Question for pacifists and anti-war 'tards?

Question

How come during the so-called "peace" years of the 1990s we had dozens of terrorist attacks on US interests, but after 9/11 we went to war and there have been no new attacks on US soil since?

So much for your "non-violence" theories

Answer 1

I just had to read and answer your question since I'm the very proud father of a U.S. Army son who has had two tours of duty in Iraq, and is now home. I agree with you, the "non-violence" theories are about as inane and immature thought I've ever heard, and I've heard them since the Vietnam war days, and they just keep on being stupid and not well thought out and immature and anti-American. God Bless you.

Answer 2

You're not making any sense. There are terrorist attacks on US interests every day. What do you call the attacks on our troops in Iraq? What do you call the attack on the US embassy in Greece a couple of months ago?
As far as attacks on US soil are concerned, after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center there was not another attack on US soil for the rest of Clinton's presidency, a period of nearly 8 years.
Not a theory. A fact.

Answer 3

There haven't been any attacks on US soil because terrorists no longer have to attack Americans on American soil, they can simply attack Americans on Iraqi soil, which makes it alot easier on them because they don't have to fly 3000 miles to get something done.

It pretty much balanced out. More Americans have been killed since after 9-11 than on the day itself therefore your "pro-violence" theory is flawed. I'm not a pacifist, but I don't agree with you.

Answer 4

So dead soldiers don't count as attacks on US interests

As far as attacks on US soil, the US is undisputedly one of the safest countries from terror in the world. Since the stupid war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WOT_map4a.PNG (countries hit by terrorism since 9/11)

So much for fighting terror

Answer 5

The attacks are not on American soil, your point? We have lost more troops in the war than died in 9/11 and terrorists attacks are continuing on our troops and allies in Europe and the Middle East. The first part of your name fits you well.

Answer 6

If this hypothetical individual refused to take the oath of place of work (requiring they "look after and guard") they does no longer grow to be president interior the 1st place. in the event that they refused to guard and guard, they'd probable be impeached for no longer upholding their oath of place of work. additionally, i in my view think of that mutually as pacifism isn't clever, each President could be anti-war. I propose, what sane individual is "professional" war? it would desire to constantly be the final motel.

Answer 7

You have a point here. I think most of Americans and others don't really know what a WAR means. And I mean WAR on US soil or in your home land
9/11 tragedy , do "you" remember ?! Well imagine to live that day ,everyday .
That's WAR and now look at Iraq , exactly "that day " they live everyday.There is no difference.

Answer 8

1. 9-11 was thousands of times worse than all the attacks that occurred on Clinton's watch.

2. Bush calls all the soldier's he's killed in Iraq "Victims of Terrorism"

Now go back and rethink your question.

Answer 9

well mr. 'tard, there have been countless attempts of terrorist attacks despite highly increased security. have you tried taking liquids on a plane recently?

so much for your pro-violence theories. watch the news.

Answer 10

So why aren't YOU out defending your country and joining the war? Practice what you preach. Typing a question into yahoo answers doesn't make you a soldier.