Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
They have been remarkably uninterested in attacking Westerners who did not meddle in Arab countries anyway.
we have always been remarkably uninterested in attacking anyone who hasn't annoyed us unnecessarily. We're not really warlike at all -- but we sure do react to provocation...

As for this:
Hmm, AQ and others being declared to be "terrorists" killed more U.S.Americans since 9/11 than during 9/11 and did multiple times as much economic damage. I'd rate that as "attacked". OK, counter-"attacked".
We have killed far more of them than they us -- but that's an extremely silly and meaningless metric (other than to those dead and wounded and their families). Seriously.

It was and is a matter of principle. The issue was not subject to a cost benefit study, it was to deter attacks on the US and US interests and to decrease the ability and interest of anyone to pursue such attacks. There was, is and will be a cost to do that. We're paying it. So are they. We can pay more than they can. So they're dumb -- being dumb doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. Not being warlike doesn't mean we aren't dangerous; more dangerous at that...

As for the economic damage, again disagree -- it's not damage, it's simply a cost. Again we're paying it.

The neat thing is that since we and a few others are paying those costs, you don't have to. Before you say had we and those others not gone blundering into the ME no one would have to pay anything, I suggest you give that aspect some very serious -- and long range -- thought. Most of our immigrants assimilate pretty well...