Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on May 25, 2007, 12:22:44 AM

Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: rpm on May 25, 2007, 12:22:44 AM
Quote
THE PRESIDENT: Why is he at large? Because we haven't got him yet, Jim. That's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice. We've brought a lot of his buddies to justice, but not him. That's why he's still at large.

TRANSLATION: I took my eye off the ball.

Example: 6 months after 9/11...
Quote
THE PRESIDENT:  I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.



Worst


President


EVER.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: ROC on May 25, 2007, 12:39:56 AM
Let's see, worst president ever.  Ok, I'll bite.  Can't find 1 guy hiding in the sand out in a very large swath of land, yet devastated their ability to cause more damage to Anything in the US.  Bad Bad Bushy.

Had him handed to us on a silver platter and some other president let him off the hook..a few years back...

Ya, I can see the problem here.

:rofl

I'm buying stock in CNN.  Clearly they have tapped into a market where soundbites are all the rage.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: -CodyC on May 25, 2007, 12:47:52 AM
Funny thing rpm, you quote something he said only 6 months after 9/11.  Yet we still managed to vote him back in.  I'll admit that i didn't vote for him in 2004, but i didn't want to vote for Kerry either.  I still support the man, i still support the war.  I voted for kerry because i was not very thrilled about how Bush was handling the war at the time (no body armor for our troops, lied about WMDs, pick your reason).  I am finally happy about his recent decisions to send more troops.  I find the solution being either to send more troops to do the job or to turn all security over to iraqi forces and let them sort it out.  The first results in more Americans dieing and Bush getting all the blame and the second results in Iraq becoming a much more terrible breeding ground for terrorism than it was before we invaded.  I believe lasersailer said it best in another thread, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  

Worst president ever?  I dunno, maybe Hoover?  I think his failure to know how to adequately deal with the stock market crash makes him a great nominee for this distinct honor.  Or Andrew Johnson who was nearly impeached, twice, nearly succeeded in destroying all efforts made for post-civil war reconstruction.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: rpm on May 25, 2007, 12:49:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ROC
Let's see, worst president ever.  Ok, I'll bite.  Can't find 1 guy hiding in the sand out in a very large swath of land, yet devastated their ability to cause more damage to Anything in the US.
You honestly think "they" can't do any damage to the US now? :huh
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Yeager on May 25, 2007, 12:51:04 AM
I have a deep sense of disappointment in this President.   Not that he has done so poorly, because I dont think he has, but rather that he has NOT done great things, and if he has done great things, I dont think anyone knows it, yet.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: cav58d on May 25, 2007, 01:23:46 AM
I fear that Bush will go down in History as the President with the most opportunity for greatness.  Thats all though.

I voted for him and 2000, and I voted for him in 2004.  If I had to go back and it was between Gore and Kerry again, then I would vote for Bush.  However, if I had the chance to primary, I think I would go with someone else.  Most likely McCain at the time.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: -CodyC on May 25, 2007, 01:26:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
You honestly think "they" can't do any damage to the US now? :huh

I'll agree here, but i doubt we will ever be in a position in which we are completely immune to any attack at all within our borders.  I guess the question is have we weakened their chances to attack the US?  I would say most definitely.  The US government overthrew the Taliban in a short period of time over 9/11, i would hope there wouldn't be too many governments that would risk losing their power by harbouring terrorists who attack the US based on lessons learned from Afghanistan.  I'm not sure about the financing of terrorism, but all i read is that the US has made a great deal of progress in freezing the assets of terrorist groups.
Title: Re: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: x0847Marine on May 25, 2007, 01:39:23 AM
One reason, the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to indite Osama for 9/11. I posted a link in another thread.

"The U.S. government found that huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort." (1)"

Bush is just another Bush, doing what the Bush do: make sure he and his cronies profit off war.

http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush-Hitler.html

edit: I was just thinking of the irony here, we have Hitler and Nazis $$ to thank for the "Bush empire". LMAO
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: cav58d on May 25, 2007, 01:42:11 AM
Wish I had an emotocon that slammed it's head against a wall for everyone of your posts.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Yeager on May 25, 2007, 02:27:14 AM
One reason, the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to indite Osama for 9/11.
====
Ladies and Gentlemen, The prosecution rests its case :rolleyes:
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Captain Virgil Hilts on May 25, 2007, 03:08:14 AM
Osama Bin Laden already claimed responsibility for the attacks of 11 September 2001. Several captured Al Queada members have admitted complicity in the planning and execution of the attacks, and stated that the orders came from Bin Laden himself.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: soda72 on May 25, 2007, 06:41:37 AM
Maybe he's still at large because a former president didn't take him into custody when he had the chance...

Quote
"[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States.


Of course the Clinton Admin's deny this...

Quote
Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.


hmmm maybe the documents Sandy Berger was trying to steal/hide/destroyed, contained the "reliable evidence"...

:noid
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: storch on May 25, 2007, 06:59:53 AM
slow day at the minimart RPM?
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Jackal1 on May 25, 2007, 07:20:45 AM
First prez in ages that has actualy shown some cajones and pride in the U.S.
What has been done under Bush everyone in the U.S. benefits from every day. Some are just too thick to "get it".
Title: Re: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Odee on May 25, 2007, 08:16:47 AM
Storch and Jackal :aok
*FOCLMGBO at the "Slow day"* :rofl
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
...Worst

President

EVER.
You forget JFK, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clitone already?  

JFK got us stuck in Nam to the tune of 50,000 American soldiers lives thrown away when we pulled out. And then we all know what happened when Congress tried running a war from DC.

Carter's claim to fame, other than killing that attack rabbit while fishing, is he never got our hostages freed, and screwed the economy up.

Clitone... Well what more can be said to somebody that gives favored trade to a nation that is our enemy, to say the least of all the corpses in his wake, as well as national embarasment of his sex life.  Bill when answering a question during his impeachment; "Well that depends on what your definition of is, is?"

Yeah Bush has made his share of mistakes, but ask yourself if you're better off now than with those other three?  I know I am.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: FiLtH on May 25, 2007, 08:19:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
One reason, the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to indite Osama for 9/11.
====
Ladies and Gentlemen, The prosecution rests its case :rolleyes:




  Indite him? I want him dead, not arrested!
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: lazs2 on May 25, 2007, 08:25:05 AM
LOL.. "indite" Who said they would indite him?   He wouldn't live that long.

So long as I don't have to see him make personal appearances at the academy awards and rosies show I say let him live in a cave somewhere.

Worst pres ever?    not great but he did pass the protection of commerce bill to protect gun manufcturers from being sued out of existence and did let the so called "assault weapons" ban sunset and did stop new attacks on our second amendment rights.   The dems are poised to destroy the second.

So far as my life goes... he is still better than the best democrat.

lazs
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Gumbeau on May 25, 2007, 09:45:06 AM
I know that spelling these days is not required but it still makes folks look less than educated.

Once is a typo but the spelling error is repeated over and over in the thread.

Indict not Indite.

This is probably the worst outcome of the internet. Correcting someone else's spelling has become criminal.

On the subject of Presidents.........

Some of the undeniably great presidents were considered abject failures during their presidency. Some of the really bad ones were highly praised while in office.

Judging a president while he is in office or within ten years after is a sure recipe for making a fool of one's self.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: x0847Marine on May 25, 2007, 10:38:24 AM
When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Maybe you guys have hard evidence the FBI just hasn't found yet.  Osama has been indicted for murder & conspiracy related to embassy bombings.. which is technically what he's wanted for.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Maybe he did it, I don't know.. I don't trust much of the spin of intelligence from the bush, or the .gov in general. After the whole "go to war over BS" thing lets just say his credibility is lacking. Plus as a young lad I recall the "official" story about Watergate being believed.. and those who doubted it dismissed as conspiracy nuts, then later as a teen the official "Iran / Contra" story was the truth... and old slick willie DID NOT have sex with "that woman" either.

This FBI spokesman on the other hand is just an agent doing his job relating information, he's not a party slave with masters to protect, or a party to protect from total embarrassment.

I don't want Osama killed, I want him and all his cronies to face a public trial so all the dirt about alleged Saudi involvement and whatever other juicy nuggets of information they have to offer is laid out for everyone to see.. rather than believing a .gov that has demonstrated the ability to bold face lie over and over again.
Title: Re: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: GtoRA2 on May 25, 2007, 10:41:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
TRANSLATION: I took my eye off the ball.

Example: 6 months after 9/11...



Worst


President


EVER.



I think LBJ wins that award, but Bush is close.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: john9001 on May 25, 2007, 10:47:25 AM
<>>
<>





oh brother, you say "no hard evidence" for bin laden , but you believe every rumor about secret conspiracies involving the US government.

and bubba clinton did have sex with that women.
Title: history will tell
Post by: Eagler on May 25, 2007, 11:01:11 AM
when the dems hose it up when they finally get their stooge in the WH, Bush will  look like a military mastermind genius in comparison

I guess some think killing OBL would end the "bumber sticker" war on terrorism...it would do zitch but change the target as has the capture and killing of his subordinates since 01. the war against radical islam is going to last way past any of our lifetimes, best get used to it.

btw Edwards sunk himself with that bit of nonsense the other day
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: ROC on May 25, 2007, 01:00:56 PM
Quote
You honestly think "they" can't do any damage to the US now?


You honestly think they wouldn't have if they could?
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Yeager on May 25, 2007, 01:35:46 PM
the war against radical islam is going to last way past any of our lifetimes, best get used to it.
====
I dont think it will last past our lifetimes.  Im am of the opinion that something catostrophic will happen to a western city within 10 years.   The catastrophe will be the result of an attack, either nuclear, biological, chemical, and come from a militant islamic oganization.  The resulting retaliatory firestorm will pretty much take care of the radical islam problem, along with 350-500 million muslims who will basically just be collateral victims.  OBL will make Hitlers butcher bill look mild in comparrison.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Torque on May 25, 2007, 01:50:28 PM
just keep it all in-house, no one really cares anymore.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: rpm on May 25, 2007, 11:09:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FiLtH
Indict him? I want him dead, not arrested!

Agreed.

Storch, I don't think a $12 Million per year store with a 33 person staff is a "Minimart".
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Holden McGroin on May 25, 2007, 11:47:10 PM
Worst president ever is probably James Buchanan

To retain the support of Southern Democrats and believing early statehood for Kansas would defuse the explosive territorial problem, Buchanan endorsed a proslavery constitution for Kansas. His fellow Democrat, Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, challenged this endorsement and instead demanded a legitimate popular vote in Kansas. These Kansas troubles, especially the break with Douglas, divided the Democratic Party and weakened Buchanan.

In 1860, the rift between James Buchanan and Stephen Douglas doomed the political aspirations of both. Under the strain of internal pressure and sectional tension, the Democratic Party finally snapped in two, allowing an unknown railroad lawyer from an upstart party -- the Republican Abraham Lincoln -- to win the White House. The election of a Northerner clearly opposed to the extension of slavery outside existing Southern states frightened the South.

Six weeks after Lincoln's election, South Carolina left the Union, and within another six weeks, six other states followed. Maintaining that he lacked power, the lame-duck Buchanan took no action to stop secession, which only emboldened the new Confederacy and gave seceding states time to set up a government. Buchanan seemed eager to get out of the White House before the real disaster ensued. He vanished from public life and retreated to his home, seeing only close friends until his death in 1868.

So Buchanan lost his party, lost the presidency, and lost the nation and lead to the loss of 500,000 American lives.

Of course, others have other definitions of ever.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: vorticon on May 25, 2007, 11:57:59 PM
why do i have such a strong feeling of deja vu?
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: storch on May 26, 2007, 01:59:48 AM
RPM I come from a town where a minimart has to do 12 million a week to keep the door open.  pretty impressive for po-dunk though.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: rpm on May 26, 2007, 03:23:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by storch
RPM I come from a town where a minimart has to do 12 million a week to keep the door open.
12 Million a week just to stay open? That's $71,000 an hour for 24 hours a day for a solid week.:lol
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: storch on May 26, 2007, 06:47:02 AM
they sell rolling papers and beer yaknow :D
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: AKIron on May 26, 2007, 08:52:46 AM
Why is obl still alive? I think it's because the benefit gained through our relationship with the relatively moderate government of Pakistan is worth more than the civil war we would spark there if we went in to get him as we tried to do in Afghanistan.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: midnight Target on May 26, 2007, 10:44:37 AM
Worst ever.. no doubt.

He's The Worst Ever (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html)
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: AKIron on May 26, 2007, 12:22:19 PM
It will be pretty hard for anyone to ever replace Clinton, the man who sold us out to China, as the worst president ever.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: FrodeMk3 on May 26, 2007, 01:58:08 PM
Origanally posted by AKIron
Quote
It will be pretty hard for anyone to ever replace Clinton, the man who sold us out to China, as the worst president ever.



You forgot that he scandalized the highest office in the Nation, and He also allowed that POS NAFTA to be signed in.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: AKIron on May 26, 2007, 02:39:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Origanally posted by AKIron
 


You forgot that he scandalized the highest office in the Nation, and He also allowed that POS NAFTA to be signed in.


There are a whole lotta things I coulda listed but nothing compares with selling our secrets for campaign money to a country we may well face at the opposite end of a rifle barrel in the not too distant future. When millions of Americans die because of the technology Clinton sold to China he won't be remembered so fondly by anyone.
Title: Re: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Seagoon on May 26, 2007, 09:01:49 PM
Hi RPM,

Quote
Originally posted by rpm
Worst


President


EVER.


Come now RPM, surely you're a better student of history than this.

The 19th century had its Presidential rogues gallery of alcoholics and buffoons running hopelessly corrupt administrations. Grant for instance, was so useless as a President that not only did his administration spawn several major cabinet level scandals, he also presided over a major economic depression and managed to actually cause the "they'll never get elected again" Democrats to return to power. If "worst President ever" status is accorded for running a war poorly, totally failing to bring it to a successful conclusion and spending like a drunken sailor, then surely LBJ far outstripped Bush (and he only did it in one term as elected president). In fact we are still suffering socially and economically from the ongoing fallout of his "Great Society" and "war on poverty" programs.

Those are just two examples that spring immediately to mind, but many more could be harvested from American history.

- SEAGOON
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: rpm on May 26, 2007, 11:43:19 PM
Hi Seagoon, great fight in the MA the other night . Now on to the subject at hand...

Yes, there have been other presidents that sucked. But they sucked in different areas. Johnson sucked at trying to micromanage Viet Nam. Hoover sucked at the economy. Carter sucked at freeing the hostages. Clinton sucked at getting sucked.

But Bush is an all encompasing ball of suck. He's spent our grandchildren into the poorhouse. He blew the universal goodwill the US had after 9/11. He's got over 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's law school working senior positions in the administration. (Yes, Pat has a Law School, Regent University.) The man even has difficulty mastering the english language. It's an overwhelming amount of omnidirectional incompetency. I saw it long before he was elected.

It's not his party affiliation, it's his performance and it's consequences.

Odd that people have clung to the last 3 words of my post and not the first 10. As an American, I felt they were much more important.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: lasersailor184 on May 26, 2007, 11:55:59 PM
I always find it amazing how much people claim to know about economics and the fact that most of them have never taken an economics class.

Well, amazing / funny.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: john9001 on May 27, 2007, 12:32:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by rpm

. He's spent our grandchildren into the poorhouse.  


the president has to ask congress for the money, congress must sign the check.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: rpm on May 27, 2007, 01:16:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
the president has to ask congress for the money, congress must sign the check.
Or they don't support the troops...
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: storch on May 27, 2007, 02:13:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Worst ever.. no doubt.

He's The Worst Ever (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html)
the worst ever was FDR
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: crockett on May 27, 2007, 02:58:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ROC
Let's see, worst president ever.  Ok, I'll bite.  Can't find 1 guy hiding in the sand out in a very large swath of land, yet devastated their ability to cause more damage to Anything in the US.  Bad Bad Bushy.

Had him handed to us on a silver platter and some other president let him off the hook..a few years back...

Ya, I can see the problem here.

:rofl

I'm buying stock in CNN.  Clearly they have tapped into a market where soundbites are all the rage.


We devastated them? Last time I checked Al Qaeda was bigger than ever since we invaded Iraq. The sad part is Bush has pretty much made bin Laden a living mardar.

Al Qaeda is now bigger than bin Ladden thanks to Bush's 'F" up in Iraq and Afghanstan. Al Qaeda no longer needs a a front man like bin Ladden simple because now it is a symbol of a "movment"  for it's supporters.

You think they can't attack us? How hard do you honestly think it is for them to attack us? When they attack the US in our country it's not about blowing up a building or killing people. It's showing us that they can, it's symbolism to to them.

They aren't going to waste their time hitting some little easy target in this country, which is why they spend years planning their attacks. We haven't done anything to curb their ability to attack us in this country. They haven't attacked us again because they arent' ready. That's a big diffrence from not being able to.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Jackal1 on May 27, 2007, 04:29:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by crockett
We haven't done anything to curb their ability to attack us in this country.  


Horse biscuits. We have ripped their infrastucture a new one. We have tore up and interupted supply lines, but most of all we have played ole Billy Hell with their easy as pie funding sources.
No, there is not "a written in stone" guarantee that they can`t and will not attack us again. As a matter of fact, I`m sure they will in some form or the other.
If what has been done, hadn`t been done, 9/11 would look like a Sunday walk in the park by now. It would be look who`s coming to dinner on a regular basis.
It`s a little difficult to organize when you are scattered like dice on a Vegas crap table and hiding under rocks.
It`s not instant and it will never be over.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: crockett on May 27, 2007, 06:32:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
Horse biscuits. We have ripped their infrastucture a new one. We have tore up and interupted supply lines, but most of all we have played ole Billy Hell with their easy as pie funding sources.
No, there is not "a written in stone" guarantee that they can`t and will not attack us again. As a matter of fact, I`m sure they will in some form or the other.
If what has been done, hadn`t been done, 9/11 would look like a Sunday walk in the park by now. It would be look who`s coming to dinner on a regular basis.
It`s a little difficult to organize when you are scattered like dice on a Vegas crap table and hiding under rocks.
It`s not instant and it will never be over.


You can say what ever you want, but there is nothing like the head on a stick. The fact that he has never been caught gives him all the power in the world. He has become a living mardar for his cause and as I posted before Al-Qaeda no longer needs a front man like him.

It's now a cause for them to fight for.. It's no longer run by a single head but has split into many many different groups around the world. We have done nothing but make the problem worse.

If you look at the history of their attacks against US targets, it's typically in the 7 years between attacks. So we are getting close to their typical time line but that doesn't mean an attack in immanent.

Bin Laden will not attack the US again unless he can trump what he did on 9/11 which would mean a major attack. They can't attack us often enough with small attacks to make it worth while so it's all about symbolism to them. They will attack when the time is right because Al-Qaeda is not going away.

Bin Laden was recently reported to have died according to leaked reports from the Pakistan govt due to his poor health. Of course that probably the 10th time his death was supposed to have happened.

Al-Qaeda or terrorist groups in general, are  growing like mad in Africa and Asia the only place where we are engaging them are in the middle east. We haven't even gotten rid of the Taliban much less Al-Qaeda, but believe what you like.

Besides that Al-Qaeda and co are doing exactly what they wanted to do to this country. They are going to bring us to our knees by making us waste so much money on the wars that it forces us to leave. Just like they did to the good olé USSR in Afghanistan.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: lazs2 on May 27, 2007, 09:05:53 AM
In terms of damage to the constitution and our rights as individuals I would say that the worst  of all time would be..

Lincoln.

FDR

LBJ

Carter

Klinton.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Jackal1 on May 27, 2007, 10:13:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by crockett
The fact that he has never been caught gives him all the power in the world.
 


You don`t wield much power when you are forced into hiding like a rat in the corn crib.

:)

Quote
It's now a cause for them to fight for


Their cause has been around for centuries. Way before his time.

Quote
They will attack when the time is right because Al-Qaeda is not going away.


Gee........that`s sound familiar. :)
So...you want to just sit back and wait for them to build up more power, realign their funding lines , regroup and do just exactly what they wish uninterupted or hassled?
I`d be willing to bet if this happen you would be one of the first to scream like a pig under a gate when an attack happened on our soil again.

Quote
Al-Qaeda or terrorist groups in general, are  growing like mad in Africa and Asia the only place where we are engaging them are in the middle east.


:rofl :D


Once again...if we hadn`t been doing what we could do to interupt supply lines, funding, etc. , 9/11 would look like a Sunday walk in the park by now.
And once again, it`s not instant. It will be continuing. At least you, myself and every other U.S. citizen had better hope so.
Backyard warfare is not acceptable and never will be as long as this country exists, especially when you are fighting cowardly rats such as this bunch.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: crockett on May 27, 2007, 10:31:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
You don`t wield much power when you are forced into hiding like a rat in the corn crib.

:)


Guess you can't understand power other than what's brought about by the barrel of a gun. Maybe one day you will understand.
 
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
Their cause has been around for centuries. Way before his time.
[/B]


Much the same as Westerners, but I guess God is on our side so anything we did is ok..
 
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
Gee........that`s sound familiar. :)
So...you want to just sit back and wait for them to build up more power, realign their funding lines , regroup and do just exactly what they wish uninterupted or hassled?
I`d be willing to bet if this happen you would be one of the first to scream like a pig under a gate when an attack happened on our soil again.

 

:rofl :D
[/B]


Yea you're right, it does suck just sitting around waiting for the next attack. Too bad Bush pulled all our troops out of Afghanstan before the job was done to go start some war in Iraq.

Sure would be nice if we had troops to go fight terrorist.

Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
Once again...if we hadn`t been doing what we could do to interupt supply lines, funding, etc. , 9/11 would look like a Sunday walk in the park by now.
And once again, it`s not instant. It will be continuing. At least you, myself and every other U.S. citizen had better hope so.
Backyard warfare is not acceptable and never will be as long as this country exists, especially when you are fighting cowardly rats such as this bunch. [/B]


That's funny the British called us terrorist and cowards look where it got them. You can talk big if you like, the simple fact is we aren't doing what's needed to stop terrorism. We are fighting a war for oil and the dumb fool whom started it, hasn't even managed to get any oil out of the deal. Go figure he's the same guy whom couldn't find oil in Texas now he can ad Iraq to that list.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is getting pretty damn bad lucky for us it's Canadians getting killed. I mean sure would suck for Bush's PR if we were losing US troops daily in two failed wars that he started. You do remember that war don't yea? Or has Fox news not mentioned it in a while?
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Jackal1 on May 28, 2007, 08:25:46 AM
I think at this time you have shown lack enough grip on what is and has been done to say "Stick a fork in him. He`s done."

On this day remember those who served , are serving now and will serve in the future.
Freedom is not free. Never has been , never will be.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: crockett on May 28, 2007, 10:41:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
I think at this time you have shown lack enough grip on what is and has been done to say "Stick a fork in him. He`s done."

On this day remember those who served , are serving now and will serve in the future.
Freedom is not free. Never has been , never will be.


I've shown lack of grip on what is?  lol I guess you think things are going great in Iraq as well I suppose.

Freedom has nothing to do with what our army is being used for these days.
Title: Mr. President, why is [Osama bin Laden] still at large?
Post by: Mr No Name on May 28, 2007, 11:48:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
In terms of damage to the constitution and our rights as individuals I would say that the worst  of all time would be..

Lincoln.

FDR

LBJ

Carter

Klinton.


Wow, that's my list... almost in order.  Don't forget how complicit Truman and Eisenhower were in allowing Soviet domination of half of a continent we fought an all-out war to free.  And there was something about LBJ that was just damned scary... and no, i am not talking about his daughter. Kennedy withdrew promised air support at the last minute during the Bay of Pigs invasion.