In some ways, I too think we overreacted. Or maybe reacted in the wrong way would be more correct. While the government of Afganistan was controlled by the Taliban and the Taliban supported al-Quaida, I think it was a general mistake to declare war on Afghanistan. I think it would have been better to send forces in to Afghanistan to hunt down and find Osama rather than invade the entire country with the intent of overthrowing the Taliban. If the Taliban chose to interfere with our hunt, then we could deal with them. Instead, we've laid waste to a country and failed to achieve our primary objective. And yes, I originally agreed with the full-scale invasion of Afghanistan.

We gave the Afgan government several chances to turn over those involved in 9/11 and they declined. I don't think it was an over reaction at all. I think Iraq was not a reaction to 9/11 at all. I think they used 9/11 as an excuse.

We gave the Afgan government several chances to turn over those involved in 9/11 and they declined. I don't think it was an over reaction at all. I think Iraq was not a reaction to 9/11 at all. I think they used 9/11 as an excuse.

That's not what I was saying. If a felon is hiding in an apartment building, you don't burn the whole building down. You go in and get him. And you tell the other tenants to stay in their apartments until you're done.

That's not what I was saying. If a felon is hiding in an apartment building, you don't burn the whole building down. You go in and get him. And you tell the other tenants to stay in their apartments until you're done.

The problem was that the apartment owner and management were blocking the doors and refusing to cooperate. In that case they may expect a bit of damage.

I think we're all, as Americans, too close to the situation to be objective. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what the author is saying, but in the annals of history, decades from now, what happened on 9/11 will be viewed as dispassionately as the example he uses as comparison.

 

JMO.

I'm not subjecting anyone to anything. Simply pointing out the folly in trying to find ghosts where there are none. And I do feel that denying the true cause of the attack to be insulting to those who died. But this isn't the topic of the thread, and we've taken it off course with this long enough. So, I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Fair enough, I would like to hear your opinion of the true causes of the attack. I am not being sarcastic, just curious. No debating or arguing, just wanting your thoughts on it.

I agree with Habib. Its an offensive article written for political reasons, and its continued justification for discussion on this board is dubious, IMHO.

I agree with Habib. Its an offensive article written for political reasons, and its continued justification for discussion on this board is dubious, IMHO.

 

It's the LA Times. That's a given.

In some ways, the U.S. has overreacted. The doctrine of pre-emptive war has been dealt a serious blow with the invasion of Iraq. I would hope that the American public and politicians would be much more thoughtful about the repercussions and justification of starting a war. It is certainly debateable that the U.S. is any safer as a result of invading Iraq than it would be if other means had been pursued. I do not think the invasion of Afghanistan was in any way an overreaction. In fact, given the manner in which we pursued it (relying on limited numbers of Special Forces and local militias to chase down al Qaieda), I would argue that we underreacted to the true and proven terrorist threat that existed and may still exist in Afghanistan.

 

In a lot of ways, I think the U.S. underreacted to 9/11. I believe we still do not 100% x-ray checked baggage on commercial airlines. Many of the common-sense recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have not been enacted. We still have an incredibly porous border with Mexico across which terrorists could easily come into our country. Weapons such as hunting knives designed to evade X-ray detection are still legal for sale in this country (why?). We don't do much in the way of screening cargo containers coming into our ports by the thousands every day.

 

The author tries to make a case that 3000 deaths is not the 20,000,000 inflicted on the Soviets in World War II. But what makes a strong reaction justified is that fact that these people were civilians killed on American soil during peacetime. We cannot accept random, large scale murder of Americans on our own soil under any circumstances. We should not accept living in fear of attack during peacetime in our own country. It is also an unacceptable risk on our economy.

 

With all the attacks the U.S. has stopped or thwarted since 2001, I'd say we reacted exactly right.

 

If the USSR can live with 20 million fatalities, I suppose that's their perrogative. Not here, and that makes me proud.

Fair enough, I would like to hear your opinion of the true causes of the attack. I am not being sarcastic, just curious. No debating or arguing, just wanting your thoughts on it.

 

Islamic terrorists spent five years training and learning to fly planes into American buildings to show their hatred of Americans and our so called disrespect for their religion. In a nutshell, I suppose.

With all the attacks the U.S. has stopped or thwarted since 2001, I'd say we reacted exactly right.

 

If the USSR can live with 20 million fatalities, I suppose that's their perrogative. Not here, and that makes me proud.

 

It's not like the USSR chose to have 20 million of it's citizens killed. They had no choice but to live with it. Their "never surrender" attitude may have cost them more lives, but it's also a HUGE reason why the allies were able to defeat Germany in WWII.

It's not like the USSR chose to have 20 million of it's citizens killed. They had no choice but to live with it. Their "never surrender" attitude may have cost them more lives, but it's also a HUGE reason why the allies were able to defeat Germany in WWII.

 

And the US didn't choose to have 3000 killed on 2001, but we on the other hand had a choice and were able and willing to take a stand against it.

It's not like the USSR chose to have 20 million of it's citizens killed. They had no choice but to live with it. Their "never surrender" attitude may have cost them more lives, but it's also a HUGE reason why the allies were able to defeat Germany in WWII.

I beg to differ. Stalin's regime was directly responisble for the deaths of an estimated 23 million Soviets in the 10 years before WWII. His purging of the Soviet military was one of the leading causes of the Soviets being beaten so badly early in the war. They had no leadership. Winter can be given as much if not more credit from stoppng the Wermacht than the Russians.

 

And in 1939, Stalin signed a deal with the devil himself.

I beg to differ. Stalin's regime was directly responisble for the deaths of an estimated 23 million Soviets in the 10 years before WWII. His purging of the Soviet military was one of the leading causes of the Soviets being beaten so badly early in the war. They had no leadership. Winter can be given as much if not more credit from stoppng the Wermacht than the Russians.

 

And in 1939, Stalin signed a deal with the devil himself.

 

I'm not going to get into a debate about the character of Joseph Stalin. It's not relevant. Those 23 million people he killed (directly or indirectly) didn't choose to die anymore than the 20 million who died during the war.

 

Here's the thing, Hitler was so obsessed on forcing the Soviets to surrender that he wasted valuable time, man power and resources on pounding them into oblivion, when he could have been focusing his efforts elsewhere. The Soviets were obviously beaten, but they would not surrender...if they had, then Hitler would have moved on elsewhere and he wouldn't have spent the winter in Russia. It bought time for the rest of the allies (namely the United States).

 

So, I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.