Lets assume you didn't post this just for that bait comment.  Never mind, too preposterous.

Cheap shot #1:  Afghanistan has no strategic resources.  Zip.  It's like the shittiest patch of ground on earth.  All we're doing there is destabilizing the drug industry, which means more violence at home due to price swings and availability problems for the users.  The money spent, thanks to our military being the most advanced, and vastly more expensive force on the planet, will eclipse, with an embarrassing margin, any gains we could possibly have off Iraq's oil.  Just the medical costs for the injured troops will probably have it beat.  The idea that we could somehow get away with looting their oil is just preposterous.  Even our own media would have a field day with it, and the population would be out for a blood bath, compliments of the soon to be dead politicians that tried to get away with it.  They will never willingly repay us for the costs, and we'll never force it.

Cheap shot #2:  The industrial complex has lost multiple big ticket items exactly because we invaded two useless shit countries with nothing resembling a military threat.  The brand spanking new, comparably godlike F-22?  Never been used because there wasn't a threatening airforce to spank with them...  Afghanistan didn't even have one at all, a few helicopters that didn't even run.  We lost at least two tanks off them too.  Yet again because we were fighting forces where our tanks were overkill.  Instead, they get new jeeps.  The increased deficit from that war time spending has aided in the downfall, spending extravagant amounts of money on new weapon systems is even harder to get through when you're running a 500 billion dollar deficit than it is when you're about even.  Only an idiot would push for a war with two useless shits that couldn't even compete with the last generations army.

If we go to war with Russian and take over the oil fields in the Arctic circle, then you've got a point.  We'll be having casualties that could have been prevented by having bigger and better weapons, and we'll have something gained in the end.

     Too often prejudice...ignorance and a lack of respect towards another individual (i.e. another soverign state) leads to violent demonstrations of one's opinion as opposed to another. If you recall back in the 50's the US installed a puppet leader in Iran. The Shah...cruel...indifferent to the plight of what he considered a lesser people (they did not believe as he did)...ruled as a Dictator and punished quite a few who disagreed with his (US) policies. So yeah...who can blame the Iranians for not liking us. It happened in Iraq...after all we...meaning the US...did install another puppet in the form of Saddam Hussien. The US did it in Panama with Manuel Noriega. The list goes on and on. Basically Uncle Sam screwed up a lot of other 'sovereign' states in the pursuit of the almighty dollar (oil...drugs...as in the case of Noriega and another in Indonesia. I hesitate to put a name to him because of all the ill feelings involved towards the veterans of that conflict). In short if this government would look at others for who and what they are with respect for their beliefs and way of life and not for purposes of exploitation perhaps such things like a war on terror could be relegated to a hard cover or paperback novel listed under fantasy. My two cents.

Weeeell, it's easy to bash the evil US empire. Was practically a folk sport in old europe during the Bush era. But reality ain't as easy as "be nice to each other and then there'll peace".

For one, grudges run deep and keep long (i'm not talking about europeans now). For another, even if the USA suddenly became pacifistic there'll be enough other global players who don't exactly have the best for mankind in mind. Suffice to say that a USA not fighting back against "terrorists" will just leave said gentlemen in positions of global power. And once you start going "DEATH TO AMERICA" it's hard to stop and shake hands with americans when you have hordes of fanatics in your back.

@psychoak

I agree that afghanistan hasn't much to offer to an occupying empire. So we can safely assume that the USA didn't go there out of economic interest. I think the invasion was related to a forced urban development project in New York. It's been known that planning for the Iraq war began 3 months after 9/11 and according to Blair Bush wanted to skip Afghanistan entirely.

Economically speaking that would have been a smart move. Although that would have left Al Quaida in Talibanistan.

Anyway, who cares how much Afghanistan sucks militarily ... they certainly are top notch guerilliarily and terroristicaly. And I don't see a winning strategy for either side from you yet.

The situation in Afghanistan is 100% orchestrated by the US. As was the situation in Iraq. There wouldn't have been any Bin Ladin or Hussein in power at all if it wasn't for the US pumping in truckloads of cash to make just that happen... It's been going on for decades before desert storm.

The US military has been wanting to blast Afghanistan for a very long time. They finally found a way to do it without someone (like the Russians did before) interfering...

your statement is there is HIGHLY fallacious as well as is your previous post. Its just a bunch of relativism. You expect everybody to agree with your own view point and anyone that doesn't is causing conflict.

By your very own flawed logic you are the cause of conflict because your expect everyone to confirm to what YOU feel is right which is just YOUR OPINION as well.

Opps, I'm causing conflict here. Oh snaps! That means since war is caused by conflict.  I guess I'm at war.

Who wins? Those who manage to get out of the way and survive.

Who loses? Those who don't. Usually innocent people who want nothing to do with these greedy wars power wars in the first place.

And as far as education by any government is concerned...our history books are full of lies just as they are in other countries. And if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth. And besides...they don't want anyone to know the truth. They want obedient sheep...and thats just what they got.

The only way wars will end is if the sheep wake up...and thats not likely to happen.

Yeah, Bush and Usama Bin Ladin are humping it up in a cave. Holding hands. Having their tickle and pillows fights while whispering sweet nothings into one anther's rears. Everyone else is blind to it yadda yadda yadda. Because 'we all know that no plane could have taken down those towers.'

Is this the direction that you're about to take?

By the way Paladin, it was the US that actually helped create the Taliban and put them into power, by providing support in the form of training, weapons and supplies in the Afghani-Soviet war during the eighties.

As for terrorists, I think that their best chance of winning is to produce really good horror flicks, thus causing massive and widespread terror throughout USA!

The world trade center was started to be constructed in 1969/70.  No one ever thought a terrorist would use an airplane to crash into a building. During that time all that happened was planes being hijacked and demaned ransom and to free these people demands. The garage area on the other hand the engineers made sure to reinforce it with concrete.  Which is a good thing because that car bomb that went off in 1993 did a lot of damage down there.

There's no way in hell that you could design a skyscraper that would with stand a missle which a 767 (not 747) would be without it being insanely expensive (especially considering NO ONE WAS THINKING THAT THERE WOULD BE A MISSLEL ATTACK ON THE MAINLAND U.S. some CRAZY DERANGED person would FLY A PLANE INTO IT) for an extended period of time.  A 767 is has a wide body and much a wider than a 747.  Also the 767 has more fuel than a 747.  Before I get to the fuel thing lets stay on the steel part.

WTC had many steel beams supporting it.  For an illustration of what happened (this is a fun activity for the kids so let's get the kiddies involved) get a bag of uncooked spaghetti noodles.  If you put those noodles in a firm foundation (where they can stand upwards) they can hold a heavy book up (a dictionary works very well).  Let's say that you get a couple of those noodles wet or some of them break.  They can still hold that dictionary up pretty well.  The problem is once you get a good amount of them to be compromised they will no longer be able to safely hold up the dictionary.

Inside the building nothing should even be catching on fire at 1000 F. There was nothing prepared to withstand that temperature let alone Airplane fuel which burns at 2000 F. There's nothing that can fire proof against that except ceramic tiles.  Which if you look at any space shuttle you see that it has ceramic tiles on the bottom.  The reason is because it reaches tempatures of an excess 4000 F.

The initial impact did not bring the buidling down alone.  The initial impact compromised along with the floors collasping it and then the fires burning as well.

You named dropped so I'll name drop as well (well actually you just stated without backing which is expected) Hy Brown. Oh wait Popular Mechanics. Guess what! They put the debunking the 911 myths online.  You know why because of leptons that believe myths and that wouldn't buy popular mechanics. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Yeah I would believe them yet I also believe in logic.

On a final note, as you've 'claimed' to know most people from the states don't know this and that UBL was an Engineer.  Most Engineers know that the integrity of steel once it gets heated to a certain point becomes compromised and basically useless.

Several of his top commanders were explosives experts. One of whom was trained in the U.K. as one.

People that believe in 911 myths should also be put next those few that hold onto that the earth is flat (aka flat earthers) and that category title would be leptons.

On a further note, UBL did not need any more money. He already has amassed a decent sized fortune of about a billion. That's my point. Most people from the States think that the Bin Laden family got all their money because of oil which is not true.

Your point is that UBL would have some very close relationship with , Bush, a Jaheel (that's arabic. I'm guessing you probably also know very little about radical Islam and the culture that goes with it.)  Only if you would take the time to learn the culture of radical Islam.