- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What should the USA have done after 11 September 2001?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:22 pm to OFWHAP
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:22 pm to OFWHAP
quote:
Why did he HAVE to go?
Hussein was not fulfilling the agreement he signed on to after the First Gulf War. He was denying UN Inspectors access to sites that were subject to inspection.
Bush also felt that Hussein was a de-stabilizing influence in the region, and was financing terrorists.
Not saying he was right or wrong. That was just his reasoning.
2
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:27 pm to Champagne
While I think the Saudi government had as much to do with 9/11 as the Afghan government
(neither were directly responsible but both looked the other way either because of sympathy or because of fear) attacking Saudi Arabia could have been absolutely disastrous if say the monarchy retreats do to the Holy cities and held out instead abdicating, not to mention the economic devastation wrought by disrupting oil exports.
(neither were directly responsible but both looked the other way either because of sympathy or because of fear) attacking Saudi Arabia could have been absolutely disastrous if say the monarchy retreats do to the Holy cities and held out instead abdicating, not to mention the economic devastation wrought by disrupting oil exports.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:31 pm to Champagne
Severed the heads of all of the Bin Laden family instead of putting them on a private flight to safety. Cut off any aid to any country not called the USA. Annihilate the taliban.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:40 pm to Champagne
quote:
Thanks for hijacking the thread, jackass, and you are full of crap.
ISIL exists because of Obama's precipitate withdrawal from Iraq created the opportunity for ISIL.
Obama ignored the advice of all of his military advisers and did not leave a follow-on stabilization force of US military.
If Obama HAD left a follow on force, the task of dealing with ISIL now would be easier. There's a good chance that ISIL would not exist right now, had Obama followed the advice of his military advisers.
As it stands, Obama told us that he ended the war there, but, there it is -- we are again fighting in Iraq AND we are poised to commit acts of war on a sovereign nation (Syria) with whom we are not at war.
AQ, ISIL and groups like this are going to exist for all time. They are never going away.
Bush's plan was to create a stable peaceful Iraq that would NOT be a failed state that could host AQ. In retrospect, we can see that it was a risky gamble that had a low chance of succeeding without a 20 year US presence in that place.
Oh you make this so easy my friend.
Why were we in Iraq? W. A "follow on" force would not have been necessary if we had just kept our eye on the prize in the Afgan desert.
And what moron invades another country without a plan what to do with said country after the bombs stop. W.
I understand my friend that you guys don't really like hearing the truth.
But embrace it because the truth shall set you free.
The policies of W, created ISIL.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:42 pm to redandright
quote:
Bush also felt that Hussein was a de-stabilizing influence in the region, and was financing terrorists.
Ironic.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:01 pm to asurob1
quote:
The policies of W, created ISIL.
That's completely false. Organizations like AQ and ISIL are never going away, no matter who is POTUS.
The challenge that faced Obama was to manage the Iraq situation that Bush created. Obama has failed to do that, as he has failed in other areas.
If Obama did not care to competently manage US foreign policy, he should not have run for POTUS. Of course it serves his political interests to Blame Bush Forever. Those folks who possess the capacity for logical and objective reasoning know that blaming Bush in 2014 is not persuasive. Bush's connection to Mid East events is attenuated at this point.
You and your fellow travelers will Blame Bush forever because it's a useful weapon to use against your political opponents. It's no longer persuasive.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:25 pm to Champagne
quote:
You and your fellow travelers will Blame Bush forever because it's a useful weapon to use against your political opponents. It's no longer persuasive.
For Iraq...given that he invaded them for no other reason other then he felt like kicking some arse.
Yeah...I will blame him for everything that goes on in that shite hole of a country because he is to blame.
His post 9/11 policy certainly hamstrung Obama (who frankly didn't need the help fricking up in international affairs) and it will continue to hamstring the next president.
But hey, stick to your narrative.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:33 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Severed the heads of all of the Bin Laden family instead of putting them on a private flight to safety.
Jesus Christ
Posted on 9/12/14 at 7:11 am to asurob1
quote:
Yeah...I will blame him for everything that goes on in that shite hole of a country because he is to blame.
I'll stick to the rational objective truth, and YOU stick to your infantile inability to conduct rational objective analysis in the part of your brain that operates logical functioning.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 7:29 am to redandright
quote:well he was wrong about Hussein destabilizing the region. The region is more stable when brutal dictators that work like puppets are in place.
Bush also felt that Hussein was a de-stabilizing influence in the region, and was financing terrorists.
Not saying he was right or wrong. That was just his reasoning.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:54 am to heartbreakTiger
Yeah, Saddam was a stabilizing influence against AQ taking over Iraq.
But, he probably paid and would be paying some tribute to AQ-like organizations, also.
Whether Saddam would ever have provided WMD of any kind to AQ is an open question. Probably not, but who knows?
But, he probably paid and would be paying some tribute to AQ-like organizations, also.
Whether Saddam would ever have provided WMD of any kind to AQ is an open question. Probably not, but who knows?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:01 am to DeltaDoc
quote:
Basically, exactly what we did sans Iraq.
To this I would add, begin extricating ourselves from problematic "allies" such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:05 am to Champagne
quote:
The challenge that faced Obama was to manage the Iraq situation that Bush created. Obama has failed to do that, as he has failed in other areas.
This seemed almost inevitable to me from the beginning. The only thing to do was establish a temporary peace and gtfo.
That's what we did. I am only disappointed that we are going back in.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:12 am to asurob1
quote:
For Iraq...given that he invaded them for no other reason other then he felt like kicking some arse.
Well, that, and the whole, Saddam was a threat to regional stability (not an agent of it, as widely alleged by Hussein apologists of the American left), evidenced by his not one, but TWO invasions of his neighbors in a 10-year span, and continued assholiness.
The argument that he was contained may have some weight, but that doesn't mean he should have been left with a powerful military, indefinitely. The argument that he turned out not to have the robust WMD program that even he thought he had, much less than every reputable intelligence agency on Earth, thought he had (I guess we should have consulted with aliens), doesn't hold much sway with me.
You want to say we prosecuted the war badly? I agree. You want to say there was no justification for it? You're full of $hit.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:14 am to Champagne
quote:
Champagne
Do you play chess?
If you do, you will know that the "losing position" is very real. If you are in one, odds are against you winning.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:15 am to Jim Ignatowski
quote:
We should have utterly destroyed all Muslims...every where.
What about the Muslims here in America? Should we have rounded them up into death camps and systematically exterminated them...or something of that nature?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:16 am to Champagne
Issued letters of marque and let private armies plunder the ME
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:17 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
Severed the heads of all of the Bin Laden family instead of putting them on a private flight to safety.
It's a good thing some of you posters aren't in positions of influence
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:35 am to Champagne
quote:
But, he probably paid and would be paying some tribute to AQ-like organizations, also.
Jesus...you can't find anything to fit your narrative so now you are making shite up. Amazing.
quote:
Whether Saddam would ever have provided WMD of any kind to AQ is an open question. Probably not, but who knows?
More bullshite fantasy land.
Once again, Saddam had nothing to do with AQ. Not one thing. Further, no WMDs have been found to date. I suppose you can keep looking and hoping.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:38 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
You want to say we prosecuted the war badly? I agree. You want to say there was no justification for it? You're full of $hit.
He was well contained and would have gotten the shite kicked out of him if he tried to invade anyone else.
He didn't.
But hey, I guess 4000 American lives and countless non-combatant Iraqi lives were well worth it so W could thump his chest and say he kicked someone's arse.
There was no justification whatsoever to invade. None. Further, it took us off mission to deal with those people who actually had a hand in 9/11 and likely delayed us catching and kill OBL for years.
You are a smart guy Ace, you well know this.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News