ForumsWEPR12 Years Later: An Introspective

31 3738
CommanderPaladin
offline
CommanderPaladin
1,538 posts
185

As many of you know, this Tuesday marks the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Twelve years later, where are we?

When the planes first hit the towers that fateful day, America reeled, took a step back, and took stock of itself. Thousands gathered in churches to pray for their friends and families, and for their nation. Political and religious divides vanished instantaneously. Americans united themselves as never before with mourning for the fallen, compassion for the wounded, and righteous fury towards those who would dare to commit such an act of evil. As rescue teams picked through the rubble, intelligence assets swung into action to identify the perpetrators, and the military readied itself to deliver a devastating vengeance upon those responsible. When it was determined that Osama bin Laden's al-Quaeda terror network was to blame, Americans were of a single mind in their goal: Kill bin Laden, wipe out his minions, and make sure this kind of attack can never happen again. While the armed forces abroad entered into battle against the regimes allied with bin Laden, legislators at home drew up new measures and formed new agencies to ensure safety for American citizens. Everyone sincerely believed that this evil attack intended to cripple us had instead made us stronger than ever before.

But where are we now? Political divisiveness is at an all-time high. People are using religious differences, or spite for religion itself, as bludgeons to attack one another, while the terrorists who cause chaos throughout the world still attempt to use "religion" as an excuse for the cancer of death and destruction they spread. Despite the massive casualties we have inflicted upon al-Quaeda, and the fact that bin Laden himself died by the rifle of a U.S. Navy SEAL, Americans have lost their resolve and become discouraged by the amount of blood and treasure required in the hunt for the terrorists who so brazenly attacked them. The politicians have abandoned our commitments in the countries we pursued our enemies into, and the drones that so busily tracked and killed terrorists are now being brought to U.S. airspace to do the same to anyone the government feels threatened by. Laws such as the Patriot Act, once universally supported and hailed as protection against terror attacks, have morphed into Orwellian Frankensteins that allow the government unprecedented and open-ended authority to spy on Americans at will. Meanwhile, the Patriot Act's pet agency, the Department of Homeland Security, is being turned into a domestic army with unlimited power to search, seize, and otherwise assault American citizens, while its little brother, the TSA, uses similar authority to make a specialty of raping travelers in the name of false safety. The rights and freedoms guaranteed to Americans are being trampled, the nation is tearing itself apart along ideological lines, and now, hot on the heels of withdrawing from the War on Terror, Mr. Obama wants to aid groups aligned With al-Quaeda by picking a fight with Syria.


So, where are we now? Are we really stronger as a nation, the way we all believed we would be? Or have we crippled ourselves in a way the terrorists could only have dreamt of?


Where are we?...

  • 31 Replies
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

To add for Punisher argue, USA didnt fought a countrey. They fought an idea. A group.
You can bomb a tank garage. You can destroy supply convoys. But armed militia who hide in mountains - that impossible.

USA mission in Afganistan is to build a democratic western government. And they quite succsed. Now, slowly but firmly, i hope the Afgan state will be able to release itself from the hands who try to use it. Taliban dont care about the afgans. Most of the terrorist arent afgans. They use Afganistan as a huge camp, a gathering place.
Like in Syria, there are 4 factions - The regiem, the democratic rebels, the radicall islamist aka Al-Quadia, and the kurds. These Radical smell weakness and jump in like leeches. Again, they dont care about Syria.ike they did in Jordan, like they do in Lebanon. In tunis.

They are the one who destroy the arab world. Not USA.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

Sure drones are useful, but what will they target if they don't have any intel?

Maybe the people that are shooting at the drones?

"But punisher, we can have spies can't we?"

We don't need spies that much anymore. We can already see license plates from space and the technology is only going to improve. We can trace and interpret many forms of communication. If we're talking about fighting actual armies, they're not that difficult to track.

but how many people will volunteer

Our entire freakin' military is volunteer and they'll go and do whatever they're told.

and no one is gonna come for us?

How do you think espionage works these days?

Hopefully USA has learned its lesson of not starting the wars they can't win.
As it is evident from it not interfering in Syria.

Syria has nothing to do with not being able to win. The public just doesn't want it and doesn't care. It doesn't directly do anything to us. Sure, it's sad that their government is slaughtering its own people, but that's their problem, not ours.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

War is won by armies, not airforces


War is won by any means necessary. If the goal is to kill the enemy quickly, cheaply, and efficiently as possible, then any means can be utilized to accomplish the end. Placing undue importance on one over another is ridiculous.

Sure drones are useful, but what will they target if they don't have any intel?


Have you not seen any recent news involving the NSA? Suggesting the US government and military will be without intelligence is laughable, and completely ignores the wealth of drones, satelites, and other nefarious devices in the US arsenal.

Also, Hopefully USA has learned its lesson of not starting the wars they can't win.
As it is evident from it not interfering in Syria.


Deine "win." On a military scale, the US accomplished its goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. Totalitarian regimes were quickly overthrown, democratic governments were established, and the Iraqi and Afghani peoples have the opportunity to have free political discourse for the first time in a very long time.

No body wanted to go to Syria because who rules in Damascus has no affect on Washington.

You can bomb a tank garage. You can destroy supply convoys. But armed militia who hide in mountains - that impossible.


But you CAN kill the adherents of an idea. Associate the following of an ideology with destruction and ruin, and see how many people are quick to take up your cross.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

War is won by armies, not airforces, yes they do play a very important role but in the end its boots on the grounds that do the job, you are mistaken or have that so typical of americans arrogance if you think other wise.


War needs neither to be won...just a lil FYI.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

Deine "win." On a military scale, the US accomplished its goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. Totalitarian regimes were quickly overthrown, democratic governments were established, and the Iraqi and Afghani peoples have the opportunity to have free political discourse for the first time in a very long time.

Funny you mentioned these, all I see is Iraq is in deeper **** than it was in before saddam was topelled, also Iran is trying to gain influence there and getting successful, tell me for what aim does usa go there?
ans no it did not go there to spread democracy. that's BS.
If the goal was to remove a potentail threat, they have spectacolarly failed in it as in removing one threat, they have created many more.
If the goal was to dispose off "al Qaida" well, its still alive and kicking, it simply skipped town.
As for afghanistan, Bravo , after scarificing 2280 men you have succeeded in killing a one man,(If the "honest and truthful govrn. of USA" is to be believed) bravo.
While any one who is not taliban is crapping its pants over the thought of their return after your armies are withdrawn in 2014.
One will have to be stupid one thinks that the reason USA went in these countries were Over throwing Totalitarian regimes , Establishing democratic governments , and giving Iraqi and Afghani peoples the opportunity to have free political discourse.
Might I remined that these same regimes were supported by USA at one time or another.
(even the warlords that comprise talibans).

War is won by any means necessary. If the goal is to kill the enemy quickly, cheaply, and efficiently as possible, then any means can be utilized to accomplish the end. Placing undue importance on one over another is ridiculous

That is the thing, you simply can not kill this enemy, where you kill one, his both sons take up arms, that is there culture.
Do you know what they do when hey kill someone in a feud? they kill his male children too so that they don't avenge their father.
Truth is, Afghans were never a threat to USA it was US who messed withem in first place to eliminate "Alqaida".
In which it has not yet succeeded and has lost nearly same number of troops as were the victims of WTC.Smart strategy?
Have you not seen any recent news involving the NSA? Suggesting the US government and military will be without intelligence is laughable, and completely ignores the wealth of drones, satelites, and other nefarious devices in the US arsenal.

You are just conyradicting yourself but what ever.
The question is, how the Mighty US govrn.has not yet succeeded with all these nefarious devices?
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

all I see is Iraq is in deeper **** than it was in before saddam was topelled,

Oh yes, the modern lack of genocide is horrible by comparison. We should have more of that.
/sarcasm

after scarificing 2280 men you have succeeded in killing a one man

And tens of thousands of his followers. But war isn't judged in lives. A majority of Afghans oppose the Taliban and are supportive of the US military presence. The US also has a strong strategic alliance with their government.

(If the "honest and truthful govrn. of USA" is to be believed)

If bin Laden was alive, Al-Qaeda would simply take a video and Obama would be screwed. Instead, they issued a statement confirming that he's dead.

While any one who is not taliban is crapping its pants over the thought of their return after your armies are withdrawn in 2014.

Hopefully the decade of training their security forces to do their own job was enough.

Afghans were never a threat to USA

And the vast majority of them still aren't.

In which it has not yet succeeded and has lost nearly same number of troops as were the victims of WTC.

76% is the nearly same number? I'm so glad you're not a financial advisor.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

Oh yes, the modern lack of genocide is horrible by comparison. We should have more of that.

What genocide did in one quick shock, bombings are doing it peice by peice
And tens of thousands of his followers. But war isn't judged in lives. A majority of Afghans oppose the Taliban and are supportive of the US military presence. The US also has a strong strategic alliance with their government.

"Strong" is a very strong word to call that govrn. A puppet would seem more suitable.
If bin Laden was alive, Al-Qaeda would simply take a video and Obama would be screwed. Instead, they issued a statement confirming that he's dead.

Or may be he died long ago, al qaida just saw it as an oppertiunity to get free of its shadow.
Hopefully the decade of training their security forces to do their own job was enough.

That may turn out to be a false hope as they have so high of a desertion rate that they replace a third of their army anually.
And the vast majority of them still aren't.

You better hope, for if it is the contrary, things can go kabul massacre very easily.

76% is the nearly same number? I'm so glad you're not a financial advisor.

I wouldn't want a desk job any way. Still 76% is a huge share.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

"Strong" is a very strong word to call that govrn.

I didn't say "The government of Afghanistan is strong". I said "The US-Afghanistan alliance is strong". Just the bond, not the country.

What genocide did in one quick shock, bombings are doing it peice by peice

By a small radical group, not a government with a military.

Or may be he died long ago

Then they wouldn't have kept sending tapes to desperately confirm that he was alive.

things can go kabul massacre very easily.

Sure, if we replace their government, they'll get mad. Except we're already friends with their elected leaders. And the people are begging us to stay.

Still 76% is a huge share.

Soldiers in a long conflict to civilians in a single event is hardly a fair comparison to base success or failure on. For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor killed about 2400 soldiers and about 50 civilians, but the resulting war in the Pacific lead to over 100000 US military deaths, meaning the same comparison is about 4200%. And it really means nothing when you look at the wars that didn't involve any "national spark/cost", like Vietnam or Korea.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

I didn't say "The government of Afghanistan is strong". I said "The US-Afghanistan alliance is strong". Just the bond, not the country.

What use is the friendship of a lamb, in a den of lions?
By a small radical group, not a government with a military.

Not just one radical group, its on the brink of a civil war
Sure, if we replace their government, they'll get mad. Except we're already friends with their elected leaders. And the people are begging us to stay.

Correction those in the govrn. and their cronies are begging you to stay for they remember what happenned to Najibullah
Soldiers in a long conflict to civilians in a single event is hardly a fair comparison to base success or failure on. For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor killed about 2400 soldiers and about 50 civilians, but the resulting war in the Pacific lead to over 100000 US military deaths, meaning the same comparison is about 4200%. And it really means nothing when you look at the wars that didn't involve any "national spark/cost", like Vietnam or Korea.

I understand what you are trying to say but here, it really does make sense as the very reason to enter this war was Vengeance, and you lost more men to avenge than real victims (Iraq and afghanistan combined).
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

Vengence was not the reason. The fact that, as i said befor, afganistan became terroristan/Al-quaidastan was the problme.

Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

before saddam was topelled, also Iran is trying to gain influence there


Iraq is Sunni. Iran is Shia. A spattering of high-level visits is nothing when held up to the past.

and getting successful, tell me for what aim does usa go there?
ans no it did not go there to spread democracy. that's BS.


To bring stability to the region? Remove a dictator from power? And no, spreading democracy is not "BS" seeing as that's actually what the US did.

If the goal was to remove a potentail threat, they have spectacolarly failed in it as in removing one threat, they have created many more.

Care to give specifics of these "threats?"

If the goal was to dispose off "al Qaida" well, its still alive and kicking, it simply skipped town.


The capabilities of AQ to operate as an effective organization are severely hindered, and largely on the decline. Success.

As for afghanistan, Bravo , after scarificing 2280 men you have succeeded in killing a one man,(If the "honest and truthful govrn. of USA" is to be believed) bravo.


You seem to have this amusing notion that if a side loses any men, they lose. Yes, the US suffered casualties... That's sort of how war works. And while it isnt NATO policy to count bodies, the consensus is that the number of terrorist casualties are astronomically greater than that of coalition forces.

One will have to be stupid one thinks that the reason USA went in these countries were Over throwing Totalitarian regimes , Establishing democratic governments , and giving Iraqi and Afghani peoples the opportunity to have free political discourse.


Then enlighten us. You've done a lot to bad mouth the rest of us, without offering anything yourself.

Might I remined that these same regimes were supported by USA at one time or another.
(even the warlords that comprise talibans).


And your point is...? Yesterday It was beneficial for the US to support them - so they did. Today its beneficial for the US to kill them - so they do. Pragmatism; look it up.

That is the thing, you simply can not kill this enemy, where you kill one, his both sons take up arms, that is there culture.


Then we will kill his sons. And his son's sons. Ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.

You are just conyradicting yourself but what ever.The question is, how the Mighty US govrn.has not yet succeeded with all these nefarious devices?


Care to explain how I allegedly contradicted myself?

Sorry, but what exactly are you trying to imply here? Because it would seem that you're suggesting the US spy system is nonexistant, and has no way of gathering intel.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

OK first of all, It took me an hour to compose a post with links etc but when I posted it, i automatcally got logged out(may be some thin to do with Proxy or cache) So this answer will be a little short but I will cover every thing.

Iraq is Sunni. Iran is Shia. A spattering of high-level visits is nothing when held up to the past.

Get your facts straight.
To bring stability to the region? Remove a dictator from power? And no, spreading democracy is not "BS" seeing as that's actually what the US did.

Seeing Iraq US were chums earlier, I doubt it somehow, infact I think US never started a war for noble purpose as " Freedom" or "Democracy" or even vengeance.
The only reason that war was necessary was because SAddam was becoming unruly, he was threatning some freinds of US which were far more benefecial than him.
and you seem to agree with me on this point as you just say next
And your point is...? Yesterday It was beneficial for the US to support them - so they did. Today its beneficial for the US to kill them - so they do. Pragmatism; look it up.






Care to give specifics of these "threats?"

AQIM?
Iran spreading its influence?
You seem to have this amusing notion that if a side loses any men, they lose. Yes, the US suffered casualties... That's sort of how war works. And while it isnt NATO policy to count bodies, the consensus is that the number of terrorist casualties are astronomically greater than that of coalition forces.

No my friend, you misunderstand me, for if causualities dictated who won or who lost a war, then no one was a bigger loser in WWII than USSR.
The question I ask is, has the stated gaol been completed?
No, it has not been.
The capabilities of AQ to operate as an effective organization are severely hindered, and largely on the decline. Success.

AQIM?
Al shabbab?

Then enlighten us. You've done a lot to bad mouth the rest of us, without offering anything yourself.

I already gave you reason for Iraq invasion. As for afghanistan.
It definately was not OBL as Taliban offered to hand him over to a neutral country or give a proof.
They reason US invaded it was the very same reason Lion Of Brittania and Russian Bear wanted it.
Open a map.
Good, now see where Afghanistan is.
You'll see its surrounded by Iran, China, Pakistan and Three CIS.
Out of these six countries 2 of them can be classified as Rivals and one as a constant risk.
Imagine If you land an army between them, it will be like russia installing nukes on cuba. One thing which they under estimated was stubborness of afghans.
Ad infinitum

Threat neutralised?
Nope.
So mission not accomplished?
yep.
How can we accomplish it?
We must kill every one of them.
After all, there was areason russians used toy bombs against them.
Care to explain how I allegedly contradicted myself?

In the very same post you said over emphasising any military aspect is stupid and then you did the same.
Sorry, but what exactly are you trying to imply here? Because it would seem that you're suggesting the US spy system is nonexistant, and has no way of gathering intel.

there is a reason that the most wanted man on planet hid in plain sight for 10 years while US was searching left and right until CIA peratives (that is boots on the ground with pretty much full freedom) turned a doctor and cinfirmed his residence.
What if Pak us relations were not that warm? and/or there was no US military presence in Afghanistan? would CIA be able to roam free? would they be able to hire so freely?
No, I don't think so.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

Seeing Iraq US were chums earlier, I doubt it somehow, infact I think US never started a war for noble purpose as " Freedom" or "Democracy" or even vengeance.
The only reason that war was necessary was because SAddam was becoming unruly, he was threatning some freinds of US which were far more benefecial than him.
and you seem to agree with me on this point as you just say next


I blame the Baath Party; never understood how a minority can hang on to power so long. >.<

Officially since the Nixon/Kissinger combo the US' foreign policy is to do whatever gives us the biggest leg up on everybody else at that moment. It's how Qaddaffi went from being the Bulldog of Libya to a body in a ditch. Though I would argue Detente as being the high point of the practice, though its certainly had it success elsewhere.

AQIM?
Iran spreading its influence?


Only two? Dang.

France and Chad are handling AQIM, and have reported the deaths of several upper level members earlier this year. And an i surge cy canpaign targeted at foreigners is one thing, but killing civillians hurts them more than it helps them.

And I could take Iran more seriously if they didn't crank out a new super weapon every Tuesday and alternating Thursdays. At some point, I have to wonder who the idiot was that approved the flying orange speedboat idea. That's just silly.

already gave you reason for Iraq invasion


No, you haven't.

It definately was not OBL as Taliban offered to hand him over to a neutral country or give a proof.
They reason US invaded it was the very same reason Lion Of Brittania and Russian Bear wanted it.
Open a map.
Good, now see where Afghanistan is.
You'll see its surrounded by Iran, China, Pakistan and Three CIS.
Out of these six countries 2 of them can be classified as Rivals and one as a constant risk.
Imagine If you land an army between them, it will be like russia installing nukes on cuba. One thing which they under estimated was stubborness of afghans.


What ever happened to the whole Islamic tradition of protecting one's guest? And why didn't the Taliban just hand over Bin Laden when we first asked for him?

If no body intervened when the US invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, why do you think they would in the future? There's too much sectionalism and thousand-year grudges in that area of the world for your theory to amount to much.

Threat neutralised?
Nope.
So mission not accomplished?
yep.
How can we accomplish it?
We must kill every one of them.


So... The fact that people still are left alive in Afghanistan means that the US is a military failure? I suppose the US should just start smashing the big red button next time anyone sticks their nose out from whatever rock they live under, amirite?

The phrase "Exterminate with extreme predjudice" exists for a reason, you know.


In the very same post you said over emphasising any military aspect is stupid and then you did the same.


I'm a little slow - Care to point it out?

there is a reason that the most wanted man on planet hid in plain sight for 10 years while US was searching left and right until CIA peratives (that is boots on the ground with pretty much full freedom) turned a doctor and cinfirmed his residence.
What if Pak us relations were not that warm? and/or there was no US military presence in Afghanistan? would CIA be able to roam free? would they be able to hire so freely?
No, I don't think so.


You know how the US confirmed Bin Laden's identity? They used a spy satelite to get hyper-resolution photos of a man packng in the garden at the same time everyday. Then they measure the shadow, and used that data to extrapolate the height of the pacing man. Which was the same height as Geronimo. What a co-inky-dink.

Pakistan-US relationships are warm? Dude... wut

DUQU? Flame? StuxNet? How do you think those got into the Iranian Nuclear facilities? Governmental relationships have nothing to do with spying - Otherwise Iran wouldn't keep having their scientists dropping like flies in various accidents. Show me a man who who won't sell his soul for a bit of cash, and I'll show you a man who hasn't been shown enough zeroes.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,406 posts
2,680

The question I ask is, has the stated gaol been completed?
No, it has not been.

The goal in Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power. Success. Apparently Al-Qaeda is down from maybe a thousand to under 100 in the region. Their network is severely disorganized.

In the very same post you said over emphasising any military aspect is stupid and then you did the same.

He never said that drones/satellites/etc would be what wins the war, just that they're other tools in the toolbox that shouldn't be overlooked or underestimated.

there is a reason that the most wanted man on planet hid in plain sight for 10 years while US was searching left and right until CIA peratives (that is boots on the ground with pretty much full freedom) turned a doctor and cinfirmed his residence.

Even by '03 they had a pretty good idea of where he was, but he wasn't alone in all this. It was better to gather more intel on everyone else while their group was "whole", so their chain of command would be almost entirely broken, which it was. Like fighting a hydra: cut all the heads.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

Only two? Dang.

Creating two threats instead of one, smart strategy?
No, you haven't.

Well if you read my post clearly, it is right on top, and you just quoted it earlier.
I'm beginning to think that you are soft in the head.

What ever happened to the whole Islamic tradition of protecting one's guest? And why didn't the Taliban just hand over Bin Laden when we first asked for him?

I gave link, links are supposed to be read, will I have to teach you that too?
If no body intervened when the US invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan, why do you think they would in the future? There's too much sectionalism and thousand-year grudges in that area of the world for your theory to amount to muc

What theory?
A little explanation would be nice.
So... The fact that people still are left alive in Afghanistan means that the US is a military failure? I suppose the US should just start smashing the big red button next time anyone sticks their nose out from whatever rock they live under, amirite?

The phrase "Exterminate with extreme predjudice" exists for a reason, you know.

Incase of afghanistan, it holds true, did you read an example I posted a few posts earlier? that is their culture, vengeance, win or lose, survive or die, they will try to avenge, you can't match such people, nothing short of complete annihlation will work.
As for taliban, have they been annihlated?
Do their opponents fear them?
yes.
The point is not that US drove them away, the point is that they will come back.
I'm a little slow - Care to point it out?

*sigh
AG should have an iq test on signing up.
These are your words.
Placing undue importance on one over another is ridiculous

Then you are doing that exactly by placing undue importance on drones etc.
You know how the US confirmed Bin Laden's identity? They used a spy satelite to get hyper-resolution photos of a man packng in the garden at the same time everyday. Then they measure the shadow, and used that data to extrapolate the height of the pacing man. Which was the same height as Geronimo. What a co-inky-dink.

Yeah, and we are idiots who have caught an innoccent doctor for spying for america.
Now you are either trolling or just went through lobotomy.
Pakistan-US relationships are warm? Dude... wut

Considering we ain't shooting down your drones or putting your heads on pikes, that's as warm as they get.
DUQU? Flame? StuxNet? How do you think those got into the Iranian Nuclear facilities? Governmental relationships have nothing to do with spying - Otherwise Iran wouldn't keep having their scientists dropping like flies in various accidents

Can it win wars?
these are mere inconveniences in grand scale of things.
Show me a man who who won't sell his soul for a bit of cash, and I'll show you a man who hasn't been shown enough zeroes.

yours truly.
The goal in Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power. Success. Apparently Al-Qaeda is down from maybe a thousand to under 100 in the region. Their network is severely disorganized.

Question is,can they come back to power again?
Apparently they can.
He never said that drones/satellites/etc would be what wins the war, just that they're other tools in the toolbox that shouldn't be overlooked or underestimated.

it does not appear to me like this.
Even by '03 they had a pretty good idea of where he was, but he wasn't alone in all this. It was better to gather more intel on everyone else while their group was "whole", so their chain of command would be almost entirely broken, which it was. Like fighting a hydra: cut all the heads.

The closest they were at those times was that he is on the af pak border.
that is like saying, ""yeahI know where jesse james is he is in USA".
Showing 16-30 of 31