[quote]Professor X wrote:
By the way, thanks for bringing up the other attacks. I wasn’t aware of his involvement in both.
[/quote]
No problem, oh and not exactly right before but didn’t al-queda or at least somone closely associated with bin laded, bomb the world trade center in like 93 or something?
I hear you on what your perception of how these people over there work. And while any position is just as valid as any other, none of us on this side of the pond really know, unless of course we have spent a good amount of time over there. But, I would hope that someone in the US has at least consulted with people over there and experts on the middle east culture to produce the most effective game plan possible. Even with a very good game plan though, bad things can and will still happen when dealing with violent people who don’t like us.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
No problem, oh and not exactly right before but didn’t al-queda or at least somone closely associated with bin laded, bomb the world trade center in like 93 or something?
[/quote]
Yes it was Al Qaeda. But don’t use facts with the prof. He only deals in the stuff he makes up.
[quote]GriffinC wrote:
I’d call profX out on something too, but he looks like he could kick my ass. So I’m just going to ask one question…
Anyone know what color the ocean is? I keep thinkin it’s green but then sometimes it looks blue but at night it’s black! Scary oooooohh ahhhhhh!!![/quote]
I’ve tried to ignore it, but I’ve gotta say WTF are you doing down here?
Umm, Joe, I don’t know if you noticed, but there are Americans dying in Iraq. I know it isn’t really US soil, but they don’t have to come here to strike at us anymore.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Professor X wrote:
By the way, thanks for bringing up the other attacks. I wasn’t aware of his involvement in both.
No problem, oh and not exactly right before but didn’t al-queda or at least somone closely associated with bin laded, bomb the world trade center in like 93 or something? [/quote]
I never read proof of his involvement, even though I do believe he took the credit for it. It is one more thing that makes you wonder why the actions of going after him covertly were turned down in favor of running to war before a complete plan was in place…and also why many think that going after him is now a secondary or tertiary consideration.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Has there been another attack on US soil–anywhere in the world?
Umm, Joe, I don’t know if you noticed, but there are Americans dying in Iraq. I know it isn’t really US soil, but they don’t have to come here to strike at us anymore.[/quote]
ummm…vroom (sitting back and stroking chin, thinking about smoking a pipe and wearing tweed)…yes. It’s called taking the fight to the enemy.
And I feel horrible about all of them. But I’d rather it happened this way than to have 2 or 3 9/11’s a year, or worse.
Don’t start today bud, your act is getting way old.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Has there been another attack on US soil–anywhere in the world?
Umm, Joe, I don’t know if you noticed, but there are Americans dying in Iraq. I know it isn’t really US soil, but they don’t have to come here to strike at us anymore.[/quote]
There are americans in probably almost every country in the world. They never had to come here to strike us. It just makes them look a whole lot better if they can get at us on our own ground. It makes that little problem of killing thier own people at the same time go away.
Also, i’m not sure I know where you are going with this whole idea. Fact is americans were going to die no matter what our actions were, we simply picked the time, the place and hedged the consitions to our best advantage, i.e. they aren’t fighting civilians, they are fighting the most advanced military in the world in thier back yard.
If your statement was to somehow imply that al-queda could have somehow been dealt with without the loss of american lives, or any of our allies for that matter, I’m sorry but you grossly misunderstand and underestimate the enemy. And to not understand and to underestimate an enemy such as this, would lead directly to another 9/11 or worse. Just for the record, underestimating them was what we did after the 3 attacks I mentioned. We all see how well that strategy worked.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
vroom wrote:
Has there been another attack on US soil–anywhere in the world?
Umm, Joe, I don’t know if you noticed, but there are Americans dying in Iraq. I know it isn’t really US soil, but they don’t have to come here to strike at us anymore.
There are americans in probably almost every country in the world. They never had to come here to strike us. It just makes them look a whole lot better if they can get at us on our own ground. It makes that little problem of killing thier own people at the same time go away.
Also, i’m not sure I know where you are going with this whole idea. Fact is americans were going to dy no matter what our actions were, we simply picked the time, the place and hedged the consitions to our best advantage, i.e. they aren’t fighting civilians, they are fighting the most advanced military in the world in thier back yard.
If your statement was to somehow imply that al-queda could have somehow been dealt with without the loss of american lives, or any of our allies for that matter, I’m sorry but you grossly misunderstand and underestimate the enemy. And to not understand and to underestimate an enemy such as this, would lead directly to another 9/11 or worse. Just for the record, underestimating them was what we did after the 3 attacks I mentioned. We all see how well that strategy worked.
V[/quote]
oh no, vroom is far to reasonable, reasoned and moderate for any of that sort of thinking.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
If your statement was to somehow imply that al-queda could have somehow been dealt with without the loss of american lives, or any of our allies for that matter, I’m sorry but you grossly misunderstand and underestimate the enemy. And to not understand and to underestimate an enemy such as this, would lead directly to another 9/11 or worse. Just for the record, underestimating them was what we did after the 3 attacks I mentioned. We all see how well that strategy worked.
[/quote]
I believe he was sought out, and at one point during the clinton administration period, was supposedly delivered to us on a silver platter but was not taken. Nobody knows if this would have panned out but we were basically given his location and refused to act on it. It is said that shortly after this is when he became increasingly difficult to track down.
Also, I am unclear on how exactly the entire armed forces are going to covertly track down OBL. Isn’t 99% of thier operational capacity pretty loud and intrusive? Were we going to send the 1-5th armored divisions into the mountains of the afgahn/pakistani border and root him out?
They most likely would have still been sitting home if they were not deployed to iraq. Thus the argument that we are diverting resources to iraq that could be used to hunt OBL is a tad bit absured. I mean doesn’t the CIA hunt down people like OBL? If anything, the military has helped capture many of his orginazation that the CIA alone would have never been able to catch. How many members of Al-queda were nabbed by the CIA before 9/11? they were still all on the most wanted list from the several other attacks. It is just immensley hard to use our CIA to capture people like this in other countries. Otherwise the list of most wanted would need to be updated quite frequently.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I believe he was sought out, and at one point during the clinton administration period, was supposedly delivered to us on a silver platter but was not taken. Nobody knows if this would have panned out but we were basically given his location and refused to act on it. It is said that shortly after this is when he became increasingly difficult to track down.
Also, I am unclear on how exactly the entire armed forces are going to covertly track down OBL. Isn’t 99% of thier operational capacity pretty loud and intrusive? Were we going to send the 1-5th armored divisions into the mountains of the afgahn/pakistani border and root him out?
They most likely would have still been sitting home if they were not deployed to iraq. Thus the argument that we are diverting resources to iraq that could be used to hunt OBL is a tad bit absured. I mean doesn’t the CIA hunt down people like OBL? If anything, the military has helped capture many of his orginazation that the CIA alone would have never been able to catch. How many members of Al-queda were nabbed by the CIA before 9/11? they were still all on the most wanted list from the several other attacks. It is just immensley hard to use our CIA to capture people like this in other countries. Otherwise the list of most wanted would need to be updated quite frequently.
V
[/quote]
I believe OBL being offered to Clinton is actually a myth.
Clintons fault in this whole mess is not that he didn’t fight terrorism. He just didn’t fight hard enough. The same can be said of Bush’s first few months in office.
Your points about Iraq not being a major distraction from the hunt for OBL are correct.
Our presence in Afghanistan is limited for a number reasons. We won the first phase of the Afghan war with only a few hundred troops on the ground. Given that success and that we do not want to appear to be an occupying army, like the Soviets were, we have kept the numbers in Afghanistan down.
It is silly to think that if we flood Afghanistan with 100,000 troops and run up and down mountains we will catch OBL. He will be caught when he is betrayed.
If every soldier that has fought in Iraq was in Afghanistan, we could have removed Bin Laden by now!!!
Of course!!!
The Soviets did beautifully when they tried to muscle through the Hindu Kush.
You see, the attacker has all the advantages. There are wonderful ravines that he can attack UP. There are plenty of places to not place your artillery. Flying is both easy and productive in the temperate climate.
Supply lines are so easily established with the beautiful infrastructure in place.
Finally, everyone in the border region would love to see American soldiers on the ground in the conditions previously mentioned.
They would line up to give obl up!!!
You see, it’s much better to use American forces who know the area well and who would not increase local turmoil.
Screw bounties and hiring the Afghans/Pakistians. Let’s send a hoarde of guys from Des Moines!!!
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Also, I am unclear on how exactly the entire armed forces are going to covertly track down OBL. Isn’t 99% of thier operational capacity pretty loud and intrusive? Were we going to send the 1-5th armored divisions into the mountains of the afgahn/pakistani border and root him out? [/quote]
No. My comment was coming from this taken from the link I posted concerning the bombing you mentioned:
[quote]Clarke said bin Laden typically sends people out into a country years before an attack to lay the groundwork.
“When the message comes to attack, they either do the attack or support an attack team,” he said.
U.S. at work against bin Laden
Clarke said the United States continues to work covertly to dismantle bin Laden’s network.
“We have quietly gone after that organization, and we’re picking it apart limb by limb,” Clarke said. “We are not done yet, but we will be.” [/quote]
Two things stood out to me. One, we were going at it covertly which in this case was probably the best route (especially since we have not caught the man in 4 years even though many seem to be acting as we shouldn’t even be focused on him intently). Two, that Bin Laden sends people into countries years ahead of a planned attack. That also lets me know that those who are giving Bush credit for there not being an attack in 4 years are probably speaking well before they should. The man helped create the greatest disaster on American soil. Hell, if he waited 10 years he would still be ahead of the game on that one.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
If your statement was to somehow imply that al-queda could have somehow been dealt with without the loss of american lives, or any of our allies for that matter, I’m sorry but you grossly misunderstand and underestimate the enemy. And to not understand and to underestimate an enemy such as this, would lead directly to another 9/11 or worse. Just for the record, underestimating them was what we did after the 3 attacks I mentioned. We all see how well that strategy worked.
V[/quote]
One could easily argue that we are committing another huge mistake in OVERestimating the influence this war has had on the man’s intentions.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vegita wrote:
If your statement was to somehow imply that al-queda could have somehow been dealt with without the loss of american lives, or any of our allies for that matter, I’m sorry but you grossly misunderstand and underestimate the enemy. And to not understand and to underestimate an enemy such as this, would lead directly to another 9/11 or worse. Just for the record, underestimating them was what we did after the 3 attacks I mentioned. We all see how well that strategy worked.
V
One could easily argue that we are committing another huge mistake in OVERestimating the influence this war has had on the man’s intentions.
[/quote]
Yes one could argue that, though I don’t think the evidence supports that as he was recieving a real lot of support and had a tremendous influence in the region before afgahnistan/Iraq. I think what is happening in Iraq now, while terrible, is what needed to happen for the people of the middle east to realize who the real bad guys are. When terrorists strike the men women and children of Iraq, they begin to lose thier base of support, not only from Iraq, but from around the region as well.
I don’t care how these people were brought up, when an identifiable group attacks and kills a group of people, no matter what favor they previously had with that group, they immediately begin to lose that favor rapidly. I would say it’s a matter of time before people in the middle east get sick of the message and desparate measures of the extremist muslims and turn on them while at the same time opening up to ideas from those who they thought were thier enemies.
So to summarize, given the fact that al-queda is bombing the citizenry of iraq at this point, I would find it hard to believe they will garner any further “support” other than those they scare into supporting them, and the longer we show our resolve, the less al-queda will be able to scare the peoples of the middle east.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
For example, while I didn’t think Kerry was given a “fair trial” during the election, I could not argue that people shouldn’t look to his past to determine his character.
Obviously all of that happened a long long time ago, but all we heard about was speculation about how he won his medals and how veterans were unhappy with him 20 years ago.
Professor X wrote:
This was well said and exactly what we are talking about. ALL we heard during the elections was about what Kerry did 20 years ago. That is what every argument was based on. Now, suddenly, what you do 20 years ago doesn’t matter at all and has no effect on your character. What changed? It works one way for Bush and differently for everyone else on the planet? I do have to say that it just doesn’t sound right. [/quote]
This is silly, actually, because it doesn’t make any accomodation for the quality of the act. If I were to tell you a person murdered someone 20 years ago, that is quite different from telling you someone mooned me out his car window 20 years ago.
In evaluating something like this, at least part of it – and in my mind the major part of it – concerns the evaluation of the act itself.
If you were to show me a picture of President Bush, taken yesterday, flipping off someone who drove like Zeb, I wouldn’t give a rat’s butt. And I don’t think, as I stated above, that flipping someone off has anything to do with either religion or morality. It’s more about being polite and refined.
I believe OBL being offered to Clinton is actually a myth.
Clintons fault in this whole mess is not that he didn’t fight terrorism. He just didn’t fight hard enough. The same can be said of Bush’s first few months in office.
[/quote]
That’s not true. There are any number of sources to check it on.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
GriffinC wrote:
I’d call profX out on something too, but he looks like he could kick my ass. So I’m just going to ask one question…
Anyone know what color the ocean is? I keep thinkin it’s green but then sometimes it looks blue but at night it’s black! Scary oooooohh ahhhhhh!!!
I’ve tried to ignore it, but I’ve gotta say WTF are you doing down here?[/quote]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And I don’t think, as I stated above, that flipping someone off has anything to do with either religion or morality. It’s more about being polite and refined.[/quote]
I think it depends, especially when you have conservatives as vocal as Zeb who act as if Janet Jackson nearly murdered his children’s chance at a normal life all because of a .3 second boob during half time. If you are dealing with people who set moralistic standards that high, then I think it should be expected for every middle finger pointed by them to be held in question. No?
