Is the US safer today than before 911 ?
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Iraq war and Bush's foreign policy has bred more terrorists. I'd say no.
We have directly engaged an enemy we largely ignored. Short-term, no. Long-term... IMO yes, we will be safer in the long-term by recognizing that we need to do something about this threat. It'll take some time to work through exactly what we need to do, but we'll get there.
Right, this is why I said Long-Term... One approach will be tried, another will be tried, etc. Recognizing the threat is an important first step.
e have directly engaged an enemy we largely ignored. Short-term, no.
Iraq wasn't supporting anti-american terrorism, al qaeda, or international theocratic jihhadists. Most of our "engagement" is being wasted on iraq.
.
After the 9/11 attacks, any ameircan president would have "engaged" the threat. I'm quite sure Al Gore would have attacked al qaeda in afghanistan.
The question isn't whether we can have a president who "engages the post 9/11 threat"....the question is, HOW do we engage the threat.
IMO, invading and occupying Iraq was not "engaging" the threat, and in fact it diverted us from the real threat - and probably making the threat worse.
After the 9/11 attacks, any ameircan president would have "engaged" the threat. I'm quite sure Al Gore would have attacked al qaeda in afghanistan.
The question isn't whether we can have a president who "engages the post 9/11 threat"....the question is, HOW do we engage the threat.
IMO, invading and occupying Iraq was not "engaging" the threat, and in fact it diverted us from the real threat - and probably making the threat worse.
The whole WWIII thing is a bit premature. Now the "going bankrupt" thing... I can't describe how pissed I am at this spending.
define "long term". If you mean in over hundred years or so when we are in our graves and the relatives of those who have survived our aggressions are dead and/or too old to remember and are a lot more liberal than yes, I'd say long term we "could" be safer, if by long term you mean 20 or 30 years from now when the victimized children our unjustified agressions grow up to become leaders, I'd say no.
It was a surround and conquer thing (yes, I have been saying this long before it was "popular"...) the aim was Iran. And yes, I believed from the beginning that this was the wrong tactic. A better one would be to support the underground in Iran as much as possible...
Once again, one tactic tried, it's about time for the next and that will happen at the next Presidential election. The short-term future doesn't look so bright, but long-term I am glad we are actually engaged at working toward a solution to this problem.
Just kidding, well sort of.I wouldn't call Iraq simply a "tactic". It will end up costing probably a trillion dollars, and over 100,000 lives. That's by far, more expensive than any american war in history, except World War 2.
I would call the the most collasal strategic blunder in american history. And one that will not help "engage" the threat posed by anti-american theocratic jihaddists.
I think we will ultimately prevail. Its just that Bush probably set us back a couple decades.
On a per capita and adjusted for inflation basis this is not the most expensive war ever. But that is beside the point. I am simply pointing out that if you don't recognize a threat, or assume your failed earlier tactics are going to do something about it, either one is getting you nowhere....
We'll try something new, we'll continue, and in the end we will find a solution. That is my prediction. I get so sick and tired of all the "WE'RE DOOMED!" rhetoric. We aren't doomed, we have just begun.
That was my point from the beginning! The Neocons, on their website, promote the spread of US style Democracy by any means. This is why I believe that Iraq was just an end-run at Iran. They basically tell you what they plan and what they are doing on their fricking site...
I have been against this agenda, and undeclared war, from the beginning, will continue to be, and will fight it regardless of who is in office.
I never said were doomed. I said Bush set us back by a couple decades, with the worst strategic blunder in american history.
And yes, in terms of inflation adusted dollars, Iraq will shortly outpace the Vietnam war to become the most expensive war in history (except for world war two)
Chart III: war costs, inflation adusted:
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
We have directly engaged an enemy we largely ignored. Short-term, no. Long-term... IMO yes, we will be safer in the long-term by recognizing that we need to do something about this threat. It'll take some time to work through exactly what we need to do, but we'll get there.
I don't see you being safer in the long-term.
The US might have recognised a threat but it has made a right pig's ear of the resolution.
By reacting like a bull in a China shop, and particularly supporting so vehemently Israeli terrorism, the US has guaranteed itself a terrorist problem for many more decades than neccesary.
The US reaction since 9/11 has been it's very own Bloody Sunday...
I don't see you being safer in the long-term.
The US might have recognised a threat but it has made a right pig's ear of the resolution.
By reacting like a bull in a China shop, and particularly supporting so vehemently Israeli terrorism, the US has guaranteed itself a terrorist problem for many more decades than neccesary.
The US reaction since 9/11 has been it's very own Bloody Sunday...