Six years on - are you happy with the response?
 

Hello my pretties, here is a question for all but specifically a question for the US members of this forum. Six years have passed since the tragic events of 9/11 when thousands of people lost their lives as a result of the WTC attacks. SInce then the US has been embroiled in a war in Iraq in which 3774 US servicemen and women have lost their lives. In addition a further 300 allied troops have been killed. Billions of dollars in ordanance, fuel and aid have been spent, the struggle continues in Afghanistan and across the world there are threats of terrorist attacks all the time.

My question to you is this: Are you satisfied that the US Government has adequately responded to the WTC attacks of six years ago? Please vote on the poll and post your reasons why you feel enough has or has not been done.

Thank you.

I believe afghanistan was a right thing to do.. the way they did it wasnt though, and them changing focus to iraq was just stupid

Not at all satisfied. Terrorism is a bigger threat now then it ever was.

Satisfied; there isn't much more than can really be done without giving even more power to corruptables, and no one is willing to go for full on cultural imperialism like the ole days so... this is about as far as it can get.

I voted "Non-US citizen, not satisfied" and then I realized I was a US citizen :(

Anyway, I don't see how anything the US has since done could contribute anything to stopping terrorism....all the effect it's had is that more people than ever hate America, and the West in general.

It's not necessarily a bid thing to topple the horrible regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but what good has it done in the end?
It certainly hasn't reduced terrorisms, and in the countries themselves lawlessness and bloody factional wars have replaced those regimes, at the cost of millions of lives.

U.S. Citizen- Satisfied. It's sort of a broad answer though. It's not like I'm all piss and vinegar about their actions and stance, but I'm content with them. I think it could of been done better, but I think it was still a well done enough job, for the most part. "Good Enough." Is what I'm saying.

Welcome back to the Pub, AzH :)


No problem, I corrected that.


I voted for non citizen, not satisfied. I am not opposed to the plan of an UN operation in Afghanistan, I just think it should be done properly. Even the Soviets had problems getting that country under control (and they did not mind using radical methods, as far as we know), I don't think we will do a lot better unless we concentrate our commitment and try not to provoke other countries in that region of the world.

As for terrorists, I think giving the money that is wasted on war and occupation to intelligence agencies or police-departments and concentrating political effort on cooperation instead of arguments which country to invade next would help a lot more against them.
War creates new terrorists, this is especially true for the people of the middle east.

Non-US Citizen, not satisfied. Afghanistan was a step forwards, but Iraq was a bigger step back.

Afganistan was a good reason, Osama was there, so that gave us reason to go there. Iraq was stupid, we had no reason to be there, we've caused lots of problems for the Iraqies, and now its becoming Veitnam all over again. I hope we catch and kill Bin Laden, that could cause the terrorists to lose morale

U.S. Citizen-Not Satisfied.

Instead of just going into Afghanistan and pouring all of the effort/money into that mission, we started another needless war and are now paying the dear price. Bush is a thickheaded tool, yada yada yada...

I don't see that invading Iraq constituted a response to 9/11 at all and I don't see any reason to think it will make us less vulnerable to similar atrocities in future. From the perspective of stamping out terrorism one only needs to look at the situation in Iraq today to see the flaw in that plan. So another unsatisfied non-US citizen.

Not happy.

Why the united states government believed it could "war" on terrorism is beyond me, their good friend Israel has been trying to root out what i would call "domestic" terrorism for decades using pretty much the same tools of war that the US government sicked on The Taliban and their terrorist buddies, along with a more intelligent, covert approach.

I guess they didn't get the idea, but they can twist the truth of their "success" for as long as the conventional means of thwarting terrorist attacks.. the cia and fbi.. can hold the towel heads at bay.

History is in favor of the "terrorists", just a mere 60 years ago, French, polish, British and Dutch terrorists went up against the Germans, whom while defeated eventually were no fools. The Gestapo got many, the Nazi’s killed their relatives and friends when they were elusive.. but they were never defeated.

9/11 was a terrible day, but it could have been any other day.. years before or later. Osama was around for a long time before and maybe even lives now as Kiowa helicopters try to find him. The supposed mastermind, catch him and the terrorists will just give up. Such a nice dream isnt it?

Yeah, no-one thought of attacking a superior enemy in suicide aircraft before. Personally i believe the only reason 9/11 has not repeated itself is because of the more passive defenses, and a glimmer of fear and compassion in the heads of those bearded men.

All it takes to become a martyr:
-Google
-house hold chemicals
-conviction

Good luck calling in an airstrike on that.



Good ol uncle America keeping us all safe, doing it all to make the world a better place. Why would a sane person believe this when a force deployment the fraction in size of what is stationed in Iraq and afghanistan could easily save ten time the amount of people that died when the towers fell.

There's a bit of a difference between the resistance fighters of France and friends vs terrorists who kill thousands of innocents to make political statements and/or express rage/hatred and/or influence political decisions.

Iraq (the war there) did a lot of good, and a lot of bad; it didn't have a great deal with domestic threats to us, but it had... something to do with terrorism towards a US ally.

A bit yes, but their conviction and persistance is all to similar.

Terrorism has always existed and it always will. There will always be people willing to kill and die for what they believe, no matter how stupid that belief is nor how brutal and unnecessary their actions, and it's somewhat daft to believe that you could 'declare war' on something like that. As a result of that, the United States could continue to wage this 'war' of theirs for another thousand years and still be no closer to eradicating it. With an utterly impossible goal in mind, is it even possible to 'satisfy' anybody?

I don't recall that many suicide bombings in WWII on the European front

I don't think the war on terrorism is so much a war against terrorism in general as much as it is a war against organized terrorism. Yes individuals will always likely have reason to become terrorists, but you can reduce their numbers and separate them by enough distance(and personal differences for that matter) to make organization impossible for them, which would greatly reduce the damage a terrorist could do.

Not saying the war on terrorism is being effective, but there are some parts about it I agree with, and in general I think the concept is a decent idea that needs better execution.And I took "Satisfied" to mean "content" not necessarily happy.

If you have enough people believing in something that passionately, they'll organise. It's happened throughout history, and it'll continue to do so, and the fact that terrorists are often just ordinary people living ordinary lives until they blow (literally) makes it all the harder to track them down. I don't see how invading countries at random will ever change that - the terrorists are in our countries as well. It's the changes that are made at home, by the government and the police force, that make the difference, as we've seen from all the foiled terrorist plots that have taken place over the years. I'm of the opinion that the only reason that our soldiers are out there, treading the sands of far away countries, is so that our governments can be seen to be on the offensive in the wake of such massive attacks; an enormous, blood-soaked PR campaign if you will. Only, it seems to have backfired a little in that department...

Semantics really, whether someone hoses down a Mercedes carrying Nazi officials with a Sten, knowing he'll probably end up dead. Or run his car into an armored vehicle and blow himself up, its all an act of resistance.

We went to Iraq because

1. We (the US gov) felt guilty about not doing this back in Gulf War 1
2. A War Time economy "would" bring us out of a coming recession
3. A little oil "would" bleed our way and make the campaign almost if not completely costless
4. Saddam Hussein was funding terrorist attacks against our ally Israel (excuse 2) by paying the families of suicide bombers $15,000 for their lost love one's efforts
5. 5 nations: Russia, Britain, Germany, Israel and of course the US, were told by the intelligences agencies of said nations that Saddam had WMDs (excuse 2)
6. 270,000 Iraqis were brutally tortured to death by Saddam during his rein (excuse 3; hence Operation Iraqi Freedom)

Note when I say "would" in quotes as such, it means the US government thought it "would"

Ultimately whether or not the reasons are moral doesn't matter a great deal to me so long as the Iraqi people are no longer facing brutal torture on a massive scale for the pleasure of some sick bastard. I would rather be shot to death at random than hauled by the police to a line up to have my feet whipped till they were mangled flesh and I could not walk if I even lived through the experience, for nothing.

How many Iraqi's have to catch bullets labelled "to whom it may concern" before you stop using the torture argument?

As many quick deaths as it takes to amount to one long and painful death, multiplied by 270,000 and then every Kurd that was tortured to death (1 million?) and Kuwaiti

I'm sure many people would rather be kidnapped, tortured by their captives and then beheaded or burned to death when the ransom is not paid; than have their feet whipped.

The brutal practices are still going on in Iraq, it's just that the people ordering it that have changed.

at least not everyone is on the side of the government

Really now, well you will have to let me see your sources for these figures, and explain how you can account for each single person who was supposedly tortured to death before you justify four innocents to catch lead with their guts for each and every one of them.

As for Afganistan, its good to see that place no longer being used as a giant Taliban-government-sponsored terrorist training ground. The country is finally seeing something close to peace and prosperity for the first time in decades. Its sad to see the public so outspoken against securing Afghanistan from the Taliban, wanting to pull our troops out of the country, leaving more of a burden on our allies (at least the ones who are bearing the brunt of the fighting).

When it comes to Iraq, I'm more fence-sitting. I like the idea of a world without Saddam, the man was one brutal son-of-a-bitch, but the fact that Iran has continued arming terrorists (Hezbollah comes to mind) and continued its nuclear program (civilian? really? for a nation with substansive gas reserves?). The civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are regretable, but its not any military's aim that soldiers purposefully shoot civilians. My honest thought is that Saddam should have been replaced by some more 'accomodating' leader, while we rearm the Iraqi army to fight Iran with the aid of Western air superiority and intelligence (the two birds, one stone, half the commitment theory).

I'm not a US citizen, but I am not satisified with the invasion of Iraq as a response to "terrorism". Al-Qaeda is still threatening home soil attacks, and not just on the US, meanwhile they're dug in deep in Iraq for what appears to me as no reason.

Non-US citizen not satisfied
The amount of news articles, TV shows and discusses that go around is pathetic. No one is talking about the incident. I suppose that is a good think in away, since I believe that "Its in the past and should move on", but they should at least talk about it.:rolleyes:

Non-US citizen not satisfied

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and continue to support its occuption by multi-national crisis management forces. However I opposed the invasion of Iraq and though I supported the decision later, I'm now persuaded into a conclusion that going to Iraq eventually wasn't beneficial thing to do but on the contrary. I have said it earlier and I say it again: We cannot "win" the war on terror through the force of arms (which just creates more terrorism) but through global intelligence, police & diplomatic cooperation, constructive foreign aid and limited counter-terrorism operations by special forces & air force.

The neo-conservatives nor the Bush administration (de-facto the same) didn't have those 270 000 dead Iraqis or torture in mind when Iraq was invaded, these points were just used for persuading the public to support the war: otherwise the USA would have went to Darfur ages ago not to mention many other locations where injustice, violence and tyranny prospers. The USA invaded most propably also because of testing new weapons & tactics since last time at 1991.

Years of war, sanctions, and massive subsidies have reduced Iran's economy to a shell. It's desperate for foreign currency, and the only way to get that is through oil.

But decades without work have left the refineries and wells running at low capacity - some haven't been repaired properly since the Iran-Iraq War - and a lot of their oil has to be siphoned to the domestic market at below-cost prices, because its one of the few things that keeps the population under control (oil is the bread of "bread and circuses").

Civilian nuclear generation will allow them to slash a large part of those subsidies whilst freeing up plenty of oil to send to China, ensuring a steady income of foreign currency, which will bring down inflation etc etc.



The war against terrorism has gone the same way the war on drugs went.

US Citizen. Not satisfied. No sir, not satisfied at all.

I want to know how we could go from having the worlds sympathy and support on 9-12 to pissing off almost all of the people who once supported us and alienating most of our Allies. Only England IMHO has stood side by side with us through thick and this and even the English people are not happy with the turn of events.

Is the world safer now? No if anything we have pissed off a number of countries and encouraged others. And still terrorism is a as big aa threat as ever.

the actions of the US government have made terrorism a much greater threat;owing to the invasion and some other aggressive US policies it has bolstered support worldwide for th guy who should have been dead years ago.It's not safer,more dangerous.

Non-US citizen not satisfied.Afghanistan was the right place to take the war.at least deploying a 60 to 80 K troops there initially and taking down all hidey holes and mountains would have saved a lot of lives.
Saddam could have been removed through another way.

Saddam and sons would have been replaced by similar persons if anybody noticed at all, he had many doubles and any one of them could simply take his place after his death without anyone really knowing.

its good hes gone, I heard what Hussay and Kussay did to the Iraq olimpic team

there are other dictators like him across the world.He just happened to have been in power for a long time.I am not saying removing him was a bad idea though.He should have been taken care of a long time ago,right after the fall of the Soviet Union when IIRC the west was ready for new world ordering.

He should have been taken down then, but he wasn't, so we did it now instead; as towards the rest of the worlds dictators, how many do you think we'd have such an easy time toppling as Saddam? The unexpected aftermath of course doesn't look good in hindsight, but from the perspective of 2002?

Tyrants in Pacific island nations, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, other African dictators, Bashar al-Assad in Syria? After all Saddam had relatively powerful armed forces from the point of view of developing countries in highly sensitive area where religion plays a major role.

Which of those mentioned did the US specifically place into power?

That's not the point, the question you asked was which dictators could have been more easily overthrown than Saddam Hussein. Besides did the USA place Saddam into power?

Well you never know, the US might have suddenly gotten a hard-on for empowering Pan-arab ultra nationalist with a heavy Anti-Israel slant and extensive terrorist connections. you know, for kicks.

And you answered that question, yes, and I suppose I should have acknowledged your answer rather than skipping to the next question. The US gave Saddam further power by giving weapons during their war against Iran to try and tip the scales against communism, despite the fact that the other side of the scale was despotism. The nice chunk of money didn't hurt his stranglehold on Iraq either. We also could be blamed for leaving him in power in Gulf War I, so we further empowered Saddam and then neglected to remove him. Thankfully, most of the US weapons and tanks were gone by the end of the war with Iran and Gulf War I.

The fact that he was anti-Israel, and Israel is of course the US's biggest and most "trusted" ally in the middle east, so that was a big no-no. Particularly because he acted on his ideas and funded suicide bombings.

We've gained nothing from our wars, and when we finally go home I suspect the power groups will go straight back to killing each other again, not that they've stopped doing that while we're there. It's a senseless waste to pour lives and resources down a black hole trying to achieve objectives with no clear bearing on our final goals, whatever they happen to be this week.

We've gained nothing, yet the Iraqi people have something, if only a little piece of what they could have if enough people simply valued the lives of others...
If we pull out now, we will be bit in the ass as we leave and a few years from now, all will be for nothing, and most worrying is the potential for one side to completely annihilate the other in the religious civil war, which would mean a massacre on the scale of hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Lest we forget that there is an islamo-fascist regime right next door attempting to procure nuclear arms. If Iran had its drithers we'd pull out and they could set up a puppet government in Iraq, which is a very dangerous situation indeed.

Dangerous how? I mean apart from having acces to Iraq's resources which will ALSO be sanctioned and therefor less than useful, what harm could come from it?

Unless of course they are after those WMD's hidden in Iraq. :uhoh:

However we cannot be absolutely certain about if the nuclear program is attempting to produce nuclear weapons. It's highly propable but not certain.

There's no guarantee for this kind of scenario. Iran has its hands full with the nuclear program, there would still be strong US presence in the Middle East at Kuwait & Saudi-Arabia, Iraqi armed & security forces would be on par with Iranian ones and Iran would have to handle the issue with the Sunnis & Kurds as well, not to mention that Iran would risk getting attacked by US airforce if it would try occupying Iraq.

Whether there's US presence in Iraq or not, Iran has nevertheless significant effect on the Iraqi administration due to the same religious background and this cannot be changed. Having continuous, active presence of 160 000 US troops in Iraq isn't just unrealistic but also very expensive looking from various point of views. On the other hand leaving 15 000-20 000 men garrison for some years could be possible.

no we should have killed sadaam, his sons, all his followers and ditched the country. we did our job after that. i could give a rats @#$ about the money spent and the oil wasted, but i do care about the loss of life.

You are gravely mistaken when you think having simply left after you killed him and his posse you would have been saving lives..

American lives, sure... but if thats all you care about why go in in the first place?

Am I satisfied. No.

I'd also like to point out something.

Noun: Terrorism ('teru'risum)
The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

Your point?