Arrest Bush? ok, sure...

[Dozyproductions]

You guys are absolutely right, two wrongs do make a right.

[NKRoberts]

O is much better than Bush. Bush is a dick riding rich boi

how's the kool-aid taste?

[Pac1373]

O is much better than Bush. Bush is a dick riding rich boi

lol wat? O is a poor boy hiself is he?

[nrubenstein]

Just for some perspective: 3,000 or so were killed in the attack. In "punishing" those responsible, we've gotten twice as many soldiers killed, many, many times that number maimed horribly, and killed who knows how many innocents as collateral damage. And burned over a billion dollars per 9/11 victim.

Maybe it's just me, but the response seems to fail the reasonableness test.

[NKRoberts]

idk how does my nutsack?

typical obama supporter, how's your hope and change?

Just for some perspective: 3,000 or so were killed in the attack. In "punishing" those responsible, we've gotten twice as many soldiers killed, many, many times that number maimed horribly, and killed who knows how many innocents as collateral damage. And burned over a billion dollars per 9/11 victim.

Maybe it's just me, but the response seems to fail the reasonableness test.

I think a response to 9/11 should have happened but we should have been out of there a long time ago.

[nrubenstein]

typical obama supporter, how's your hope and change?




I think a response to 9/11 should have happened but we should have been out of there a long time ago.

But why did we respond with a war? I mean, if anything, we made those assholes millions of times more important than they would have been as criminals. Worse yet, war legitimizes them. And by limiting our response to the scope of invasion (and getting bogged down in it - why the hell were we in Iraq at all? Saddam was an asshole, but he was a contained asshole.), we largely ignored the people who had been funding and encouraging this crap.

Edit: The hell of it is that I actually agree that if we were going to fight a war, the only way to win it is basically to completely and utterly break the people and country. The problem is that that is a truly hideous thing to do and pretty much impossible in an era of live media coverage. If you're not going to fight decisively, you shouldn't fight at all.

[NKRoberts]

But why did we respond with a war? I mean, if anything, we made those assholes millions of times more important than they would have been as criminals. Worse yet, war legitimizes them. And by limiting our response to the scope of invasion (and getting bogged down in it - why the hell were we in Iraq at all? Saddam was an asshole, but he was a contained asshole.), we largely ignored the people who had been funding and encouraging this crap.

Edit: The hell of it is that I actually agree that if we were going to fight a war, the only way to win it is basically to completely and utterly break the people and country. The problem is that that is a truly hideous thing to do and pretty much impossible in an era of live media coverage. If you're not going to fight decisively, you shouldn't fight at all.

So are you saying the better solution would have been to do nothing?
Im not saying i agree with the wars, just curious.

[nrubenstein]

So are you saying the better solution would have been to do nothing?
Im not saying i agree with the wars, just curious.

Why not pursue the terrorists as the criminals they are? Why should we assume responsibility for governing Afghanistan or Iraq? If we have a specific objective, blow the shit out of it. Hell, level a few cities. It sets the right tone. Nation building, on the other hand, is both distracting, expensive, and a pretty dubious affair. Worse, it creates an environment in which these people win by losing.

My problem with the war on terrorism is that we never had a meaningful plan worked out. We went in and took over Afghanistan (kind of). So now, what? We've been there how long? Then we went and took over Iraq. Except that we've removed the (crazy asshole) dictator and replaced him with a coalition composed in large part of religious fruitcakes. And that's our "victory." Woohoo.

Effective use of the military means figuring out a defined, achievable objective and setting expectations accordingly. Instead, we went in with expectations set at completely, utterly absurd levels. Unsurprisingly, we utterly failed to achieve them. In the process, we've weakened our economy, weakened our stature, and done little to actually improve improve our security (and by that I mean we've weakened it).

[e30e]

Why not pursue the terrorists as the criminals they are? Why should we assume responsibility for governing Afghanistan or Iraq? If we have a specific objective, blow the shit out of it. Hell, level a few cities. It sets the right tone. Nation building, on the other hand, is both distracting, expensive, and a pretty dubious affair. Worse, it creates an environment in which these people win by losing.

My problem with the war on terrorism is that we never had a meaningful plan worked out. We went in and took over Afghanistan (kind of). So now, what? We've been there how long? Then we went and took over Iraq. Except that we've removed the (crazy asshole) dictator and replaced him with a coalition composed in large part of religious fruitcakes. And that's our "victory." Woohoo.

Effective use of the military means figuring out a defined, achievable objective and setting expectations accordingly. Instead, we went in with expectations set at completely, utterly absurd levels. Unsurprisingly, we utterly failed to achieve them. In the process, we've weakened our economy, weakened our stature, and done little to actually improve improve our security (and by that I mean we've weakened it).

Because money was made, of course on a corporate level. Not putting on my tin foil hat, but everything after 9/11 that went into place and happened already had been planned.

[gwb72tii]

But why did we respond with a war?

uh, i dunno, maybe cause IT WAS AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE USA

[redhatpat]

uh, i dunno, maybe cause IT WAS AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE USA

Was it? Most of the terrorists were Saudi Arabian nationals. Update your maps, because that country you attacked (justifiably I'd say) wasn't Saudi Arabia.

It was a terrorist action. Which was why there was never a declaration of war against any country.

[nrubenstein]

uh, i dunno, maybe cause IT WAS AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE USA

Committed by whom, again? Last I checked, OBL was not a head of state. And if we wanted to get to his sponsors, why didn't we go to war with Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan? It's not an act of war. Terrorism is a crime. Terrorism committed BY A SOVEREIGN ENTITY is an act of war, but OBL never did qualify as a sovereign entity or a head of state last I checked.

You can make a reasonable argument for going into Afghanistan to clean out the terrorists. I have not yet seen anyone make any kind of coherent argument for what the hell we were doing in Iraq.

[joshh]

Split hairs all you want. Thank god the US is still a military might and willing to go where we need to to send a message. I could give a fuck if it wasn't a Sovereign Nation that did it. Afghan and Iraq were both terrorist sympathizers and strongholds. Just like how Palestine voted in Hamas...FUCK EM!



"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." -Isoroku Yamamoto

[E30Kaiser]

^

Yup the thing you have to remember is the taliban knocked the shit out of the Russians for 10 years till they gave up and went home. WE trained them how to fight like this............................ And we know the Rooskies are not big on pulling punches. All that aside, if we were to reinstate the carpet bombing indiscriminately I think we would have seen much more positive results about 8 years ago

This is not accurate. The Taliban didn't exist until the 90's.

As for Bush, I wouldn't be surprised if he is taken for questioning, the Canadians friggin interrogated Cro Cop last year for war crimes. The only war crime Cro Cop has ever committed is murdering people with left kicks to the dome.

[Dozyproductions]

This is not accurate. The Taliban didn't exist until the 90's.

As for Bush, I wouldn't be surprised if he is taken for questioning, the Canadians friggin interrogated Cro Cop last year for war crimes. The only war crime Cro Cop has ever committed is murdering people with left kicks to the dome.

sure they did, just under a different name.