Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Only airstrikes (other than the ST6 raid that got OBL)?

July 17: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) confirms the death of key regional player Saeed al-Shehri, a Saudi killed by an American drone strike in late 2012.

-- 2012 --

- June 5: Al-Qaeda number two Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan citizen, is killed in Pakistan by an American drone strike.

- May 6: Fahd al-Quso, an AQAP boss, is killed in Yemen in an air raid attributed to the United States. Al-Quso was wanted for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole that left 17 American sailors dead.

- February 9: Al-Qaeda's chief in Pakistan, Badar Mansoor, is killed by an American drone in North Waziristan.

-- 2011 --

- September 30: US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi, an Al-Qaeda leader wanted over attacks in the United States, is killed in Yemen by an American drone.

- August 22: Al-Qaeda second-in-command Atiyah abd al-Rahman is killed in Pakistan by an American drone strike.

- May 2: Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden is killed in Pakistan by an elite team of US Navy SEALS after a decade on the run.

--2010--

- June 1: Al-Qaeda announces the death of its leader in Afghanistan, the Egyptian Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, in a US drone attack.

- April 18: Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, one of the top leaders of the local Al-Qaeda wing, the Islamic State of Iraq, is killed in a joint Iraqi-US operation in Baghdad, along with his military chief Abu Ayub al-Masri.

--2009--

- September 14: Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a Kenyan suspected of attacks in Mombasa against Israeli targets in 2002, is killed during an American air raid in Somalia.

--2008--

January 29: Abu Laith al-Libi, a close associate of Bin Laden, is killed by an American missile in Pakistan.

--2006--

- June 7: Al-Qaeda's top commander in Iraq, the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is killed in a US-Iraqi operation in Baghdad.

--2002--

- November 3: Al-Qaeda's Yemeni chief, Ali Qaed Sinan al-Harthi, a suspect in the attack on the USS Cole, is killed by an American drone.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/5/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Hair splitter.

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
If you can't "eradicate" terror, does that mean you shouldn't try to limit it as best as you can? 

If the thought process is that terrorists are angry at us, largely because we're involved so heavily in the Middle East, promoting ideas that go against their values.  And if we use a more hands-off approach, terror in our country will actually decrease.  I get it point of view, and to an extent, believe that. 

Hypothetical: If we use a "hands off" approach in Iraq, and let Iraq defend itself, and Iraq is overthrown by ISIS.  Are Americans safer because we didn't interfere, or less safe because ISIS is in power of an entire country in the Middle East?

Terrorists will find a reason to be angry with us. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/5/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
If you can't "eradicate" terror, does that mean you shouldn't try to limit it as best as you can? 

If the thought process is that terrorists are angry at us, largely because we're involved so heavily in the Middle East, promoting ideas that go against their values.  And if we use a more hands-off approach, terror in our country will actually decrease.  I get it point of view, and to an extent, believe that. 

Hypothetical: If we use a "hands off" approach in Iraq, and let Iraq defend itself, and Iraq is overthrown by ISIS.  Are Americans safer because we didn't interfere, or less safe because ISIS is in power of an entire country in the Middle East?

You ignored this.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 4:03:00 PM (view original):
You're equating American military lives on foreign soil to American civilian lives on domestic soil.

You can't look at that as a 1:1 trade-off.

Protecting the safety of American civilian lives on domestic soil trumps the military lives.  Because that's what ultimately one of the primary responsibilities of our military.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/5/2014 4:03:00 PM (view original):
You're equating American military lives on foreign soil to American civilian lives on domestic soil.

You can't look at that as a 1:1 trade-off.

Protecting the safety of American civilian lives on domestic soil trumps the military lives.  Because that's what ultimately one of the primary responsibilities of our military.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/5/2014 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/5/2014 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):
If you can't "eradicate" terror, does that mean you shouldn't try to limit it as best as you can? 

If the thought process is that terrorists are angry at us, largely because we're involved so heavily in the Middle East, promoting ideas that go against their values.  And if we use a more hands-off approach, terror in our country will actually decrease.  I get it point of view, and to an extent, believe that. 

Hypothetical: If we use a "hands off" approach in Iraq, and let Iraq defend itself, and Iraq is overthrown by ISIS.  Are Americans safer because we didn't interfere, or less safe because ISIS is in power of an entire country in the Middle East?

You ignored this.

Genuinely didn't see it.

Again, I don't have the answer. I'd prefer the choice that leads to the least American deaths. I don't think a "boots on the ground" war does that.