and 9/11 is one incident that happens unfortunately once every few decades. The correct course of action would of been to target those DIRECTLY responsible and to close the security loop holes in our own nation. Before 9/11 when was the last attack that resulted in that caliber of destruction on U.S. soil. It is so sporadic that doesn't it just make more sense to strengthen domestic security and not to invade two nations that costed so much damn money and created a much larger influx of radicals?
There were sleeper cells all over the place already before. And there were terror camps which trained people for 9/11 - in Afghanistan. And it was not just 9/11 - London, Madrid, etc. Some of the terrorist leaders were hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so I think the ones directly responsible were indeed targeted. And by now some of them have been brought to justice. Al Qaeda seems to have been somewhat weakened by that. But it will be key to dry their funding sources - which goes back to Saudi Arabia and some other gulf states. Iraq is another story - doubtful that they really had much to do with terrorism.
The American populace makes me chuckle sometimes. We act as if radical Islamic terrorism occurs weakly and is waiting for us on every corner and every door step. In the past 40 years how many Americans died on national soil due to Islamic terrorism? I just think its common sense just to strengthen our domestic security and ignore all the troubles of middle east. The only reason America should be involved is if a country like Pakistan has its citizens riot and try to over take the government for the right reasons.
I don't care. And the American people should not care. I'm talking about attacks on U.S. soil. My question was does it happen often enough in OUR country for a full fledged war on two countries and 10,000+ of our own troops dying and 100,000+ of their civilians dying?
So do you peak around the corner or enter every building you step in Germany for some dudes strapped in bombs?
It was not a war on these countries. It was a war on the extremist forces in these countries, which would arguably otherwise have kept strengthening even more.
tell that to the 100,000+ plus civilians who died. They honestly don't give two ****s what the reasons were for.
A mixture of our "oppsies" and their violent methods sky rocketed the numbers up that high. Guess what... At the end of the day if we didn't invade there would be no 100,000+ civilians dying and 10,000+ US troops dying.
and thus I ask again was it worth it over one attack on U.S. soil that happens what? Every 50 years? It would of been easier just to close any security loop holes domestically. If you can honestly say to yourself that the result of U.S. forces invading prevented another terrorist attack on U.S soil since 9/11 then I can see your point. But no, any thwarting of terrorism that happened on U.S. soil was a result of stronger domestic security.
I guess you don't understand my point. If we didn't invade Iraq in the first place would these deaths have occurred?
I believe that driving the terrorists into a defensive position made it a lot harder for them to operate, and thus it contributed to less terrorist attacks than we would have had otherwise. These people had built a real infrastructure to prepare terror attacks. Following your logic, one should just have allowed them to keep strengthening their bases. Sometimes, attack is the best defense.
I am pretty sure most of those have stemmed from the unstable environment in Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan since the Bush wars. Every murder (political, civil, religious) in that area is deemed a terrorist attack. I highly doubt the validity of that number.
The deaths would have occurred elsewhere. These people hate, hate, hate. They want to kill. This just possibly moved the battleground. Plus, Iraq was not exactly a model for law and order - people were being murdered even before because there were tensions between Shiites and Sunnis.
