First! Go USA!

[cytg111]

Those two comments seem very contradictory.

How does that make sense? We had terrorist attacks on American soil, but they are claiming those people had "no basis in reality" of being fearful of something worse happening? How the hell is terrorist attacks NOT a basis of fear and reality. It really happened.

I mean, you COULD blow up the rest of the planet ... that would be one way to get them terrorists for sure? Exaggeration yes, but along those lines.

 

[Pohemi]

How the hell is terrorist attacks NOT a basis of fear and reality. It really happened.

Being cautious and aware is one thing. Basing all future decisions and actions on fear of possibilities is working with emotions, not intelligence and information. That is the exact outcome the terrorists want, and the reason they do what they do.

 

[IronWing]

"After the 9/11 attacks, however, Rumsfeld and Cheney, together with Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, emerged as radical warmongers driven by fear of worst-case scenarios with little or no basis in reality - in particular the idea that Saddam was allied with al-Qaida, had chemical and biological weapons, and was on the brink of building nuclear warheads. "

Fear is a hell of a drug.

I don't believe that for second. Bush and company had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11 and it had nothing to do with WMDs or terrorism. The bastards saw the conquest of Iraq as a money making opportunity for themselves and their buddies and they were right.

 

[cytg111]

I don't believe that for second. Bush and company had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11 and it had nothing to do with WMDs or terrorism. The bastards saw the conquest of Iraq as a money making opportunity for themselves and their buddies and they were right.

Thats the rub right? Cause at the end of the day, they did not make billions themselves, so who was puppeteering them, lobbying them to pull the trigger.. do it do it do it do it? If there is literature on this i'd like to know.

 

[LikeLinus]

Being cautious and aware is one thing. Basing all future decisions and actions on fear of possibilities is working with emotions, not intelligence and information. That is the exact outcome the terrorists want, and the reason they do what they do.

I mean, you COULD blow up the rest of the planet ... that would be one way to get them terrorists for sure? Exaggeration yes, but along those lines.

So we're taking one ridiculously overstated comment and reaffirming it with another one? I mean, the flip side, they COULD ignore it all and terrorist attacks continue. Both of them are just silly comments. Nothing personal towards you, but the whole "could have happened!" isn't really a defense for making a claim that something happened, but people are scared based on nothing in reality? I mean, other than the fact that something did happen to instill fear into people and the American public.

I was pretty young, very early 20's, when 9/11 happened, so I'm not certain of all the political in-and-outs. But is it true, as shorty mentioned, that Saddam was making statements that he had chemical weapons?

 

[Pohemi]

So we're taking one ridiculously overstated comment and reaffirming it with another one? I mean, the flip side, they COULD ignore it all and terrorist attacks continue. Both of them are just silly comments. Nothing personal towards you, but the whole "could have happened!" isn't really a defense for making a claim that something happened, but people are scared based on nothing in reality? I mean, other than the fact that something did happen to instill fear into people and the American public.

If you're injured by someone intentionally as a child, will you go through the entire rest of your life being a shook bitch and expecting the next attack to come around the nearest corner? Because that's the kind of fear you are proposing. You want the country/world to stay afraid.

 

[LikeLinus]

If you're injured by someone intentionally as a child, will you go through the entire rest of your life being a shook bitch and expecting the next attack to come around the nearest corner? Because that's the kind of fear you are proposing. Stay afraid.

The analogy doesn't work. Were there still terrorist cells active and threatening after the initial attacks? Was Saddam claiming to have Chemical Weapons? Was there not a shoe bomber that took place months after 9/11? Or even other instances?

The better analogy would be "If you're injured by someone intentionally as a child, will you go through the entire rest of your life being a shook bitch, if that person threatened you constantly and made claims they were going to do further harm?". Then, yeah, you stay afraid.

 

[ivwshane]

So we're taking one ridiculously overstated comment and reaffirming it with another one? I mean, the flip side, they COULD ignore it all and terrorist attacks continue. Both of them are just silly comments. Nothing personal towards you, but the whole "could have happened!" isn't really a defense for making a claim that something happened, but people are scared based on nothing in reality? I mean, other than the fact that something did happen to instill fear into people and the American public.

I was pretty young, very early 20's, when 9/11 happened, so I'm not certain of all the political in-and-outs. But is it true, as shorty mentioned, that Saddam was making statements that he had chemical weapons?

I’ll give you a quick education of the period.

In the 90’s we fought back Iraq and their invasion of Kuwait, in the process we destroyed all their chemical weapons capabilities. As far as I’m aware, they never had nuclear capabilities nor were they trying to peruse it. Btw, saddom was originally backed by the CIA in the 80’s (take a wild guess who were involved with the cia at that time).

9/11 happened and was almost immediately attributed to osama bin laden (another person the CIA once supported) and Saudi nationals. Pretty much the whole intelligence community knew this and they also knew Iraq/saddom had nothing to do with it. However the bush administration with the help of the previously involved and aforementioned, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and wolfawitz, started pushing both internally and publicly for an attack on Iraq to overthrow saddom. That push included making false claims, embellishing information and its reliability as well as planting fake stories in the public which would later then be quoted as reasons for invading Iraq. Of course they also used people like Colin Powell who had a very high public approval rating to lie to the world to give credence to information that the bush administration lied to Powell about. Their famous line was, “ Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud”.
Of course saddom had no such weapons and none were ever found.

Had the bush administration actually cared about pursuing those behind 9/11, we would have caught bin laden within a matter of months as we were already pursuing him in Afghanistan and had him cornered.

In summary, bush lied and people died.

 

[hal2kilo]

Its not a good look!

History unlikely to forgive Donald Rumsfeld’s Iraq warmongering

Analysis: reluctance to take heed of warnings that did not fit in with his worldview continues to burden the US government two decades on

www.theguardian.com

"After the 9/11 attacks, however, Rumsfeld and Cheney, together with Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, emerged as radical warmongers driven by fear of worst-case scenarios with little or no basis in reality - in particular the idea that Saddam was allied with al-Qaida, had chemical and biological weapons, and was on the brink of building nuclear warheads. "

Fear is a hell of a drug.

I forgot about that damn comb licker.

 

[Commodus]

Those two comments seem very contradictory.

How does that make sense? We had terrorist attacks on American soil, but they are claiming those people had "no basis in reality" of being fearful of something worse happening? How the hell is terrorist attacks NOT a basis of fear and reality. It really happened.

Remember, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. were neoconservatives who saw the world as a binary good-versus-evil struggle. Their goal was not to paint a realistic terrorist threat; their goal was to paint a simplistic, dystopian image that justified their desire to conquer whole countries.

The reality was that 9/11 was a singular, difficult-to-reproduce attack from a terrorist group that wasn't tied to any one country. Bombing Afghanistan or Iraq into submission wasn't the answer; targeted efforts against the group's leadership and resources were. But that didn't fit the neocon worldview, so Cheney et. al. conjured up a world where "dirty bombs" were real problems, WMDs were plentiful and terrorism could be solved through conventional nation-versus-nation wars.

So, while many people agree 9/11 was a horrible tragedy, there were wildly varying notions of how that tragedy fit into the larger picture... and the Bush administration's view was only loosely connected to reality.

 

[cytg111]

So we're taking one ridiculously overstated comment and reaffirming it with another one? I mean, the flip side, they COULD ignore it all and terrorist attacks continue. Both of them are just silly comments. Nothing personal towards you, but the whole "could have happened!" isn't really a defense for making a claim that something happened, but people are scared based on nothing in reality? I mean, other than the fact that something did happen to instill fear into people and the American public.

I was pretty young, very early 20's, when 9/11 happened, so I'm not certain of all the political in-and-outs. But is it true, as shorty mentioned, that Saddam was making statements that he had chemical weapons?

What was the cost of Iraq? How many dead? Totally, not just Allied losses?
I mean, Saddam was a beast, as I too want the best for my fellow man, I too wanted him gone... But it has to be for something better. Is my Iraqi brother better off today than before? Im not so sure. Maybe.
But for 2.900 dead, in one strike by Bin Laden, we're(my country was there too) gonna fuck up Iraq AND Afghanistan for 20 years? I mean thats one hell of a "ill teach you" lesson.

Staggering numbers

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pohemi]

The analogy doesn't work. Were there still terrorist cells active and threatening after the initial attacks? Was Saddam claiming to have Chemical Weapons? Was there not a shoe bomber that took place months after 9/11? Or even other instances?
... if that person threatened you constantly and made claims they were going to do further harm?". Then, yeah, you stay afraid.

Who were the people claiming the majority of these future incidents, though? There may have been occasional threatening statements released by Al-Qaeda or other groups, but they were generally vague and very few if any were carried out (here).

The dubya administration on the other hand...pushed fear and the threat of mortal danger on a daily basis to every American that would listen...and it went on for several years. The next 9/11 was always just around the corner, so we have to invade Iraq! Again!

It was false and laughable on its face within a month or two following 9/11, imo.

 

[fskimospy]

So we're taking one ridiculously overstated comment and reaffirming it with another one? I mean, the flip side, they COULD ignore it all and terrorist attacks continue. Both of them are just silly comments. Nothing personal towards you, but the whole "could have happened!" isn't really a defense for making a claim that something happened, but people are scared based on nothing in reality? I mean, other than the fact that something did happen to instill fear into people and the American public.

I was pretty young, very early 20's, when 9/11 happened, so I'm not certain of all the political in-and-outs. But is it true, as shorty mentioned, that Saddam was making statements that he had chemical weapons?

I think you're right to bring up the huge culture of fear that existed in the early 2000's, it really did play a big part in what the public supported! I don't think Bush invaded Iraq because he thought it was a legitimate terrorist threat though, if that was his concern he would have invaded Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. I think they invaded Iraq because they had a long standing desire to project power in the Middle East and thought it would be easy to do (we kicked his ass in the 90's, after all). I don't see a lot of evidence that our invasion was based off some legitimate fear of Iraq using WMD on us or whatever.

 

[LikeLinus]

What was the cost of Iraq? How many dead? Totally, not just Allied losses?
I mean, Saddam was a beast, as I too want the best for my fellow man, I too wanted him gone... But it has to be for something better. Is my Iraqi brother better off today than before? Im not so sure. Maybe.
But for 2.900 dead, in one strike by Bin Laden, we're(my country was there too) gonna fuck up Iraq AND Afghanistan for 20 years? I mean thats one hell of a "ill teach you" lesson.

Staggering numbers

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Which raises the question, why did Obama let it continue on for 16 years? I understand the blame placed on those who initiated it, but it was allowed to continue under the next administration, who what means?

We knew there were no WMD at that point. People here are commenting that there were no specific threats. So....

 

[cytg111]

Which raises the question, why did Obama let it continue on for 16 years? I understand the blame placed on those who initiated it, but it was allowed to continue under the next administration, who what means?

We knew there were no WMD at that point. People here are commenting that there were no specific threats. So....

No clue.
I am guessing there is complicated mechanics at work... Like I believe 100% that Obama did everything he could to shut down gitmo. POTUS is not omnipotent?
Maybe he was faced with the scenario we saw with Taliban just rolling in over everything and decided no, not gonna happen... Plus it was about hearts and minds right? Hearts and minds that BROKE once allied pulled out. We promised them a better tomorrow, we gave them a taste of 20 years and then threw them to the wolves. Sorry honey, gotta go.

Im still not sure it was the right call to leave.

 

[fskimospy]

Which raises the question, why did Obama let it continue on for 16 years? I understand the blame placed on those who initiated it, but it was allowed to continue under the next administration, who what means?

We knew there were no WMD at that point. People here are commenting that there were no specific threats. So....

While when the Iraq War ended is fuzzy, the generally accepted date is the end of withdrawal of most US combat troops which took place in 2011, so he let it go on for like 2 and a half years.

People let wars go on for reasons that I think Joe Biden made obvious. He could have left US troops in there for the next four years and nobody would have questioned it, just had some light grumbling about the whole exercise. Instead he made the choice to end it and people went nuts because we 'lost', but we had lost that war years and years earlier.

 

[LikeLinus]

No clue.
I am guessing there is complicated mechanics at work... Like I believe 100% that Obama did everything he could to shut down gitmo. POTUS is not omnipotent?
Maybe he was faced with the scenario we saw with Taliban just rolling in over everything and decided no, not gonna happen... Plus it was about hearts and minds right? Hearts and minds that BROKE once allied pulled out. We promised them a better tomorrow, we gave them a taste of 20 years and then threw them to the wolves. Sorry honey, gotta go.

Im still not sure it was the right call to leave.

Well, there certainly was a much better way to pull out and end the conflict than what Biden did. They claim ignorance and didn't know it would cause the cluster F it did, but they had to know it needed to be a slow pull-out and been done over years. I guess my problem is that it should have started years ago. Maybe after they killed Bin Laden? Claim your small victory and initiate the end of the war. That didn't happen though.

Anyways, gotta get back to work, but thanks for the replies and info.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, there certainly was a much better way to pull out and end the conflict than what Biden did. They claim ignorance and didn't know it would cause the cluster F it did, but they had to know it needed to be a slow pull-out and been done over years. I guess my problem is that it should have started years ago. Maybe after they killed Bin Laden? Claim your small victory and initiate the end of the war. That didn't happen though.

Anyways, gotta get back to work, but thanks for the replies and info.

That's not how Biden ended the war, and it went basically as well as could have been hoped for.

Afghanistan had been lost for years and years, and the central government's authority was gradually collapsing. The only thing that held it up was the idea that the US was there to stay and as soon as it was clear we weren't total collapse of Afghan forces would follow.

So if you wanted to pursue the 'slow end' strategy you're talking about what that really means is a dramatic escalation of US troop levels for several years so we could take over the fighting again, meaning billions and billions more spent and thousands more American deaths. If people want to argue we should have undertaken a second surge into Afghanistan I'm open to discussing that but people who criticize the collapse tend to argue that there was some other way where we could have just done it 'better' while not really investing anything more which is wishful thinking.

To me if anything the immediate collapse of the Afghan government without our support is evidence that Biden was right. We had been propping them up and training them for 20 years and they lasted less than a month. Common sense says if we stayed for his term then after 24 years they would have lasted...less than a month.

 

[IronWing]

Well, there certainly was a much better way to pull out and end the conflict than what Biden did. They claim ignorance and didn't know it would cause the cluster F it did, but they had to know it needed to be a slow pull-out and been done over years. I guess my problem is that it should have started years ago. Maybe after they killed Bin Laden? Claim your small victory and initiate the end of the war. That didn't happen though.

Anyways, gotta get back to work, but thanks for the replies and info.

Biden exited Afghanistan in the best possible manner. Note the word possible. With the deal Trump cut with the Taliban, Biden could have left as he did or stayed and restarted the fight with the Taliban. How many more American troops would you have seen killed in Afghanistan? Because since Biden's pullout, the number of American troops killed there has been precisely zero. I agree that Obama should have immediately pulled out of Afghanistan after Bin Laden was killed.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, there certainly was a much better way to pull out and end the conflict than what Biden did. They claim ignorance and didn't know it would cause the cluster F it did, but they had to know it needed to be a slow pull-out and been done over years. I guess my problem is that it should have started years ago. Maybe after they killed Bin Laden? Claim your small victory and initiate the end of the war. That didn't happen though.

Anyways, gotta get back to work, but thanks for the replies and info.

Interesting. So you are ignorant on the events that lead up to and including a prolonged war/occupation but you know with certainty that there was a better way to pull out of Afghanistan?

Can I ask what your primary source of information is?

 

[ivwshane]

Biden exited Afghanistan is the best possible manner. Note the word possible. With the deal Trump cut with the Taliban, Biden could have left as he did or stayed and restarted the fight with the Taliban. How many more American troops would you have seen killed in Afghanistan? Because since Biden's pullout, the number of American troops killed there has been precisely zero. I agree that Obama should have immediately pulled out of Afghanistan after Bin Laden was killed.

People say we could have exited in a better way but those same people are never able to articulate how. That’s a sure sign of talking point regurgitation.

 

[LikeLinus]

Interesting. So you are ignorant on the events that lead up to and including a prolonged war/occupation but you know with certainty that there was a better way to pull out of Afghanistan?

Can I ask what your primary source of information is?

What are you talking about? I said "Maybe after they killed Bin Laden? Claim your small victory and initiate the end of the war." It was an idea, thought and question. I never claimed to be a military strategist. Maybe you sit on your hands and don't have the guts to ask questions or be curious.

There is no primary source of information, quit being that douchebag. I was asking questions and curious why we didn't pull-out after Laden was found and killed. Everyone is so quick to say we went into the conflict with lies and it was totally unnecessary. But no one can really explain why we stayed there for another 20 years. Especially with a new administration that could have done it much sooner and not let it drag on for 16years and then another 4 under Trump. How many more people were killed unnecessarily? I mean if the war was unnecessary, why was the continued conflict needed?

It's all just questions to better understand what people think and why it was done. I never said I knew exactly how they should do it, but I'm surprised it went on as long as it did. It was a simple conversation.

 

[LikeLinus]

Biden exited Afghanistan is the best possible manner. Note the word possible. With the deal Trump cut with the Taliban, Biden could have left as he did or stayed and restarted the fight with the Taliban. How many more American troops would you have seen killed in Afghanistan? Because since Biden's pullout, the number of American troops killed there has been precisely zero. I agree that Obama should have immediately pulled out of Afghanistan after Bin Laden was killed.

The flip side to that, how many Afghans died after we left suddenly? Wasn't Biden warned something like this would happen? It's been awhile, but didn't he claim ignorance that no one told him shit would go sideways if we just all up and left? All those people trying to get on the planes and the Taliban came in and took over?

We keep talking about American troops, but what about the people we were there to support and help for 20+ years? Was it really the best possible manner in the grand scheme of things? I don't have the answer, just curious about the whole situation.

 

[ivwshane]

What are you talking about? I said "Maybe after they killed Bin Laden? Claim your small victory and initiate the end of the war." It was an idea, thought and question. I never claimed to be a military strategist. Maybe you sit on your hands and don't have the guts to ask questions or be curious.

There is no primary source of information, quit being that douchebag. I was asking questions and curious why we didn't pull-out after Laden was found and killed. Everyone is so quick to say we went into the conflict with lies and it was totally unnecessary. But no one can really explain why we stayed there for another 20 years. Especially with a new administration that could have done it much sooner and not let it drag on for 16years and then another 4 under Trump. How many more people were killed unnecessarily? I mean if the war was unnecessary, why was the continued conflict needed?

It's all just questions to better understand what people think and why it was done. I never said I knew exactly how they should do it, but I'm surprised it went on as long as it did. It was a simple conversation.

That was a cool little rant you posted but it didn’t address the question or concern I raised one bit.

I’ll try to make it easier for you to follow: what is your basis for claiming Biden could have done better to get out of Afghanistan?

 

[ivwshane]

The flip side to that, how many Afghans died after we left suddenly? Wasn't Biden warned something like this would happen? It's been awhile, but didn't he claim ignorance that no one told him shit would go sideways if we just all up and left? All those people trying to get on the planes and the Taliban came in and took over?

We keep talking about American troops, but what about the people we were there to support and help for 20+ years? Was it really the best possible manner in the grand scheme of things? I don't have the answer, just curious about the whole situation.

You’ve been on this board for more than twenty years, show me a single post by you, or anyone for that matter, who gave one shit about the people of Afghanistan.