If the money had been spent to catch Bin Laden, then it would be yes.

Meddling in other countries affairs and overthrowing a dictator so we could establish a democracy, no. Yes he was violating human rights but the US should(edit: NOT) be wasting our time policing the world.

No it was not. Bush was a n00b who did not have the slightest understanding of strategy, and it was a fortunate thing that a coalition quickly developed to limit his power. Sadly, I fear that Obama is another poor strategist who is making hasty and foolish decisions, and I see a coalition forming from both parties to limit his power as well.

> Dirty Iluvatar wrote:

> Was it worth spending several thousend billion dollars to not catch Bin Laden and get involved in 2 wars 'helping' people who dont want your help, while saving the western world (aka Isreal) of WMD that did not excist, all becouse the US lost a rough 3k lives on 9-11?

I know its easy to talk about that in retrorespect, but still. Just wondering if theres still people here defending it

Not trying would've been even worse.

Worth every penny, and then some.

We havent killed enough Jihadists......  But, they can come play w/Marines and Rangers in the Mtns of Afghanistan now, if they wish.

Obama is better off holed up in some mtn cave.  Its keeps the Jihadists coming for more.

Afghanistan is better off.
Iraq is better off.

The Jihadists are in check, and have plenty of US Soldiers to attack ..... in the name of JIHAD
Instead of US Citizens in buildings at work.

Many a nation in the region is happy to see the Taliban and Saddam's Bathists gone.

Was it worth it ??

Only three things do I fear, Osama, Obama, and yo momma!

Hole all three of them up in a cave and all extremists would be neutralized!

why not havine flint? you already have the other stupid crazy person in BW here, so your thread has gone to spam anyway.. i mean he never posts anything intelligent anyway...

"Was it worth spending several thousend billion dollars to not catch Bin Laden and get involved in 2 wars 'helping' people who dont want your help"

No this was a great waste.  If we had told Stalin to go pound sand and derailed the invasion of Europe, Stalin would have tried for a separate peace or at the least eased off the war in Eastern Europe.  Then by Summer 1945 we'd have had atomic bombs to use on the Reich.  Millions more of you would have perished as Hitler used occupied Western Europe as a source of slaves and foodstuffs, and then as a result of atomic bombardment of the Rhine and Ruhr and Paris, but hey.  No D-Day, no Marshall Plan, and Switzerland the most developed country and the biggest cities west of the Oder for a hundred years.  and i'm sure the Commies would have learnt their lesson and spared us all the troubles in Asia over the last sixty years.

oh, I'm sorry you were talking about some other wasteful war of liberation on behalf of some ingrateful shitheads!

Interesting theoretical question.
However, do not assume that all Iraqis and afghanis are against receiving Western help. The fact is that post-invasion there was not enough help - a lot of resources went to US contractors and a lot went into fighting a small number of insurgents with OTT methods. Not a lot went into creating a stable state.

Maybe that is a lesson learnt now?

Hitler couldn't even get enough barges together to land more than 2 divisions in England at the same time. He couldn't even handle the RAF and the Royal Navy. How he could ship more troops to Boston across the Atlantic than we could walk there, beats me...

The lesson of the Bush years is that NATO is totally useless to the USA, wimps and liars, and we should scrap it. When Western Europe falls again, and we gotta fight WW3 over the terrain, sterilize it first.

In terms of tank production US led the world, in terms of development the USSR had the best battle tank and the better theory of its use, the King Tiger could beat any tank made but it died from aerial rocket attacks.

Luftwaffe had most of its fighters against the West, three Flottes out of Five. Luftflotte Five in norway saw SOME action against Russia but also guarded the North Sea.

NATO promised troops and money to Afghanistan. They didn't come. You guys lie about helping and then ask whether we regret the war since it don't go so well? My president my be stupid enough to pretend we need you, I know better.

> You_Fool wrote:

> why not havine flint? you already have the other stupid crazy person in BW here, so your thread has gone to spam anyway.. i mean he never posts anything intelligent anyway...

and what, the OP of this thread is supposed to be intelligent?

Ohh....   

THE FOOL    is here now.

All parties accounted for.

Nice post Jackass......AGAIN.... not a thing to contribute except your bullshit.

Didnt I tell you, Havent I scolded you little boy,....... Stay away when big people are chatting ??
Now, run along boy, play nice.

@ Avo,   Oh know, the Fool made it so on point......and so smart.... 

@ the Yell.

hehe....

I mean, it really is pathetic, isnt it ?

Im sure the 3 Divisions the Germans have, and the French Foreign Legion (after all, there are no French there), Maybe a few elite units from other units would fight for their homelands.....

But, imagine the scenario, as US Follow on forces land to aid in the defense of EUROPE......to find European Reserves to fight along side ??

HELL !!!  You would find PROTESTERS at the ports telling us to go back to the US.

Yea.  Europe is a spineless group of Arrogant, jealous, un Grateful bastards, for what the US did for them.

NATO is a waste, and all Western European Bases should be closed.

Hell.  We can get bases in Georgia, Ukraine and Poland.
What we can do is open up Corridors of advance for the JIHAD Armies, and Russia to march through.

Spineless wretches.

Im wondering.....Just how long it would take Berlin, Brussels and Paris to Surrender ?

/me pictures a bunch grown girly men running around the streets with their arms thrust as high as possible into the air.
"not me, Not me, I hate America !!!"