If we did not react the way we did to 9/11 would more american civilians be dead today?

Question

If we did not go to war with the taliban, and later with Hussein, more american civilians lives would be lost, correct? Probably a larger number than the troops that have died so far. So why are we complaining? I am not downplaying the value of the soldiers lives, I think it is a terrible thing when you have to lay down your life in the face of someones hatred. But Which is the better alternative, massive attacks on our soil or theirs?

Arcanum-So its better to fight on your own soil? Oh yes, I totally agree. Then they would be in an ideal position to kill more americans, not to mention destroying the infrastructure, food sources, and maybe even plant some WMD. Great thinking.

Hi-In 9/11 alone, just under three thousand died, with the potential for many thousands more. If the terrorists were given free reign to plan more attacks like that, if we did not put the pressure on them, they probably have done something equally or more horrific by now.

Bobo-What kind of hole have you been hiding in? During the Clinton administration the U.N sent EIGHTEEN different times for Hussein to dismantle his WMDs which do, or at least, did exist. Also, they harbored both Taliban fugitives AND Al Queda operatives after Afghanistain fell. Have you forgotten desert storm? The Gulf War? They don't mean us harm? I am glad that is your conception. It has little to no bearing on the real world.

Arcanum-If you have U.S soldiers hunting you down to kill you, you have far less time to plan attacks on the homeland, you are busy concentrating on the people trying to kill you right that instant, not the ones who are sending the troops.

Mez-I agree with the part about it being a world tower, but you fail to realize that most of the people in the trade center where american, or at least pro-western. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the only polls that have 3000 children killed each year with handguns are the ones that include sixteen year old gang members. I agree it is tragic that people die, I am not downplaying that one bit. But I think it is far better for us to be ready, and face the consequences of being ready, than to not be ready, and face the consequences of not being ready.

Answer 1

Yes they would. Look at the lack of response by Clinton to the first World Trade Center bombing and the result of 9/11.

Answer 2

I don't think so. If Akbar and Hamid are sitting in southern Thailand with a well disguised nuke in a briefcase, American visas in order, and tickets for a direct flight to LAX -- then I don't see how the Louisiana National Guard doing armed patrols in Anbar Province, Iraq is going to deter them.

Speaking of National Guardmen, how many members of the Guard are dead or maimed in Iraq? Do they count as civilians? How about the civilian contractors, journalists, and aid workers? These people might all be alive if the reaction to 9-11 had been something less mad-cowboy like than "Yipee, I finally have an excuse to go after Saddam and Iraq."

Answer 3

There were more than just Americans in the twin towers. There were Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Iranians, Italians, Chinese, Brazilians, English and many more. You must remember it was named the WORLD TRADE CENTER, not the American Trade Center.

3000 people died that awful day, but 3,000 of American children are killed each and every year by handguns alone, and that doesn't seem to bother people too much.

Your question about how many more people would be dead is impossible to figure. It's like how many more people would have died if Hitler had won WW2.

Only an assumption.

Answer 4

9/11/01 wouldn't have happened if Bush was not so lazy and incompetent. Bush was on vacation for the WHOLE month of August after being in office for NINE MONTHS, and did not read or respond to the Presidential Daily Briefing of 8/6/01 which said OBL Determined to Strike USA. If Clinton had neglected his duty so egregiously, the repugs would have wanted him shot by a firing squad.

Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because he wanted an oil pipeline and control of Iraqi oil. The true terrorists and supporters of terror are in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan. Bush has too many friends there to attack those countries.

Answer 5

It wasn't the Iraqis that invaded our soil. Also, you aren't even taking into account how many civilians have died. You feel they are less than dirt?

I would rather fight them over here. You have the advantage if you are fighting them on your own soil.

Edit:

"Arcanum-So its better to fight on your own soil? Oh yes, I totally agree. Then they would be in an ideal position to kill more americans, not to mention destroying the infrastructure, food sources, and maybe even plant some WMD. Great thinking."

Really, whats stopping them from doing that right now? We have unsecured borders and ports. We are vastly less secure than since 9/11 and because of Iraq we also will have to deal with a new generation of terrorists we've created.

Answer 6

all of us understand who did 9/11...The strike of Afghanistan grow to be justified, and we ought to continually have had further ops to assassinate terrorist leaders in each and every usa. the very fact we are nevertheless there although, is unjustified. The conflict in Iraq had no longer something to do with 9/11 nor did Bush make 9/11 the reason of the conflict. It grow to be WMD's, remember? besides, you're precise concerning to the wars expenses and how it wasn't rather properly worth it as properly the retaliation. even although, I experience a truther spirit between you, and you need to understand precise up front if it rather is so, that conspiracy is purely undeniable incorrect and outlandish.

Answer 7

Iraq never threatened the US. Never. Please understand that. Iraq never ever said they're going to hurt us nor did they put into practice any plan to do so. They are not linked to 911. They may have committed war crimes against their own people but, a lot of other nations have as well. We support a lot of them.

The Taliban was originally put into power by the US.

As far as lives lost, couldn't we have done the same thing using CIA operatives and actually hit the mark? I mean OBL is still in a cave somewhere. Or do you also consider him to not be a threat?

Answer 8

No...The US reaction to 9/11 has caused the deaths of over 4,000 US soldiers and all together 25,000 US casualties. Many of who will wish they were dead..

Plus 100,000s of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis have died..

Also there is no proof that AlQaeda did it and more proof that the US Govt were behind it..

What we all know for sure is that Bush, Cheney and their Cronies like Haliburton....are making massive fortunes..Out of 9/11

And the World is a far more dangerous place..due to the bogus War on Terror..

Just had another look at your Q..and extras..

You've got your head too far up your bottom to understand..but best keep it safely there...

Answer 9

no - Iraq was a secular anti-terror state - there were christians in the baath party - fact is - if iraq wasn't sitting over the 2nd largest sweet crude reserve on earth or saddam never invaded kuwait - saddam would have been a valuable ally in the war on terror.

crimes against humanity mean nothing - unless you are unwilling to cooperate - just ask the saudis

Answer 10

I think bombing and invading Iraq was not the correct response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, I think a lot of young people would be alive today had we not invaded Iraq, Americans and Iraqis, Im not convinced that there would be a war going on on US soil today had we not invaded Iraq, I think an intelligent search for those responsible and diplomacy would have been a much better move.