Posted by bad_luck on 2/1/2016 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/1/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 1:30:00 PM (view original):
I guess I was referring to both Iraq and Afghanistan.  All military action in the region provoked by the 9/11 attacks.

This is the point where BL jumps in and tells you "No, you weren't also referring to Afghanistan, you were only referring to Iraq".

BL . . . you're up.

He says he was referring to both, that's fine.

Lol.... Kind of sounds apologetic, kind of..... On second thought it comes off more dismissive as in 'so what if I was wrong after arguing and namecalling for 5 pages'

Posted by bad_luck on 2/1/2016 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/1/2016 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/1/2016 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/1/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 1:30:00 PM (view original):
I guess I was referring to both Iraq and Afghanistan.  All military action in the region provoked by the 9/11 attacks.

This is the point where BL jumps in and tells you "No, you weren't also referring to Afghanistan, you were only referring to Iraq".

BL . . . you're up.

He says he was referring to both, that's fine.

LOL.

Good job.

Good job what? You thought he was referring to Afghanistan. I thought he was referring to Iraq. We were both right. And wrong.

I said he was referring to both.

Christ Almighty, you are sooooooooooooooooooooo ******* stupid.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:32:00 AM (view original):
Dahs said that US military response in the Middle East after 9/11 was a massive mistake because it led to ISIS.

There were two military responses in the Middle East after 9/11.  Afghanistan and Iraq.  I assume dahs was referring to both.  I said that Afghanistan was a justifiable response because there was a strong and direct connection between the government of Afghanistan (the Taliban) and Al Qaeda.  I said that Iraq was NOT a justifiable response.  That was Bush/Cheney's war because they wanted another war against Iraq.  Because they did.  And the intelligence community distorted the intelligence that they had to give Bush/Cheney what they wanted.

What part of that do you not understand?

See where I say "I assume dahs was referring to both"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2016 2:01:00 PM (view original):
And, do you still think that the correct reaction to 9/11 would be to do nothing?

I never said the correct reaction was to do nothing.  I think a large-scale military response was incorrect.

I'm not in public policy.  It's not my job to know what the "correct" response would have been.  We also stepped up the threat, at least, of political and economic sanctions to get Pakistan to help remove Taliban and Al Q'aida presence from their nation.  We could have done similar with other nations in the region.  We could have even tried threatening the Taliban with political sanctions if they didn't stop sheltering Al Q'aida.  The United States and our allies have the economic clout to make any country at least somewhat worried about what we could do to them without military action.  Look at living conditions in Cuba under the embargo.  Nobody wants to make a move in that direction.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/1/2016 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2016 2:01:00 PM (view original):
And, do you still think that the correct reaction to 9/11 would be to do nothing?

I never said the correct reaction was to do nothing.  I think a large-scale military response was incorrect.

I'm not in public policy.  It's not my job to know what the "correct" response would have been.  We also stepped up the threat, at least, of political and economic sanctions to get Pakistan to help remove Taliban and Al Q'aida presence from their nation.  We could have done similar with other nations in the region.  We could have even tried threatening the Taliban with political sanctions if they didn't stop sheltering Al Q'aida.  The United States and our allies have the economic clout to make any country at least somewhat worried about what we could do to them without military action.  Look at living conditions in Cuba under the embargo.  Nobody wants to make a move in that direction.

No but you certainly implied it.  On more than one occasion. 

While I understand it's not your "job", if you're going to Monday Morning QB the Sunday game, I'd think you'd have an idea.   Especially if you're insinuating that the military action is the reason ISIS came into being as the "go to" terrorist organization.   Personally, I think ISIS was coming regardless of what happened.   The only real question in my mind is was it rushed along?   Could the current situation actually be taking place in 2018 instead of today?

Posted by bad_luck on 2/1/2016 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/1/2016 11:28:00 AM (view original):
"Military response in the Middle East following 9/11".

What countries in the Middle East were the targets of US military response following 9/11?

Here's a hint as to one of them.

How stupid are you?

If you say so, but it looks like you were arguing Afghanistan.

Did my usage of plural nouns, such as "countries" and "targets" in that post confuse you into thinking I was only arguing one?

Did the short bus pass your house and not pick you up on the day plural nouns were taught at Retard School?

How stupid are you?

I mean, really?  How stupid are you?  Why do you insist on continuing this?

Anyway, at the end of the day, the government had to do something.  Something the people could see.  We're a country that wants someone strung up and, by God, it needs to be public.   Otherwise, we're not seeing Saddam drug out of his foxhole, his sons split open heads or screaming "we got him" when bin Laden was taken out.

If Dubya says "We're running operations to find out who did this.  We'll let you know when we get someone", the country screams "DO SOMETHING!!!! IS YOUR NAME DAHSDEBATER!?!?!"