Do you support the military response "to terrorism", post 9-11?

[0rganism]

Edit: Note that I'm asking about the generally increased level of military activity in the wake of the terrorist attacks. This has largely been justified as a response to (or pre-emption of) terrorist activity. As one person pointed out, only some of the actions could be directly linked to terrorist cells.

[patdem]

1. I do not think the 'Unsure'. prior to the 'Diplomatic way' is correct

I am SURE the diplomatic way was not used as it should have been ....not unsure at all.

[0rganism]

6. good point. I should have made another option for that opinion.

I kind of jumped across the middle ground of support for military action after additional diplomatic effort. Hey, poll design ain't my specialty.

[0rganism]

2. So far, 100% strongly oppose?

I suppose Carlos would say this proves DU's outside the mainstream.

[Brotherjohn]

3. It was a criminal act. It entailed an appropriate response.

The Taliban asked for evidence that Osama was behind 9-11. They said if they got such evidence, they would have turned him over. All reservations about the Taliban asde, they were the ones behaving like a civilized nation on that point.

We never gave them anything except an ultimatum and then bombs.

We would have been much more effective with cooperation (to a point), and with covert actions in Afghanistan that the Taliban may not have liked, but would have been powerless to stop. The rest of the world would have cut us much slack on this. We could have quietly and quickly had the mountains of Afghanistan covered with special ops, and probably captured Osama within a few weeks.

Instead, we start a war with the entire nation. This virtually assured we would never catch him.

And don't even get me started on Iraq!

[cherryperry]

8. So, Brotherjohn,

what is your opinion of the war on Iraq; please be honest and thorough in your analysis. Many thanks.

:hi: :hi:

[Brotherjohn]

18. Much worse... no valid reason for it at all.

At least in Afghanistan, we could make the case that they were harboring (and somewhat in cahoots with) the group that allegedly committed the 9-11 terrorist acts. In that way, Afghanistan could be viewed as the agressor and it could be said we were acting in self-defense. I still think we were rash and went too far, and there were other, better ways we could have gone about it.

Iraq was a completely unnecessary war in which WE were the agressor. It was a pre-emptive war (already a questionable proposition) with nothing to pre-empt. Despite all the spin and lies from the administration, Iraq posed little to no threat to the United States, and certainly not one pressing enough to necessitate immediate invasion and conquest. They were being contained by U.N. inspections and sanctions, and had been beaten down to the point where they were little threat to anyone by the U.S. and our allies during the Gulf War.

The U.S. did not even wait for the few more weeks or months for the inspections to finish. Of course, if they did, the world would have known that Iraq was not a threat (of course anyone who was listening at the time already knew that).

I will be the first to argue that a strong show of force aided the inspectors in their cause, but history has revealed that Iraq had largely disarmed in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War, anyway. What that force helped the U.N. Inspectors to determine was that there is no significant evidence that Iraq was able to restart or rebuild any unconventional weapons ability after since Gulf War. We should have been happy with that. That was allegedly what we were nervous about.

Yes, Iraq was ruled by a horrible dictator. But that alone as a reason for what we have done is not sufficient (nor was it the one used to convince America that the war was justified). This war has created more chaos and instability in the Mid-East, more animosity towards America in the Arab world, endangered relationships with our long-standing allies, and will likely result in far more terrorism than it prevents. It has cost hundreds of American lives (and counting), and thousands of Iraqi lives (and counting). Oh, and it will quite possibly bankrupt our own government.

[MrBenchley]

19. Amen, brother!!

"The Taliban asked for evidence that Osama was behind 9-11. They said if they got such evidence, they would have turned him over. All reservations about the Taliban asde, they were the ones behaving like a civilized nation on that point. "
Worth noting that Chimpy has NEVER produced ANY of the evidence he claimed to have in October, 2001.

[Kamika]

21. no they did NOT say this

They said THEY would try him if they got evidence.

Im happy we bombed the talibans to kingdom come.

Sucks that Bush doesnt have a clue on what to do "after" you actually kill the bad guys though.

oh i voted for nr4

[VermontDem2004]

4. how about

Afghanistan questionable, Iraq absolutely not?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

No... We just needed to focus on Afghanistan

I believe that was a correct action, but Bush is apparently one of those people who does things halfway and leaves them unfinished. Of course Iraq was only about 10 to 25% fully baked. :eyes:

[VermontDem2004]

5. who the hell voted for the first option?

[StopTheMorans]

9. lurking freepers

per usual:)

[0rganism]

11. Some joker, probably

Although there are probably a few here on "temporary visas" who actually believe that's the answer.

[FlashHarry]

7. Personally, I think the attack on Afghanistan was justified.

I just wish we'd have gotten Bin Laden and stayed there to clean up the goddamned mess. I think it's in danger of becoming worse than before.

Iraq? That was a no-brainer. We should never have invaded a defenseless country that had not threatened us. That is decidedly un-American.

On edit: I'd change the vote to The Taliban got what it deserved. Most of the Afghans were oppressed innocents and didn't deserve any of this.

[VermontDem2004]

12. I did at first

but it is such a mess and I have no idea how the afghan war is going. If the war is being fought this way where we are bombing civilians, bombing the wrong people and not going after the correct people this war is unjustified. It is so confusing for me to explain it but I wish there was a "Afghanistan questionable, Iraq absolutely not" question.

[StandWatie]

13. I don't think we really needed to do anything there

I don't much care one way or another, I don't give a damn about the Taliban and it wasn't like the war there ever ended but if the thing was really about removing them and capturing or killing bin Ladin and his associates the best move would have been a very quiet SpecOps campaign and handing over more weapons to the NA. I think much of what the US did there was gratuitous and even more sinister it was a show to appease a US public that would have been unhappy with a response that didn't have Americans blowing up "towelheads".

[TheYellowDog]

23. That's so foolish of you

Oh, I don't give a damn about the Taliban. REMEMBER 9/11? 3000 people dead. I think their families DO give a damn. And don't you dare try and tell me that the Taliban wasn't involved in 9/11.

[Zero Gravitas]

10. What military response?

Other than taking out a few suspected Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan there has been no military response to terrorism.

[0rganism]

14. Point taken, I should have put "to terrorism" in quotes

I'll try to clarify that with an edit.

[cherryperry]

15. I voted for the 4th option. eom

[radwriter0555]

16. The US military has NOT responded to terrorism in any way, shape or form.

They've invaded and conquered some countries for their oil issues... But those have nothing to do with 'fighting terrorism'.

Fighting terrorism is intel work, not military work, especially since no terrorist event has been state sponsored.

It's all bullshit, let's keep it REAL clear.

[0rganism]

17. so no one blindly trusts our leaders to handle the matter?

You UnAmericans! Resistance is futile: shop at a Walmart, and join the mighty Borg. You will be assimilated!

[0rganism]

20. bumping for additional responses

does anyone read past page 2 these days?

[TheYellowDog]

22. I voted for

Afghanistan got what it deserved...

[RC]

24. On September 11, 2001, the whole world was with us.

What should have happened was a co-operative police action, with the U.S. being only another member.

Just look at we allowed bu$h to do in the last two years...
Afghanistan was just another bu$h administration slight of hand to get the pipeline built. Nothing more.

Iraq was for the oil. But the criminals are getting old and senile and are hallucinating. Their nebulous grip on reality has gone a long way towards destroying this countries infrastructure. It will take generations to recover, if ever.

But then again, if the people appointed to this administration were sane, 9/11/01 would never have happened because we, the United States would not have been meddling in the internal affairs of other countries for the last 50 years. In fact Al Gore would be the President, with the continuing prosperity of the Clinton years.