- 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 9/12/14 at 11:38 am to Ace Midnight
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.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:48 am to asurob1
I look at facts and derive logical conclusions therefrom.
The notion that Saddam Hussein would NEVER develop WMDs and NEVER help an AQ like organization is quite naive and not supported by the pattern of his prior behavior.
BUT, we can agree that the costs/benefits of invading Iraq demonstrate that it was no worth it. The costs were always going to be way more than what the US electorate was willing to spend.
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
The notion that Saddam Hussein would NEVER develop WMDs and NEVER help an AQ like organization is quite naive and not supported by the pattern of his prior behavior.
BUT, we can agree that the costs/benefits of invading Iraq demonstrate that it was no worth it. The costs were always going to be way more than what the US electorate was willing to spend.
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 12:06 pm to asurob1
quote:
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.
War is never worth it, unless you win.
quote:
There was no justification whatsoever to invade.
We just disagree. Any outlaw in charge of an agressive, large military force is subject to removal at international discretion.
quote:
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.
Again, I agree with the way we prosecuted both wars - I'm not defending the generals and the "nation building" that somehow crept into our mission package during the 1990s and eventually replace warfighting as our primary function. I bitched about then (nobody listens to lieutenants/captains), during the Balkans and I continued to bitch about it until the present (nobody listens to majors/lieutenant colonels).
quote:
You are a smart guy Ace, you well know this.
I know stuff you cannot possibly imagine, brah.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News