Revenge for 9/11

[Antiwar]

How much revenge do you figure the US got for the 9/11 attack? There were 2,977 victims, according to Wikipedia.

The US has been waging war for over twenty years now, which includes economic warfare (sanctions), which very likely contributed to many more deaths than the direct targeting of "terrorists."

Do you think it's closer to 10 times (30,000 deaths), 100 times (300,000 deaths), 1000 times (3,000,000 deaths), or more?

By the calendar, the US waged over 20 years of war because of a one-day attack. That's over 7,300 times.

By geography, the US waged war in what, over a dozen countries?

 

[SkyChief]

America is always at war with someone - be it a cold war (Soviet Union), a hot war (Vietnam) or a proxy war (Ukraine).

We have interests in resources in foreign lands, so a strong military presence enables us to control them (Oil mostly, but there are other resources, too).

Also, staying at war keeps American workers in high-paying jobs, and makes defense contractor CEOs and shareholders very happy.

 

[Questerr]

When the US was attacked for one day on December 7th 1941, should we only have responded by attacking back for one day?

 

[Michael Cole]

How much revenge do you figure the US got for the 9/11 attack? There were 2,977 victims, according to Wikipedia.

The US has been waging war for over twenty years now, which includes economic warfare (sanctions), which very likely contributed to many more deaths than the direct targeting of "terrorists."

Do you think it's closer to 10 times (30,000 deaths), 100 times (300,000 deaths), 1000 times (3,000,000 deaths), or more?

By the calendar, the US waged over 20 years of war because of a one-day attack. That's over 7,300 times.

By geography, the US waged war in what, over a dozen countries?

How many of these OP's are you gonna start?

Do you think it's closer to 10,000 or a million?

 

[Craig234]

The idea of revenge for 9/11 is mostly nonsensical.

For one thing, there's the 'cycle of revenge'. That alone is a reason to limit 'revenge'.

Secondly, revenge is used mostly as a manipulation to get support for other policies. It's like Naomi Klein said about it, there are people waiting with policies needing support that use crises to get support for.

Trying to link 'revenge' for 9/11 to 99% of the US activities is nonsensical; though it was involved in the motivation of a lot of Americans to join the military after the attack, thinking it was for revenge.

Of course, there was no revenge involving the actual attackers. Revenge is a formula for hurting our country bringing out hate and wrong policies. Hurting innocent people isn't revenge, it's celebrating the attacks, following in Al Queda's footsteps. We should instead not act like they did.

 

[Antiwar]

How many of these OP's are you gonna start?

Do you think it's closer to 10,000 or a million?

I started this one 9/11 thread.


Quote:

A report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people.

Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths

A report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people.

www.brown.edu

 

[Antiwar]

The idea of revenge for 9/11 is mostly nonsensical.

For one thing, there's the 'cycle of revenge'. That alone is a reason to limit 'revenge'.

Secondly, revenge is used mostly as a manipulation to get support for other policies. It's like Naomi Klein said about it, there are people waiting with policies needing support that use crises to get support for.

Trying to link 'revenge' for 9/11 to 99% of the US activities is nonsensical; though it was involved in the motivation of a lot of Americans to join the military after the attack, thinking it was for revenge.

Of course, there was no revenge involving the actual attackers. Revenge is a formula for hurting our country bringing out hate and wrong policies. Hurting innocent people isn't revenge, it's celebrating the attacks, following in Al Queda's footsteps. We should instead not act like they did.

I certainly agree with the last two sentences.

 

[Antiwar]

America is always at war with someone - be it a cold war (Soviet Union), a hot war (Vietnam) or a proxy war (Ukraine).

We have interests in resources in foreign lands, so a strong military presence enables us to control them (Oil mostly, but there are other resources, too).

Also, staying at war keeps American workers in high-paying jobs, and makes defense contractor CEOs and shareholders very happy.

I mostly agree. It's very deplorable.

 

[Fearandloathing]

America is always at war with someone - be it a cold war (Soviet Union), a hot war (Vietnam) or a proxy war (Ukraine).

We have interests in resources in foreign lands, so a strong military presence enables us to control them (Oil mostly, but there are other resources, too).

Also, staying at war keeps American workers in high-paying jobs, and makes defense contractor CEOs and shareholders very happy.

Not to mention trade wars.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I started this one 9/11 thread.


Quote:

A report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people.

Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths

A report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people.

www.brown.edu

War is good business! There were a lot of jobs and profit in those trillions!

 

[Antiwar]

War is good business! There were a lot of jobs and profit in those trillions!

Yes. As you probably already understand, it's about much more than the immediate profits of warring; it's about the power to have access to foreign resources and foreign markets, including labor. It's exploitation, and I'm thinking that it has some parallels to chattel slavery.

 

[post]

When the US was attacked for one day on December 7th 1941, should we only have responded by attacking back for one day?

In WWII, the US struck back at the militaries engaging the US. Terrorism is an ideology, not sovereign fighting forces. It isn't possible to engage it the way Bush ordered US assets to, either efficiently or without unacceptable level of collateral damage, so the public was presented only the appearance of effective response.

 

[Binary_Digit]

How much revenge do you figure the US got for the 9/11 attack? There were 2,977 victims, according to Wikipedia.

The US has been waging war for over twenty years now, which includes economic warfare (sanctions), which very likely contributed to many more deaths than the direct targeting of "terrorists."

Do you think it's closer to 10 times (30,000 deaths), 100 times (300,000 deaths), 1000 times (3,000,000 deaths), or more?

By the calendar, the US waged over 20 years of war because of a one-day attack. That's over 7,300 times.

By geography, the US waged war in what, over a dozen countries?

Most of that 20 years consisted of: 1.) Wasting time in Iraq 2.0 and 2.) Wasting time nation building in Afghanistan. The problem was not going after those who attacked us and gave them safe harbor, the problem was not having/maintaining a clear goal and not having/maintaining a concise exit strategy. The goals were allowed to shift around and there was no real exit strategy from the start.

 

[BirdinHand]

How much revenge do you figure the US got for the 9/11 attack? There were 2,977 victims, according to Wikipedia.

The US has been waging war for over twenty years now, which includes economic warfare (sanctions), which very likely contributed to many more deaths than the direct targeting of "terrorists."

Do you think it's closer to 10 times (30,000 deaths), 100 times (300,000 deaths), 1000 times (3,000,000 deaths), or more?

By the calendar, the US waged over 20 years of war because of a one-day attack. That's over 7,300 times.

By geography, the US waged war in what, over a dozen countries?

So, as a Monday morning armchair quarterback, with 20 years of history to draw from, what would you have suggested instead?

What is your military expertise that you draw such a depth and breadth of knowledge from?

 

[Questerr]

In WWII, the US struck back at the militaries engaging the US. Terrorism is an ideology, not sovereign fighting forces. It isn't possible to engage it the way Bush ordered US assets to, either efficiently or without unacceptable level of collateral damage, so the public was presented only the appearance of effective response.

The Taliban, the allies of Al Qaeda, were and are sovereign fighting forces.

 

[post]

The Taliban, the allies of Al Qaeda, were and are sovereign fighting forces.

The Taliban were preoccupied with ending civil war on 9/11 and had no direct involvement in planning or financing a weaponized airliner attack.
The U.S. is gone from the area they control and left behind a lot of military equipment, offsetting remote capability to control what happens from there.
A "tit for tat," military response to 9/11 would have targeted the Saudi government, unacceptable from a geopolitical standpoint.
So, the rational response was to respond to 9/11 similarly to the WTC garage bombing in 1993 and Oklahoma City in 1995, a law enforcement response.

 

[Antiwar]

Most of that 20 years consisted of: 1.) Wasting time in Iraq 2.0 and 2.) Wasting time nation building in Afghanistan. The problem was not going after those who attacked us and gave them safe harbor, the problem was not having/maintaining a clear goal and not having/maintaining a concise exit strategy. The goals were allowed to shift around and there was no real exit strategy from the start.

The US exit strategy is human extinction.