The governments reaction to 9/11
 

Just wondering what everyone thinks should have happened.

If you think we should have done something that wasn't listed in the poll, post it.

Mostly, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... so that shouldn't even be an option.

We used the 9/11 attacks to our advantage to try and complete what Daddy didn't do back in the early 90's and take out Saddam. It was just in attacking Afghanistan and the Taliban but we started grasping for straws and the American public (at the time) went along with it. Now, we realize what a horrible mistake we made by invading Iraq. This administration really sucks.

You know, most of the American public thinks we're in Iraq because Saddam bombed the twin towers or something. It's amazing how uninformed most of the people in our country are.

I voted "Nothing" but I don't think NOTHING should have been done. I think we should have made sure our national security was top notch, and gotten over it. I can almost guarantee that if we hadn't retaliated guns ablazing we wouldn't be in this mess we're in right now. When you fight violence with violence you end up in a vicious cycle, and someone has to break the cycle for it to end. Had we done nothing but strengthen our defenses, we'd be less in debt, gas prices most likely wouldn't be nearly as high as they are, there would be far less deaths in our world right now(I think the Iraqi death toll is somewhere around 600,000.)

Do any of you feel any safer now that we went to war and took Saddam out? I can honestly say, I do not. If anything, I feel less so.

Well there was two stories to Iraq and the Bush Admin did a great job of confusing and scaring a majority of the United States' public. At first he tried to tie Iraq and 9/11 together saying Saddam Hussein had ties with Osama Bin Laden (which he never had) and they ruled that out. And then roughly a year 1/2 - 2 years later he confirmed that Iraq had WMDs.. Which is the real reason we went to war, and they never turned out to have anything.

So basically I say we should just hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

I pretty much agree with KA. I said go after Osama but that's only because I don't think we should have done "nothing."

Turning the other cheek not only looks better for our country but takes a lot more strength to do. Yeah, they killed thousands of Americans. So we kill 600,000 innocent Iraqis. We in turn just piss them off more by not only killing their civilians but twisting their government to our own ideals. It's only a matter of time before the terrorists start retaliating, and it will probably be worse than 9/11 was.

It seems to me like the time for us in Iraq is now over. We need to get out and focus on Russia, China, and Iraq. (I read the other day that North Korea has agreed to put a stop to their nuclear program.)

They say our military is so weak and thinned out that if something were to hit the fan over here we'd be shit out of luck. Good fucking going Goddamn bush I hope you get assassinated you peice of shit.

I just hope that our potential enemies realize that most of our country thinks Bush is a fucktard and they blame him rather than all of America.

Then again, they're warring against Christians, and seeing as most of America is Christian, we're pretty much fucked. I'm going to Canada, eh.

I don't think turning the other cheek is appropriate when so many civilian casualties are inflicted, something HAD to be done. It's just like having multiple predators in the same area, allowing something like that to go will only show the others that you are weak and open to attack, which is not acceptable. None of that even includes the general populace's demands for revenge.

The response should have been limited strictly to those responsible for the attack though, instead of using it as an excuse to go rearrange some peoples' countries for them.

Like I said, turning the other cheek takes a lot more strength than lashing out at your attacker. I honestly don't think we would have looked weak if we had done so.

And by your same reasoning, Iraq should attack us back right now 100 fold for all of the civilians of theirs that we've killed.

All that will mean to a predator is that we're not willing to pursue them. Honestly, it's pretty much JUST like predatorial (or even scavenger-like) behavior, meaning they only respond to strength. If they perceive us as unable or unwilling to retaliate, it will only make things worse.

There is nothing wrong with self-defense.

Bringing a predator to justice I agree with.

Bringing a predator to justice by any means necessary I disagree with.

Never said by any means necessary, how would it look if we were to violate the Geneva Conventions while persuing perpetrators who have done the same? ;)

My point is that an aggressive response was pretty much required to dissuade further actions against us from others.

You want agressive? How about we go WW2 and carpet bomb the entire country with a 5000 mile wide 2000 mile long flock of heavy bombers? That would be aggressive enough and we wouldn't need to waste a whole lot of money on training people or deploying them. Plus no one gets truamatized by a war except for anyone hiding out in the countryside that just got obliterated.

Also we could use more efficient ways of stopping Osama. The Japanese called them assassins...I call them the Well Oil'd Killin' Machines.

You should try reading threads before posting in them.

How do you turn every discussion into shit? How?

Say that to Ghandi. He was completely against fighting. Even as his people were being gunned down, they would not fight. Turned out for the best.

Tell me how you turn relationships into shit and I'll tell you how I turn discussions into shit.

That. Doesn't. Even. Make. Sense.

Ghandi's situation is different, he believed in Civil Disobedience, which works well against establishments that rely upon your cooperation. Yes, it worked for him, but the situations are radically different between the U.S. now and Ghandi's India movements.

First off, nonviolent disobedience is largely just a nonviolent rebellion, which isn't a possibility because the United States would not be rebelling against a governing body, because we're a sovereign nation.

Reasoning with fanatics usually doesn't work out that well, but I'm unsure as to how we've attempted to reason with them thus far. That kind of thing doesn't make the news. ;)

The nation's interest is retaining sovereignty, saving as many of our lives as possible, and deterring any other threats of this type. None of that works if you're being gunned down, bombed, or whatever by fanatics. You'd gain a moral victory, but you'd still be dead. It takes fanatics of your own to find that an acceptable solution. Even the Samurai of Japan had a saying (I forgot where I read it); "Honor is a thin cloak against the chill of the grave."


I'm not saying I don't agree with nonviolent solutions, but there are times where there is no other option. It is always, ALWAYS the last option.

I believe that we should have hunted for Bin laden. But he is probably dead already because he either a) took his own life or b) died of kidney problems. Well i hope he is happy that he got to live out his final moments on earth in a cave somewhere in a pile of his own shit. Now he is in hell wondering what he did wrong, fucktard.

It's not proof that he's still alive, but he's still releasing videos, even though it might not actually be him. He's mentioning current events, so if it IS him, it's not old footage.

Then again, isn't Tupac still releasing music?

True, but most medical experts have gone on record saying that it would be very hard for him to survive due to the treatments he would need for his crappy kidneys.

I really dont care if he is alive or not, but if he is and we get our hands on him, then justice wont be served. He will be arrested and tried and then put in jail for a few years til he is killed or dies. Seeing him in jail would not be the answer to all those familes. I say put him in the middle of a square or something and anybody that wants to can come up and just takea crack at him. But that is unrealistic so dont mind this post

Yeah, that's not barbaric at all.

Who says he doesn't have the treatments he needs for his kidneys? He might be living in a palace right now. His gray beard was died black, which is a bit of a sign that he isn't just living in a cave somewhere.

Like what they did with Mussolini? Let's do it.

Gruesome, why should we resort to such barbarism? Why should we sink to his level?

Because i am an angry, irrational human being. I am very emotional and i will never ever forgive him or his stupid club of fuckers that think they are doing ala's work. That is why i am not God and you are MJ. Sorry to say it, but i am one to say fight fire with fire. I know im a terrible person in this reguard, but with this situation i really dont care.

I totally agree. Except I say make them all pay. That way the rest of the world knows that if they piss us off they won't even have heirs to their legacy.

But I am also a person that doesn't cry when a little furry creature dies and I hate people in general so I say kill as many as you can or like. I don't mind seeing a video of a bunch of scorched dead bodies in a giant crater that used to be a country, and I certainly don't mind genocide. I would defile the bodies even, just to show that no respect is given to enemies.

Thank God, or whatever you believe in, that you are not in power.

It's only a matter of time, Mj. It seems like most people can't think rationally or logically these days. One day there will be a president just like him.

sorry to bust your people but i was being truthful. Im glad somebody else sees it my way, but i hope that a presidnet never sees it my way or else we are all fucked

I don't see the point of belittiling your own intelligence, but okay. If you don't want to be a human being, please hand in your card at the desk and join the rest of the apes.

WW2 was a different kind of war. These countries had air bases and armies that could match ours. Something major needed to be done to end the war before the enemy could develop nuclear missiles.

Iraq is a lot different. Since the Saddam is no longer in power there is no point in bombing military sites. If we did major bombings we would just be killing civilians.

And isn't it mostly Iraqis killing each other with all the suicide bombings instead of us killing civilians directly?

So next time ...we bomb the civilians first and call it a result of war. CHECK!

First off i was wasted when i replied to that. Second off, its not belittiling to my intelligence because i understand that my feelings are wrong and if i were to take actions, they would be wrong. Intelligence and feelings are not the same thing.

If you know something you think is wrong but you don't change it, you're lacking intelligence. It could be called "Willed Ignorance" but that's a slightly different thing.