If that is what it takes to prevent another 9/11' date=' is it worth it? I say yes. Keep military advisors there as long as it takes and help these countries build their own military.[/quote']

 

9/11 could have been prevented if our intelligence community had been working diligently.

 

Taliban are not in the streets of America and never will be.

9/11 could have been prevented if our intelligence community had been working diligently.

 

Taliban are not in the streets of America and never will be.

 

Perhaps true, but the Jihadists caught us by going somewhere and doing something that didn't even cross anyone's mind. I don't fault anyone for not preventing it because it was so unexpected.

9/11 could have been prevented if our intelligence community had been working diligently.

 

Taliban are not in the streets of America and never will be.

 

They not be wearing turbans, but put me in the camp that thinks they absolutely have underground cells in our country walking the streets of America.

 

Reminds me of the movie Traitor. Great Don Cheadle movie.

They not be wearing turbans, but put me in the camp that thinks they absolutely have underground cells in our country walking the streets of America.

 

Reminds me of the movie Traitor. Great Don Cheadle movie.

 

Even if there are underground cells, that doesn't mean we need to spend the next 50-100 years fighting their gorillas in the desert. The cells can get here with or without us over there. Frankly, mentally disturbed Americans are more of a threat on our turf.

Even if there are underground cells, that doesn't mean we need to spend the next 50-100 years fighting their gorillas in the desert. The cells can get here with or without us over there. Frankly, mentally disturbed Americans are more of a threat on our turf.

Frankly, they are not.

 

There are more than 2-1/2 million Muslims in the U.S. At minimum, there are thousands of potential terrorists among them just waiting to be radicalized by one of the many radical imams who are active in this country.

 

Combine those thousands with Obama's determination to keep our southern border wide open to illegal immigrants, and the potential for massive, orchestrated attacks by radical Islamists dwarfs the threat posed by "mentally disturbed Americans," who have shown a strong tendency to go solo on killing binges.

Frankly' date=' they are not. There are more than 2-1/2 million Muslims in the U.S. At minimum, there are thousands of potential terrorists among them just waiting to be radicalized by one of the many radical imams who are active in this country. Combine those thousands with Obama's determination to keep our southern border wide open to illegal immigrants, and the potential for massive, orchestrated attacks by radical Islamists dwarfs the threat posed by "mentally disturbed Americans," who have shown a strong tendency to go solo on killing binges.[/quote']

 

Team America world police oh and we'll pick up the tabs too.

Team America world police oh and we'll pick up the tabs too.

Did you even read my post? Being the world's policeman has nothing to do with what I posted. I addressed the threat of radicalized American Muslims and the danger posed by our own government's refusal to secure our border. I am not sure what part of my post you were trying to hit, but you missed wide left.

Did you even read my post? Being the world's policeman has nothing to do with what I posted. I addressed the threat of radicalized American Muslims and the danger posed by our own government's refusal to secure our border. I am not sure what part of my post you were trying to hit' date=' but you missed wide left.[/quote']

 

It's the same thing we've heard for over a decade. Post 9/11, which could have been prevented, Americans have been a bigger threat on American streets than radical Muslims.

We are protecting Afghanistan but our borders are wide open. That makes a lot of sense!

It's the same thing we've heard for over a decade. Post 9/11, which could have been prevented, Americans have been a bigger threat on American streets than radical Muslims.

Comparing national security threats to crime in the streets is really comparing apples and oranges. Radical Islam remains a huge threat to national security, regardless of whether the Islamists have been successful in killing large numbers of Americans recently.

 

Your chances of being killed by a common criminal will hopefully always be greater than the risk of being the direct victim of a terrorist. The damage done by terrorist acts goes well beyond deaths. Consider the damage that the 9/11 attacks did to our economy and how politicians have used the attacks to restrict individual liberty in this country.

Comparing national security threats to crime in the streets is really comparing apples and oranges. Radical Islam remains a huge threat to national security, regardless of whether the Islamists have been successful in killing large numbers of Americans recently.

 

Your chances of being killed by a common criminal will hopefully always be greater than the risk of being the direct victim of a terrorist. The damage done by terrorist acts goes well beyond deaths. Consider the damage that the 9/11 attacks did to our economy and how politicians have used the attacks to restrict individual liberty in this country.

 

Agree 1,000 percent with the bolded.

 

But I wish we'd get out of there, nevertheless.

Agree 1,000 percent with the bolded.

 

But I wish we'd get out of there, nevertheless.

What I am going to say is controversial, but I have never let that stop me. :lol2:

 

I would like to see our next strong president announce a new "We break it, you fix it" doctrine. In other words, if a country like Afghanistan decides that it is in its national interest to allow terrorists to openly run training camps again, and we decide that it is in our best interest to take out those camps, along with the government that harbors those terrorists, then there would be no "rebuilding" plan for what is left of their worthless country.

 

I think that it is time for this country to make it clear that if the U.S. is provoked to the point of waging war, that the target country should not expect American taxpayers to foot the bill for rebuilding infrastructure, schools, the government, etc. If the losers of a war want help with rebuilding, then the U.S. should only do so if the loser is willing to pay. The price might be money, or it might be a long-term lease for a large, strategically located military base - but we would receive something valuable in return for our assistance.

 

I supported both the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan, but I do not support spending billions of dollars in those countries after removing the threat to our national security. Breaking things is much cheaper than building them, and it is also a better deterrent against future acts of war.

What I am going to say is controversial, but I have never let that stop me. :lol2:

 

I would like to see our next strong president announce a new "We break it, you fix it" doctrine. In other words, if a country like Afghanistan decides that it is in its national interest to allow terrorists to openly run training camps again, and we decide that it is in our best interest to take out those camps, along with the government that harbors those terrorists, then there would be no "rebuilding" plan for what is left of their worthless country.

 

I think that it is time for this country to make it clear that if the U.S. is provoked to the point of waging war, that the target country should not expect American taxpayers to foot the bill for rebuilding infrastructure, schools, the government, etc. If the losers of a war want help with rebuilding, then the U.S. should only do so if the loser is willing to pay. The price might be money, or it might be a long-term lease for a large, strategically located military base - but we would receive something valuable in return for our assistance.

 

I supported both the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan, but I do not support spending billions of dollars in those countries after removing the threat to our national security. Breaking things is much cheaper than building them, and it is also a better deterrent against future acts of war.

 

Except for the bolded, I'm agreeing with you again.

 

Will miracles never cease!?

What I am going to say is controversial, but I have never let that stop me. :lol2:

 

I would like to see our next strong president announce a new "We break it, you fix it" doctrine. In other words, if a country like Afghanistan decides that it is in its national interest to allow terrorists to openly run training camps again, and we decide that it is in our best interest to take out those camps, along with the government that harbors those terrorists, then there would be no "rebuilding" plan for what is left of their worthless country.

 

I think that it is time for this country to make it clear that if the U.S. is provoked to the point of waging war, that the target country should not expect American taxpayers to foot the bill for rebuilding infrastructure, schools, the government, etc. If the losers of a war want help with rebuilding, then the U.S. should only do so if the loser is willing to pay. The price might be money, or it might be a long-term lease for a large, strategically located military base - but we would receive something valuable in return for our assistance.

 

I supported both the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan, but I do not support spending billions of dollars in those countries after removing the threat to our national security. Breaking things is much cheaper than building them, and it is also a better deterrent against future acts of war.

 

I have to disagree Mitch. If you just blow up the country you leave a void. Who fills it is just as important as blowing things up. I really believe "Charlie Wilson's War" got it right. We spent billions to help the Afghans kick Russian butt but wouldn't spend anything to help rebuild the infrastructure. Thus the void was filled by radical tribes forming the Taliban.

I'm going to go one step further then Mitch. Not only don't re-build but maintain a strong military presence to help insure ragtag groups (ISIS) can't build strength. The US is still in Germany. Does anyone doubt that if we would have followed the same path after WWII that we did after Iraq that there was at least a good possibility that remnants of the Nazis could have regrouped? Forget about negotiating at presence, just do it.