Where's Osama?

[conjur]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/schuster.column

Musharraf told the BBC that Pakistani forces had come close to bin Laden: "There was a time when the dragnet had closed, and we thought we knew roughly the area where he possibly could be," he said. "That was, I think, some time back ... maybe about eight to 10 months back."

The Pakistani government launched a military campaign in the previously autonomous border area of South Waziristan during the last two years. There were numerous clashes, 48 by the government's count, between the military and what it called al Qaeda militants.

The result? More than 250 government troops were killed, according to a Pakistani official. But that campaign is over, and the troops are largely gone from the border area.

Now a different approach is being tried.

This time, the U.S. government has launched a media campaign in Pakistan, using radio, TV and print ads that call on Pakistanis to give up bin Laden and other leading al Qaeda figures, in exchange for millions of dollars of rewards ($25 million for bin Laden).

So far, there haven't been any takers.

No takers? You don't say??? Hmm...could it be because this administration has no clue as to the mentality, mindset, culture, etc. of the Middle East and SW Asia?


Naaaaahhhh


Besides, we all know that bin Laden is not of concern and has been marginalized. The Propagandist told us so.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
No takers? You don't say??? Hmm...could it be because this administration has no clue as to the mentality, mindset, culture, etc. of the Middle East and SW Asia?


Naaaaahhhh


Besides, we all know that bin Laden is not of concern and has been marginalized. The Propagandist told us so.

Do you have any suggestions or advice for the military commanders organizing the hunt, since your expertise is obviously much greater than their own?

 

[conjur]

Uhh...yeah. What I've been saying all along.

We should have stayed out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Also, forcing Musharraf to start dealing with the political strife within his own country and root out the terrorists within his own borders. Stop appeasing the terrorists.

I see you have nothing to add as usual, though.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
No takers? You don't say??? Hmm...could it be because this administration has no clue as to the mentality, mindset, culture, etc. of the Middle East and SW Asia?


Naaaaahhhh


Besides, we all know that bin Laden is not of concern and has been marginalized. The Propagandist told us so.

Do you have any suggestions or advice for the military commanders organizing the hunt, since your expertise is obviously much greater than their own?

Despite ravaging 2 countries and spending billions of dollars we still don't have bin Laden. At this point I'd say anybodies ideas are as good as our military commanders.

He was the person responsible for the WTC, so let's raise the reward and just keep raising it. 25 million is chicken feed compared to what the war has cost in, not to mention the people who've lost ther lives and been maimed.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...yeah. What I've been saying all along.

We should have stayed out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Also, forcing Musharraf to start dealing with the political strife within his own country and root out the terrorists within his own borders. Stop appeasing the terrorists.

I see you have nothing to add as usual, though.

I just wanted to see what you would suggest. Since you clearly stated your disapproval of how our military experts are handling the situation, I knew you must have something. For myself, I don't care if we catch him or not. His little operation in Afghanistan was shut down, which was the real mission. If you think decomissioning him personally will have any effect on terrorism, then I would beg to differ.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
No takers? You don't say??? Hmm...could it be because this administration has no clue as to the mentality, mindset, culture, etc. of the Middle East and SW Asia?


Naaaaahhhh


Besides, we all know that bin Laden is not of concern and has been marginalized. The Propagandist told us so.

Do you have any suggestions or advice for the military commanders organizing the hunt, since your expertise is obviously much greater than their own?

Despite ravaging 2 countries and spending billions of dollars we still don't have bin Laden. At this point I'd say anybodies ideas are as good as our military commanders.

He was the person responsible for the WTC, so let's raise the reward and just keep raising it. 25 million is chicken feed compared to what the war has cost in, not to mention the people who've lost ther lives and been maimed.

Exactly. The fact that we have been totally unable to capture the man who organized the worst terrorist attack in US history, even after all this time, does not speak very highly of the skills of our military commanders. Look at the resources being devoted to Iraq. What would happen if we transfered those resources to finding bin Laden? I'm not saying run around in tanks looking for him, but transfer the money spent on tanks in Iraq into human intelligence in the Middle East, special forces teams that are better equiped at finding and capturing him, etc, etc.

There is a point at which "it's hard work" is not a defense. We really should have captured by bin Laden by now, the reasons we didn't amount to excuses, not justifications. And I agree about the reward. Make it $1 billion. See if that doesn't bring him in.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...yeah. What I've been saying all along.

We should have stayed out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Also, forcing Musharraf to start dealing with the political strife within his own country and root out the terrorists within his own borders. Stop appeasing the terrorists.

I see you have nothing to add as usual, though.

I just wanted to see what you would suggest. Since you clearly stated your disapproval of how our military experts are handling the situation, I knew you must have something. For myself, I don't care if we catch him or not. His little operation in Afghanistan was shut down, which was the real mission. If you think decomissioning him personally will have any effect on terrorism, then I would beg to differ.

Well, let's not arrest any more criminals in this country, because we all know arresting one person won't stop crime.

And, his operation wasn't shut down, just moved and made bigger.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...yeah. What I've been saying all along.

We should have stayed out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Also, forcing Musharraf to start dealing with the political strife within his own country and root out the terrorists within his own borders. Stop appeasing the terrorists.

I see you have nothing to add as usual, though.

I just wanted to see what you would suggest. Since you clearly stated your disapproval of how our military experts are handling the situation, I knew you must have something. For myself, I don't care if we catch him or not. His little operation in Afghanistan was shut down, which was the real mission. If you think decomissioning him personally will have any effect on terrorism, then I would beg to differ.

Ah, you cotton to the "he's been marginalized" propaganda? Gotcha.

:roll:


Nevermind the fact that he's responsible for the deaths thousands of innocents. Let's send a loud and clear message to terrorists who attack us:

We're coming to get you!


Or...well...probably not.


BTW, my problem isn't with the military commanders, it's with the ideological politicians running the show.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Exactly. The fact that we have been totally unable to capture the man who organized the worst terrorist attack in US history, even after all this time, does not speak very highly of the skills of our military commanders. Look at the resources being devoted to Iraq. What would happen if we transfered those resources to finding bin Laden? I'm not saying run around in tanks looking for him, but transfer the money spent on tanks in Iraq into human intelligence in the Middle East, special forces teams that are better equiped at finding and capturing him, etc, etc.

There is a point at which "it's hard work" is not a defense. We really should have captured by bin Laden by now, the reasons we didn't amount to excuses, not justifications. And I agree about the reward. Make it $1 billion. See if that doesn't bring him in.

Our military isn't meant for man-hunts, which is why I take exception to your statements regarding the aptitude of our military leaders. Maybe we should have the FBI go over there and get him. Like I said, why should he be a focal point? We've made him impotent, which was the real goal, wasn't it? It's all well and good to make huge investments in special forces (which has already been done, by the way), but this will inevitably take away from the rest of the military. Our military leaders had just as many troops in Afghanistan before Iraq as they did after it began - as many as they needed to get their job done. I gyess my problem is understanding: in the end, why does it matter whether or not we catch him? Do you think capturing him will make him less powerful? I expect the opposite. Killing him even moreso. Instead, he cowers incognito in the mountains, completely removed from any resources he might have. Why is containment such a bad policy in this instance? Is it justice you're after? There can be no earthly justice for such a man.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...yeah. What I've been saying all along.

We should have stayed out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Also, forcing Musharraf to start dealing with the political strife within his own country and root out the terrorists within his own borders. Stop appeasing the terrorists.

I see you have nothing to add as usual, though.

I just wanted to see what you would suggest. Since you clearly stated your disapproval of how our military experts are handling the situation, I knew you must have something. For myself, I don't care if we catch him or not. His little operation in Afghanistan was shut down, which was the real mission. If you think decomissioning him personally will have any effect on terrorism, then I would beg to differ.

We don't want to capture him because his personal arrest will make terrorism go away, we want to capture him because he helped kill thousands of innocent Americans, and if you do that, you should have to face our justice.

I really don't get it. People bang the drums of war and scream about how we need to get the bastards who did this, and the bastards who were thinking about doing stuff. But then suddenly we're willing to just let the bad guy go because his operation was shut down.

And you know what, I think that letting him go doesn't help the fight against terrorism. I mean what's the message here? You better not kill Americans or we'll chase you for a little while and then give up. Wouldn't it be a lot more effective if we sent the message to the terrorist leaders that we'll chase them to the end of the earth, no matter how long it takes, no matter how much it costs, and bring them to justice? Maybe it's just me, but that might make me think twice.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Our military isn't meant for man-hunts

Interesting, then we shouldn't have killed Saddam's son's?

We should've left Saddam in his snake pit hole?

Gotcha, more like "selective man-hunts".

 

[RabidMongoose]

He's in my backyard.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Exactly. The fact that we have been totally unable to capture the man who organized the worst terrorist attack in US history, even after all this time, does not speak very highly of the skills of our military commanders. Look at the resources being devoted to Iraq. What would happen if we transfered those resources to finding bin Laden? I'm not saying run around in tanks looking for him, but transfer the money spent on tanks in Iraq into human intelligence in the Middle East, special forces teams that are better equiped at finding and capturing him, etc, etc.

There is a point at which "it's hard work" is not a defense. We really should have captured by bin Laden by now, the reasons we didn't amount to excuses, not justifications. And I agree about the reward. Make it $1 billion. See if that doesn't bring him in.

Our military isn't meant for man-hunts, which is why I take exception to your statements regarding the aptitude of our military leaders. Maybe we should have the FBI go over there and get him. Like I said, why should he be a focal point? We've made him impotent, which was the real goal, wasn't it? It's all well and good to make huge investments in special forces (which has already been done, by the way), but this will inevitably take away from the rest of the military. Our military leaders had just as many troops in Afghanistan before Iraq as they did after it began - as many as they needed to get their job done. I gyess my problem is understanding: in the end, why does it matter whether or not we catch him? Do you think capturing him will make him less powerful? I expect the opposite. Killing him even moreso. Instead, he cowers incognito in the mountains, completely removed from any resources he might have. Why is containment such a bad policy in this instance? Is it justice you're after? There can be no earthly justice for such a man.

You have a point, I think our military does a fine job at its mission, and our military leaders are certainly effective at what they do. I suppose my real problem is with whoever is making the decisions that are preventing us from capturing bin Laden. Is the CIA, etc, not getting enough money for resources on the ground? Are our special forces spread too thin? What is the problem that is preventing the most powerful country in the world from finding one guy? I guess I have a hard time believing that we are doing all we can and we still can't find him.

As to why it's important that we find him, I guess I just view it as justice. Our society is based on the idea that if you do something wrong, you are punished for it. If we don't follow that, we send a message to terrorist leaders that we won't hunt them down, that they are free to rebuild and come after us again. Or even attack us and then live out the rest of their lives however they wish. Maybe earthly justice isn't enough for bin Laden, but we should at least try. Contained in the mountains isn't exactly a fitting punishment for what he's done.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Exactly. The fact that we have been totally unable to capture the man who organized the worst terrorist attack in US history, even after all this time, does not speak very highly of the skills of our military commanders. Look at the resources being devoted to Iraq. What would happen if we transfered those resources to finding bin Laden? I'm not saying run around in tanks looking for him, but transfer the money spent on tanks in Iraq into human intelligence in the Middle East, special forces teams that are better equiped at finding and capturing him, etc, etc.

There is a point at which "it's hard work" is not a defense. We really should have captured by bin Laden by now, the reasons we didn't amount to excuses, not justifications. And I agree about the reward. Make it $1 billion. See if that doesn't bring him in.

Our military isn't meant for man-hunts, which is why I take exception to your statements regarding the aptitude of our military leaders. Maybe we should have the FBI go over there and get him. Like I said, why should he be a focal point? We've made him impotent, which was the real goal, wasn't it? It's all well and good to make huge investments in special forces (which has already been done, by the way), but this will inevitably take away from the rest of the military. Our military leaders had just as many troops in Afghanistan before Iraq as they did after it began - as many as they needed to get their job done. I gyess my problem is understanding: in the end, why does it matter whether or not we catch him? Do you think capturing him will make him less powerful? I expect the opposite. Killing him even moreso. Instead, he cowers incognito in the mountains, completely removed from any resources he might have. Why is containment such a bad policy in this instance? Is it justice you're after? There can be no earthly justice for such a man.

No, it wasn't:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-3.html

But we're going to smoke them out. And we're adjusting our thinking to the new type of enemy. These are terrorists who have no borders. And, by the way, it's important for the world to understand that we know in America that more than just Americans suffered loss of life in the World Trade Center. People from all kinds of nationalities lost -- that's why the world is rallying to our call to defeat terrorism.

Many world leaders understand that that could have easily -- that the attack could have as easily happened on their land. And they also understand that this enemy knows no border. But they know what I know, that when we start putting the heat on those who house them, they will get them running. And once we get them running we have got a good chance of getting them. And that's exactly what our intent is.

The focus right now is on Osama bin Laden, no question about it. He's the prime suspect, and his organization. But there are other terrorists in the world. There are people who hate freedom. This is a fight for freedom. This is a fight to say to the freedom-loving people of the world: we will not allow ourselves to be terrorized by somebody who thinks they can hit and hide in some cave somewhere.

It's going to require a new thought process. And I'm proud to report our military, led by the Secretary of Defense, understands that; understands it's a new type of war, it's going to take a long time to win this war. The American people are going to have to be more patient than ever with the efforts of -- our combined efforts, not just ourselves, but the efforts of our allies, to get them running and find them and to hunt them down.

But as the Vice President said, you know, Osama bin Laden is just one person. He is representative of networks of people who absolutely have made their cause to defeat the freedoms that we take -- that we understand. And we will not allow them to do so.

Q Do you want bin Laden dead?

THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive."

http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/dec/29ny.htm

President George W Bush on Friday vowed to capture Osama bin Laden 'dead or alive' and said the United States will keep the terror suspect on the run.

Bush, speaking at a news conference at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said if bin Laden has fled to Pakistan, the US can count on the support of President Pervez Musharraf.

"We believe he (Musharraf) will help us, if in fact he (bin Laden) happens to be in Pakistan," said Bush.

"Who knows where he is. But one thing is for certain: He is on the losing side of a rout," he said.

He said, "The US is on the hunt and he knows that we are on the hunt. And I like our position better than his."

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You have a point, I think our military does a fine job at its mission, and our military leaders are certainly effective at what they do. I suppose my real problem is with whoever is making the decisions that are preventing us from capturing bin Laden. Is the CIA, etc, not getting enough money for resources on the ground? Are our special forces spread too thin? What is the problem that is preventing the most powerful country in the world from finding one guy? I guess I have a hard time believing that we are doing all we can and we still can't find him.

I'm sure we're not doing everything we can to find him. I have no doubt that if we stuck 200,000 guys on the Afghan-beloved patriot border that we would find him before too long. However, this would also make our troops sitting ducks for ambushes and whatnot. It's a matter of priorities. As I've said, I wouldn't put his capture/killing very high on the totem pole, as they merely thrust him back in the spotlight, which is exactly what he wants.

As to why it's important that we find him, I guess I just view it as justice. Our society is based on the idea that if you do something wrong, you are punished for it. If we don't follow that, we send a message to terrorist leaders that we won't hunt them down, that they are free to rebuild and come after us again. Or even attack us and then live out the rest of their lives however they wish. Maybe earthly justice isn't enough for bin Laden, but we should at least try. Contained in the mountains isn't exactly a fitting punishment for what he's done.

Just curious - what should we do with him if we catch him (besides the obvious - freeze him until just before the next election)? Does the US have the ability to try him in our court system (legally or otherwise)? Assuming we do, would you throw him in prison for life or have him executed? If prison, then I suggest letting him roam the Afghan mountains for the rest of his days is a lot worse, based on what my army buddies have to say about them. 😛 If we capture him, is there a chance we'll end up in some legal struggle regarding deporting him to Sudan or Saudi Arabia (can't remember where he is from exactly - one of these), or would he go before the Hague?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You have a point, I think our military does a fine job at its mission, and our military leaders are certainly effective at what they do. I suppose my real problem is with whoever is making the decisions that are preventing us from capturing bin Laden. Is the CIA, etc, not getting enough money for resources on the ground? Are our special forces spread too thin? What is the problem that is preventing the most powerful country in the world from finding one guy? I guess I have a hard time believing that we are doing all we can and we still can't find him.

I'm sure we're not doing everything we can to find him. I have no doubt that if we stuck 200,000 guys on the Afghan-beloved patriot border that we would find him before too long. However, this would also make our troops sitting ducks for ambushes and whatnot. It's a matter of priorities. As I've said, I wouldn't put his capture/killing very high on the totem pole, as they merely thrust him back in the spotlight, which is exactly what he wants.

As opposed to being sitting ducks that can't handle a 6-mile stretch of road in Baghdad?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
...

I don't give a rat's about Bush. I'm asking you to actually think logically instead of politically for a change.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
No takers? You don't say??? Hmm...could it be because this administration has no clue as to the mentality, mindset, culture, etc. of the Middle East and SW Asia?


Naaaaahhhh


Besides, we all know that bin Laden is not of concern and has been marginalized. The Propagandist told us so.

Do you have any suggestions or advice for the military commanders organizing the hunt, since your expertise is obviously much greater than their own?

Despite ravaging 2 countries and spending billions of dollars we still don't have bin Laden. At this point I'd say anybodies ideas are as good as our military commanders.

He was the person responsible for the WTC, so let's raise the reward and just keep raising it. 25 million is chicken feed compared to what the war has cost in, not to mention the people who've lost ther lives and been maimed.

Exactly. The fact that we have been totally unable to capture the man who organized the worst terrorist attack in US history, even after all this time, does not speak very highly of the skills of our military commanders. Look at the resources being devoted to Iraq. What would happen if we transfered those resources to finding bin Laden? I'm not saying run around in tanks looking for him, but transfer the money spent on tanks in Iraq into human intelligence in the Middle East, special forces teams that are better equiped at finding and capturing him, etc, etc.

There is a point at which "it's hard work" is not a defense. We really should have captured by bin Laden by now, the reasons we didn't amount to excuses, not justifications. And I agree about the reward. Make it $1 billion. See if that doesn't bring him in.

$1 billion was exactly the figure I was thinking if we were really serious about getting bin Laden.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
$1 billion was exactly the figure I was thinking if we were really serious about getting bin Laden.

The problem then is that you'd have about 1 million idiots run over there and start killing each other trying to get him first. Then, of course, some redneck would do it and mount his head on their wall, which might be kinda cool, but it would surely incite harsh feelings towards Americans even moreso. 😛

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
$1 billion was exactly the figure I was thinking if we were really serious about getting bin Laden.

The problem then is that you'd have about 1 million idiots run over there and start killing each other trying to get him first. Then, of course, some redneck would do it and mount his head on their wall, which might be kinda cool, but it would surely incite harsh feelings towards Americans even moreso. 😛

It's a little late to worry about harsh feeling now. If we don't bring bin Laden to justice then all the people who have died, died in vain. I thought you were all for privitization and mercenaries? Or are you just jerking my chain?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: conjur
Besides, we all know that bin Laden is not of concern and has been marginalized. The Propagandist told us so.

You did? Seriously, Conj(ect)ure, there is no bigger propagandist I've ever SEEN than you, and at that, you can't stop harping on the same goddamn subject for YEARS on end. Right or wrong, the Iraq war happened, we kicked Saddam's ass, a new government is being established and life goes freakin' on.

Try to find something USEFUL to do with yourself for 5 minutes, won't you? For christ sakes, if you're so pissed about how awful the world is, go out and DO something to make it better!

Jason

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It's a little late to worry about harsh feeling now. If we don't bring bin Laden to justice then all the people who have died, died in vain. I thought you were all for privitization and mercenaries? Or are you just jerking my chain?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I favor privatization and mercenaries, as I have many objections to mercenaries (and I'm not sure what you mean by privatization if it's not the same as hiring mercenaries).

Those people are dead. "Dying in vain" is not really meaningful to say in this context. They didn't die for their own cause, so they can never achieve it. They died for someone else's cause. If we can prevent such a thing from happening again, then that is OUR cause. Those whose lives were lost serve as a reminder of this goal, if anything.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
No takers? You don't say??? Hmm...could it be because this administration has no clue as to the mentality, mindset, culture, etc. of the Middle East and SW Asia?


Naaaaahhhh


Besides, we all know that bin Laden is not of concern and has been marginalized. The Propagandist told us so.

Do you have any suggestions or advice for the military commanders organizing the hunt, since your expertise is obviously much greater than their own?

Despite ravaging 2 countries and spending billions of dollars we still don't have bin Laden. At this point I'd say anybodies ideas are as good as our military commanders.

He was the person responsible for the WTC, so let's raise the reward and just keep raising it. 25 million is chicken feed compared to what the war has cost in, not to mention the people who've lost ther lives and been maimed.

Exactly. The fact that we have been totally unable to capture the man who organized the worst terrorist attack in US history, even after all this time, does not speak very highly of the skills of our military commanders. Look at the resources being devoted to Iraq. What would happen if we transfered those resources to finding bin Laden? I'm not saying run around in tanks looking for him, but transfer the money spent on tanks in Iraq into human intelligence in the Middle East, special forces teams that are better equiped at finding and capturing him, etc, etc.

There is a point at which "it's hard work" is not a defense. We really should have captured by bin Laden by now, the reasons we didn't amount to excuses, not justifications. And I agree about the reward. Make it $1 billion. See if that doesn't bring him in.

$1 billion was exactly the figure I was thinking if we were really serious about getting bin Laden.

How about we give them Utah?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Our military isn't meant for man-hunts, which is why I take exception to your statements regarding the aptitude of our military leaders. Maybe we should have the FBI go over there and get him. Like I said, why should he be a focal point? We've made him impotent, which was the real goal, wasn't it?

You presume to know much about the operational ability of OBL. I assume you've derived such an assessment from various reports which likely originated inside our Intel orgs? Which as we know have been batting a fairly low average when it comes to accurate intel over the past 3-4 years now. Further, you insist we've made him "impotent" -- again a big assumption on your part. I would argue that we have no freaking clue what OBL is up to, which is why it's quite logical to pursue and capture him. Why take chances?

It's all well and good to make huge investments in special forces (which has already been done, by the way), but this will inevitably take away from the rest of the military. Our military leaders had just as many troops in Afghanistan before Iraq as they did after it began - as many as they needed to get their job done. I gyess my problem is understanding: in the end, why does it matter whether or not we catch him? Do you think capturing him will make him less powerful? I expect the opposite. Killing him even moreso. Instead, he cowers incognito in the mountains, completely removed from any resources he might have. Why is containment such a bad policy in this instance? Is it justice you're after? There can be no earthly justice for such a man.

It's interesting that you're proposing containment in this instance. By your logic, perhaps we should have pursued the same strategy with Saddam? I would argue, however that capturing OBL is important symbolically because of his obvious implication in 9/11. I mean are you really forgetting that or are you just willing to let it go? OBL attacked us and killed thousands, Saddam did not.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You presume to know much about the operational ability of OBL. I assume you've derived such an assessment from various reports which likely originated inside our Intel orgs? Which as we know have been batting a fairly low average when it comes to accurate intel over the past 3-4 years now. Further, you insist we've made him "impotent" -- again a big assumption on your part. I would argue that we have no freaking clue what OBL is up to, which is why it's quite logical to pursue and capture him. Why take chances?

I presume to know what I have seen. When was the last time we even got a video out of the guy, much less an attack? If he wanted to really hurt us, now would be the time. The proof is in the pudding, I suppose.

It's interesting that you're proposing containment in this instance. By your logic, perhaps we should have pursued the same strategy with Saddam? I would argue, however that capturing OBL is important symbolically because of his obvious implication in 9/11. I mean are you really forgetting that or are you just willing to let it go? OBL attacked us and killed thousands, Saddam did not.

I agree it would be symbolically important, but that's about it. I think it would create a lot more problems than it would solve for reasons I've already stated. I'm not sure why you insist on bringing Saddam into this, as it's clearly a bad analogy and irrelevant to anything I've said. Stop diverting! 😛