Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 xole wrote:
What if you're just depressed to the point of numbness at the realization of all the suffering in the world? Would that count?

Well, if its true then fair enough. I'm not really sure what that's got to do with my point though, that it's very unlikely that a person would weep for all of their own countrymen, and not one foreignor.


Also, this thread has gone to a strange place.

I will never forget how I was told of 9/11.

A guy I was working with came over and said

"Theres a bunch of flying planes into towers in america"

We sat quietly and listened to the radio.
I remember wondering what the repercussions would be.

 Ahtman wrote:

cadbren wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
So much for one day of quiet introspection and unity. Couldn't wait till tomorrow to pour gasoline on the fire?

Since when is browsing Dakka Dakka quiet introspection?

Did you just read the first post, the second, and then skip everything else?

Why not, the post I responded to came before the rest. If the thoughts contained therein were erroneous then that post should have been amended. It wasn't. I responded to it given the information it contained.

 Frazzled wrote:
Leaving Iraq aside not seeing the bad part about Afghanistan.

While nation building turned out to be stupid for that region, it was an inherent attempt at good.

After Q effectively hit us with WMDs. We could have, maybe should have, responded in kind.

I think that was the problem with Afghanistan. After we ousted the Taliban and did lasting and significant damage to AQ we had no idea what we were doing there, other than some vague concept of nation building.
My own view is that we should have rolled in, dealt with our enemies in Afghanistan with overwhelming force. Then leave with a warning that any further aggression will be met with a much more ferocious response. Any follow up against AQ could then be done by proper support and funding of our intelligence and SpecOp community

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Leaving Iraq aside not seeing the bad part about Afghanistan.

While nation building turned out to be stupid for that region, it was an inherent attempt at good.

After Q effectively hit us with WMDs. We could have, maybe should have, responded in kind.

I think that was the problem with Afghanistan. After we ousted the Taliban and did lasting and significant damage to AQ we had no idea what we were doing there, other than some vague concept of nation building.
My own view is that we should have rolled in, dealt with our enemies in Afghanistan with overwhelming force. Then leave with a warning that any further aggression will be met with a much more ferocious response. Any follow up against AQ could then be done by proper support and funding of our intelligence and SpecOp community

DC has the way of it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Then leave with a warning that any further aggression will be met with a much more ferocious response. Any follow up against AQ could then be done by proper support and funding of our intelligence and SpecOp community

Not that I wouldn't mind making yet more money, but I think I need to point out that plan you have failed spectacularly every time the US tried it up to the present, and only led to further escalation by terrorists, in addition to giving them a steady influx of motivated recruits. And, frankly, reading over the leaked budget, how much more money do you think the intelligence community really needs?

What would have been your plan Baron?

cadbren wrote:
Why not, the post I responded to came before the rest. If the thoughts contained therein were erroneous then that post should have been amended. It wasn't. I responded to it given the information it contained.

Are you this new to how discussions work? People don't talk about things retroactively, but in a linear fashion. Going back later and editing a post to make it appear as if nothing wrong was ever said would be dishonest and disingenuous. No need to whitewash history in an effort to appear perfect.

You also didn't respond to the information it contained, as the discussion contained lots of information, much of it that you ignored. You responded to partial information, and now want are trying to appear witty while also admitting to responding to incomplete information; it shows poor form to comment on a discussion without actually reading the discussion. You are commenting on a subject that had already been gone over and answered, and if you had read the comments, you would have known the answer to your question before posting. To perhaps better illustrate the problem, a comic. You are Internet Explorer.

 Frazzled wrote:
What would have been your plan Baron?

Well, the first thing I would have done would be to approach both Shia and Sunni scholars and have a fatwa decreed against AQ and Osama Bin Laden, declaring their actions forbidden. For the Sunni it's an informal thing, but for Shia it carries the weight of law. This first move would have silenced a lot of Islamic critics (even if just in the context of showing respect for Islamic law and custom) and reduced the overall support for both AQ and Taliban. The Taliban might (and I emphasis this is a long shot, but a remote possibility) have simply handed him over at that point to save face, but if an invasion of Afghanistan was inevitable, do it with a plan and funds ready to go for post war reconstruction. I also would have put a squad on every damn street corner if I had the manpower until the place was pacified and the Afghans fully able to defend themselves and maintain order. Cut them some favorable trade agreements to help boost their economy and THEN slowly draw down.

I definitely would also have put Iraq on hold until finished with Afghanistan. Bringing Saddam to justice was important, but dividing your forces before the enemy is always a bad idea.


At the same time, I'd have opened a dialogue with the more secular terrorist groups and done some image building in the region if nothing else. Secular terrorists have motives that the US can examine, and potentially deal with the underlying reason for their existence, whether it's occupation, perceived injustice, economic, or whatever. They have real world political and or economic goals that might be brought into line with American interests. And make a point of being seen doing it.

The other thing I would have done is made a point to try captured terrorist leaders in the open, and make a point to prove that they had not only violated US and international law, but violated sharia as well, preferably in a manner that left no doubt in anyone's minds that the primary issue at hand was justice for the victims.