones during the campaign.

Absolutely stay away from invading Iraq and Afghanistan and leave Saddam alone to ensure stability across the Mideast.

---

This is obviously the correct answer....if our intentions were to fight terrorists.