1
   

What are we doing to find Osama Bin Laden?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 10:11 am
Other than mentioning his name, I don't see how the original post is about Bin Laden. Maybe if you were clearer in you venom towards the war in Iraq I would have caught that. It seemed to be about your outrage of the US invasion of Iraq. Therefore, about Saddam.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 10:39 am
Let's see. I mentioned Saddam in order to show how we've gone off track, and that we should be using our resources to chase down Osama.

You wrote:
"I am just curious why there are so many Saddam lovers here. You wish he was still in power and torturing and killing the Iraqi people. I don't understand why you want that."

To quote my original post, "what the hell does that have to do with catching Osama Bin Laden?"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 10:46 am
See Fedral's post above.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 10:49 am
Thank you for referring me to someone who actually uses real reasons for what he says. Now we can get back to the real discussion.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:04 am
I cannot understand the liberal position on this either. Saddam should have been outed in 1991. The failure to do so cost Bush reelection. So I see it as a power issue. The Dems are out of power, so they're grasping for straws, much like Bush Sr. seeing a laser scanner for the first time.

The majority of Iraquis are glad Saddam is gone. Why does the liberal side of the media never report that (i.e CNN)? This would be much more obvious if these people weren't still living in fear of a regime that tortured and killed them for so long.

As far as Bin Laden is concerned, I hear Spirit is searching for him on Mars.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:11 am
McG, is, of course, indulging in the penchant for changing an unanswerable subject. Fedral simply side-steps the issue altogether. Kickycan, as he has pointed out, wants to know what the hell we're doing in Iraq when the ostensible mission was to fight world terrorism, and get those responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington. We have several thousand troops in Afghanistan, it is true; it is equally true that we have more than 100,000 in Iraq, and have diverted far more resources to the Shrub's little revenge war than were ever intended for Afghanistan. Mr. O'Neil has now confirmed what ought to have been plain to anyone with ordinary reading skills from the outset--the Shrub intended to make war on Iraq at the first excuse, long before September 11, 2001.

Kickycan's question remains unanswered.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:17 am
Okay, about Saddam. Yes! He should be strung up by his balls! It's good that he's gone! He should have his eyes plucked out by vultures! Yes, I agree he's a bad man!!! But once September 11th happened, we should have used those resources to catch the people who did it, and "bring them to justice" as GWB says. THAT should have been job one! That's the point I'm trying to make.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:32 am
Setanta wrote:
McG, is, of course, indulging in the penchant for changing an unanswerable subject. Fedral simply side-steps the issue altogether. Kickycan, as he has pointed out, wants to know what the hell we're doing in Iraq when the ostensible mission was to fight world terrorism, and get those responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington. We have several thousand troops in Afghanistan, it is true; it is equally true that we have more than 100,000 in Iraq, and have diverted far more resources to the Shrub's little revenge war than were ever intended for Afghanistan. Mr. O'Neil has now confirmed what ought to have been plain to anyone with ordinary reading skills from the outset--the Shrub intended to make war on Iraq at the first excuse, long before September 11, 2001.

Kickycan's question remains unanswered.


We dont need 100,000 troops in Afghanistan to look for Osama. We couldn't support that many in a country with as poor an infrastructure network as Afghanistan has. We have sent in as many as we think we need and if the commander on the scene thought he needed more, he would ask for them.

Kickys question as to what we are doing to find him HAS been answered. Thousands of troops, the best radio and satellite info that the NSA, NSC, CIA and other agencies we have working round the clock to localize and finally capture Bin Laden. These things just take time. The liberals were whining for months "Well where is Saddam, why can't we find him. The whole mission is a failure without him being captured" All the while the Administration was saying "Give us a little time and we will catch him." And guess what, they did. Now all you can whine about is "Where is Bin Laden, the whole thing is a failure unless we catch him." And what is the Administration saying? "Give us a time and we will catch him"
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
I am just curious why there are so many Saddam lovers here. You wish he was still in power and torturing and killing the Iraqi people. I don't understand why you want that.


Do you actually believe what you write? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:45 am
We need a large troop commitment in Afghanistan precisely because the nation is devastated after forty years of nearly continuous civil war and invasion. Without adequate security provision, the killing of foreign contractors on construction projects, now a commonplace, will continue. To put paid to the Taliban and Al Qaeda will require more than the cosmetic commitment we've made to date. You do your questionable thesis no service by referring to whining liberals, you simply raise the ante of personal invective. It's a difficult to swallow an assertion that the administration is doing all that it can to find the man when far more resources are poured into Iraq, and for the obviously personal and venal motives of a small crowd of the already extremely wealthy.

In Afghanistan, we have international support, because we had a plausible provocation, and a coherent objective. The Afghans have made a real effort to get with the program, and are even now writing a constitution. All of this despite being the poor relation of the administrations international agenda. A real commitment in Afghanistan would have resolved many of the issues of a blasted economy and countryside already, and we may well have made real progress toward disarming the private militias of local warlords. Without that sort of pacification, our efforts are just so much pissing into the wind. The Shrub and company were so eager to get at Saddam, they have never given a damn about September 11, or Al Qaeda--these have never been more than a convenient pretext for this crowd, and an opportunity to shamelessly wrap themselves in the flag. They disgust me, as they do so many honest people around the world.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 12:08 pm
We're going to make more trips to Mars and the Moon.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 12:15 pm
What does that have to do with anything? See my other post.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17585&highlight=
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 12:16 pm
Afghanistan is now, and always has been a UN approved affair. The US went in and did it's business of uprooting the Taliban regime that was supporting the Al-Queada terrorist network. Once that main objective was finished, the UN was supposed to take over, provide peace keepers, and support for the native population. They are failing miserably and now you guys are complaining that we are not doing enough.

This is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation where nothing the US does will make you happy. Our war on terrorism is NOT a war on Osama Bin Ladin. He is but a peice of the greater picture which seems to infatuate some to a greater degree than others who can see the big picture. Saddam supported terrorists and funded terrorists. Therefore, he, too, is also a peice of the greater war on terror. Understand that Bush has bitten off a considerable task that may lead the US in other hostile situations in the future, who can say one way or another.

You seem to think that Iraq and afghanistan are mutually exclusive, they aren't. They are both related in that world wide terrorism has been dealt a considerable blow and will feel the lingering effects for generations to come.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 12:21 pm
The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism--for however much you and other administration cheerleaders would like to link the two.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 12:21 pm
Setanta wrote:
We need a large troop commitment in Afghanistan precisely because the nation is devastated after forty years of nearly continuous civil war and invasion. Without adequate security provision, the killing of foreign contractors on construction projects, now a commonplace, will continue. To put paid to the Taliban and Al Qaeda will require more than the cosmetic commitment we've made to date.


To understand why we can't/don't commit any more troops to the Afghan area, you have to understand a the most important key in all military operations.... LOGISTICS[/u] We can't support a huge influx of troops in Afghanistan because the amount of supplies that would be needed to support that number of troops simply can't be moved into that country in a reliable fashion. The old military maxim stands true: "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." Since Afghanistan is a landlocked country with a poor (at best) road network, almost everything that our troops in 'stan need has to be flown in (we dont have the advantage of a common border with them as the Soviet Union had and even they couldn't keep their troops supplied well enough)

Our ground forces commander in 'stan has as many troops, vehicles and aircraft (fixed and rotary) in country that he can currently support. To throw more troops into that country would tax both the Air Forces ability to fly sufficient supplies in and the Armys ability to move those supplies to the units that need them.

If you are going to comment on military matters, please have the foresight to do a little research on your topic so that you understand the military realities of a situation.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 12:52 pm
Setanta wrote:
The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism--for however much you and other administration cheerleaders would like to link the two.



AMEN!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 12:58 pm
Saddam Hussein and his sons, in their positions of despotic authority at the head of the former Iraqi regime, provided significant support to international terrorist organizations that have directed violence against the United States. This includes, but is not limited to, providing safehaven, transit points and operational bases for designated foreign terrorist organizations such as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the Abu Nidal Organization, and the Palestine Liberation Front. Hussein and his sons have cooperated openly with HAMAS. Saddam Hussein also was behind the 1992 assassination attempt against former President Bush.
Link

Al-Queada is not the only target of the war on Terrorism.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 01:01 pm
I thought the name of this topic was 'What are we doing to find Osama Bin Laden' not the 'Why we should or should not be in Iraq thread (wae already have plenty of those)

I have posted already (as many of you have not) exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden (in answer to the posters question) and all you people keep bringing up is Iraq. I showed you why we haven't upped the troop strength in Afghanistan and all you want to talk about is Iraq.

PLEASE KEEP TO THE TOPIC AT HAND[/u]

Once you get it in your heads that we can and will find Bin Laden and we have as many troops in Afghanistan as we can support at the current time. Just give it time and we will get him, probably looking as worn and disheveled as Saddam, we WILL get him.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 01:07 pm
Fedral wrote:
Once you get it in your heads that we can and will find Bin Laden and we have as many troops in Afghanistan as we can support at the current time. Just give it time and we will get him, probably looking as worn and disheveled as Saddam, we WILL get him.



I think you are right, Fedral.

I think we will find him right after we uncover the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 01:21 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
I think we will find him right after we uncover the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had.


Probably in late October of this year.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 05:36:43