Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay...so we get attacked in 2001, and we launch a war in Afghanistan. Then we go to Iraq in 2003 and supposedly, we were "fighting them there (terrorists) so we don't have to fight them here."
We managed to fill up Guantanamo with "dangerous terrorists" () and we captured a bunch of others and sent them abroad under a policy of rendition.
Our government keeps telling us that they killed the "number two man in Al Qaeda" (about 100 times) and we got Bin Laden.
So then, why in 2014 are we facing some thread named ISIS who according to many conservatives is poised to dominate and take over the whole world?
What exactly were we doing between 2001 and 2014 and were we really having all this success against terrorists that our Pentagon and CIA claimed that we did?
What the real truth appears to be is that we CREATED a bunch of terrorists and terrorism more than we extinguished them...by a long shot.
In fact, outside of a few big named terrorists that we've manage to kill or capture, I don't think we've had a lick of success against terrorism. Most of those bozos in Guantanamo are probably nothing more than p*ssed off goat herders that got turned in by people that had a personal beef with them.
We've dropped hundreds of billions of dollars on this GWOT and we've got nothing to show for it. Not from what I can see anyway. The Middle East is just as jacked up as it was in 2001.
But, do you suggest we just put down our arms, retract our intelligence apparatus, discard our common sense and come back home and wait to see what happens?
Okay...so we get attacked in 2001, and we launch a war in Afghanistan. Then we go to Iraq in 2003 and supposedly, we were "fighting them there (terrorists) so we don't have to fight them here."
We managed to fill up Guantanamo with "dangerous terrorists" () and we captured a bunch of others and sent them abroad under a policy of rendition.
Our government keeps telling us that they killed the "number two man in Al Qaeda" (about 100 times) and we got Bin Laden.
So then, why in 2014 are we facing some thread named ISIS who according to many conservatives is poised to dominate and take over the whole world?
What exactly were we doing between 2001 and 2014 and were we really having all this success against terrorists that our Pentagon and CIA claimed that we did?
What the real truth appears to be is that we CREATED a bunch of terrorists and terrorism more than we extinguished them...by a long shot.
In fact, outside of a few big named terrorists that we've manage to kill or capture, I don't think we've had a lick of success against terrorism. Most of those bozos in Guantanamo are probably nothing more than p*ssed off goat herders that got turned in by people that had a personal beef with them.
We've dropped hundreds of billions of dollars on this GWOT and we've got nothing to show for it. Not from what I can see anyway. The Middle East is just as jacked up as it was in 2001.
Indeed? This is why I must ask you why the warmongering Left has pressed their Liberal President into re-negotiating the treaty George Bush sign agreeing to pull all the troops out of Iraq? Was the pulling of the troops out of Iraq just a political stunt by Obama in order to fulfill a campaign promise? It almost appears that as soon as he fulfilled that campaign promise, Obama re-negotiated the Bush agreement and has now reintroduced military boots on the ground and begun a bombing campaign in Iraq while admitting publicly that he has no plan at all.
But, do you suggest we just put down our arms, retract our intelligence apparatus, discard our common sense and come back home and wait to see what happens?
Why not? That seems to potentially have about the same amount of success that we've had up to this point (that would be practically NONE) running around the world, spending billions, and having nothing to show for it.
Why not? That seems to potentially have about the same amount of success that we've had up to this point (that would be practically NONE) running around the world, spending billions, and having nothing to show for it.
You're too late. Obama's New Iraqi War has begun. Obama had his bombs take out four old trucks in Iraq yesterday at a cost of 7.5 Million dollars. Obama is a Hawke. He's another liberal war monger.
But, do you suggest we just put down our arms, retract our intelligence apparatus, discard our common sense and come back home and wait to see what happens?
The British knew how to fight low intensity warfare and guerrilla warfare infiltration. I do not think they ever lost a war. Maybe we should emulate them. They did it not with expending large dollars but with leadership on the ground and native troops stiffened with regulars.
But, do you suggest we just put down our arms, retract our intelligence apparatus, discard our common sense and come back home and wait to see what happens?
DD i agree with aeroguydc. but i dont have to really tell you what happens now do i? the fact is that ISIS, and other terrorists groups are not going to say, well the US has done what we wanted and left the middle east, so we dont have to try and kill them anymore, so lets party like it was the 7th century.
we all know that they will be emboldened and attack the US on our soil again, and this time we might lose more than the world trade center and part of the pentagon. these guys want world domination, and they want to set up a caliphate, and they want a one world religion, based on islam and you will will be given the choice of convert to islam or die infidel.
Okay...so we get attacked in 2001, and we launch a war in Afghanistan. Then we go to Iraq in 2003 and supposedly, we were "fighting them there (terrorists) so we don't have to fight them here."
We managed to fill up Guantanamo with "dangerous terrorists" () and we captured a bunch of others and sent them abroad under a policy of rendition.
Our government keeps telling us that they killed the "number two man in Al Qaeda" (about 100 times) and we got Bin Laden.
So then, why in 2014 are we facing some thread named ISIS who according to many conservatives is poised to dominate and take over the whole world?
What exactly were we doing between 2001 and 2014 and were we really having all this success against terrorists that our Pentagon and CIA claimed that we did?
What the real truth appears to be is that we CREATED a bunch of terrorists and terrorism more than we extinguished them...by a long shot.
In fact, outside of a few big named terrorists that we've manage to kill or capture, I don't think we've had a lick of success against terrorism. Most of those bozos in Guantanamo are probably nothing more than p*ssed off goat herders that got turned in by people that had a personal beef with them.
We've dropped hundreds of billions of dollars on this GWOT and we've got nothing to show for it. Not from what I can see anyway. The Middle East is just as jacked up as it was in 2001.
Impossible to tell, we can't go back in time and see what happens if we didnt do the above things.
In my opinion the "war on terror" is an impossible mission, containing attacks towards the USA and its people would of been a better name.
But, do you suggest we just put down our arms, retract our intelligence apparatus, discard our common sense and come back home and wait to see what happens?
Staying out of the business of other countries probably would have prevented many of the issues we are dealing with now. Our meddling in the middle east got us to this point to begin with. I don't see Canada or Mexico worrying about middle east terrorism and I never hear the names mentioned, and we are their immediate neighbors. If only we could find a way to figure their secrets from becoming targets of terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being
Indeed? This is why I must ask you why the warmongering Left has pressed their Liberal President into re-negotiating the treaty George Bush sign agreeing to pull all the troops out of Iraq? Was the pulling of the troops out of Iraq just a political stunt by Obama in order to fulfill a campaign promise? It almost appears that as soon as he fulfilled that campaign promise, Obama re-negotiated the Bush agreement and has now reintroduced military boots on the ground and begun a bombing campaign in Iraq while admitting publicly that he has no plan at all.
Extremely valid points, and this why I cant take conservatives seriously when they call Obama a far left radical. Unfortunately for many on the left, Obama was just another Bush, except with a D instead of an R.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and we captured a bunch of others and sent them abroad under a policy of rendition.
