Interesting Discussion......

[Vteckidd]

This is much more broad than the ELECTION section so i wanted to see what everyone said.

Someone i know stated:

"I was for the war, but right now im thinking id rather go through a "9/11" attack once every 10 years and have good economic prosperity, stay out of foreign lands and focus on USA than have what we are going through now"

What do you think?

Would you be willing to take the chance of having another 9/11 style attack once a decade that we have to deal with and trade it for good economy, low oil prices, no wars (obviously just retaliatory attacks like we did against afghanistan) and focus more on the USA instead of other countries

or

No we are on the right track attacking terrorism and and this is just a bad patch we are going through.

Keep the partisan stuff out of it for the most part please.

[eViLMunkey]

Neither we just need to fix our sh!t w/ out having to have the world slap us back into reality

[Evil Goat]

no....one thing leads to another, the next attack will only be bigger and better planned, and it would get worse from there....just in the sense of gas though id be much more happier to pay $5/gallon for gas knowing i werent feeding the very people who want to kill me

[Alan®]

No. Unfortunately we are now paying for 3 decades worth of Presidents unwilling to pull the trigger and clean up the mess Jimmy Carter created. Terrorism has been something we have just swept under the rug and just kinda said "Nah that could never happen here" 9/11 was a wake up call and the penalty that we paid for that ignorance.

[redrumracer]

no id rather have none, i support retaliation at first and still do. besides in Bush's presidency we have only had 1 attack vs 3 during the clinton presidency.

[alpine_aw11]

Whoever it was that said that to you obviously didn't have any family or friends killed by the 9/11 attack. How about we retaliate, and then not go starting an unnecessary war with a country who had nothing to do with the attack in the first place. So focus on the USA in general, regardless of whether we are attacked or not.

[joecoolfreak]

I personally don't think the current wars that we are fighting makes us any safer from internal attacks. I think it makes us even more vulnerable. I think if we would have spent that same time, energy, and especially money on internal security, we would be a lot safer. Not to mention, we would have a lot more soldiers still alive.

Now as far as the original statement, I disagree. I wouldn't ever want another 9/11. I would choose all of the economic disparity in the world over the loss of life like that. I just don't think anything we have done abroad has gotten us any closer to safety, rather just the illusion of safety.

2999 innocent people died on 9/11
4168 brave soldiers have died so far in Iraq and that number will continue to rise as long as we are there.

Please don't get me wrong. I think those soldiers should be honored, but I can honestly say that I don't think their death has brought us one bit of safety. Another 9/11 is just as likely today as it was on 9/11.

[Vteckidd]

i didnt say i agreed with it, i was just curious if anyone else felt that isolated

[joecoolfreak]

I certainly wasn't attempting to attack anyone with my statement. I can't understand any willingness to accept another attack on innocent people like 9/11, but I also can't correlate any of the other parts of the statement with 9/11 either. I see them all as separate issues and of course, like anything else, have my own set of particular opinions.

[BobbyFresco]

Your friend is a misguided soul. That is all.

[Alan®]

I think that people need to realize that Iraq was probably a one time thing and that something like this won't happen again for at least 30-40 years

[BobbyFresco]

I think that people need to realize that Iraq was probably a one time thing and that something like this won't happen again for at least 30-40 years

One time thing?
Have we not occupied Iraq 2 different times now?

[Vteckidd]

yeah 1st iraq we liberated Kuwait and left, then what happened?

[BobbyFresco]

No. Unfortunately we are now paying for 3 decades worth of Presidents unwilling to pull the trigger and clean up the mess Jimmy Carter created. Terrorism has been something we have just swept under the rug and just kinda said "Nah that could never happen here" 9/11 was a wake up call and the penalty that we paid for that ignorance.

Could you please explain to me what the hell Jimmy Carter has to with
the present state in America?

What about Reagan or Bush Sr, I mean afterall they were the ones who aided, trained, and armed a majority of our present day enemies?

[Vteckidd]

Could you please explain to me what the hell Jimmy Carter has to with
the present state in America?

What about Reagan or Bush Sr, I mean afterall they were the ones who aided, trained, and armed a majority of our present day enemies?

you have alot of reading to do.

[BobbyFresco]

you have alot of reading to do.

Sure.

[BobbyFresco]

you have alot of reading to do.

So you're saying they didn't?
Are you telling me we didn't arm and train a few countries because of the Cold War? Are you implying that Bin Laden, Hussein, and even Noriega in Panama were not on the US payroll at some point?

[Alan®]

Could you please explain to me what the hell Jimmy Carter has to with
the present state in America?

What about Reagan or Bush Sr, I mean afterall they were the ones who aided, trained, and armed a majority of our present day enemies?

You must not have paid much attention to American History in High School.

One thing you will find if you examine this history of this country's foreign relation policy is that we always seem to support the lesser of two evil's. That is of course until they stop being our puppet. Look at Saddam,Musharraf, and even.....Osama bin Laden. Where do you think Osama first got his start? Officially it was fighting with the Mujhadeen to push the Soviet's out of Afghanistan(A conflict that we also started,go figure ). I did a lot of research on the subject for an English class last semester. It took me a minute to find the paper but here's what you actually need to know.

Osama Bin Laden’s hatred for the U.S. did not come overnight however; it did begin over 20 years ago during the Invasion of Afghanistan by Russia during the Cold War. On July 3rd, 1979 President Carter signed an order to secretly aid the Afghanistan Rebel’s to push out the Russian’s(Intervention). In an interview ten years ago the then head of the CIA was asked if he regretted supporting Islamic Radicalists to which he responded “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” (Intervention).

From the article that I sourced

Brezenski was the head of the CIA at the time

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

My paper goes on

In an interview ten years ago the then head of the CIA was asked if he regretted supporting Islamic Radicalists to which he responded “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

It is during this time that he founded Al Qaeda and began setting up training camps in Afghanistan which resulted in the recruitment and training of 5,000 members creating cells in 50 countries across the globe(Who Is). At the end of the Soviet invasion he moved back to Saudi Arabia to join his family and their construction company. His stay there however did not last long due largely in part of the fact that the 1993 bombings of the World Trade Center buildings were linked to Al Qaeda. The link resulted in the loss of his citizenship in that country and being disowned by his own family. Al Qaeda over this time grew in numbers and strength and the attacks became worse. His new strength came from new relationships with a Lebanese terrorist who was wanted for kidnappings named Imad Mugniyah, and an Egyptian named Ayman Zawahiri(Who Is). By 1998 he had been linked to several embassy bombings in Africa and finally the precursor to 9/11 the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole(Who Is).

Now this isn't to say that Reagan and Bush Senior aren't free of this either but the ultimate responsibility lies between Reagan and Clinton.

[BobbyFresco]

You made your point and I can agree to that but you also made mine as well....
and the whole American History reference was irrelevant considering the subject at hand..

[Alan®]

You made your point and I can agree to that but you also made mine as well....
and the whole American History reference was irrelevant considering the subject at hand..

I wasn't arguing against you. You asked a question and I answered it. The American History rerfernce was in regards to you can read between the lines on this in any high school American history book and see this.

[4dmin]

No. Unfortunately we are now paying for 3 decades worth of Presidents unwilling to pull the trigger and clean up the mess Jimmy Carter created. Terrorism has been something we have just swept under the rug and just kinda said "Nah that could never happen here" 9/11 was a wake up call and the penalty that we paid for that ignorance.

pulling the trigger wouldn't of stopped anything that has happened - the problem w/ the US is we like to get our hands dirty every chance we can always claimed as us being "diplomatic". what this has caused is a region of the world that can't stand us.

don't think us moving into Poland will help us in foreign relations either in the long run.

back to the question i think as someone stated one leads to the other... if we had 9/11 every 10 years our economy wouldn't prosper anyway but i guess in this hypothetical question dealing w/ perfect circumstances. i chose YES.

[redrumracer]

Could you please explain to me what the hell Jimmy Carter has to with
the present state in America?

What about Reagan or Bush Sr, I mean afterall they were the ones who aided, trained, and armed a majority of our present day enemies?

or how about when clinton had the chance to take him out but didnt? or the fact that he gave him building contracts?

[AirMax95]

pulling the trigger wouldn't of stopped anything that has happened - the problem w/ the US is we like to get our hands dirty every chance we can always claimed as us being "diplomatic". what this has caused is a region of the world that can't stand us.
don't think us moving into Poland will help us in foreign relations either in the long run.

back to the question i think as someone stated one leads to the other... if we had 9/11 every 10 years our economy wouldn't prosper anyway but i guess in this hypothetical question dealing w/ perfect circumstances. i chose YES.

I have said that numerous times.

As to the original statement, security comes first. Destroy the terror threat and keep it moving. Return focus on AMERICA and its people. Hypothetical questions bother me b/c they never come fully to the light. If we were to have let 9/11 go and not retaliate, it would happen again in less than 5 years. Too many nations dislike us. They would catch us bleeding and keep pouring it on.

As long as the war/retaliation sticks to destroying the terror threat, I agree to it. I feel that too many other "issues" are leaning on the arm of the war currently. Many Americans are uneasy still as to WHY we are still in Iraq.

[Alan®]

pulling the trigger wouldn't of stopped anything that has happened - the problem w/ the US is we like to get our hands dirty every chance we can always claimed as us being "diplomatic". what this has caused is a region of the world that can't stand us.

don't think us moving into Poland will help us in foreign relations either in the long run.

back to the question i think as someone stated one leads to the other... if we had 9/11 every 10 years our economy wouldn't prosper anyway but i guess in this hypothetical question dealing w/ perfect circumstances. i chose YES.

Maybe not but either way it would have saved how many thousands of lives and would have taken away the catalyst for Iraq. Can't argue against that.

[tony]

This bull**** makes flowers grow.

Obviously nobody wants to be attacked. To blame Jimmy Carter is plain dumb, even if he was to fault.. there have been 20 years to turn things around so everyone since then holds just as much if not more responsibility.

War is expensive and it costs the taxpayers BIG time, diplomacy prevents wars and terrorist attacks.

[4dmin]

This bull**** makes flowers grow.

Obviously nobody wants to be attacked. To blame Jimmy Carter is plain dumb, even if he was to fault.. there have been 20 years to turn things around so everyone since then holds just as much if not more responsibility.

War is expensive and it costs the taxpayers BIG time, diplomacy prevents wars and terrorist attacks.

lol nice line

the problem with this country is we are morons. we look to justify attacks and don't act when we should. we are always too busy policing the world to realize we are just playing in a mine field. problem w/ middle east we have now is perfect example. don't think f*cking people over will not come back to haunt you. if you want to go to war drop 1 f*cking bomb and call it a day. there is no diplomatic way to wage war.

[Alan®]

tony come on that first sentence makes no sense. he knew what he was doing and chose to ig nore his advisors. TO NOT BLAME HIM EVEN A LITTLE WOULD BE IDIOTIC. like i said everyone from carter to the president bush is to blame but it started witth carter. If you really choose to believe that its your issue but there is plenty of evidence to show it.

[tony]

My point is that its useless to blame someone who has not made an executive decision since the 80's, complete waste of time and not worth mentioning.