Are we after 9/11 and after US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan

This is a discussion on Are we after 9/11 and after US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A direct threat against the US no, against our allies yes. Namely Israel. A direct threat to other smaller countries yep. Ever been to Kuwait? ...

View Poll Results: Are we safer with policies put in place after 9/11 and US presence in Irag and Afghan

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, We are safer by sending troops to both countries

    14 27.45%
  • No, We are not safer sending troops to both countries

    15 29.41%
  • Yes, Iraq only

    0 0%
  • Yes, Afghanistan only

    4 7.84%
  • Yes, The Patriot Act makes us safer

    1 1.96%
  • No, The Patriot Act does not make us safer

    28 54.90%
  • Not Sure

    4 7.84%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Are we after 9/11 and after US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,041
    A direct threat against the US no, against our allies yes. Namely Israel. A direct threat to other smaller countries yep. Ever been to Kuwait? Still can see the carnage from what the Iraqis did there.
    A treaty is a treaty, rules are rules either enforce it or dont have it. Break the rules suffer the penalties.
    Focus away from Afghanistan? Well whatever you think. They are both in the same region half a days flight apart.
    Ummm yes common sense the more you spread your resources the less you have to commit to other areas.
    Again your opinion to which you are entitled to.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Hell No,I live 20 miles from the South Border,It's not just Mexicans sneeking in,they have caught people from China,India,Pakistan,and a few other Countries that have known Terrorist Organizations
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,852
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    A direct threat against the US no, against our allies yes. Namely Israel. A direct threat to other smaller countries yep. Ever been to Kuwait? Still can see the carnage from what the Iraqis did there.
    A treaty is a treaty, rules are rules either enforce it or dont have it. Break the rules suffer the penalties.
    Focus away from Afghanistan? Well whatever you think. They are both in the same region half a days flight apart.
    Ummm yes common sense the more you spread your resources the less you have to commit to other areas.
    Again your opinion to which you are entitled to.
    -we did not have a defense treaty with Kuwait so I don't see your point. We went there because of oil, not to defend their people FACT, not opinion
    -Iraq was not a threat to ANY country when we invaded this time and they are not a threat to anyone now except a possible breeding ground for terrorists. So again I don't see your point.FACT, not opinion..remember the part about if they had WMD's they had NO delivery system
    -Just because a country can become a threat does not mean it is up to us alone to invade that country.Somewhat fact under international law and somewhat opinion
    -Afghanistan, have an opinion or not. I might have missed something and if somebody has a reason for us being there, I would like to know

  5. #19
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    A direct threat against the US no, against our allies yes. Namely Israel. A direct threat to other smaller countries yep. Ever been to Kuwait? Still can see the carnage from what the Iraqis did there.
    Then why the hell aren't these countries paying the bill? I know that I don't go to work every day and have taxes collected so that some idiot in Kuwait can feel safe against against some Iraqi nut job.

    If it was for oil well, where is the oil? Why am I paying $3.50 for a gallon of gas while commodities speculators make a killing stealing from us? They weren't a threat. They shouldn't have been invaded. Since were not talking about the politics of it, I won't mention the treason charges that should be leveled.

  6. #20
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,041
    Ok you are right everyone is wrong. Again you asked a question and people will give their response but lord help them if they dont agree.

    As far as not having a delivery system I seem to remember SCUD's hitting pretty regularly and causing casualties. I am sure the countries around Iraq would beg to differ with you. I work and hour from Kurdistan and see the results of Iraq not being a threat to anyone in the second and third generations affected by the gas attacks but oh wait you have fact from the articles you have read and the things seen on TV this along with your super secret training and Green Beret stories must go along way at the local coffee shop.

    Not gonna go round and round again it is getting really boring. You have an opinion as do I but in your case whomever does not agree with you is wrong. So have at it trying to convince others of your BS opinion I am not going for it.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array JoJoGunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    2,910
    My thoughts are that yes, we are safer by the opperations in both countries. However having said that, I do believe that the Iraqi invasion was questionable and may have not been the thing to do. Intelligence of WMD's was not the best or at least the sources were. If we had ignored the intelligence and there actually had been those kinds of weapons and one got used, there would have been an outcry the likes we have never heard. The decision was made to act upon the information we had and not to ignore it like the pre 9/11 stuff.

    Afghanistan was simple. Bin Laden was being courted by the Taliban. All they had to do was to give him up, but that was not an option. They wanted him to continue to create terrorism, it's in their creed. We either had to fight extremists where they are or fight them on our own soil so it was basically an no win situation in any case.

    Having said that, the terrorists now must think twice about a massive event like 9/11 due to our response in Afghanistan, and Iraq. Sent out a crystal clear message that terror will be met with a response that will be larger. There have been terror plans but none of them so far have been implimented and have been caught early enough to stop it before it happend. So Islamic terror has at least been held down to a minimum. It will not go away until either all the terrorists are dead, or they change their attitude and stop the terror.
    "A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"

    The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,041
    If it was for oil well, where is the oil? Why am I paying $3.50 for a gallon of gas while commodities speculators make a killing stealing from us?

    This is a good question in need of a good answer? Maybe because we didn't go there for oil so that is not part of the equation. As far as the commodity traders it is pure greed they play on the fear of the unknown that is how they make there money.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,852
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    If it was for oil well, where is the oil? Why am I paying $3.50 for a gallon of gas while commodities speculators make a killing stealing from us?

    This is a good question in need of a good answer? Maybe because we didn't go there for oil so that is not part of the equation. As far as the commodity traders it is pure greed they play on the fear of the unknown that is how they make there money.
    Hey, we agree! partly
    Yes, it was for oil becasue we wanted to protect the Saudi oilfields. It did not mean we would havecontrol of the oil,just that oil would keep flowing.
    I hope you are being sarcastic by saying that oil was not part of the equation when Bush said we had to protect Iraq from getting the oil fiels in Saudi Arabia

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,852
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Hey, we agree!
    Yes, it was for oil becasue we wanted to protect the Saudi oilfields. It did not mean we would havecontrol of the oil,just that oil would keep flowing.
    I meant the first Desert Storm in my previous post.

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    Policies are just different forms of laws. We all know how well the criminals obey the pesky laws that infringe upon their decision to take from others does...

    Sacrificing some comforts for more safety is one thing, but the Patriot Act should be repealed in its entirety. It went too far.

    Besides that, determined people get things done because they are innovative. It's like the locks my dpeartment puts on the computers. They are there to keep the honest people honest. The truly devious people will get around them. Which has happened. As the old saying goes, "Where there is a will, there is a way."

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    There is a lot of stuff that is crude but potentially very effective that can be done to this humongous soft target between Canada and Mexico.
    Why take on armored cav when you can take on the soccer moms?
    A couple of points and not really disagreeing with you. During WWII I've read that General McArthur chose a peculiar landing spot in New Guinea. He was heavily criticized for his attitude that he would "hit them where the ain't." Other generals thought he should go for a more direct confrontation. Turned out he was wise on this particular matter.

    We can put up an almost infinite amount of security and destroy our freedom in the process, but a determined cohesive and intelligent group will find a way to hit us where we ain't.

    My view now is that the Al Quida thing is greatly overblown. There has been a decade in which great harm could have been done to us but only very minor sometimes lethal, sometimes almost humorous and comedic, amateur efforts have been made.

    Its time to look to the future and different threats. Perhaps more conventional ones from China or Russia. Perhaps unconventional ones from some hitherto unknown non-Quiada group.

    I don't want to give anyone ideas, and I don't like it that someone suggested "going after soccer moms" was a possibility. We need to keep our thoughts about how we can be harmed to ourselves.

    What seems to go unnoticed is that we are rather brittle. Resilient perhaps, but brittle at the start. Not enough attention is paid to that aspect of things.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,111
    Are we safer? Yes. We havent had a major attack on our soil since. Is it because we took it to everyone involved, YEP. Have we lost freedoms along the way. Some. The real question here shouldnt be about being safe, because we are. The real question here is what freedoms have we lost? and how do we get them back.....
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  14. #28
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,409
    We can put up an almost infinite amount of security and destroy our freedom in the process, but a determined cohesive and intelligent group will find a way to hit us where we ain't.
    Is it linear or circular? Most of us consider it linear, with "Freedom" at one end and "Safety" at the other end. Is it? I usually consider the political spectrum circular, whereas many see politics as linear.

    What seems to go unnoticed is that we are rather brittle. Resilient perhaps, but brittle at the start. Not enough attention is paid to that aspect of things.
    Not quite like old crystal, but more like over-tempered steel. A better economy and more jobs at higher wages would go a long way here. That takes the edge off of many resource allocation arguments and whines. Resource allocations are more fun to deal with than lack of resources. Recessions cause a lot of stress, discomfort and the like. To wit, I am concerned about the potential reductions in military budgets. Yes, we all know about the expensive procurement cycles and the like, but the USA should not go too far or we will be more vulnerable. I think we risk our safety by drawing our strengths too tightly and hence too brittle as noted. A strong, growing economy would reduce some of those pressures.

    I also note a brittleness in society on a larger scale. Stress of many types causing untoward reactions and over-reactions to what heretofore might have been considered something worth ignoring.

    Think I'll go get a cup of coffee and shut up now...........

    I still have not answered the poll. I guess enough facts are just not known. How do you define "safe"?

  15. #29
    Member Array Eaglebeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Republic Of Texas
    Posts
    367
    Our historic successes with "police actions" have been dismal with respect to installing any type of lasting stability or democratic government because we've mostly dealt with people who lag the rest of the world's population by about 4,000 years of civilized human evolution. I think it does serve our security and best interests to go in when necessary and slap 'em around enough to disrupt their organization and temporarily fragment their ongoing effort to bring terrorist activities to us; but staying there for any length of time thereafter is only a waste of lives and money when we could simply go back and quickly slap 'em back down again after they've had time to rebuild and reorganize. Seems like the Isralies have the right concept there, and maybe we should follow their example.

    Some parts of the Patriot Act are good, and some parts are an ineffective joke because they are not carried out in a uniform or logical manner (God forbid if the liberals see there's any politically incorrect "profiling" happening when paying extra attention to those who would be most and primarily suspect). Obviously, there needs to be some routine screening of everyone in high-risk areas or the BGs would be blowing up every other aircraft that left the ground, but the "politically correct" people and the inherent incompetence of pinhead employes working for a mis-managed government bureaucracy have resulted in many moron-level acts that can be expected.

    The intelligence-gathering portion of the Patriot Act is probably our best defense since it's better to bust a planned action before it happens instead of trying to catch it during the critical moments of its implementation. I don't like the privacy invasion of intelligence gathering and/or spying on everyone anymore than I like a short-arm inspection; but when the major threat now lies from within, I can't see any other way of that being carried out without all of us taking a compromise in the privacy we prefer.

    I'm the first to line up in my disagreement with our continuing waste of lives, money, and resources at being the world's police force in every jerk-water stone-age country in a civil war when there's no direct threat to us. If they kill each other off and starve each other to death, fine - less of 'em for us to deal with later. If they start becoming a threat, then some of those "mysterious accidents" that happen to their project seem a lot more effective than a full scale invasion.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    I still have not answered the poll. I guess enough facts are just not known. How do you define "safe"?
    Since I started the poll I guess I will give my definition of safer as far as this poll is concerned. Safer to me is:
    Iraq: was Iraq a threat to the US before we invaded? WMD's aside, what could he have done with them? Saddam did not have the ability to launch an attack against us or Isreal or any other country. If he was to smuggle WMD's into another country as state sponsered terrorism then that country can deal with it. So I would say no, no threat.

    Afghanistan: Premise was to go in and defeat Al Queda and disrupt their capabilities of planning another 9/11 type attack. Whether going in at first actually has prevented other mass attacks is debatable. Part of what Bin Laden wanted to do was disrupt our economy and our standing in the world as a Super Power. I believe he accomplished that as well as many other experts in the intelligence field. If that is true, there was no need to attack us again. Is there any evidence of a major plan that was uncovered after invading Afghanistan..NO. We are currently focusing on fighting the Taliban (the government we overthrew) to provide a stable government there. Al Queda for the most part has moved on. So, if we were made safer when we first went in, are we needed now. The Taliban has never been a major threat to the US or our allies that they could not handle themselves.

    I was going to say "have we defended our freedom by being in Iraq and Afghanistan". But that would have turned into a political debate. But since I brought it up....I won't answer it. I will just throw this out there. The only two ways our freedom can be taken away is by our own government or by an occupying force. Iraq and Afghanistan have and never will be a threat to our freedom. I will leave it at that.

    I am curious to why some feel that being in Iraq and Afghanistan makes us safer. I would really like to hear from people their reasons. Either on this forum or they can PM. I always think I am right LOL. But if I am missing something I really like to know.
    I hope you like the poll.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

explain the us presence in afghanistan after 9/11

,

give we going to iraq or afghanistan after 911

,

our presence in iraq and afghanistan

,

powered by mybb iraq wmd

,

powered by mybb military draft 2008

,

powered by mybb wmd training

,

safer in iraq or afghanistan

,

u.s presence in iraq 9/11

,

us presence provides a stable afghanistan

,

what is put in place after 9 11 to make us safer

,

which countries came to aid the u.s. in afghanistan after 9/11

Click on a term to search for related topics.