Rebel
Unregistered
|
<a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-524-1688012,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly...1688012,00.html</a>
Quite the contrary. That country is now free. A huge force isn't going to be effective in capturing Bin Ladin....covert ops are. Liberals don't know this, they can't explain this, and they are ignorant to this policy. Having spent 8 years in the military, 3 of it IN SOCOM, I can tell you, there IS a reason people don't entrust national defense to liberals. Bill Clinton even had a Republican Sec'y of Defense, William Cohen.
We have NOT dropped the ball. We have what we need in Afghanistan....SOCOM.
|
|
07-10-2005 12:26 AM |
|
JTiger
Grand Master Sexaaayyyy
Posts: 16,068
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 282
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Germantown
|
I agree. However, if the CIA director has a "very good idea where he is" we need to get in there ASAP and take him alive so we can force him to stand trial.
|
|
07-10-2005 08:47 AM |
|
uhmump95
Race Pimp
Posts: 5,337
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 50
I Root For: all my hoes!
Location:
|
To tell you the truth I don't want our special ops or military under the control of any person who is not willing to do what needs to be done to protect our country. That goes from a soft panty weight who can't make the decision to act to the warmonger who would bomb everyone to hell and spread our resources to thin.
I am surprised that we haven't found him yet But if we know where he is , I would not be surprised if we don't capture him in the next year or so.
|
|
07-10-2005 12:28 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
The region is very porous. You could enter a cave in Afghanistan and exit in Pakistan. SOCOM, the SEAL and Special Forces portion, are the only groups that I think can do the job. It has to be a covert mission. We send in the 82d Airborne Division, there could be an international incident......with a nuclear power. There is speculation that they got TOO close to Bin Ladin. While I think a 4 man team is a little small, I'm not the one calling the shots. If it had been up to me, I'd have sent in 2 Apaches with that Chinook equipped with all the armaments that are considered "combat-ready". The military isn't as cohesive as people are led to believe. While they can request help from another unit, it's generally not practiced unless all else fails. Call it a "who has the bigger hoo-ha" contest. I mean, damn, a Chinook? The largest helicopter in service aside from the Skycrane?
|
|
07-10-2005 01:26 PM |
|
DrTorch
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:
|
My boss was a Scout Master to the SEAL who's missing. It's very close to home for him.
|
|
07-11-2005 07:33 AM |
|
DrTorch
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:
|
Guess the question is answered.
<a href='http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/afghanistan' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/afghanistan</a>
|
|
07-11-2005 10:17 AM |
|
aerojad
Water Engineer
Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
|
Bin Laden doesn't matter anymore as terror networks are decenteralized. That said, that means we can't even find someone who isn't all that important anymore. Wow, we're awesome.
You're asking 6,000 troops to comb thousands of miles of desert and then you're surprised when we find nothing? If 130,000 troops should have been sent anywhere, it should have been to Afghanistan to find this bastard.
|
|
07-12-2005 03:45 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
aerojad Wrote:Bin Laden doesn't matter anymore as terror networks are decenteralized. That said, that means we can't even find someone who isn't all that important anymore. Wow, we're awesome.
You're asking 6,000 troops to comb thousands of miles of desert and then you're surprised when we find nothing? If 130,000 troops should have been sent anywhere, it should have been to Afghanistan to find this bastard.
He's in Pakistan. :stupid: Read the post up top.
|
|
07-12-2005 04:00 PM |
|
aerojad
Water Engineer
Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
|
because we didn't have enough troops in there to keep him from getting out? or because we let the tribal people handle things when we had him pinned in Tora Bora. Take your pick. :stupid:
|
|
07-12-2005 04:04 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
aerojad Wrote:because we didn't have enough troops in there to keep him from getting out? or because we let the tribal people handle things when we had him pinned in Tora Bora. Take your pick. :stupid:
We don't have enough soldiers in the entire US Military to secure Afghanistan's border. :stupid:
Tell us, oh wise one, what is your plan on defeating terrorism? Or do you think we brought it on ourselves?
I take it you've never been to combat. You don't send in 10K troops into caves to get a group of Muslims. That is, unless you want all of them killed along with the terrorists. This is a new war. Your failure to see that is exactly why you, and liberals like you, aren't trusted with national defense.
Trivia Question for you:
What political affiliation was William Jefferson Clinton's Sec'y of Defense?
|
|
07-12-2005 05:03 PM |
|
cant_think_of_a_witty_nam
All American
Posts: 3,218
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
What happens when you bomb a "terrorist" country into the stone-age?
You create more terrorists. Tell me, oh wise one, do you intend to kill 1/3 of the world's population?
|
|
07-12-2005 05:42 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:What happens when you bomb a "terrorist" country into the stone-age?
You create more terrorists. Tell me, oh wise one, do you intend to kill 1/3 of the world's population?
You build them up with the intent of creating a free and open society. We're doing it in 2 places right now. Check it out. :rolleyes:
Of course, I suppose you think that we should give into the terrorists demands and NOT protect ourselves? Yeah Neville, that'll work. When you are attacked, you counter-attack, period. You need to research what their intent is with their dumb*** movement, global domination.
Taught in Sunday school: Love thy neighbor.
Taught in Madrasses: Strike and kill the infidel wherever they are found.
Yeah, the similarities just jump out of the page at me.
:rolleyes:
|
|
07-12-2005 05:53 PM |
|
cant_think_of_a_witty_nam
All American
Posts: 3,218
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Am I to presume Iraq is one of those two places? And if so, when did Iraq attack America? If Billy punches you in the nose, do you protect yourself by shooting Steve?
|
|
07-12-2005 05:58 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Am I to presume Iraq is one of those two places? And if so, when did Iraq attack America? If Billy punches you in the nose, do you protect yourself by shooting Steve?
:rolleyes: The relationship has been connected between terrorism and Iraq several times. Bush never declared war on Al-Queda, he declared war on terrorism knowing full well that they WEREN'T centralized, but collaboration existed.
<a href='http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp' target='_blank'>Connection</a>
This can be found in many places. For expediency, I linked it.
|
|
07-12-2005 06:01 PM |
|
cant_think_of_a_witty_nam
All American
Posts: 3,218
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Quote:The 2003 invasion of Iraq, also called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003, with minor assistance from a loosely defined coalition.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq' target='_blank'>Source.</a>
Quote:FOR MANY, the debate over the former Iraqi regime's ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network ended a year ago with the release of the 9/11 Commission report. Media outlets seized on a carefully worded summary that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."
<a href='http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp' target='_blank'>Courtesy of your source.</a>
Quote:There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."
<a href='http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp' target='_blank'>Again, courtesy of your source.</a>
[quote]After approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces and the rule of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party came to an end.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq' target='_blank'>Source (Wiki again).</a>
From what I can find (feel free to assist), no ties were established until after the war was actually over. Why did we invade Iraq?
Edit: I sincerely apologize for the quoting failure.
|
|
07-12-2005 06:21 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
You do know the nature of Wikipedia, don't you? I could add my name and define it as "The Big-****ed One" and it would allow it. Maybe not the profanity, but you see where I'm getting at.
|
|
07-12-2005 08:21 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
Also, Bush had 8 previous years of quotes from the Clinton Administration and the numerous Democratic congressmen/women to go on. Funny that these same people have developed amnesia in their attempt to make this a partisan issue. I'm sure there's a blog out there somewhere with the numerous quotes from Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton 1&2, Gore, etc., but I don't have the time to pull them all up. There are several.
They also approved action in Iraq. Something they seem to sweep under the rug these days with idiotic statements like, "Bush mislead us" when, in all actuality, many of these same detractors had the SAME INTEL that Bush had. For them to say the contrary means that, in fact, THEY are lying in an attempt to steel their base. Now, who is it that is dishonest?
|
|
07-12-2005 08:27 PM |
|
cant_think_of_a_witty_nam
All American
Posts: 3,218
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
I can fetch matching dates from whatever right-wing site you'd prefer. Because that's all I used Wiki for anyway.
So the Bush administration went to war with evidence the 9/11 Commission declared insufficient to tie Iraq with terrorism. It actually took new evidence to establish a link. Wouldn't that be kind of like a police officer randomly opening fire into a crowd of Muslims and hoping to hit a terrorist. If he hits a bad guy, good deal. Who cares that he was acting recklessly. If he hits a regular Joe, he had reason to suspect the victim may or may not have known of dealing directly or indirectly with the Axis of Evil.
Why did the US invade Iraq?
|
|
07-12-2005 10:34 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:I can fetch matching dates from whatever right-wing site you'd prefer. Because that's all I used Wiki for anyway.
So the Bush administration went to war with evidence the 9/11 Commission declared insufficient to tie Iraq with terrorism. It actually took new evidence to establish a link. Wouldn't that be kind of like a police officer randomly opening fire into a crowd of Muslims and hoping to hit a terrorist. If he hits a bad guy, good deal. Who cares that he was acting recklessly. If he hits a regular Joe, he had reason to suspect the victim may or may not have known of dealing directly or indirectly with the Axis of Evil.
Why did the US invade Iraq?
The 9/11 commission came out after we went to war in Iraq. So, theoretically, we went on previous information from the Clinton administration. :stupid: Kinda easy to be an "Armchair General" and a "Monday Morning Quarterback" at the same time, ain't it?
There is a link between Iraq and terrorism. That can't be debated. Liberals, however, try to say there isn't and state, as their basis, UBL. Again, Bush declared war on terrorism, NOT Al Queda. YOU guys NEVER had a plan, aside from putting the few perps on trial. This is a plan.
You lost, get over it.
|
|
07-12-2005 10:52 PM |
|
cant_think_of_a_witty_nam
All American
Posts: 3,218
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
There was a link between Iraq and terrorism well after the fact. If the grounds for invading Iraq was terrorism, Bush had no grounds when he invaded. He conducted an unprovoked attack. Kind of like 9/11. If you want concrete ties to terrorism. What nationality were most of the 9/11 terrorists? What nationality was the confessed mastermind? If we were really concerned about the war on terrorism, wouldn't we be having words with someone who has been balls-deep in this all along?
|
|
07-13-2005 03:58 AM |
|