Author Topic: Thought on the new Osama video (Read 2686 times)

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #60 on:** October 30, 2004, 05:51:00 PM »

Quote

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.

TequilaChaser · « **Reply #61 on:** October 30, 2004, 06:11:19 PM »

Quote

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

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #62 on:** October 30, 2004, 06:26:24 PM »

Quote

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?

VOR · « **Reply #63 on:** October 30, 2004, 07:23:29 PM »

Quote

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?

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)

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #64 on:** October 30, 2004, 09:28:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
...

Is it my imagination, or have we just talked ourselves into a circle?

...

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.

VOR · « **Reply #65 on:** October 30, 2004, 09:35:27 PM »

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.

Eagler · « **Reply #66 on:** October 30, 2004, 09:43:16 PM »

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

VOR · « **Reply #67 on:** October 30, 2004, 10:03:29 PM »

Eagler, as the election draws nearer and nearer...I'd hate to be in your house with you. You're frantic, man!

I gotta admit, I'm a little concerned about this one..Kerry just might win.

Eagler · « **Reply #68 on:** October 30, 2004, 10:09:27 PM »

Quote

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!

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!!!

TweetyBird · « **Reply #69 on:** October 30, 2004, 10:16:59 PM »

>>
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?

Gixer · « **Reply #70 on:** October 30, 2004, 10:19:31 PM »

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~~

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #71 on:** October 30, 2004, 10:22:44 PM »

Quote

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.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #72 on:** October 30, 2004, 10:25:24 PM »

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.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #73 on:** October 30, 2004, 10:42:32 PM »

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.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #74 on:** October 30, 2004, 11:02:35 PM »

Quote

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?