Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: VOR on October 29, 2004, 10:20:44 PM
-
Well, it came a kind of a surprise to me although in retrospect it shouldn't have, especially considering the timing. Once again, I would like to thank Al-Jazeera for being "Johnny on the Spot" with the latest breaking news from the inside track of the underworld of militant Islam. Without them, the Tokyo Rose of sandbox journalism, we would never know the true thoughts and needs of our enemies. They're people too, ya know.
Now, onto a couple of points I found interesting:
1. Osama is looking well and healthy. This is a sharp contrast to the half starved man that was making tapes a couple of years ago. So, we can conclude that he is either no longer living in a cave sustaining himself on rats and sandstone tea, or the tape was made well before it was aired. IMO it is most likely current, although it wouldn't surprise me to discover that he planned this well in advance. Kinda like a reverse Andy Kaufman disappearing act. But, this is highly unlikely.
2. This video, clearly taunting the current administration by sheer virtue of its (i.e. Osama's) existence, couldn't have been timed better. What better way (from hiding) to influence the weak of mind in a nation on the brink of one of the most monumental elections in modern history? Well done, Al-Quaida.
3. Osama more or less promises to leave us alone in exchange for us no longer "threatening Muslim security". The statement to the effect that the voters, not the leaders, hold destiny in their hands was IMO clearly a thinly veiled threat. Hmm.
Conclusions: Osama, wherever he may be, is sending a very clear message to the voting public: "Your president is ineffective (see, I'm still alive), and if you reelect him I will attack you again. If you don't, I might not."
No deal, Mr. Bin Laden. Whatever it is he's looking for, whatever he hopes to gain, it is our duty to deny him. Osama dealt us a terrible, bloody blow a couple of years ago, and heaven help us all if we forget that the threat from these people is very real and will not go away with some political pandering. Whether they're in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, New York City or the North Pole, and whether they go by the name Al-Quaida, the PLO, Iraqi "insurgents" or Santa's Elves...they must be neutralized by whatever means become necessary. This is going to be a very long, very difficult war..and it's just beginning. In the end, it may or may not be winnable. Some fights are worth fighting, and this is certainly worth the effort. Every ounce of it.
My vote is for President Bush, because he has the courage to make the difficult and unpopular decisions.
-
Here is a thought, if they could have set up an operation here, for the election they would have.
They have not(3 more days to go lets hope they don't) therefore Bush must be doing something right.
The message was very badly written, do they not have anyone who can edit english?
-
My gut feeling is OBL has become impotent as is evident in his use of the abstract.
-
Here's another take, do you think the Bush administration would actually present a captured or killed osama prior to the election?
If osama were dead or in custody I would be pondering where to cast my vote.
Suck on this as you think about the first one. what if he is in custody and the U.S. covert types put him up to do the video?
I think that people fail to understand human resolve. The bombing of London and later allied bombings of Germany and Japan did not weaken the resolve of the respective populaces, they in fact actually strenghtened them. It could be a clever ploy on the part of the current admin.
I agree VOR, he sure does look well fed.
I think osama is at the Georges V ordering room service.
-
I was thinking the same thing and how great of a novel that would make. But that is almost positively fiction - still it would make a neat book.
-
Excellent analysis, VOR.
OBL's message is get out of the Middle East, abandon Israel, keep your infidel ways to yourself (including democracy), quit supporting Arab monarchies, give radical Muslims all the tolerance and respect that they deny the West, and keep buying Arab oil at prices high enough to weaken you.
If OBL got every demand, wonder what the world would be like then?
Now Kerry has OBL's and Michael Moore's endorsements. Wow.
Interesting take, Storch. Sort of like the Moon landings done in a Hollywood studio. What the heck, anything is possible. Never thought 20 men could take down the World Trade Center and crash into the Pentagon, either.
-
Storch, that's an interesting theory. It kinda goes along with the one that FDR knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor but chose not to prevent it in order to enter the war.
I don't think it's possible, but for the sake of argument let's assume it were true. It would go well beyond a "clever ploy". In fact, it would most likely start another US civil war and destroy our entire nation. It would open up a window of vulnerability to the entire world..and alot of folks out there beyond our shores have an axe to grind with us.
No, I don't think ANY president, no matter how kooky he was or how outrageous his agenda would risk such a thing.
It's fun to think about the possibilities, though.
-
You mean he's not at the Georges V?
-
Originally posted by storch
You mean he's not at the Georges V?
Considering his notoriety and wealth, I'm sure he could have gotten a suite at the Waldorf Astoria. :D
He's probably in an average, non-descript looking house in rural Pakistan.
-
Storch
I do not buy that. To risky it would come out and Bush would be done.
-
If you were OBL and masterminding another attack, this videotape obviously could be the preamble.
OBL again attempts to become the teacher instructing his pupils (the United States government and people) that their conduct must change or they will be punished.
But how to reach these stubborn Americans? If OBL wants Kerry elected, would he attack before the election? Presumably he would want to give voters a chance to change the regime.
If OBL attacks before or during the election, would that make the Americans mad enough to keep Bush in power? Or would it make them timorous enough to retreat and elect Kerry?
If Bush wins, OBL presumably would want to punish ignorant
unrepentant Americans by attacking something. For prestige, any future attack must be more dramatic and worse than 9-11.
If Kerry wins, OBL presumably would give Kerry a chance to weaken American involvement in the Middle East, which ultimately would require abandoning Israel. In future years, Spain, France, and Russia would be the next logical targets for militant Muslim expansion.
Spain made a Kerry choice.
OBL would make another grave mistake to think American voters will surrender their votes as the Spanish did.
-
I think he released a video cause thats what he can do.
If he could attack he would. Releasing a video before an attack would be idiocy... Everyone will be looking now.
-
You guys are forgetting that OBL taunted Bush in the video. He said he "reacted to little to late AFTER 9/11" but what struck me is he wasn't laying the blame soley on bush but America in General. He said he'd been planning this since the 80's
Also, he mention Kerry in the video and said something to the affect it doesnt matter wich one gets elected. I didn't see an endorsment for Kerry in the message nor do I agree that it will help either Canidate.
I see it as a terrorist saying with your gazillion dollar economy and your massive military here I am and I'm still saying a big F U even after I caused the worst terrorist attack on your own soil.
-
I shouldn't affect any American's vote, if one thinks it is, they have a duty to this country to vote for the person they were leaning to before the video surfaced.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I shouldn't affect any American's vote, if one thinks it is, they have a duty to this country to vote for the person they were leaning to before the video surfaced.
agreed doesnt change a thing. We all know Bush had to back off on the warpath a little bit in order to get re-elected just like any other president would. If he does get reuped then I hope he persues this man wi avengance.
If Kerry wins I'd hope for the same thing I said in the last sentence above.
I would speak out against either man that I thaught was not doing his job to the American people.
-
Osama said somethin about not fighting other countries if they didn't mess with him....
...? He's the one who fought with us first... :confused:
-
Originally posted by Mak333
Osama said somethin about not fighting other countries if they didn't mess with him....
...? He's the one who fought with us first... :confused:
Muslims think that we who support Israel and have supported Israel since 1948 started the war against Islam. Couple that with our invasive pop culture and our fast and loose morals which go completely against Muslim sensibilities are considered another attack against Islam. Remember that to them sex is evil. Women=sex. A Brittany Spears/Jessica Simpson/Beyonce Knowles performance is the evil incarnate. Culturally Muslims prefer homosexual pedophilia.
-
Remember that to them sex is evil. Women=sex. A Brittany Spears/Jessica Simpson/Beyonce Knowles performance is the evil incarnate. Culturally Muslims prefer homosexual pedophilia.
[/b]
Preach your hate somewhere else. You probably won't get banned, however. Hate mongering seems to be tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Preach your hate somewhere else. You probably won't get banned, however. Hate mongering seems to be tolerated. [/B]
Hmmm I see the truth=hate. ok. answer this. Is homosexual pedophilia not a culturally accepted Muslim Middle Eastern practice? Is not sex with an unmarried woman or a woman who is not your wife not tolerated? Could an unmarried woman be murdered by her male family members for having sex? Is it not actually considered necessary in order to maintain the family's honor?
Tell me where I'm wrong here.
-
Let's not get specific after your opening generalisations. Let's keep it nice and open. You said Muslims. No disclaimers, exceptions or specifics.
For a start, show me how homosexual paedophilia is acceptable to Muslims generally.
You're a hate mongerer and liar.
-
I think he might be thinking of catholicism.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Let's not get specific after your opening generalisations.
Let` do. :D Answer his question before you go spouting the name calling at least.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Let's not get specific after your opening generalisations. Let's keep it nice and open. You said Muslims. No disclaimers, exceptions or specifics.
For a start, show me how homosexual paedophilia is acceptable to Muslims generally.
You're a hate mongerer and liar.
ok I guess I'm not getting an answer to my questions. Let me go out on a limb here. you must be an anglo convert to Islam and are not aware of how a great many of your brothers get around the sexual taboos.
spend some time in the middle east. take a cork along with you.
-
I see. I take it you can't provide anything to back up your claims, then?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I see. I take it you can't provide anything to back up your claims, then?
Power and Sexuality in the Middle East
Bruce Dunne
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/bruce.htm
Paper #5
Courtney Spivey
http://www.is.rhodes.edu/modus/96/Spivey.html
Bibliography on Crimes of Honour
http://www.umn.edu/humanrts/bibliog/honour.html
To list just a few but as you well know muslim homosexual pedophilia is almost proverbial.
So chew on that a while. don't forget your cork next time you go to the masjid ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I see. I take it you can't provide anything to back up your claims, then?
Slow reader huh? :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I see. I take it you can't provide anything to back up your claims, then?
And we see you can do nothing other than spout YOUR hate filled vitriol, and expect someone else to be banned for voicing THEIR opinion. Typical liberal attitude. To expect anything else would be silly.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And we see you can do nothing other than spout YOUR hate filled vitriol, and expect someone else to be banned for voicing THEIR opinion. Typical liberal attitude. To expect anything else would be silly.
Sadly, it's not my opinion I'm expressing. It is a well documented fact mohammadans are bye and large homosexual pedophiles.
There is a documented incident of a young muslim couple showing up at a US Army medical facility claiming that they were infertile and seeking help. They were both examined and found to be capable of bearing offspring. Upon consultation the young husband had been having anal intercourse with his wife and expecting her to conceive. He had no clue as to what her genitals were for.
-
My vote is for President Bush, because he has the courage to make the difficult and unpopular decisions.
Courage? Courage to let Osama slip thru his fingers? Courage to hit Saddam, who was going nowhere? If there's one thing he DOES NOT have, it's courage. He's like Mr. Black. All hat, no cattle.
-
He has the guts to try, RPM, even though half of the country and most of the world openly despise him for doing so. That takes a certain amount of courage. Consider the alternative: a man who will tell you whatever you want to hear if it is advantageous at the time. One of these days, he might just slip up and forget which special interest group he's addressing and actually say something that someone in the audience might disagree with. ;)
Anyway, I predict that if we continue this discussion we'll end up in a dead heat. :D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Storch
I do not buy that. To risky it would come out and Bush would be done.
Take office w/o beeing elected was risky.
-
Storch, you have to take it easy on Dowding. He obviously espouses and practices the very muslim culturally accepted sexual practice and doesn't appreciate you casting it in a negative light. I am fairly certain he is a card carrying member of NAMBLA
-
Originally posted by Halo
OBL again attempts to become the teacher instructing his pupils (the United States government and people) that their conduct must change or they will be punished.
If Bush wins, OBL presumably would want to punish ignorant
unrepentant Americans by attacking something. For prestige, any future attack must be more dramatic and worse than 9-11.
Muheheh its BS IMO. Attack must hurt.
It must hurt the one, who can influence things, whitch they demand to change.
Do not mess up draging of attention
I realy do not share opinion that more dead people is more scary. There are other ways how to influence sheep. For example throw them to bad light on internationa scene, damage their economy etc... Actualy powerloss`s in US past year were claimed by some groups to be an terrorist attacks, authoity never explained what happen and how is possible that sutch thing happen. ( but its more that clear that every country whitch have been part of Soviet block have much better energy network lol )
Some of so called "terrorist" already proved that they have some political goal. In Faludza so called terrorist transformed into political party and whats even more cool, US or Ir gov bought their weapons....... so they can go and buy new one anytime :D
Originally posted by Halo
If Kerry wins, OBL presumably would give Kerry a chance to weaken American involvement in the Middle East, which ultimately would require abandoning Israel.
Would would would .... stick to things or request whitch has been spoken. If something is unclear, its may be wise to start dialog..... pitty that speaking about potencional problems is tabu at some palces
Originally posted by Halo
Spain made a Kerry choice.
OBL would make another grave mistake to think American voters will surrender their votes as the Spanish did.
Spain .... Spainish prime minister should be linched nude on biggest square in Spain.... When someone go to support some private war, while 90% of population is again it, he is realy political zombii..
May be Spanish just do not have reason to stay behind US's "involvement in ME" ??
Does somebody here have good overview about US involvement in ME ?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Courage? Courage to let Osama slip thru his fingers? Courage to hit Saddam, who was going nowhere? If there's one thing he DOES NOT have, it's courage. He's like Mr. Black. All hat, no cattle.
Does it hurt bad to have John Forbes Kerry's hand up your bellybutton far enough to make your mouth move?
-
Admit it Virgil. Bush screwed the Osama pooch. I always expected Osama to pop up right before the election, but in a casket. Guess I gave Bush too much credit.
-
lada most funny person , make large joke , i laugh most greatly.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Admit it Virgil. Bush screwed the Osama pooch. I always expected Osama to pop up right before the election, but in a casket. Guess I gave Bush too much credit.
Has OBL or Al Queada been able to mount any effective operations since operations in Afghanistan began? What the HELL was Bush supposed to do, nuke the whole area?
Have you got any idea how hard it was for the SEALS and others to get a bead on that bellybutton hole BEFORE 11 September 2001? I do, I have friends on both Deka and Delta. We have to deal with the people who live in both Afghanistan AND Pakistan.
We can't just go in there and wipe out everything we think might be hiding OBL. If you kill him, there will be another just like him. So you'd damned well better still have friends in the area to allow you to use your assets to KEEP them down.
Eventually, we will get him, his number will come up. When it happens, we'll want to be able to go after the rest of them as well, for years to come. Much as I want his bellybutton dead, I want Al Queada's neck under the boots for a long time to come. If it means letting that sumbich live for a while, so be it.
Saying that killing OBL is or even should be the top priority is as foolish as saying nailing Capone stopped organized crime.
-
If you don't think Osama should be target #1, your priorities are screwed up.
-
Originally posted by rpm
If you don't think Osama should be target #1, your priorities are screwed up.
If you think that pompous lying jack-ass Kerry could get him you are terribly deluded.
-
Originally posted by rpm
If you don't think Osama should be target #1, your priorities are screwed up.
Afghanistan, despite being an unpopular place for correspondents to get face time, is still very much "going on" and has been since day one. So has the search for Osama. Nothing was shifted, nor did priorities change when the second front opened up.
Why is it that when something isn't on the nightly news, it isn't actually happeneing? In fact, Iraq and Afghanistan are only 2 countries that our troops are actively deployed to in force. There hasn't been much news out of the Balkans lately.
Now, it IS a shame that our Army was downsized by entire DIVISIONS between the years 1992 and 2000, but that's another story. More guys would be great. Maybe things would be taken care of by now, maybe not. Impossible to quantify.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Does it hurt bad to have John Forbes Kerry's hand up your bellybutton far enough to make your mouth move?
I usually agree with you on most matters, Virgil ... but why is saying Bush screwed up with OBL necessarily a pro-Kerry motivated remark? Folks have been criticizing Bush's foreign policy long before Kerry was even a candidate. Hell, if we had captured OBL by the Spring of '02 I seriously doubt we'd have invaded ... er ... "liberated" Iraq.
-
Osama is just upset the US is already in the middle east. Lickity split.
:lol
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I usually agree with you on most matters, Virgil ... but why is saying Bush screwed up with OBL necessarily a pro-Kerry motivated remark? Folks have been criticizing Bush's foreign policy long before Kerry was even a candidate. Hell, if we had captured OBL by the Spring of '02 I seriously doubt we'd have invaded ... er ... "liberated" Iraq.
If you usually agree with me on most matters, you should probably have your head examined, or at least be under a doctor's supervision.
With regards to what you quoted, it was a reply to the same sad Bravo Sierra Kerry tripe I've been hearing for over a year. It is Bravo Sierra, and I'm getting tired of it.
I have close personal friends who are there, in Afghanistan, and around Afghanistan, and they all say the same thing. They have to operate within a certain set of rules in order to operate there. Those rules allow us to be there and eventually get OBL. But they make the job hard. That's just how it is. Kerry couldn't change a damned thing about it, and if he says he could he's a damned liar. That's a FACT.
No one wants OBL more than those guys with their boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and they say to a man the problem with getting OBL is sure as HELL not Bush. Maybe Kerry knows more about getting OBL then the Special Forces soldiers assigned to do that job, but I seriously doubt it.
-
That sounds like an excuse..
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
That sounds like an excuse..
Then you just grab up an M-16 and some MRE's and carry your sorry bellybutton out and get him big boy.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Afghanistan, despite being an unpopular place for correspondents to get face time, is still very much "going on" and has been since day one. So has the search for Osama. Nothing was shifted, nor did priorities change when the second front opened up.
Why is it that when something isn't on the nightly news, it isn't actually happeneing? In fact, Iraq and Afghanistan are only 2 countries that our troops are actively deployed to in force. There hasn't been much news out of the Balkans lately.
Now, it IS a shame that our Army was downsized by entire DIVISIONS between the years 1992 and 2000, but that's another story. More guys would be great. Maybe things would be taken care of by now, maybe not. Impossible to quantify.
VOR, at times I agree with your views, but this isn't one of them. Saddam was a static target, Osama is not. Iraq was'nt going anywhere and was fairly well contained already, where as OBL was constantly on the move. We would have had massive international support to finish the job.Instead Bush changed targets, lost allies and let OBL slip away.
Downsizing of the military was a logical move at the time. Our greatest threat had disappeared. The threat of a Soviet invasion of Europe was nil. Since the 1950's we had geared our military towards a European ground battle, but the military has to constantly adapt to the situation. Battleships were once the standard to judge military stregnth, but threats changed and they became obsolete. The same with Divisions designed to counter a Soviet tank invasion of West Germany.
-
"We would have had massive international support to finish the job"
Massive international support to do what? Or how would have you gotten OBL ?
-
By massive international support, I'm refering to the nations that came out in support of the US after 9/11. The support we lost when Bush turned to Iraq.
I'm not in position to say how we should have captured Osama, but I believe Wes Clark is and he has repeatedly called Iraq a tactical mistake that allowed OBL to escape.
-
"We would have had massive international support to finish the job"
the US has NEVER had "massive international support" for anything.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
With regards to what you quoted, it was a reply to the same sad Bravo Sierra Kerry tripe I've been hearing for over a year. It is Bravo Sierra, and I'm getting tired of it.
...
I didn't read rpm's comment that way. And I doubt anyone here would debate the difficulties of operating in Afghanistan. The Russians got the crap kicked out of them there, afterall.
I think a lot of the perception of "taking the eye off the ball" hinges on two things. One is the media who for almost a year focused on nothing but Iraq - how much of this was at the White House's behest is a matter for debate - because obviously we still have troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. And the other is that Bush started a completely new war before finishing the first one - before capturing OBL. There was no closure. So a lot of people rightfully have been wondering for a year and a half: "Why did we start a war in Iraq when we didn't finish the one in Afghanistan - when we didn't capture OBL like Bush promised we would?"
If you want to call that pro-Kerry BS, then fine.
Kerry's claims that he can fix all this in his first six months (or whatever his verbiage) is pretty hard to swallow. On the other hand, where are all the WMD's that we sacrificed lives to locate - the ones we assured the UN were in Iraq? We each must pick the brand of BS we're comfortable swallowing the next 4 years.
-
Originally posted by rpm
We would have had massive international support to finish the job.Instead Bush changed targets, lost allies and let OBL slip away.
What about the time between the invasions? Agreed, we did have massive international support post 9/11, but mostly (not entirely) in the form of lip service. After the invasion of Iraq, we lost...lip service. By the time we crossed the Iraqi border, most of Al-Quaida and the Taliban had been squashed and scattered, mostly (but not entirely) thanks to our own initiative and resourses. The fact that OBL scurried away to hide among the goats is seen by some as a victory, others as a defeat..I see it as unfinished but not forgotten business. On this last point, I think you and I can agree. On the methods and big-picture target package, we can agree to disagree.
On the downsizing issue, yes you have a perfectly legit point. It seemed we were fresh out of bad guys worth our efforts. Well, with the advantage of hindsight, we can nitpick this decision to shreds and argue that those resourses would have better served us as a tax burden redivided into smaller, mobile and more flexible units to combat the kind of enemy we were introduced to in Somalia and were likely to meet again considering our new foreign policies. Even though it did happen on the last guy's watch (cough), we can't reasonably expect him to have predicted with crystal clarity which way the winds of war would shift over the next few years. Just a rant, nothing more. I just really wish we had those men and machines today.
-
Originally posted by VOR
...
On the downsizing issue, yes you have a perfectly legit point. It seemed we were fresh out of bad guys worth our efforts. ....
Downsizing is another of those chicken-and-egg problems in a way. If we have strong support from the UN countries who also have standing armies, then we don't need as many troops ourselves as we can count on our allies to join in our actions. But when the entire world is PO'd at the US, well, we need a bigger army.
And our current foreign affairs problems aren't all W's fault. Chirac had his own agenda in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by VOR
What about the time between the invasions? Agreed, we did have massive international support post 9/11, but mostly (not entirely) in the form of lip service. After the invasion of Iraq, we lost...lip service.
VOR, we are close to agreeing here. Put aside our personal politics for a second and look at this. After we stopped the major actions in Afghanistan and started pointing at Iraq, our support dissappeared. If we had been chasing OBL into Iraq, I personally believe we would have carried quite a bit of that support with us. But, we were'nt doing that. We were after WMD, not OBL. We changed targets, we lost focus, we lost support. Can't we agree on this?
-
Good points, Dok. Personally, I'm not comfortable with being dependant upon other nations to meet our military needs when they arise. Having friends is great, don't get me wrong; I'm not a total isolationist, but I don't like the idea. Somebody, with their own agenda, may decide not to ride along when we find ourselves in need. What then?
-
Originally posted by rpm
VOR, we are close to agreeing here. Put aside our personal politics for a second and look at this. After we stopped the major actions in Afghanistan and started pointing at Iraq, our support dissappeared. If we had been chasing OBL into Iraq, I personally believe we would have carried quite a bit of that support with us. But, we were'nt doing that. We were after WMD, not OBL. We changed targets, we lost focus, we lost support. Can't we agree on this?
Ok RPM, I can agree that Iraq killed alot of international support. (Whether it was useful support is another argument for later maybe.) If OBL was known to be or believed to be hiding in Iraq, yes, we would have had a few more sidekicks than we did. (How the world would have reacted if he hadn't actually been there is another argument once again.)
What I don't agree on is the perception that we ceased major operations in Afghanistan and "shifted" priorities. The Taliban was crushed..ineffective as a whole, despite several of the roaches (including OBL) slipping away. More military might would not have solved the problem in this case. Remember: we had NO IDEA where Saddam was right up until the moment he was captured. Several cases of just missing him by a few hours, but no dice. It was not military might that unearthed Saddam and his sons, it was money. Good old US dollars. All 3 were betrayed to US forces thru rewarded tips thanks to the lack of love and support they had in their home nation. OBL is another story...he appears to be surrounded by fiercely loyal nutcases who are immune to the powers of the dollar. If not for this fact, I'm reasonably certain he would have been a long-gone issue.
So, yes, in a way we agree.
-
By massive international support, I'm referring to the nations that came out in support of the US after 9/11. The support we lost when Bush turned to Iraq.
Again, what could we have done with the massive international support? How long would it have lasted if we wanted to do something to capture OLB the international community didn’t support?
I'm not in position to say how we should have captured Osama, but I believe Wes Clark is and he has repeated called Iraq a tactical mistake that allowed OBL to escape.
But you are in the position to say what not to do. If I’m to take your option seriously, your going to have to convince me you’re an expert or someone with about average education on the subject. Other wise your talking out your, you know what.
What examples has Clark given to prove his point? How did it allow OBL to escape?
-
Originally posted by john9001
"We would have had massive international support to finish the job"
the US has NEVER had "massive international support" for anything.
WERE U BORN IN 1991???
All 100+ countries, even the Soviet Union supported the 1st Golf War...
-
Originally posted by VOR
Good points, Dok. Personally, I'm not comfortable with being dependant upon other nations to meet our military needs when they arise. Having friends is great, don't get me wrong; I'm not a total isolationist, but I don't like the idea. Somebody, with their own agenda, may decide not to ride along when we find ourselves in need. What then?
I think one of the positive aspects of Bush's foreign policy problems is that it highlighted a problem most of probably knew existed - along the lines of what you mentioned. That many of our "friends" really weren't our friends at all. It was a rude wake-up call when countries we bailed out of two World Wars wouldn't stand beside us when we asked for their help.
But there's a line between the kind of action we are engaged in in Afghanistan, and an all out invasion of a well-armed country like Iraq. We definately need to be able to handle the former on our own, I don't know if the need for the manpower on the ground for the latter is the same - not with the air assets we have which can more or less cripple most nation's infrastructures within a matter of weeks.
-
" And the other is that Bush started a completely new war before finishing the first one - before capturing OBL"
Actually, the Afghan war was about removing the Taliban and AQ's home base (Done, BTW). OBL is a target, certainly, but you do not go to war to kill one man.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
But there's a line between the kind of action we are engaged in in Afghanistan, and an all out invasion of a well-armed country like Iraq. We definately need to be able to handle the former on our own, I don't know if the need for the manpower on the ground for the latter is the same - not with the air assets we have which can more or less cripple most nation's infrastructures within a matter of weeks.
It depends. A war can't be won from the air where real estate is involved. Eventually, if you want to do the job right, you'll have to switch from precision guided munitions to Bob and his rifle. Only Bob can look under a rock to see what's beneath. If, however, you just want to punch country X in the nose and be home in time for dinner...nothing beats the USAF and USN.
-
Originally posted by rpm
By massive international support, I'm refering to the nations that came out in support of the US after 9/11. The support we lost when Bush turned to Iraq.
I'm not in position to say how we should have captured Osama, but I believe Wes Clark is and he has repeatedly called Iraq a tactical mistake that allowed OBL to escape.
International support does not mean **** in the quest to get OBL. He's not IN the international community, he's in the mountains around Afghanistan and Pakistan. As it stands right now, at great risk to himself, after multiple assasination attempts, the President of Pakistan is STILL backing the U.S. and Bush the best he can. We MUST work within the rules that he has to deal with in order to keep him in power.
Should he be killed or otherwise removed from power, we could count on ZERO support from Pakistan, and the operations in Afghanistan would become practically impossible. There's not a damned thing Kerry or anyone else can do a bit different or better than what Bush has done.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference what the UN, Germany, France, or anyone else thinks or likes. They can't do a single thing about the current situation in Pakistan. Lose control of Pakistan and you'll never get OBL if he's in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and for that matter you'll lose everything gained in Afghanistan, and Al Queada and the Taliban will be back in business before Kerry can spin the next lie he tells.
Regarding Wes Clark, he was dismissed because of questionable tactics and ethics during the Clinton administration. That should say all that needs to be said about Wes Clark.
Tommy Franks was in command and has stated without qualification that "no resources were diverted from Afghanistan and the hunt for Al queada and OBL for use in Iraq." Since Tommy Franks was running the operation, I'd say he knows a HELL of a lot more about it than Wes Clark ever dreamed of knowing.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I think one of the positive aspects of Bush's foreign policy problems is that it highlighted a problem most of probably knew existed - along the lines of what you mentioned. That many of our "friends" really weren't our friends at all. It was a rude wake-up call when countries we bailed out of two World Wars wouldn't stand beside us when we asked for their help.
some say our only TRUE ally is Isreal, and it will be the US and Isreal standing side by side against all others in years to come.........regardless of who our president is in the US we will always be hand and hand with Isreal........
as for that Iraq invasion, sodaminsane did not abide by the UN, when it came time for the UN to do something they whimped away ( prob cause sodaminsane had French, German and who knows how many other countrys hands in his Iraq pockets) this was later revealed after the fact and after the US, Britian and a few other countrys took Baghdad.........
just sit back and watch the next year or 2 and remember the "There Was No WMD's" words when Syria or Jordan all of a sudden has nuclear weapons and then recall all the aurguing and debating ya'll have done on this board
The reason so many think the way they do now is because of the media shoving their thoughts of what is actually happening down Your throat!
ok, carry on now with your lil debating session here.....I'm done
-
Originally posted by VOR
It depends. A war can't be won from the air where real estate is involved. Eventually, if you want to do the job right, you'll have to switch from precision guided munitions to Bob and his rifle. Only Bob can look under a rock to see what's beneath. If, however, you just want to punch country X in the nose and be home in time for dinner...nothing beats the USAF and USN.
Yes ... you need ground troops to actually establish control of territory. But outside of Iran and N. Korea who else are we likely to be invading any time soon that would require several full-scale divisions? And, going a step further, do we need to actually invade these countries - or just destroy their military and political strength?
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Yes ... you need ground troops to actually establish control of territory. But outside of Iran and N. Korea who else are we likely to be invading any time soon that would require several full-scale divisions? And, going a step further, do we need to actually invade these countries - or just destroy their military and political strength?
It was this train of thought that eliminated our perceived need for several full-strength divisions when, in retrospect, they would have been quite handy today. As for eliminating military and political strength from the air, the same was more or less done to Iraq in 91, and many people agree that it left a job unfinished.
Is it my imagination, or have we just talked ourselves into a circle? :lol
Ted: We'll never have a triumphant video without Eddy Van Halen.
Bill: Which is why we NEED Eddy Van Halen!
Ted : Which is why we NEED a triumphant video!
Bill and Ted: Excellent! (guitar riff)
-
Originally posted by VOR
...
Is it my imagination, or have we just talked ourselves into a circle? :lol
...
More or less ... but it is an election year so it's to be expected.
I guess I didn't phrase what I meant to say quite right. We obviously need divisions. But we certainly don't need 'em defending Western Europe anymore. So some downsizing is in order.
What I meant about air power is that there may be cases where the damage inflicted from the air may be "enough" to make the difference. For instance, if we'd had better intelligence about the invasion of Kuwait before the first Gulf War, the road to Kuwait City could have been interdicted by planes from US cariers moved to the Gulf and the whole invasion possibly thwarted right there. Whatever Iraqi troops managed to get through could have likely been handled by the combined Saudi and Kuwaiti forces - so we'd never have needed to put troops on Arab soil.
-
Aha. Gotcha. Yeah, it makes sense, but is largely dependant upon a near-perfect intelligence network. Risky to say the least, but bears consideration. Still, intel probably costs less than an armored division when you consider the overhead.
-
Tommy Franks was on tv today taking about skerry's claim that Bush let OBL get away at torabora
he said horse crap
He stated if anyone is to blame it is him as it was Gen Franks decision to hire the locals as they knew the land better than our soldiers and it was Gen Franks who told Bush how many troops he needed every step of the way ...
Bush, being the Pres and not the Gen in charge, did what any good commander in chief whould do, and followed the advice of his top military man in charge of the operation
but you paraniod, bush hating left leaning liberal studmuffin types can keep wringing your hands and state bush let him get away, on purpose no doubt right? so he can continue this war on terror forever right? so he can kill off our young men and women in our armed services all for oil money, yeah yeah!!
dumbarses - go vote for your "war hero" skerry - has a PLAN
LOL LOL LOL
-
Eagler, as the election draws nearer and nearer...I'd hate to be in your house with you. You're frantic, man! :D
I gotta admit, I'm a little concerned about this one..Kerry just might win.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Eagler, as the election draws nearer and nearer...I'd hate to be in your house with you. You're frantic, man! :D
I gotta admit, I'm a little concerned about this one..Kerry just might win.
thankfully the entire family feels like I do about skerry :)
I would be concerned also if skerry won but I am confident he will not
LANDSLIDE BUSH!!!
(http://www.scarffauto.com/Pics/tn_eagle.jpg)
-
>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TweetyBird
That sounds like an excuse..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you just grab up an M-16 and some MRE's and carry your sorry bellybutton out and get him big boy.
<<
That would be illegal. But what would be legal is to elect someone who could get the job done. And basicaly, thats what you're asking for, right? Bush had 3 years to get this worm. He hasn't done it. So what's the excuse again? It hard hard work?
Well as Laz would say, shut up, man up, and can the stupid excuses. Excuses are like flowers - gardens are full of em. Now how about we run OBL out of the garden eh?
-
Interesting on the news most say it's good for Bush, seeing OBL again and reminding them of the so called war on terror. Which seems to be a war based on fear but that;s another thread.
Anyway, seems to me OBL knows it's good for Bush and unlike all the "Terrorsts Like Kerry" BS. OBL sees that if Bush gets in that's good for him as the Muslim World hates Bush which is better and what he wants for his cause.
Seems to me Bush falls into OBL's plans everytime. Iraq.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Eagler
...
but you paraniod, bush hating left leaning liberal studmuffin types can keep wringing your hands
...
dumbarses - go vote for your "war hero" skerry - has a PLAN
...
Please tell me you aren't a Rook.
-
I am done with the excuse "my dog ate my homework." We've had 3 years to get this desert bum, and we haven't. Why the hell not? I don't even want to hear"its hard." Its hard running kids to a guerilla war but that didn't stop that little task. What the hell isi so hard about putting the resources together to get OBL? No OIL for motivation?
If you think Iraq was about a tyrant and not about an industrialized China, you need to buy a clue.
-
Again stated in 1987...
"The administration argued that to withdraw from the gulf would be to surrender America's role as leader of the free world, and that if oil shipments were disrupted, prices would soar, adversely affecting the U.S. economy. "
What could be worse than than disruptment of oil shipments?
A higher demand in other countries.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
...
+ 24 other countries that I'm too lazy to dig up pictures of.
You ******** don't deserve their support.
To whom are you referring?
-
The US still had good UN support for Afghanistan, so I don't know where the "lip service" remark applies to that operation. So for that operation - yeah - I agree it was uncalled for.
But it's been pretty well documented that France among other "friends" had their own interests in Iraq which affected their actions. And it wasn't just that they wouldn't support the operation, they openly opposed it and raised anti-American sentiments around the world. I hope you can understand where many American families who lost loved ones fighting for the liberation of Europe got somewhat PO'd by this sort of behavior.
-
Y'know ... I typed in a reply but to hell with it ... I don't waste my time on those who preach bigotry of any kind. You made your opinion of Americans very clear, Gunther.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You, among others that share your opinion "That many of our "friends" really weren't our friends at all. It was a rude wake-up call when countries we bailed out of two World Wars wouldn't stand beside us when we asked for their help."
America likes to fight wars and keel bad people.
-
Wow GS, hitting the bottle tonight or something?
-
Burr under your saddle?
-
I can't recall a time when America was ever particularly popular. Probably never will be. What are you getting at?
-
Gun-toting lunatic? Unfortunate, but the fact is that most of us are pretty seriously PO'd and agree that it's past time to face our problems head-on. This thing was going to come to a head sooner or later; it was just a matter of time.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm serious about the dislike (polite term) for Americans here in Norway now. ALL my friends can't wait for the US to fail, collapse, go bankrupt etc. They just wish they'll be alive to see it. I tell them they're wrong (even lost a couple of friends over this), but what can I do.
Yes Ladies and Gents, I'm considered a hopeless pro-American here. *lol*
Norway will collapse, bankrupt, etc., before the US. Again, being an American with a wife and kid, I can give a rat's arse what you think of me. Harbor YOUR hate little boy, just know this genius, I don't hate YOU. Touche *****cat.
Karaya
-
"Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry... as long as they vote Republican"
-
A gift from the French :D
-
Originally posted by VOR
the fact is that most of us are pretty seriously PO'd and agree that it's past time to face our problems head-on. This thing was going to come to a head sooner or later; it was just a matter of time.
Maybe it's time to see the forest from the trees and actually treat the cause and not just the symptoms.
The trillions of dollars spent, all those asinine foreign policies enforced in the middle-east for the last 50 years, in a vain attempt to emplace an iron cast around the American achille's heel. What has it brought you?
If all that money and effort was used instead for research into technologies for alternative fuel sources and increased fuel economy for cars. You guys could of washed your hands of the whole middle-eastern affair decades ago.
If i was running fer office my platform would be one item, i'd tender out prizes in the billions to any company that could mass produce viable alternative fuel sources and 50 mpg automobiles. How quick do you think the technologies would exist if lets say the total prize package was worth 290 billion?
-
Gunther,
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in Europe about America and Americans.
First, do not judge us by our politicians - which is probably a universal truth, but for some reason Europeans see our President as a reflection of us as people. As you have no doubt observed from this BBS, this is very far from the truth - we range from violent agreement to virulent despisal of our government.
Next, this notion that we sit around all day planning world domination ... maybe our government does, but most Americans are too damn busy working 10 hours a day, 50 weeks a year, with an hours commute each way. So most Americans get quite taken aback when we're accused individually of being war-mongering imperialists ... when we just finished spending the last 4 weekends filling out our damn tax forms and haven't even had time to be lied to by CNN and Fox News.
Next, America was, is, and probably always will be a reactionary country. We're quite happy Taking Care of Business until someone fires a shot across our bow. The Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 ... you wake the giant and no force on earth will stop the prettythang-kicking to follow. To the European mindset, this is no doubt hard to understand - how we can sit back and let crap happen until it happens to us. But that's our nature more or less since after the War of 1812. But hey, Russia's paranoid about their extended border with Europe - we all have our quirks.
Next, understand how this despisal of the US looks to Americans. When Europe needed us in WW1 and WW2 - we were there. During the Cold War, when Europe needed a huge standing army and piles of money to repel the Red Menace - we were there. When any country needed foreign aid - we were there. And then the Cold War ends - and all of a sudden it's "F U Americans." How do you expect us to react? Europeans pay higherr taxes overall - but at least the money you pay in taxes pretty much is used for your own country - a big chunk of ours gets shipped off to help countries who "wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire."
Next, the French. The venom towards the French started when they wouldn't let us overfly their airspace to drop a surprise on Gen. Ghaddafi in Libya. If they'd just said: "No, we can't send troops to Iraq" it'd have been OK I think. But they opposed us and more or less were the focal point for a coalition against us. To the American mindset this was tantamount to treason. We bled for them in two World Wars, and stationed thousands of troops to defend them during the Cold War - and this is our thanks? This attacks the core of the basic American generousity - that we are willing to help countries oceans away. But we don't like getting kicked in the balls for our trouble.
Lastly, American arrogance. Yeah, we're a snotty bunch at times - not worse than the French, of course. :) But hey, in 230 years we went from being a bunch of yokels throwing dog poo at the Red Coats to the mightiest nation on the planet. Not bad. Like it or not, the Free World depends on our military and our economy. We know it. You know it. Deal with it. But don't expect us to beg for anyone's friendship - to the American mindset if we're presented with a situation where no matter what we do we'll get spit on for one reason or another, we pretty much stop caring what other people think. If these fences get mended it'll be from positions of mutual respect.
I hope this makes sense to you.
-
Originally posted by Torque
....
If i was running fer office my platform would be one item, i'd tender out prizes in the billions to any company that could mass produce viable alternative fuel sources and 50 mpg automobiles. How quick do you think the technologies would exist if lets say the total prize package was worth 290 billion?
Absolutely ... as long as Halliburton was prevented from bidding.
Oh ... and throw in national health insurance to the platform too ... we ain't got none, ya know.
-
screw you guys, we're doing this our way
Actually, it was more like "We can't wait around for you guys to draw up another 20 or so resolutions in the UN while our people get slaughtered. Since you all want to twiddle your thumbs for an unknown and unacceptable delay, we'll have to go after the bad guys with those ready to go now."
France and Germany are another story. They had oil deals w/ Iraq and felt their oil deals were more important than the war on terror. The French are pathetic and a waste... I believe the Germans are just misguided and if their hand is forced by the terrorists, they will respond w/ ferocity.
* Edit: a darned shame about the French, they had much to do w/ us gaining our independence.
-
Originally posted by Steve
* Edit: a darned shame about the French, they had much to do w/ us gaining our independence.
Their meager contribution was long ago repaid in American blood.
-
Originally posted by Torque
If all that money and effort was used instead for research into technologies for alternative fuel sources and increased fuel economy for cars. You guys could of washed your hands of the whole middle-eastern affair decades ago.
Torque, funny you should bring this up. I was just thinking about it this morning. Yes, it would be fantastic to see the ME return to it's pre-1940's state due to a lack of demand for it's product. It's hard to imagine that in this day of satellite television, space travel, and high-speed internet pron that a viable alternative fuel source has yet to be unveiled. Conspiracies abound, but I think it has to do with restructuring the entire world's transportation and automotive base and the associated cost. It's staggering if you consider it, but it WILL happen eventually, one way or the other. Our current fuel source is finite. Let's just hope the world doesn't fold in on itself before we run out (or at least before we all get to play STALKER and SH3). :)
Originally posted by GScholz
But the notion that we also must agree or make our opinions subservient to yours as a matter of debt, and all the bashing because of it, is taking a serious toll on our patience.
[/B]
Well, I can't speak for my country as a whole, but I can speak for myself: the whole "Freedom Fries" thing was a personally embarassing episode. I can't believe grown men thought something this juvenile was a good idea. I'm sure Europe and the rest of the world was laughing at the irony considering "French fries" aren't even...French! Anyway, I'm not a Euro basher, as you know. I've always been annoyed at the "we saved yer arses, so you owe us" threads and comments on this BBS and elsewhere. I *do* get a bit frustrated that the European community tends to move very slowly unless shocked into action (9/11). Yeah, there's alot to be said for thinking things thru and not flying off the handle, and America has become a little hyperactive since 9/11. If our friends take too long to pack, we're probably gonna drive away wothout them.
-
Their meager contribution was long ago repaid in American blood.
Their contribution wasn't meager, it was tactically significant.
My point was, that in the past they joined forces w/ us against a powerful opponent....once upon a time they had balls.
-
And then again, their testicles may be in order but they may simply disagree - yea whats the chances of that?
Don't argue - just villify them - thats the 3rd grade ticket.
<--Getting DAMNED tired of 3rd grade rhetoric.
-
Don't argue - just villify them - thats the 3rd grade ticket.
WTF are you talking about? Oh, and plow you.