Killing him now won't have the effect it would have had if we'd sent troops into Afghanistan IMMEDIATELY back in Oct. 2001 instead of waiting for five months.
Killing him now won't have the effect it would have had if we'd sent troops into Afghanistan IMMEDIATELY back in Oct. 2001 instead of waiting for five months.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
conjur - Do you have any idea of how long and hard it is to prepare to get troops all the way to Afghanistan? The actual deployment was pretty quick and achieved one of the main goals - routing the Taliban - with an absolute minimum of force. Bush even had good international support for that action.
I'm willing to entertain a discussion on whether sufficient forces were left there and sufficient attention was put towards hunting down the remaining terrorists, but the speed in which Afghanistan was dealt with is not even close to being a problem. Take off your Bush-hating glasses a couple of minutes everyday and read some of the posts and statements you make. It'll help to keep you from sounding like a raging moron which may help you to get your point of view taken seriously.
-----
As for the offer of a truce, I suggest that Europe agree to negotiations directly with bin Ladin. He jsut has to tell us where he wants to meet and Europe will take care of the rest.
Michael
I'm willing to entertain a discussion on whether sufficient forces were left there and sufficient attention was put towards hunting down the remaining terrorists, but the speed in which Afghanistan was dealt with is not even close to being a problem. Take off your Bush-hating glasses a couple of minutes everyday and read some of the posts and statements you make. It'll help to keep you from sounding like a raging moron which may help you to get your point of view taken seriously.
-----
As for the offer of a truce, I suggest that Europe agree to negotiations directly with bin Ladin. He jsut has to tell us where he wants to meet and Europe will take care of the rest.
Michael
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Conjur is a small thinker. He doesn't understand the political issues involved in getting troops to a landlocked country surrounded by unfriendly nations. Or maybe he does understand but chooses to ignore it, either way...
I agree with you in that respect. The worldwide protests, the divide in America have little to do with Afganistan. Most people believe fighting there is the right thing to do but if that 85+ billion had been routed to our true enemies from the start - not only would Bin Laden be dead before he made a couple thousand more followers, but with that kind of money, they'd probably be a peaceful world power considering how well that country is doing now with so little.
If Bin Laden hadn't had the time to stand on a box and preach to and recruit thousands, if he didn't have 10,000 deaths in Iraq to justify and intensify his war against millions, if our approach to dealing with problems weren't so similar to theirs, then I would throw all diplomacy out the window and with 80+ Billion bucks at my disposal, I'd deal with him promptly. But since we screwed that up, it might be beneficial to understand what they're babbling about before we go gung ho on a single point of a network that has already spread around the world.
Edit: The blame goes to all presidents of recent history by the way
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Put down the crackpipe and step away.
I'll ignore the CIA comment but I want to ask you one question. If it was all for oil then why is the price of gas at a record high when we are getting all this oil for free?
It's as if you were watching a porno, and you were commenting on how bad the acting was. You missed the fvcking point. Reread my entire post please...
It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what young impressionable little Islamic youths believe.
The Bush fanboys do not get it. Dubya did exactly what Osama wanted. Bin Laden predicted we would invade an oil-rich Arab country. The Dub blundered in to prove him right. It made Bin Laden look smart and powerful while we looked like the evil empire. Dub's adventure in Iraq helps Bin Laden recruiting and hurts America.
So, OBL knew that Saddam would have to be dealt with and predicted that the only way that would happen was his forcible removal from power. Yeah, if you were brainwashed into thinking the US is an evil empire I could see how that would make you want to follow a terrorist and blow yourself up to get your 70 virgins.
Bush telegraphed the punch when he started moving troops and equipment to the Middle-East to Kuwait before going to the U.N. Even I along with others new that this administration had only one thing on it's mind before the war started and that was to go to war with Iraq. In the ghetto you don't pull out a gun ( move troops and equipment to the M.E. ) unless you plan to use it.
it is always funny to bush haters so unable to let go of thier fixiation that they cannot think of anything else.
last time i looked the taliban were out of power and on the run, al queda has not been able to pull anything off on the mainland US since 911 and iraq as a state sponsor of treror is out of business too...and as you pointed out bin laden is pursued so fiercly he has to hide in caves in remote mountains.
the blame goes on the people that felt they had to kill other people by ramming airplanes into buildings by the way.
What world are you living in? The Taliban are regrouping in remote parts of Afghanistan because our military resources have been focused on Iraq. Al Qaeda pulled off exactly ONE attack on the mainland US in history (9/11) and have been successful in Bali, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Spain since then. Iraq has more terrorists in it now than it ever had under Saddam's secular dictatorship.
in answer to your opening question: the real world, thanks for visiting and i hope you can stay awhile! you might even decide to live here one day...
the taliban are trying to regroup, the simple fact is they are still getting it handed to them, a little fact you neglected to mention... also the WTC was attacked in 1993..11 years ago ,but when clinton was pres this did not seem such a big issue for some reason (i see only 6 killed and 1000+ wounded is so un-noteworthy the average dem has already forgotten it happened)...and yes iraq has alot of terrorists in it(most non iraqi BTW), just as it did before, saddam even provided a terrorist training ground complete with a 747 fuselage, now were are fighting them, personally i think it is a good idea to fight the war on terrorism over there instead of waiting on them to come over here.
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
in answer to your opening question: the real world, thanks for visiting and i hope you can stay awhile! you might even decide to live here one day...
the taliban are trying to regroup, the simple fact is they are still getting it handed to them, a little fact you neglected to mention... also the WTC was attacked in 1993..11 years ago ,but when clinton was pres this did not seem such a big issue for some reason (i see only 6 killed and 1000+ wounded is so un-noteworthy the average dem has already forgotten it happened)...and yes iraq has alot of terrorists in it(most non iraqi BTW), just as it did before, saddam even provided a terrorist training ground complete with a 747 fuselage, now were are fighting them, personally i think it is a good idea to fight the war on terrorism over there instead of waiting on them to come over here.
If you think the 1993 WTC was the work of Al Qaeda, you truly live in "Bizarro World". Being from New Jersey, my mother's sister worked in the WTC at the time of the 1993 bombings so I remember it quite vividly thank you very much. Also, if you think Iraq has as many terrorists in it now as it did during Saddam's brutal secularist dictatorship, you've really convinced me you don't live in the real world.
Burnedout:
I know. But we didn't have enough men there and don't have enough men there now or in Iraq to do the job. We have a Republican President half-stepping and mis-stepping just like that "other" war that isn't like this one.
-Robert
I know. But we didn't have enough men there and don't have enough men there now or in Iraq to do the job. We have a Republican President half-stepping and mis-stepping just like that "other" war that isn't like this one.
-Robert
Army Rangers are nowhere near the equivalent of a division of troops.
How is a group of 100 supposed to cover a country the size of Afghanistan with porous borders? Hmmm???
Don't be such an embecile.
Michael:
It's a bit like NYC having 100 cops. Is this math too hard for you?
Sheezh, Bush goes hunting for elephants with a squirrel gun and Republicans say: "Oh, how sporting!"
Give me a break.... Bush should have sent two divisions of Marines to round up that sorry sucker....
-Robert
It's a bit like NYC having 100 cops. Is this math too hard for you?
Sheezh, Bush goes hunting for elephants with a squirrel gun and Republicans say: "Oh, how sporting!"
Give me a break.... Bush should have sent two divisions of Marines to round up that sorry sucker....
-Robert
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
chess9 - And exactly how were we supposed to magically get 2 divisions of Marines to just appear in Afghanistan? With enough equipment and firepower to deal with the entire Taliban army attacking them?
I'm just commenting on the 5 month number. Heck, Bin Laden sat on his ass for most of that because they were convinced that the USA couldn't attack and that they'd beat them in short order if they did.
The campaign in Afghanistan was pretty much a success (remember, there was reasonable basis at the time to think we might have killed Bin Laden as well).
I'm not arguing the follow-though. That's a different discussion.
Michael
I'm just commenting on the 5 month number. Heck, Bin Laden sat on his ass for most of that because they were convinced that the USA couldn't attack and that they'd beat them in short order if they did.
The campaign in Afghanistan was pretty much a success (remember, there was reasonable basis at the time to think we might have killed Bin Laden as well).
I'm not arguing the follow-though. That's a different discussion.
Michael
By working with Pakistan and other countries to the north of Afghanistan to help seal the borders and allow the staging of our troops. Also, we had allies in the Northern Alliance and could have staged large numbers there. Too much time was allowed to pass before we had a sizable force in Afghanistan. By then, bin Laden and his key people were long gone.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
conjur - and where does this magic "too much time" number come from?
And the USA did work with Pakistan and the Northern Alliance and troops were staged over there as fast as possible.
Remember that Pakistan wasn't (and still) isn't the firmest of allies. It actually took time to convince them that they should help us.
It is like the stupid bleating that Bush can't admit to a mistake. You can't admit he did something well.
Me, I think he does well and screws up, depending on what we're talking about. But I'm not blinded by hate.
Michael
And the USA did work with Pakistan and the Northern Alliance and troops were staged over there as fast as possible.
Remember that Pakistan wasn't (and still) isn't the firmest of allies. It actually took time to convince them that they should help us.
It is like the stupid bleating that Bush can't admit to a mistake. You can't admit he did something well.
Me, I think he does well and screws up, depending on what we're talking about. But I'm not blinded by hate.
Michael
Operations in that part of the world are not as easy as you seem to think. Afghanistan is a fairly sizeable country with many places to hide - natural (caves, mts, etc.) and the local population. As far as the time issue goes, it takes a long time to assemble a sizeable force that far away. We reacted as quickly as possible. This isn't like a video game where everything happens instantly. This is reality... something that you seem to be lacking 99% of the time.
I don't know if you have been paying attention to the news since 9/11.... most of bin Laden's "key people" are dead. We are winning the war on terror and the Afghanistan war was a success, but it is an ongoing campaign. These things take time. Even if we killed every single terrorist that was in Afghanistan, there are still many more scattered throughout the world. The key to defeating them is destroying the governments and institutions that provide them with support.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter