1
   

Where in the world is Osama Santiago??

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 02:55 pm
I'd say he has already amongst certain groups of Muslims.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:13 pm
In the nation of Pakistan Osama (and by extension Al Qaeda) has an approval rating of about 65% of the population (NYT 30 Oct 2004). I am somewhat suprised that Dubya didn't mention that fact when he was there.

There is no way that the present Pakistani regime will do much either way about Osama. Although an 'ally' of the USA it has too many connections with radical 'Islam'. Like many other nations it treads the fine line between courting American aid and military assistance and either covertly/overtly helping anti-US/Western organisations.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 06:56 am
...makes ya wonder whether being The Man Who Caught Osama is a title
the Prez of Pakistan wants...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 11:18 am
Of course he doesn't.

Which is why I don't believe that we are seriously keeping our eye on the ball, here....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 11:54 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course he doesn't.

Which is why I don't believe that we are seriously keeping our eye on the ball, here....

Cycloptichorn


What you have the government do Cyc? Invade Pakistan? Impose sanctions against Pakistan? Cry to the UN?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 02:28 pm
How about we wait until he comes to the US ... then arrest him?
0 Replies
 
swarm21
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 05:25 pm
hes gone - even the pentagon released a statement saying the hunts gone cold. but maybe if the attention given to iraq had been giving to finding him and his closest associates, maybe we would have found him.
hint hint, wink wink
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 10:52 am
Quote:
What you have the government do Cyc? Invade Pakistan? Impose sanctions against Pakistan? Cry to the UN?


<points to the post above>

It's kind of late in the game now to be coming up with new strategies, isn't it?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 12:28 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
What you have the government do Cyc? Invade Pakistan? Impose sanctions against Pakistan? Cry to the UN?


<points to the post above>

It's kind of late in the game now to be coming up with new strategies, isn't it?

Cycloptichorn


No, why would it be too late?

... but the question is do you approve of those offered by McG as a solution to the problem, whether implemented now or "then"?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 12:52 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
What you have the government do Cyc? Invade Pakistan? Impose sanctions against Pakistan? Cry to the UN?


<points to the post above>

It's kind of late in the game now to be coming up with new strategies, isn't it?

Cycloptichorn


Late in the game?! This isn't a game. This is real life Cyc and new strategies and new methods are always needed when old ones either fail to produce their objective or positive results.

Giving up is not an option.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:06 pm
Quote:
Late in the game?! This isn't a game. This is real life Cyc and new strategies and new methods are always needed when old ones either fail to produce their objective or positive results.

Giving up is not an option.


To put it eloquently, no sh*t.

The methods we've BEEN using haven't worked in the slightest, that much is obvious. I think that if we really want to find OBL we need to do four seperate things:

1. Get out of Iraq, as soon as we can without completely abandoning the situation, so we can re-focus this war on terror (which is bogged down at the moment, I think any of us can agree)

2. Stop relying on gov'ts (i.e. Pakistan) who have no real interest in turning over Bin Laden (who enjoys a 65% approval rating in his country)

3. Convince the Muslim people to give him up. Unfortunately, we have to actually start making concessions to the region in order to do this, and I think you all know how likely that's going to be under this administration.

4. Involve, heavily, the gov'ts of other countries who have a vested interest in catching OBL. Once again, this probably won't happen either b/c the current admin's idea of diplomacy is pretty crappy.

What do YOU suggest we should do, because whatever we ARE doing, it isn't working in the slightest!!!!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:20 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Late in the game?! This isn't a game. This is real life Cyc and new strategies and new methods are always needed when old ones either fail to produce their objective or positive results.

Giving up is not an option.


To put it eloquently, no sh*t.

The methods we've BEEN using haven't worked in the slightest, that much is obvious. I think that if we really want to find OBL we need to do four seperate things:

1. Get out of Iraq, as soon as we can without completely abandoning the situation, so we can re-focus this war on terror (which is bogged down at the moment, I think any of us can agree)

2. Stop relying on gov'ts (i.e. Pakistan) who have no real interest in turning over Bin Laden (who enjoys a 65% approval rating in his country)

3. Convince the Muslim people to give him up. Unfortunately, we have to actually start making concessions to the region in order to do this, and I think you all know how likely that's going to be under this administration.

4. Involve, heavily, the gov'ts of other countries who have a vested interest in catching OBL. Once again, this probably won't happen either b/c the current admin's idea of diplomacy is pretty crappy.

What do YOU suggest we should do, because whatever we ARE doing, it isn't working in the slightest!!!!

Cycloptichorn


I do not think I agree with any of your points.

1. A free and democratic Iraq will send a much more powerful message to the Muslim world than the US tucking tail and leaving. That's simply not going to happen.

2. Unless the UN decides to step in and create an independent military force, we have no choice but to rely on the governments such as Pakistan regardless of Osama's approval rates. Musharraf and Karzai both know which side of their toast is buttered. They walk very tight ropes in their countries. Once Iraq has been freed from the Islamic militants, other Muslims will see freedom as a choice and will turn on the remaining militant Islamic terrorists.

3. Concession to terrorists do not work. Never have, never will.

4. Other governments are as impotent as the US and the UN to go running through the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan looking for Osama.

My answer to the Osama problem:

Offer a richer reward promising the safety of theose that turn Osama over as well as their families.

Hire mercenaries to infiltrate al Qaeda and off Osama

Start bribing village leaders and people in the villages.

Create more effective interrogations techniques of known associates.

Be creative.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:41 pm
As much as I love debating with people who have different opinions than mine, I gotta tell ya, McG, you're living in a fantasy world. Seriously.

McG Wrote:
Quote:
I do not think I agree with any of your points.

1. A free and democratic Iraq will send a much more powerful message to the Muslim world than the US tucking tail and leaving. That's simply not going to happen.


A 'free and democratic Iraq' is what isn't going to happen. Do you seriously believe that the situation isn't going to deteriorate into civil war? You'd be disagreeing with the CIA on that one (not that that seems to matter anymore to proponents of this war). Face the facts, there is a large and determined force in Iraq that will keep stability from happening. Because they are so inter-mixed with the population (a significant amount of whome support them), we cannot kill them by any means other than the bloodiest, most life-disrupting invasions of cities, i.e. Fallujah. The longer Iraq drags on in this mess, the more it costs us, both in terms of finances, soldier's lives, and respect internationally.

If you really forsee a bunch of Iraqis walking around on safe streets a year from now, you're living in a completely fabricated fantasy.

Quote:
2. Unless the UN decides to step in and create an independent military force, we have no choice but to rely on the governments such as Pakistan regardless of Osama's approval rates. Musharraf and Karzai both know which side of their toast is buttered. They walk very tight ropes in their countries. Once Iraq has been freed from the Islamic militants, other Muslims will see freedom as a choice and will turn on the remaining militant Islamic terrorists.


Since Iraq really is showing no signs of being freed from the Islaamic militants and setting up said democracy, what you are proposing is spurious at best.

We DO need to set up an international, UN-led force on this one, as relying on the gov'ts (which you say we have 'no choice' but to do; obviously, we do have other choices) isn't working.

Quote:
3. Concession to terrorists do not work. Never have, never will.


Perhaps you should read a little more carefully what I wrote:

Quote:
3. Convince the Muslim people to give him up. Unfortunately, we have to actually start making concessions to the region in order to do this, and I think you all know how likely that's going to be under this administration.


We need to be making concessions to the region as a whole, who we have screwed over for about 70 years now, with the exception of the royal families which we both put in place and support through our ceaseless drive for oil.

The MUSLIM PEOPLE are different than the terrorists!!!!! You need to realize this fact. Right now, they AREN'T giving up the terrorists, because while they might disagree with their methods, they certainly don't disagree with their intents. We need to convince the masses of Muslims that the US is better for them than the terrorists, and we aren't going to do that without making concessions. Don't let silly pride stand in the way of rational thought....

Quote:
4. Other governments are as impotent as the US and the UN to go running through the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan looking for Osama.


Not when we get enough of them grouped together. Unfortunately, that takes 'diplomacy,' which we don't really use these days.

Quote:
My answer to the Osama problem:

Offer a richer reward promising the safety of theose that turn Osama over as well as their families.


This is ridiculous, another fantasy world idea. How exactly are you going to protect their families in the middle of Pakistan from assasins? Uproot them and move them to AMerica? They don't WANT to do that, and even if they did, we STILL wouldn't be able to guarantee their protection, especially in the long run.

As for the money, there's already a 25 million bounty on his head. How high does it need to go to get people to give him up?

Quote:
Hire mercenaries to infiltrate al Qaeda and off Osama


Yeah, I'm sure Osama didn't think of this one at all. Don't make the mistake of believing AQ is stupid; they've shown over and over again that they are quite intelligent.

Quote:
Start bribing village leaders and people in the villages.


You don't have enough money to do so, as money does no good to a dead man. Once again, you have no way of protecting these people from AQ and a populace which supports AQ.

Quote:
Create more effective interrogations techniques of known associates.

Be creative.


Ah, torture. Somehow I'm not surprised that we've come down to this.

You really should take a step back and have an objective look at the situation, McG; unless we make drastic changes, we aren't going to catch the number one threat to our safety at home and success in the Middle East. Your suggestions are, frankly, a little ridiculous... except for the torture part, which by reading some of the news this week, it seems we've gotten on top of already.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:46 pm
You wish to cater to the Islamic terrorist, I wish to kill the Islamic terrorist. I guess that is the fundamental difference between us.

My solutions are more likely to yeild results than the nebulous solutions you have offered here Cyc. You seem to wish for the removal of all the governments in the middle east as you consider them useless or hinderances, or corrupt.

I have no idea what kind of utopia you have in mind, but in the real world money and pain are real answers.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:49 pm
Cyclo wrote:
As for the money, there's already a 25 million bounty on his head. How high does it need to go to get people to give him up?


That's a good question. I say we find out.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:54 pm
Money isn't gonna mean much to someone who truly believes - and are unbelievers allowed anywhere near OBL?

Democracy isn't valued much in a lot of cultures, so that's not much of a selling point.

The deficits in terms of Middle Eastern/Islamic knowledge, in the languages of origin, are a long-standing issue in the U.S. government. It's a development problem, that isn't going to be solved in the usable short-term.

Is there Middle Eastern/Islamic in other countries (yes) that can be utilized by the U.S. without the U.S. having to give up more than it wants to? Someone's gonna have to think about that one.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:56 pm
Quote:
You wish to cater to the Islamic terrorist, I wish to kill the Islamic terrorist. I guess that is the fundamental difference between us.

My solutions are more likely to yeild results than the nebulous solutions you have offered here Cyc. You seem to wish for the removal of all the governments in the middle east as you consider them useless or hinderances, or corrupt.

I have no idea what kind of utopia you have in mind, but in the real world money and pain are real answers.


I'm not sure you even read my post.

I would say that I think that catering to the Islaamic People is the solution to this mess. You fail to see a difference between the people of the ME and terrorists, which is sort of unsurprising.

Your solutions are nothing more than extensions of currently-existing plans, which have resulted in... what, exactly? That's right, three years and no capture of OBL. And yes, many of the Gov'ts in the ME are corrupt, but what makes you think we're going to remove them any time soon? They are in collusion with OUR corrupt gov't!

I guess my utopia is called 'working with other countries' and 'sometimes you gotta give a little to get a little,' foriegn concepts, I know, but maybe we should think about trying them sometime as what we are doing has produced zero results.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:57 pm
Cyclo wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure Osama didn't think of this one at all. Don't make the mistake of believing AQ is stupid; they've shown over and over again that they are quite intelligent.


Wait ... are you suggesting that AQ is MORE than just Osama? You mean if we kill Osama, there is more to AQ? And since they are "quite intelligent," could that possibly mean they have a plan for what happens if Osama is "offed," and that plan includes terrorism? I'll have to think about this one.


<This time I'm fairly sure I'm being facetious, not sardonic.>
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 01:59 pm
Quote:
Wait ... are you suggesting that AQ is MORE than just Osama? You mean if we kill Osama, there is more to AQ? And since they are "quite intelligent," could that possibly mean they have a plan for what happens if Osama is "offed," and that plan includes terrorism? I'll have to think about this one.


I'm quite sure they DO have a plan. Nevertheless, catching OBL would be the strongest sign that we are on top of the war on terror, which we really don't seem to be at the moment.

Public opinion and media are such a part of this whole thing, that appearances and perceptions matter. It's like catching Saddam; meaningless, really, but a big victory in the media, which transalates to people's minds over time.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 04:15 pm
Well, how about trying Saddam Hussein as a starter?Should be a good sign if the enemies of 'democracy' are put on trial for their crimes against the Iraqi people.






Ooops - can't do that. It might remind folks that the 'Coalition' forces have done more to kill Iraqis and smash Iraqi infrastructure in ONE YEAR than the Baathists did in the last ten. And he might, just might, start naming some names....

'President Reagan said I could get away with killing Iranians. He covertly gave me a billion dollars to do it'
'President Bush sold me those weapons'
'The CIA supported the coup that toppled the last democratic government and set me up in power'
'I have the reciepts for all the helicopters I bought from Northrop'
'Anthrax? American anthrax is the best - I bought mine on the open market'
'A Kurdish homeland? President Bush, and his Turkish friends, let me gas them without as much as a slap on the wrist'
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/29/2025 at 12:51:59