Post by: Tecumseh on January 23, 2008, 06:11:03 AM
Anyone else think that he is not in Iraq?
Post by: Paddy on January 23, 2008, 06:28:03 AM
For your amusement and future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. "
Post by: K Frame on January 23, 2008, 06:56:49 AM
Obviously hiding.
If you think that he's somehow getting a free pass and is living out in the open with his name on the mailbox, you're sadly mistaken.
Bin Laden chose his base of operations very well.
The area where he is known to have been operating, along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, is an unbelievable warren of caves, valleys, gullies, mountains, etc. It's also full of people who are friendly too, and willing to hide, Bin Laden.
This concept of "well he's out there so we could be able to find him in about 2 minutes, the fact that we haven't means that we're just not looking and it's all George Bush's fault" is just a pile of crap.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 23, 2008, 06:59:07 AM
They'll find him!
Post by: Paddy on January 23, 2008, 07:04:08 AM
Quote
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
then, only 6 months later
Quote
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
I understand. Things change. Like the purpose of invasion and war. First it's WMD's. Failing that, it becomes 'regime change'. Accomplishing that, the 'war' continues, but for a new reason-"democratization". Whatever convenient excuse can be marketed to the rubes.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 23, 2008, 07:09:21 AM
Where is he?
Obviously hiding.
If you think that he's somehow getting a free pass and is living out in the open with his name on the mailbox, you're sadly mistaken.
Bin Laden chose his base of operations very well.
The area where he is known to have been operating, along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, is an unbelievable warren of caves, valleys, gullies, mountains, etc. It's also full of people who are friendly too, and willing to hide, Bin Laden.
This concept of "well he's out there so we could be able to find him in about 2 minutes, the fact that we haven't means that we're just not looking and it's all George Bush's fault" is just a pile of crap.
Obviously hiding.
If you think that he's somehow getting a free pass and is living out in the open with his name on the mailbox, you're sadly mistaken.
Bin Laden chose his base of operations very well.
The area where he is known to have been operating, along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, is an unbelievable warren of caves, valleys, gullies, mountains, etc. It's also full of people who are friendly too, and willing to hide, Bin Laden.
This concept of "well he's out there so we could be able to find him in about 2 minutes, the fact that we haven't means that we're just not looking and it's all George Bush's fault" is just a pile of crap.
Well if that is the case, then I am assuming he is not in Iraq. Why are we looking for him there?
Post by: K Frame on January 23, 2008, 07:22:22 AM
Obviously you've bought into the Democratic explanations of why the United States is in Iraq.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 23, 2008, 07:23:33 AM
Quote
NASA Photo Shows Humanoid Figure on Mars
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
NASA
A detail from a NASA image of a Martian crater shows ... well, something.
Is it Bigfoot? A Tusken Raider from the first "Star Wars" movie? Or just a rock?
British newspapers went crazy Wednesday morning about an image from Mars that appears to show a humanoid figure descending a shallow hillside.
The "alien" is actually a blurry detail in a huge panoramic photograph snapped on the edge of Mars' Gusev crater by NASA's Spirit rover in early November, and posted on NASA's Web site on Jan. 2.
Naturally, it took the Photoshop skills of dedicated bloggers to find the "humanoid."
" Click here for the full NASA image. If that doesn't work, try this. The figure is near the bottom left corner.
"NASA scientists have been puzzled by the peculiarly life-like image," declared the Times of London, despite the apparent fact that no one from NASA has had any comment.
Related
The skeptical Web site BadAstronomy.com, however, scoffed, "Puhlllleeeeze. A man? It's a tiny rock only a few inches high. It's only a few feet from the rover!"
Other British papers saw the humo(u)r in the story, with the Sun theorizing that it was Detective Gene Hunt, the drunken, sexist policeman from the BBC time-traveling crime series "Life on Mars."
"It's Usama bin Laden!" declared one Times of London commenter. "All this time we thought he was in Pakistan."
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
NASA
A detail from a NASA image of a Martian crater shows ... well, something.
Is it Bigfoot? A Tusken Raider from the first "Star Wars" movie? Or just a rock?
British newspapers went crazy Wednesday morning about an image from Mars that appears to show a humanoid figure descending a shallow hillside.
The "alien" is actually a blurry detail in a huge panoramic photograph snapped on the edge of Mars' Gusev crater by NASA's Spirit rover in early November, and posted on NASA's Web site on Jan. 2.
Naturally, it took the Photoshop skills of dedicated bloggers to find the "humanoid."
" Click here for the full NASA image. If that doesn't work, try this. The figure is near the bottom left corner.
"NASA scientists have been puzzled by the peculiarly life-like image," declared the Times of London, despite the apparent fact that no one from NASA has had any comment.
Related
The skeptical Web site BadAstronomy.com, however, scoffed, "Puhlllleeeeze. A man? It's a tiny rock only a few inches high. It's only a few feet from the rover!"
Other British papers saw the humo(u)r in the story, with the Sun theorizing that it was Detective Gene Hunt, the drunken, sexist policeman from the BBC time-traveling crime series "Life on Mars."
"It's Usama bin Laden!" declared one Times of London commenter. "All this time we thought he was in Pakistan."
Post by: onions! on January 24, 2008, 04:45:08 AM
Little Katie comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day. 'Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish,' she asks, 'Will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?'
Katie's father thinks a bit, then says 'No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a Valentine to?'
'Osama Bin Laden,' she says.
'Why Osama Bin Laden,' her father asks in shock.
'Well,' she says, 'I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a Valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if other kids saw what I did and sent Valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore.'
Her father's heart swells and he looks at his daughter with new found pride. 'Katie, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard.'
'I know,' Katie says, 'and once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could shoot the bastard.'
Post by: HankB on January 24, 2008, 04:55:32 AM
We're still looking for D. B. Cooper. (He may be dead, but we just don't know.)
Bin Laden has been hiding for 5 years, and certainly has people helping him hide . . . it's hard to find someone who's laying low on the other side of the world, and has resources to help himself disappear.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 24, 2008, 06:37:25 AM
"Why are we looking for him there?"
Obviously you've bought into the Democratic explanations of why the United States is in Iraq.
The WMDs? The Regime Change? I thought we were helping them establish democracy? If I remember correctly they voted the US out but that did not happen.Obviously you've bought into the Democratic explanations of why the United States is in Iraq.
Either way, I thought Osama was priority one? Shouldnt we be searching for him instead of liberating other countries? I thought he was the most dangerous man on the planet? Is he more dangerous than Saddam was?
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 24, 2008, 07:24:31 AM
It is amusing to me how Dems bitch about OBL being on the loose all the time, as a way to attack GWB, but deep inside themselves they fear he might be caught during GWB's mandate.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 24, 2008, 07:28:18 AM
Post by: K Frame on January 24, 2008, 08:18:24 AM
Have we so run out of things to talk about that we need to recycle 6 year old Bush bashes?
Well, when that's all they've got, they'll keep going back to it, I guess.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 24, 2008, 08:52:34 AM
Have we so run out of things to talk about that we need to recycle 6 year old Bush bashes?
I am just worried about it. If he is such a major threat to our nation, then by logic wouldn't we be very interested in apprehending him. I am not Bush bashing. I was watching television, and I wanted to wonder why we stopped pursuing Osama Bin Laden?
Post by: Scout26 on January 24, 2008, 09:01:01 AM
Ever humped everything you owned for miles and miles ??
How about stepping out into darkness at about 2,000 ft AGL with 70 lbs of gear and your weapon strapped to your ass??
Ever been responsible for completing the mission while jealously guarding the lives of 30-150 of your troops ??
Yeah, I didnt think so.
Ever been to Afghanistan ??
How about Pakistan ?? Specifically the Tribal regions ??
Keep in mind that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in Dec 1979 it was a 3rd World shithole, and they finally pulled out in Feb 1989 . In the meantime they pretty much killed anyone who had two brains cells to rub together and destroyed most of the infrastructure. Then there were a couple years of civil war which finally left the Taliban in charge and they basically finished what the Soviets started as far as killing smart people and destroying anything more then two mud bricks tall. I remember an Air Force General answering a reporters question shortly after 9/11 as something like Yeah, we can bomb them back to the Stone Age, should take about 10-15 minutes. Its going to take a lot of money and years of work just to bring it up to the level of 3rd World Shithole.
Its not like we can just go cave-to-cave, ring the door bell and say Can Osama come out and play ?? Youre talking a country roughly the size of Manitoba, but instead of being roughly flat glacial plains, its damn near all vertical. Not nice rolling hills, but more a F*@& you, try to climb this vertical. And as a previous poster pointed out, we still havent found DB Cooper and Eric Rudolph ran around the Appalachian mountains for years. Not to mention a bunch of other people who have disappeared. Just from around here near Chicago, we can't find Stacey Peterson, Lisa Stebic, or John Spira.
Do you realize that we have ~23,000 troops in Afghanistan and another 17,000 from NATO?? They are currently working to help the Afghani people and hunt for OBL. Several of them are people who I served with and we still talk. They all pretty much agree that theyd rather be in Iraq then in Afghanistan.
I lost a bud from my Military Police Officer Advanced Course in Iraq in 2003.
So Mr. Internet Commando/Smart Guy, why dont you take off the Ron Paul Wookie costume, get off the computer, wash the Cheetos stains off your fingers, get out of your moms basement and go down to the Army or Marine recruiter and say Id like to pick up a weapon and lead the hunt for OBL, cause I know I can find his ass. In the meantime your little hissy fit falls under the tis a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.
[RANT MODE = OFF]
To the Mods, I've got my heels locked and at attention awaiting my deserved ass-chewing.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 24, 2008, 09:13:06 AM
...which we can't invade because Pakistan has nuclear weapons and if we invaded the government would fall and the jihadists would take over and have nuclear weapons which they'd fire at India and Israel and India and Israel would fire back and then millions of people could die, especially in India, and...
You see?
The world is a lot more complex than comic books.
And if, by chance, he is still in any of the tribal regions of either country, it's a HUGE place that is indeed harsh terrain, rocks that will cut you to pieces, and extremes of temperatures. With, of course, the added fun of anything from Taliban ambushes to the odd tribesperson taking a pop at your people with anything from a Mosin to a duct-taped RPG. Ask the Soviets how that goes. If you even take the time to watch some YouTube videos, you'll see what a harsh, harsh place it is, like another planet.
Here you go. One video example...Luckily there was an A-10 around to strafe at some bad guys that were on the high ground in this clip. But LOOK at that terrain, those rocks. Does that look like a place where you could easily find one guy? It looks like they're fighting on Mars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVp9NsYbxBU
Post by: Finch on January 24, 2008, 09:56:23 AM
Well, when that's all they've got, they'll keep going back to it, I guess.
I guess the one thing that keeps playing in my head is this. Why would we decide to commit a much larger force to invading Iraq, a country which was no threat to us, instead of using an equal size force in finding the people who actually attack the United States?
Follow me on this.
1.) We get attacked by a group of people, not a nation, but a group of people.
2.) Bush makes a half-assed attempt and finding and killing those actually responsible.
3.) 1 1/2 years later we are in Iraq. For what purpose? Who the hell knows. But those who actually did use harm are still running around and now have better fodder for recruitment. Yea Bush!
Post by: Scout26 on January 24, 2008, 10:15:18 AM
Quote
Iraq, a country which was no threat to us
Yep, good ol' cuddly-wuddly Saddam, he just wanted to play patty-cake and eat gooey snacks and was a friend to everyone.
Quote
2.) Bush makes a half-assed attempt and finding and killing those actually responsible.
Pick up a weapon and lead the way. Since you're soooooooo much smarter/better at it then the people who are currently and have been doing it for several years now.
Post by: Finch on January 24, 2008, 10:32:07 AM
Yep, good ol' cuddly-wuddly Saddam, he just wanted to play patty-cake and eat gooey snacks and was a friend to everyone.
Seriously, nobody is defending Saddam as a nice person. But you are deviating from the point I was making, possible because you have nothing to counter with?
Quote
Pick up a weapon and lead the way. Since you're soooooooo much smarter/better at it then the people who are currently and have been doing it for several years now.
Yeah yeah yeah. You just love to do this. Because I'm not the one over there I have should have no input on how things are done, right? Fantastic. You're not an accountant, so you don't get to disagree with the national budget. You're not a Senator, so you don't get to disagree with legislation. Come back with something of substance rather than " Pick up a weapon nancy boy and get your ass over there RARGHH!!"
- another for good measure.
Post by: jefnvk on January 24, 2008, 10:54:33 AM
Post by: Scout26 on January 24, 2008, 11:22:03 AM
Quote
Because I'm not the one over there I have should have no input on how things are done, right?
I'm open to ideas. You presented none on how to get the job done. I'm sick and tired "Waaaah, Bush hasn't caught OBL yet, Waaaah." I merely suggested that you lead the way and show us what were doing wrong and how to do it better.
Your point was Iraq was no threat to us. How many times do you get to use WMD's or invade neighboring counties (especially those that are smaller and friendly to us) before you are considered a threat ??
Post by: Finch on January 24, 2008, 11:37:43 AM
Your point was Iraq was no threat to us. How many times do you get to use WMD's or invade neighboring counties (especially those that are smaller and friendly to us) before you are considered a threat ??
IRAQI'S WERE AT YOU FRONT DOOR!!! OH MY GOD RUN!!
Oh, wait, you live in America. Not, Kuwait. America. Please don't tell me you honestly feared an invasion from Iraq? We cannot afford to invade every country that does something wrong to another. Sad but true.
Quote
I merely suggested that you lead the way and show us what were doing wrong and how to do it better.
Fine, here is the way to do things that would be the best benefit to the United States. Leave. Nothing good will come from us staying in Iraq. The same reason Reagan left Lebanon is the same reason we shouldn't be in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East(unless we are actively perusing known terrorists).
Post by: Scout26 on January 24, 2008, 11:42:55 AM
Quote
The same reason Reagan left Lebanon is the same reason we shouldn't be in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East
Yep, and it's been nothing but a sunshined filled petting zoo with everyone giving hugs and saying "I'm your BFF." with big hearts and smiley faces.
Its' an ugly world and people out there hate us, not matter what we do or don't do. We can help them and they'll either like us (England, Germany, Japan, Poland) or fear us (Libya, Russia, France). It's worked in the past.
A pre-emptive pull-out hasn't worked. See Germany after WWI and look at the mess that was Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. We basically wiped our hands and walked away after providing the Afghani's with support for years. That worked out REAL well.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 24, 2008, 12:35:10 PM
IRAQI'S WERE AT YOU FRONT DOOR!!! OH MY GOD RUN!!
Oh, wait, you live in America. Not, Kuwait. America. Please don't tell me you honestly feared an invasion from Iraq?
Oh, wait, you live in America. Not, Kuwait. America. Please don't tell me you honestly feared an invasion from Iraq?
You're right. The only way that any nation could be a threat to us is by a full-scale invasion. I seem to have forgotten about that after something called Sept. 11.
Quote
We cannot afford to invade every country that does something wrong to another.
And we're not doing that, are we? Quote
we shouldn't be in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East(unless we are actively perusing known terrorists).
Which is why we're in Iraq. You'll counter with, "But they weren't there until we invaded!" Which only points up how nice it is that we were able to distract the enemy into a sandbox where we could mangle them on a daily basis.
You got anything else?
Post by: Finch on January 24, 2008, 02:12:31 PM
You're right. The only way that any nation could be a threat to us is by a full-scale invasion. I seem to have forgotten about that after something called Sept. 11.
What nation was responsible for 9/11 again?
Quote
And we're not doing that, are we?
Nobody ever said we had to do it all at once. But were working awfully hard to find a reason to jump on Iran's ass, Pakistan too. Quote
Which is why we're in Iraq. You'll counter with, "But they weren't there until we invaded!" Which only points up how nice it is that we were able to distract the enemy into a sandbox where we could mangle them on a daily basis.
Awesome plan. But wait, why didn't we take that and just apply it to Afghanistan? What does Iraq have that Afghanistan doesn't...
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 24, 2008, 02:31:52 PM
You're right. The only way that any nation could be a threat to us is by a full-scale invasion. I seem to have forgotten about that after something called Sept. 11.
What nation was responsible for 9/11 again?
Nice try, but I'm going to hold you to the issue we were discussing. Nations may pose threats in many other ways besides invasion. Can we agree on that?
Quote
But were working awfully hard to find a reason to jump on Iran's ass, Pakistan too.
Nope. All in your head.
Quote
Quote
Which is why we're in Iraq. You'll counter with, "But they weren't there until we invaded!" Which only points up how nice it is that we were able to distract the enemy into a sandbox where we could mangle them on a daily basis.
Awesome plan. But wait, why didn't we take that and just apply it to Afghanistan? What does Iraq have that Afghanistan doesn't...
Another dangerous element we could reduce, of course. That being Saddam Hussein, his cronies, and his penchant for WMD. Besides its nifty strategic location.
Post by: Lennyjoe on January 24, 2008, 03:16:09 PM
Quote
Why would we decide to commit a much larger force to invading Iraq, a country which was no threat to us, instead of using an equal size force in finding the people who actually attack the United States
Here's my take on this quote. Saddam surrendered after Gulf War 1 with a list of issues that he must comply with or else. Well, he basically told everyone to shove them issues up their ass and everyone pretty much accepted it. Clinton most of all. Sure, Clinton tried to act tough on occasion but he didn't do squat about it. During the Democratic presidential years things were left to go untouched in the Gulf.
Along comes Bush. I think George would of kicked Saddams ass sooner had it not been for 9/11. But, he didn't get to until we finished the business in Afghanistan.
When a President with a backbone came on board he said enough was enough. We took him out to end the constant finger in the air routine Saddam was playing. That country is better off without him.
What people don't understand is if Democracy takes a foot hold in the Gulf we all will be better off in the end.
I've been to Kuwait 6 times and have seen what has transpired there. Kuwait City has changed every year that I've gone there. More and more Westernized (if thats a word) and the people seem to like their freedom of choice.
If that takes hold in Iraq, the Iranian youth might just take an interest as well and work towards Democracy. If not, at least we tried.
Quote
1 1/2 years later we are in Iraq. For what purpose? Who the hell knows
The United States of America didn't become a Democracy overnight. Took more than 1.5 years to find ourself after the war.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 24, 2008, 03:20:49 PM
I'm thinking those Iraqis who walked up to me during my government-paid vacation in Iraq really didn't mean to say "Thank You" - they were put up to it by George Bush, under threat of being fed into a chipper shredder head first.
Post by: Lennyjoe on January 24, 2008, 03:37:33 PM
Quote
What nation was responsible for 9/11 again?
None, it was a group of radical Muslim religious fanatics inspired by Bin Laden.
Their leader is hiding out in a cave and is nothing more than a name in the history books.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 24, 2008, 03:48:57 PM
Congrats Tecumseh, I had one nerve left today and you just got on it.
Ever humped everything you owned for miles and miles ??
How about stepping out into darkness at about 2,000 ft AGL with 70 lbs of gear and your weapon strapped to your ass??
Ever been responsible for completing the mission while jealously guarding the lives of 30-150 of your troops ??
Yeah, I didnt think so.
Ever been to Afghanistan ??
How about Pakistan ?? Specifically the Tribal regions ??
Keep in mind that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in Dec 1979 it was a 3rd World shithole, and they finally pulled out in Feb 1989 . In the meantime they pretty much killed anyone who had two brains cells to rub together and destroyed most of the infrastructure. Then there were a couple years of civil war which finally left the Taliban in charge and they basically finished what the Soviets started as far as killing smart people and destroying anything more then two mud bricks tall. I remember an Air Force General answering a reporters question shortly after 9/11 as something like Yeah, we can bomb them back to the Stone Age, should take about 10-15 minutes. Its going to take a lot of money and years of work just to bring it up to the level of 3rd World Shithole.
Its not like we can just go cave-to-cave, ring the door bell and say Can Osama come out and play ?? Youre talking a country roughly the size of Manitoba, but instead of being roughly flat glacial plains, its damn near all vertical. Not nice rolling hills, but more a F*@& you, try to climb this vertical. And as a previous poster pointed out, we still havent found DB Cooper and Eric Rudolph ran around the Appalachian mountains for years. Not to mention a bunch of other people who have disappeared. Just from around here near Chicago, we can't find Stacey Peterson, Lisa Stebic, or John Spira.
Do you realize that we have ~23,000 troops in Afghanistan and another 17,000 from NATO?? They are currently working to help the Afghani people and hunt for OBL. Several of them are people who I served with and we still talk. They all pretty much agree that theyd rather be in Iraq then in Afghanistan.
I lost a bud from my Military Police Officer Advanced Course in Iraq in 2003.
So Mr. Internet Commando/Smart Guy, why dont you take off the Ron Paul Wookie costume, get off the computer, wash the Cheetos stains off your fingers, get out of your moms basement and go down to the Army or Marine recruiter and say Id like to pick up a weapon and lead the hunt for OBL, cause I know I can find his ass. In the meantime your little hissy fit falls under the tis a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.
[RANT MODE = OFF]
To the Mods, I've got my heels locked and at attention awaiting my deserved ass-chewing.
I am not a veteran, so what? Anyone can plainly see that the hunt for Osama Bin Laden is being pushed to side in Bush's pursuit of the war of terror in Iraq. I am going to ask, if we cannot find the Stacy Petersen girl but we can find Saddam? That logic does not work as it is the US Military and not the Police looking for her. Ever humped everything you owned for miles and miles ??
How about stepping out into darkness at about 2,000 ft AGL with 70 lbs of gear and your weapon strapped to your ass??
Ever been responsible for completing the mission while jealously guarding the lives of 30-150 of your troops ??
Yeah, I didnt think so.
Ever been to Afghanistan ??
How about Pakistan ?? Specifically the Tribal regions ??
Keep in mind that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in Dec 1979 it was a 3rd World shithole, and they finally pulled out in Feb 1989 . In the meantime they pretty much killed anyone who had two brains cells to rub together and destroyed most of the infrastructure. Then there were a couple years of civil war which finally left the Taliban in charge and they basically finished what the Soviets started as far as killing smart people and destroying anything more then two mud bricks tall. I remember an Air Force General answering a reporters question shortly after 9/11 as something like Yeah, we can bomb them back to the Stone Age, should take about 10-15 minutes. Its going to take a lot of money and years of work just to bring it up to the level of 3rd World Shithole.
Its not like we can just go cave-to-cave, ring the door bell and say Can Osama come out and play ?? Youre talking a country roughly the size of Manitoba, but instead of being roughly flat glacial plains, its damn near all vertical. Not nice rolling hills, but more a F*@& you, try to climb this vertical. And as a previous poster pointed out, we still havent found DB Cooper and Eric Rudolph ran around the Appalachian mountains for years. Not to mention a bunch of other people who have disappeared. Just from around here near Chicago, we can't find Stacey Peterson, Lisa Stebic, or John Spira.
Do you realize that we have ~23,000 troops in Afghanistan and another 17,000 from NATO?? They are currently working to help the Afghani people and hunt for OBL. Several of them are people who I served with and we still talk. They all pretty much agree that theyd rather be in Iraq then in Afghanistan.
I lost a bud from my Military Police Officer Advanced Course in Iraq in 2003.
So Mr. Internet Commando/Smart Guy, why dont you take off the Ron Paul Wookie costume, get off the computer, wash the Cheetos stains off your fingers, get out of your moms basement and go down to the Army or Marine recruiter and say Id like to pick up a weapon and lead the hunt for OBL, cause I know I can find his ass. In the meantime your little hissy fit falls under the tis a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.
[RANT MODE = OFF]
To the Mods, I've got my heels locked and at attention awaiting my deserved ass-chewing.
Either way, I have no interest in joining the military to fight for the freedom of other nations. I think there is a fight going on right here. Things like the Patriot Act, gun control, and W's willingness to ask pardon for previous warcrimes makes me think that we are not truly free. I am glad your friends would rather be in Iraq than Afghanistan. But that still does not explain why we are not as interested in looking for OBL when he is guilty of attacking the country and instead work on taking out a country that did not attack us but is oil rich.
I am sorry your friend was killed. However that is no excuse to personally attack me. Instead you should ask Bush why he was killed and not demean others for it. As far as personal attacks go, I dont see the need to personally attack others because they disagree with you. It does not go with my morals and beliefs. I cannot sink to your level sir.
Good day and God Bless.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 24, 2008, 03:50:31 PM
Well, when that's all they've got, they'll keep going back to it, I guess.
I guess the one thing that keeps playing in my head is this. Why would we decide to commit a much larger force to invading Iraq, a country which was no threat to us, instead of using an equal size force in finding the people who actually attack the United States?
Follow me on this.
1.) We get attacked by a group of people, not a nation, but a group of people.
2.) Bush makes a half-assed attempt and finding and killing those actually responsible.
3.) 1 1/2 years later we are in Iraq. For what purpose? Who the hell knows. But those who actually did use harm are still running around and now have better fodder for recruitment. Yea Bush!
Post by: Tecumseh on January 24, 2008, 03:53:51 PM
IRAQI'S WERE AT YOU FRONT DOOR!!! OH MY GOD RUN!!
Oh, wait, you live in America. Not, Kuwait. America. Please don't tell me you honestly feared an invasion from Iraq?
Oh, wait, you live in America. Not, Kuwait. America. Please don't tell me you honestly feared an invasion from Iraq?
You're right. The only way that any nation could be a threat to us is by a full-scale invasion. I seem to have forgotten about that after something called Sept. 11.
Post by: Bigjake on January 24, 2008, 04:09:27 PM
Quote
To the Mods, I've got my heels locked and at attention awaiting my deserved ass-chewing.
OOH-Rah, Sir, that was masterful.
Post by: Finch on January 24, 2008, 04:48:41 PM
Finch, you're right.
I'm thinking those Iraqis who walked up to me during my government-paid vacation in Iraq really didn't mean to say "Thank You" - they were put up to it by George Bush, under threat of being fed into a chipper shredder head first.
I'm thinking those Iraqis who walked up to me during my government-paid vacation in Iraq really didn't mean to say "Thank You" - they were put up to it by George Bush, under threat of being fed into a chipper shredder head first.
That's great. Was it worth it? Was it worth the thousands of American lives lost? Was it worth the billions of dollars spent that we didn't have? Was it worth the Patriot Act? To me no. Frankly I would rather leave the internal affairs of other nations to the people of those nations, because where do we draw the line? Are we going into Sudan next? More people are suffering there then ever were in Iraq. What about Burma? Let's invade Burma so we can get thank you's and feel all warm and fuzzy.
To scout26 - I debated weather I wanted to say this or not given that a good majority of the people on this board would probably look down on me for what I'm about to say, but odds are this is the only place I will interact with these folks so here it goes. When ever someone disagrees with GWB's foreign policy, you often say something to the effect of "Why don't you pick up a weapon and show them how it's done."
I was about to. After 9/11 I felt real bad. I felt like I was doing nothing to help. I was 18 when 9/11 happened and halfway to a degree in Computer Science. So I went to talk to an Army recruiter. I told them I wanted to enlist as soon as I got my degree. This led to pressure to enlist right now. Call me selfish, I don't care, but I wanted to wait until I got my degree. The recruiter laid off and told me that I could go to OCS but I declined, I told him I wanted to enlist. So we talked some more and he told me that I could go in as an E-4 if I had a 4 year degree. Great, I thought.
So we moved on to the subject of MOS's. He mentioned that a degree in Computer Science would be quite beneficial in several areas of the military (another reason I didn't want to go to OCS, I couldn't pick my field). Ultimately I settled for becoming an Intelligence analyst with hopes of becoming a Counter Intelligence Warrant Officer. I was pretty excited. For the next few months my recruiter called me every couple of weeks asking me if I changed my mind about joining sooner, I wanted to, but school was going well and I liked the idea of going in as an E-4.
Well, in late 2002 my mom was the victim of some pretty bad malpractice. I had to take the fall semester off from school to help her get back together. But this of course pushed my graduation back, my recruiter wasn't too thrilled but he understood. I used this extra time to get into shape. I wanted to the best during basic, I wanted to blow all the benchmarks away. I was getting real excited and was heavily considering joining up and finishing school later, but given the speed at which technology changes, postponing a nearly complete Computer Science degree wasn't a wise move.
Well, I'm glad I didn't finish on time because March 18th rolled around and President Bush decided to invade Iraq. Initially I felt that maybe Bush was right. Maybe Iraq was a threat to our nation. But that turned out to be false. Iraq wasn't a threat.
When joining up I would have to take this oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I honestly feel that the Iraq war is an gross abuse of our military. I wanted to join to help protect America from actual enemies, not people that may become enemies eventually (which is potentially everybody). I wanted to join to protect the ideals that were outlined in the constitution. I don't feel that our military is being used for its intended purpose and as such I don't want to contribute to that. Our military is not being used to protect this nation. It is not being used to fight for our freedoms, I know this because Iraq was never a threat to our freedoms. If someone decides to knock some sense into our foreign policy and I am still young enough, I will be glad to join up, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I have no hesitation to fight for this country, but Iraq is not a fight for this country.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 24, 2008, 06:02:54 PM
Finch, you're right.
I'm thinking those Iraqis who walked up to me during my government-paid vacation in Iraq really didn't mean to say "Thank You" - they were put up to it by George Bush, under threat of being fed into a chipper shredder head first.
I'm thinking those Iraqis who walked up to me during my government-paid vacation in Iraq really didn't mean to say "Thank You" - they were put up to it by George Bush, under threat of being fed into a chipper shredder head first.
That's great. Was it worth it? Was it worth the thousands of American lives lost? Was it worth the billions of dollars spent that we didn't have? Was it worth the Patriot Act?
The USAPATRIOT Act has what to do with Iraq now?
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 24, 2008, 06:04:22 PM
So far I have been attacked for questioning Dubya.
Uh, no you were attacked for asking stupid questions and making uninformed remarks.
Post by: Finch on January 24, 2008, 06:25:44 PM
The USAPATRIOT Act has what to do with Iraq now?
Good point. I classify Iraq as another escapade in Bush's War on Terror. And because the Patriot Act is allegedly in support of this War on Terror, I tend to lump them together. Two stupid government adventures, both of which we don't need.
Oh and
Quote
Nope. All in your head.
Lieberman-Kyl Amendment
Post by: De Selby on January 24, 2008, 07:12:51 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/09/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSISL28806
In reality, the scope of the disaster in both of these places truly does make the argument about whether or not we should have attacked either moot; It is a media fantasyland that one must live in to believe that either of these countries are headed for anything good in the foreseeable future.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 24, 2008, 08:16:02 PM
It is a media fantasyland that one must live in to believe that either of these countries are headed for anything good in the foreseeable future.
Because they had such a glamorous future under Saddam and the taliban...
I wonder what Iraq would look like without AQ blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
Post by: Finch on January 24, 2008, 08:53:46 PM
I wonder what Iraq would look like without AQ blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
I wonder what Iraq would look like without The United States blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
Post by: Tecumseh on January 24, 2008, 11:47:19 PM
I wonder what Iraq would look like without AQ blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
I wonder what Iraq would look like without The United States blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
Post by: Bigjake on January 25, 2008, 01:39:23 AM
Quote
Did the other poster forget to mention that Al Quaeda was not there when Saddam was there? I seem to remember that fact. But hey, why let facts ruin the argument?
That remark was so incredibly uninformed that I just wanted to go dig up scads of proof & sources, but then I saw you posted it, and that would be a waste of perfectly good facts.
Post by: stevelyn on January 25, 2008, 04:39:34 AM
Where is he? I thought he was the number one goal? Why does the fight seem largely abandoned in favor of Iraq?
Anyone else think that he is not in Iraq?
Anyone else think that he is not in Iraq?
It make it more difficult to convince the sheeple to give up more of their undeserved liberty if you kill off your best selling boogyman.
Quote
Good point. I classify Iraq as another escapade in Bush's War on Terror. And because the Patriot Act is allegedly in support of this War on Terror, I tend to lump them together. Two stupid government adventures, both of which we don't need.
OBL and Iraq are two completely different animals totally unrelated to each other.
Iraq is a proxy war we're fighting on Isreal's behalf with our blood and money.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 25, 2008, 04:51:35 AM
I wonder what Iraq would look like without AQ blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
I wonder what Iraq would look like without The United States blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
Mogadishu, Somalia.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 25, 2008, 06:22:44 AM
That remark was so incredibly uninformed that I just wanted to go dig up scads of proof & sources, but then I saw you posted it, and that would be a waste of perfectly good facts.
Sadly, that is how I feel about a large portion of the US electorate. Out there, there is a weirding combination of deliberate and accidental falsehoods, misunderstanding, conspiracy theories, paranoia, and sheer ignorance. Clearing out all that is truly a Hecrulian task, and the only river big enough, the media, is also the one piling the *expletive deleted*it downstream.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 25, 2008, 06:58:54 AM
I wonder what Iraq would look like without AQ blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
I wonder what Iraq would look like without The United States blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
Mogadishu, Somalia.
Post by: roo_ster on January 25, 2008, 08:07:39 AM
I wonder what Iraq would look like without AQ blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
I wonder what Iraq would look like without The United States blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
Mogadishu, Somalia.
Yeah, it is sad because you have swallowed a lot of propaganda unquestioningly.
600K Iraqi Civilians Dead:
Google the terms:
iraq civilian casualties lancet methodology soros
The first hit:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
is well-balanced and provides good detail as to why the study is now viewed as worthless. The discussion of statistical sampling is near to my heart, as statistical methods are an invaluable tool in my work.
If you absolutely must have an anti-GW2 source, Iraq Body Count thought the study bunk when it was released for the listed reasons:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/
-------
For a fellow quick to dismiss data due to its source, I detect very little curiosity WRT data that comports to your own views.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 25, 2008, 08:23:08 AM
I wonder what Iraq would look like without AQ blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
I wonder what Iraq would look like without The United States blowing stuff up and sicking one group unto another all the time...
Mogadishu, Somalia.
Quit reading Daily Kos and anything Soros funds, and real some real facts.
Post by: Scout26 on January 25, 2008, 08:56:38 AM
Quote
Anyone can plainly see that the hunt for Osama Bin Laden is being pushed to side in Bush's pursuit of the war of terror in Iraq.
I know several people who have been in and are currently in Afghanistan that would disagree with you. Maybe the hunt is being downplayed in the media, but not in the military. (Media reporting >=< reality)
Again I will draw the comparison to Post WWI and Post WWII.
After WWI we sent 3rd Army as the Army of Occupation (later called American Forcesin Germany) into the Rhineland. We stayed a little more then 2 years. (We pulled out all our troops in 1921.) Rather then helping to rebuild and establish a stable government, we pulled a Ron Paul/Democrat plan and said; "It's a mess, we're outta here." Since we weren't willing to do the heavy lifting then, we had to pay a much higher price to clean it up later. Learning from that mistake we've had forces in Germany for 62 years and counting.
Quote
Oh, wait, you live in America. Not,
Yep, my dad said they didn't fear an Invasion (Not even from Japan, so much), but they knew that Hitler and Tojo were bad actors that needed to be taken out. I mean, come on, Adolf didn't pose a threat to us. Yeah, we may have lost a merchant ship or three, but seriously what could Adolf have done to us ?? However, in '44'-'45 my dad and some Uncles got the European Vacation, other uncles got the Pacific Vacation. I spent my time on the (then) Inter-German Border '88-89. When my dad came over to visit in '89 we went to the towns he had fought through and visited with the locals. We even went to Berlin. While he is still saddened by the loss of his friends he stated that their sacrifice made Western Europe possible and that he was angry at what he saw at Checkpoint Charlie and the Wall.
When the Wall finally came down, he called me. "I proud that you were there to finish the job we started."
Quote
I have read that Iraq was pretty well off. It was pretty peaceful before Bush decided to unleash his war of terror upon them. I seem to remember reading about 600,000 estimated Iraqi civilians dead. Anyone else think that this is sad?
Suuuuuure, and so was pre-war Nazi Germany (unless you were a Jew, Gypsy, or other untermenschen). In Iraq, if you were a Sunni, you could probably get a fairly decent job and be part of the preferred class. If you were *expletive deleted*it, Kurd, etc. Not so much. Unless you consider "Pretty well off" as having your government spray your village with poison gas (aka "a WMD"), and being subject to being grabbed off the street, tortured and killed at random. And Soviet Union was "Pretty Peaceful" if you discount the forced collectivization of the Ukraine, various Purges, the Gulag, etc. I guess "Pretty Peaceful" means 2 or less invasions, since Saddam invaded one neighbor and fought them for 8 years with unknown (but hideously high) number of casualities and then two years after that invading a smaller neighbor.
Quote
I seem to remember reading about 600,000 estimated Iraqi civilians dead.
You seem to imply that all those were caused by US forces. I resent that. How many were caused by Al-Queda, Baathists and other Terrorist/Militia groups. The vast majority of casualities are NOT caused by US forces. And Yes, I do find it sad. But the amazing thing is that since "the surge", the level of violence has dropped. Just like the media reporting about Gaza/Palistinians. "17 Killed by Isreali Airstrikes" I read the other day. How many Palistinians were killed by Palistinians that day ?? Buehler ?, Buehler ?, Anyone ?, Anyone ?.
Quote from: stevelyn
Iraq is a proxy war we're fighting on Isreal's behalf with our blood and money.
Yep, those damn Jews are at it again. Oh wait, I'm one of them. I must have missed that memo. Again.... I'd like to hear what you think would happen if either Baghdad or Tehran lobbed a Nuke or Chemical missle into Tel Aviv ?? (HINT: as Tom Lehrer said back in 1965; "Israel's getting tense, Wants one in self defense. "The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm, But just in case, we better get a bomb!") Does anyone not remember what the world was like in 2002 ?? We had been smacked, hard, by a bunch of 3rd world A-holes who spent most of their time chasing goats and living in a cave. Then you look around and there's Saddam, thumbing his nose at the world, threatening to develop (more) WMDs. In a critical part of the world. Where he's already caused a buttload of problems. And refuses to "Play Nice" with the US, the UN (except the ones taking bribes/kickbacks), his neighbors or anyone else for that matter. So what do you do ?? Wait until he actually sets off a nuke/chem in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Isreal or New York or take out the madman before that happens ?? Anyone not think that taking out Hitler in say 1936 or 1937 would not have been a good idea
Quote from: stevelyn
It make it more difficult to convince the sheeple to give up more of their undeserved liberty if you kill off your best selling boogyman.
Yep, that what my buds who have served in Afghanistan tell me with a wink and a smile. "We're not really trying to find OBL, we're just making it look like we're looking for him so that GWB, Cheney et al. can shred the Constitution." I'll have to let them know that you've figured it out. I wouldn't answer the door for anyone anymore if I was was you......
Which is exactly why we never caught Saddam... oh wait, we did catch him..... Those damn low ranking enlisted guys, can't seem to follow orders "Look go see if you can "find" Saddam at this farmhouse. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. But don't really find him." Quote from: finch
I wanted to join to help protect America from actual enemies, not people that may become enemies eventually (which is potentially everybody). I wanted to join to protect the ideals that were outlined in the constitution. I don't feel that our military is being used for its intended purpose and as such I don't want to contribute to that. Our military is not being used to protect this nation. It is not being used to fight for our freedoms,
I'm sorry to hear about your mom. But, throughout most of the past century the US military has not been used to fight for our freedoms, but to protect and liberate others. Plus I'd rather fight the bastards in their backyards rather then in our frontyard.
Quote from: finch
but Iraq is not a fight for this country.
How about England ? France ? Belguim ? Luxembourg ? Holland ? Italy ? Germany ? Phillipines ? Japan ? South Korea ? Vietnam ? Grenada ? Panama ? Kuwait ?
Here's the difference: I took that oath. I was willing to put aside my selfish desires and serve.
I just refuse to stand by while those who wear the uniform and stand out there to protect you (whether you think their protecting you or not) are denigrated by those who have not served.
Quote from: Bigjake
OOH-Rah, Sir, that was masterful.
Thank you, HOHRAH !!!
Post by: K Frame on January 25, 2008, 09:54:19 AM
It should be pointed out, YET AGAIN, that German declared war on the United States in World War II, not the other way around, and immediately commenced Operation Drumbeat, unrestricted submarine warfare in American territorial waters.
Post by: Bigjake on January 25, 2008, 10:09:49 AM
Quote
Anyone not think that taking out Hitler in say 1936 or 1937 would not have been a good idea
Of course not! Ron Paul is for non-aggression!!
Post by: Finch on January 25, 2008, 01:20:43 PM
Quote
Here's the difference: I took that oath. I was willing to put aside my selfish desires and serve.
My choice not to join the Military is not selfish (I think that is what you are trying to imply). If I felt that this nation was truely in danger, I would be more than happy to serve. But I feel that our current use of the military endangers this country more.
Quote
I just refuse to stand by while those who wear the uniform and stand out there to protect you (whether you think their protecting you or not) are denigrated by those who have not served.
Once again, we will have to disagree on this. Tell me how my freedoms are threatened by any foreign entity? While I have great respect for those who have choosen to serve, I must disagree that they are actually protecting me or any other American for that matter. I never woke up and thought "Damn, I hope Saddam doesn't sell off the nuclear weapons we know he doesn't have". Yes, we were attacked by terrorists. Yes, we should go after them to stop it from happening again. But this argument that we need to kill/invade every person/nation that may, one day, do us harm is faulty. We can't afford it, in terms of lives and resources. We have to address known threats.
We knew OBL was a threat, hence Afghansitan. Saddam, yes a bad man, but no threat.
Quote
The concept that someone is a danger to you only if they have an army ready to cross your borders is as pathetically short sighted as it is stupid.
And the notion that we need to attack anything that looks at us crosseyed is reckless.
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 25, 2008, 02:26:32 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 25, 2008, 03:37:43 PM
People think joining the military somehow entitles them to respect or gives them special knowledge.
Actually, it does, and it does.
The big-mouth leftist peaceniks are usually green guys still in college, who don't know jack-*expletive deleted*it about life, the universe, and everything, but are full of loud, pompous, and ascerbic opinions, on every subject.
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 25, 2008, 04:16:23 PM
Not everyone joins the military to fight for Peace and Freedom and to protect the wimmen and babies. Lots of them want glory, power, to be able to kill people, and many do it just because they don't think they have any other options.
And I will grant that military experience gives one special knowledge in that it shows you how to best kill people, follow orders, dig trenches, etc. (And of course the more advanced fields, I'm not saying war is easy or doesn't take intelligence.) However, it doesn't suddenly make someone understand the motives and decisions behind war any better, it just means they know what its like to sit in the sand in a country where lots of people hate you and you get shot at, etc.
Sure, a lot of soldiers are out there fighting for what they perceive to be our freedoms and protection, but there are ways to do that other than with a rifle, and many of the people with the rifles aren't fighting for freedom- they're fighting for money and status.
Post by: Bigjake on January 25, 2008, 04:59:31 PM
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 25, 2008, 05:12:59 PM
I retract everything I've said.
Post by: Scout26 on January 25, 2008, 06:01:08 PM
Quote
Lots of them want glory, power, to be able to kill people, and many do it just because they don't think they have any other options.
Hmmm, I joined because I didn't want to kill anyone (or have anyone get killed). I believe in deterence. I enlisted in the Army Reserves in High School and then between my sophmore and junior years got an ROTC scholarship (Yep, carried a full class load, Computer Science + ROTC classes/events at another school and worked full time.)
The US Army in it's infinite wisdom decided that even though I had a CS degree and had put Combat Arms (Cavalry, Armor, Artillery, Infantry, Engineers, Aviation) on my dream sheet, I ended up as MP Officer.
Most of my troops joined for the following reason: They wanted to be cops, deputies or state troopers. If they joined the army they got the following to put on their "I wanna be a cop" application:
1. Four years of LE experience. (Even though we did ~4-6 weeks of actual Garrison Law Enforcement per year. The rest of the time we were in the field playing motorized infantry or expendable/replaceable scouts.)
2. They all took CJ classes either on post or via mail. (most got their Associates, a few even got Bachelor's.)
3. They got the Veterans Perfernce Points you get when applying for government jobs.
So no, they really didn't think the didn't have "other options". They were actually pretty smart and had a plan to achieve their goals.
Now yes, there are some people who joined to get away from bad situations. My first Platoon Sergeant had joined in the mid-60's because a judge told him "Go to War or Go to Jail".
However, it doesn't suddenly make someone understand the motives and decisions behind war any better, it just means they know what its like to sit in the sand in a country where lots of people hate you and you get shot at, etc.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 25, 2008, 06:12:42 PM
I bristle knowing that my fellow GIs and I joined the service for the sake of killing somebody.
I wish somebody would've told me beforehand, I would've gotten busy thumping more folks during my 20+ years active duty.
Jeebus! What some people's kids say these days.
Put a fork in it - this one's done.