- 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 9:59 am to TX Tiger
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:59 am to TX Tiger
quote:
This is obviously the correct answer....if our intentions were to fight terrorists.
So, these countries are just going to let you cruise around their country with Special Ops, copters, drones, and HUMVEES chasing terrorists like bounty hunters?
I think not. LOL
1
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:02 am to Jim Ignatowski
quote:
We should have utterly destroyed all Muslims...every where.
Come on, man. Don't completely discredit yourself as a conservative thinker. You've got to do more thinking before you answer.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:06 am to geauxturbo
quote:
I think we should have done what we did. But used the Surge type tactics post the removal of Saddam to keep the insurgents at bay. Fully stabilized Iraq, then set up a permanent base(s). I also think every damn dime we spent should have been paid by Iraq (through oil or whatever). Spoils of war.
What's wrong with THIS solution, anyone?
This guy is thinking clearly today. Upvoted.
I know that many would scream, "SEE! It was blood for oil all along !", but, no, the US is just using the oil to pay for the war.
Permanent bases in Iraq??!! Sadly, yes. In order to completely stabilize Iraq, we'd probably need to keep those bases there for a long time -- maybe 20 years, or more.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 10:12 am
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:09 am to geauxturbo
quote:
So, these countries are just going to let you cruise around their country with Special Ops, copters, drones, and HUMVEES chasing terrorists like bounty hunters?
A-ghan was a broken country at the time. I think that the poster is saying that we could have chased them all out of A-ghan. We probably could have also conducted direct action strikes just a bit inside Paki and Saddam's Iraqi borders, also.
This seems to me to be a viable course of action (COA) at the time, combined with continued suppression of Saddam's Iraq.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:19 am to Champagne
quote:
Come on, man. Don't completely discredit yourself as a conservative thinker. You've got to do more thinking before you answer.
Probably a bit over the top...but, leaving any of them behind just leads to more terrorist in the future. History demonstrates this time and time again. Muslims have no interest in stopping this...if they did...well, we'd have seen the proof by now.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:24 pm to Jim Ignatowski
Point well taken.
Even now, it can be argued with great persuasiveness that Obama's attacks on ISIL will "just create more terrorists".
There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the US drone offensive against terrorists is indeed creating "more terrorists" due to the unavoidable and occasional casualties such attacks inflict on innocents.
I guess that Bush thought that invading Iraq might create a new US ally in the region and operate to eliminate AQ and future risings of AQ organizations.
It would make sense to find a permanent solution like that. The reality seems more grim in that the US is going to have to keep fighting Islamic terrorists forever. They are not going away, whether we try to give them hugs or slugs, they are not going away ever.
So, the US electorate is going to have to deal with this fact.
Even now, it can be argued with great persuasiveness that Obama's attacks on ISIL will "just create more terrorists".
There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the US drone offensive against terrorists is indeed creating "more terrorists" due to the unavoidable and occasional casualties such attacks inflict on innocents.
I guess that Bush thought that invading Iraq might create a new US ally in the region and operate to eliminate AQ and future risings of AQ organizations.
It would make sense to find a permanent solution like that. The reality seems more grim in that the US is going to have to keep fighting Islamic terrorists forever. They are not going away, whether we try to give them hugs or slugs, they are not going away ever.
So, the US electorate is going to have to deal with this fact.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:30 pm to TT9
quote:
Stayed out of Iraq
Wrong, Saddam had to go
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:33 pm to Champagne
we should have smashed afghanistan to bits with no mercy what so ever. Then smash pakistan up because they are a worthless pile of shite. After we stomp those two we should have unloaded the rest of our anger on the back stabbing no good dirty saudis. The saudis are tied with the pakis for being the shittiest ally in the history of allies. Stomp a mud hole in those 3 countries and hunt down every single member of AQ with ruthless aggression to prove a point. The message sent would be you frick with America on American soil and you get a beat down that wipes you from the history books.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:48 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Wrong, Saddam had to go
Why did he HAVE to go?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:55 pm to OFWHAP
He was an asset that strayed off the reservation.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:57 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
unloaded the rest of our anger on the back stabbing no good dirty saudis.
Conquer Saudi Arabia?
Although their brand of Islam is relatively extreme, this country didn't attack the US, nor did any of their military forces ever fire at US forces.
I don't know about your solution here. We dealt with A-ghan. Maybe we should have been tougher with Pakistan. But, conquer Saudi Arabia?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:59 pm to bencoleman
quote:
He was an asset that strayed off the reservation.
Of course Saddam "had to go." I've always believed that.
But, if the COSTS of deposing him far exceed the benefits of deposing him, it's easy to make a persuasive argument that the US should NOT have invaded Iraq in order to depose Saddam.
Now, if we would have simply occupied the New Iraq for as long as it took to take a trillion dollars worth of their oil for our own gas tanks, then, YES, Saddam had to go.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 5:09 pm to Champagne
quote:
Now, if we would have simply occupied the New Iraq for as long as it took to take a trillion dollars worth of their oil for our own gas tanks, then, YES, Saddam had to go.
How much of their oil did we get? Oh right, Chinese and Russian oil countries got the contracts. And as for the Saudi royal family, they're a major source of funding for terrorism worldwide.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 5:14 pm to Champagne
not conquer them, destroy them and their culture. The hijackers were saudis. the saudis are right with pakistan for being shite stain allies that aren't really our allies. I don't think we should have nuked any country. I prefer that we just reign bombs down on them night and day until we have crushed their will. The same time that we are unloading bomb after bomb on those countries we should be working to hunt down any and all people that are part of AQ and killing them and their families. It is about sending a message of if you frick with us, we aren't going to play this game of political correctness
Posted on 9/11/14 at 5:18 pm to heartbreakTiger
Bomb Saudi Arabia into rubble?
If we were going to go that far, we might as well just bring back the draft, mobilize for war like we did for WW2, invade and conquer Saudi Arabia. Take all of the oil for ourselves.
I don't see your solution as something that would have been a realistic option back then.
If we were going to go that far, we might as well just bring back the draft, mobilize for war like we did for WW2, invade and conquer Saudi Arabia. Take all of the oil for ourselves.
I don't see your solution as something that would have been a realistic option back then.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 5:59 pm to Champagne
id be ok with taking their oil and leaving them in rubble. I don't think we would have needed to bring back a draft. The pr at home could have been hasher on the house of saudi and all muslims in general and people would have flocked into service.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 8:22 pm to Champagne
quote:
What should the USA have done, foreign policy-wise, after 9/11?
Destroy Bin Ladin's group in Afghanistan and those who hid him (Taliban).
Not had our commander-in-chief make up a bunch of lies and invade a country that was not a threat to us what-so-ever.
See with Afghanistan, the world backed us.
With Iraq, they saw us for the war-mongers we became.
Why does ISIS exist today.
George W Bush.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 8:43 pm to asurob1
I would have pulled all our troops out of the middle east or majority Muslim nations.
Gone on TV AND made a speach saying congratulations, you got us on the chin. Next time there is an attack on us or our allies I will pick the name of a major Muslim city out of a hat and that city will cease to exist. If there are any attacks after that I will simply empty the hat and you won't have a religion left to fight for. Police your own I will kill you all.
God Bless the United States of America.
Gone on TV AND made a speach saying congratulations, you got us on the chin. Next time there is an attack on us or our allies I will pick the name of a major Muslim city out of a hat and that city will cease to exist. If there are any attacks after that I will simply empty the hat and you won't have a religion left to fight for. Police your own I will kill you all.
God Bless the United States of America.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:16 pm to Ace Midnight
That's exactly what he did do.
He also told Pakistan what he was going to do, and he intended to use Pakistan as a staging point. And he did.
He also got the Russians to allow access through their country as a supply route.
Bush and his crew managed to build an incredible coalition, and that's been forgotten. And he did it in three months. Pretty amazing.
He also told Pakistan what he was going to do, and he intended to use Pakistan as a staging point. And he did.
He also got the Russians to allow access through their country as a supply route.
Bush and his crew managed to build an incredible coalition, and that's been forgotten. And he did it in three months. Pretty amazing.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:21 pm to asurob1
quote:
Why does ISIS exist today.
George W Bush.
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.
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 9:24 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News