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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.