Priorities -- Iraq or al Qaeda?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

What do you think was the priority post 9.11?

General Franks reaffirms what many knew Bush’s priority was…

[quote]"Graham also disclosed that General Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that[/quote] many important resources – including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda leaders – were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.

[quote]Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, voted against the war resolution in October 2002 because he saw Iraq as a diversion that would hinder the fight against Al Qaeda terrorism."
–9/11 hijackers tied to Saudi government, Graham says in book - The Boston Globe
[/quote]

Spanish comes in handy…but in Afgahanistan?..

"In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When [quote]the White House raised a new priority,[/quote] it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive."

–USATODAY.com - Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions

Who was responsible for the hijackings on 9.11? Because OBL is still wandering about…

Will you drones still defend the decisions of Mr. Bush? But, of course you will! Bring in the Rovenites defense brigade!

2

OBL isn’t wandering about. He’s in some little fucking cave somewhere shitting his pants. He had his laughs, but now the fun and games are over for ol’ OLB. Oh yeah, and were those your words calling us “dones”?? Better reword your phrase if it was. RLTW

rangertab75

3

[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
OBL isn’t wandering about. He’s in some little fucking cave somewhere shitting his pants. He had his laughs, but now the fun and games are over for ol’ OLB.[/quote]

You’ve sidestepped the question Ranger – who was/is/ought to be the priority?

[quote]
Oh yeah, and were those your words calling us “dones”?? Better reword your phrase if it was. RLTW[/quote]

Uh, yeah they were my words…they were in my post and not in quotation marks, right? I’ll decline your offer to rephrase – thanks, though.

4

He won’t answer you, because like most supporters of the Iraq war, he has put truth and reason aside.
Bush had a hard-on for Iraq, so manipulated the truth and the fever-pitch of emotions surrounding 9/11. Finding OBL was no sure thing, but defeating Iraq’s armed forces was. Success=popularity for George W.
I bet he didn’t count on 1000 DEAD AMERICAN YOUTH though.
Those 1000 should have been looking through those damn caves in Afghanistan, looking for the real perpetrator of 9-11.

5

RSU,

Do you think that the U.S. should not undertake ANY military operations until OBL is caught? It’s not like we invaded Iraq first and then decided to go looking for him. We went looking for him, he slipped away, we continued to act in our self-interest.

6

[quote]deanosumo wrote:

I bet he didn’t count on 1000 DEAD AMERICAN YOUTH though.
Those 1000 should have been looking through those damn caves in Afghanistan, looking for the real perpetrator of 9-11.

[/quote]

Those brave individuals were not “youths”, they were young men and women who joined the armed forces because they wanted to. No one forced them. Cut the Michael Moore BS.

Right Side, I don’t know what Bush’s priorities were. A guess would say OBL and Iraq, in that order. However, I’m not in the White House and neither are you, so I’m not for sure.

Dustin

Vote Peroutka in 04

7

Those brave 1000 did volunteer for the armed forces and put their lives on the line. But it is the responsibility of the commander in chief to make sure that if their lives are risked it is done for a worthwhile reason. I guess this is where you and I disagree.

8

I’m sure senator graham has no axes to grind…oh wait, yes he does. All this shit went down on his watch and he didnt do anything about it…time to play the blame game.

9

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:

Will you drones still defend the decisions of Mr. Bush? But, of course you will! Bring in the Rovenites defense brigade!

You’re motherfucking right we’ll defend the decisions of Mr.Bush. Defend it to the last breath. So now we’re drones, huh? We must be mindless, heartless killers who haven’t the slightest bit of conscience if you’re calling us drones. If my perception of a drone differs from yours, then please do tell me what your definition is. We have made a CONSCIOUS decision to defend the policies that GW spits out. We have taken an oath to defend the U.S. from all enemies; FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. RLTW

rangertab75

10

[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
Right Side Up wrote:

Will you drones still defend the decisions of Mr. Bush? But, of course you will! Bring in the Rovenites defense brigade!

You’re motherfucking right we’ll defend the decisions of Mr.Bush. Defend it to the last breath. So now we’re drones, huh? We must be mindless, heartless killers who haven’t the slightest bit of conscience if you’re calling us drones. If my perception of a drone differs from yours, then please do tell me what your definition is. We have made a CONSCIOUS decision to defend the policies that GW spits out. We have taken an oath to defend the U.S. from all enemies; FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. RLTW

rangertab75

[/quote]

Okay, yes…you clearly misunderstood me. I was calling those around here who blindly support every move Bush makes drones, not US troops if that’s what you understood. Those included might be JeffR, ZEB, Biltrite…, doogie, and yes, you Ranger.

That said, I’d also disagree with your speaking on behalf of all US troops. I don’t think everyone supports Bush and I think you’re wrong in speaking for them.

11

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
I’m sure senator graham has no axes to grind…oh wait, yes he does. All this shit went down on his watch and he didnt do anything about it…time to play the blame game. [/quote]

And in your version of the blame game, BUSH is consistently exempt! Since it doesn’t stop with him, where DOES the buck stop in the Bush White House?

A bit callous, don’t you think? You sound as though you might be saying that anyone who signs on is aware of the consequences, that the consequences ought to be considered more real than they might have imagined, and that they are (ugh) expendable…

cute answer. It’s true, you don’t know in the sense that he hasn’t told anyone! Judging by the actions mentioned by Gen. Franks, does it not seem as though his priority was Iraq, rather than OBL?

[quote]RSU,
Do you think that the U.S. should not undertake ANY military operations until OBL is caught? It’s not like we invaded Iraq first and then decided to go looking for him. We went looking for him, he slipped away, we continued to act in our self-interest.[/quote]

Strange interpretation of the events. The question, I believe, is why did we act at all in the first place? We acted because we were attacked by al Qaeda (led by OBL). We went into Afghanistan…then, suddenly, Iraq became a huge concern to the administration. This concern, it has since been shown, was not necessary – as Iraq did not possess WMD’s nor did they harbor or finance terrorists (to the extent that the Saudi’s did). Saddaam was not a threat to us or our security, yet we (and Congress) were led to believe we knew for certain that they were.

The point is that we turned our resources away from what was important and toward something that was largely irrelevant.

…And Ranger, why don’t you answer the original question.

12

RSU -

Blindly support every move? You must really think that you are the only one who has actually thought this shit out. Believe me, before I went to WAR this shit was running through my head, whereas the only time you probably think about this is in between beat-off sessions. Sorry, but you struck a nerve. Back to the original question…I think it was What was the original priority? Well, if you don’t know that it has something to do with dealing with a little problem we have called terrorism, then you need to pull your head out of your ass. RLTW

rangertab75

13

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
The question, I believe, is why did we act at all in the first place?[/quote]

To prevent future terrorist activity. We had a few choices in that matter.

Choice number one: run around in the desert looking for an old man in a cave like the Keystone Kops.

Choice number two: install a government in the heart of terrorist country which is both indebted to and dependent upon American interests.

Choice number two is clearly a better course of action. Unfortunately, in order to install such a government, we have to eliminate one. That means war, and that means we need Congress and the American people to sign on for eliminating whomever we choose. We also don’t want to lose an ally or a significant source of imports.

So how many countries in this area are not our allies, don’t export much to America, and can be sufficiently demonised in the press to get Congress (and the public) on board for a declaration of war?

Looks a lot like Iraq to me.

Bottom line, this game isn’t as simple as you think it is, and it’s never clean. People die; that can’t be avoided. The idea is to go in a direction where fewer people die.

And in case you didn’t notice, we are now starting to see the FIRST public condemnations of terrorism from leaders in the Islamic community. I don’t think this is a coincidence.

14

RSU:

I think you need to expand your thinking on world matters.

Who should we have focused on in World War Two? Germany, Japan, or Italy?

Japan attacked us directly! Should we have been fighting with Germany as well?

The fact is all three were totalitarian states, bent on world domination. Germany did not have to attack us in order for the US to move against them. The world is a complicated place RSU.

Same with Iraq, they sponsored terrorism in one form or another around the world. Do you honestly think that the world is worse off for having Sadam sitting in a jail cell as I type this?

I am for the protection of our shores by any means! As President Bush once said: “If you harbor terrorists, or help them in any way, you are automatically a terrorist state.” Let those soft on terrorism heed this warning!

President Bush is correct once again!

15

RSU,

Your statements imply that capturing OBL would bring an end to the war on terror and that all our soldiers would come home after that. Capturing OBL would be a symbolic victory as he is only a figure head for terrorists. Zawahiri is the guy who’s head should role, since he is the true brains of Al Qeada. Even his capture would only be a small victory.

We’ve learned that Al Qeada and other terrorist organizations are constructed to operate independently, so I don’t see Al Qeada as a sole priority.

The quotes you referenced would have more meaning if there was evidence that we were on the verge of capturing OBL before resources were redirected. It’s only speculation that if the Iraq war didn’t happen, OBL would be caught. If this was the case I don’t think Tommy Franks would be so supportive of President Bush. He’s not a Republican nut-hugger either. He had a few choice words about Donald Rumsfeild’s lack of confidence in some of the pre-war planning.

16

It has nothing to do with defending decisions Bush has made. It is a matter of wether or not you support bringing the battle where it belongs.

IMHO, capturing or killing OBL would probably result in a backlash. It reminds me of a documentary I watched a few years ago where the feds took down a KKK leader. He was relatively passive and was pretty effective at recruitment. In the wings was a guy who wanted to “arm themselves and take to the streets.” Guess who became the new head honcho when the feds took out the first guy. Probably not a step in the right direction. You never know who the replacement will be.

OBL became the symbol of a greater cause, not a means to an end. What is so challenging about this concept?

Therefore, I sincerely hope the priorities and resources were shifted to invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam and his regime. When you think about it, we performed a very similar task in Afghanistan.

It appears to have been a logical next step to me.

What am I missing?

17

Hey RSU,

Up to your old tricks again?

Our priorities include Al Qaeda in Iraq, the stabilization of Iraq/Afghanistan including free elections, and the continued persecution of Al Qaeda cells in other parts of the world. None of these goals are mutually exclusive.

Oh, by the way, are you maintaining that there are no Al Qaeda members in Iraq?

(Do not answer that there weren’t ANY in Iraq before the war. You are wrong. Also don’t give me the line about causing more terrorism. You are wrong there as well.)

I have news for you: Our country is fighting a war in Iraq. The decision to undertake the war was made and our country is fighting in Iraq. Now it’s win or lose. It’s not IF we should have confronted the regime in it’s monstrosity.

Don’t you think part of our enemies’ agenda is to foment unrest at home?

Think about it.

Thanks,

JeffR

18

[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
RSU -

Back to the original question…I think it was What was the original priority? Well, if you don’t know that it has something to do with dealing with a little problem we have called terrorism, then you need to pull your head out of your ass. RLTW

rangertab75[/quote]

No shit sherlock. The point is, why divert resources from a terrorist responsible for actual massive attacks and toward a target that was only thought to be a potential threat (and I being generous calling it potential, because as we now know, Iraq was no threat)? That is the question, not why did we do anything…I know it’s terrorism.

19

[quote]CDarklock wrote:
Right Side Up wrote:
The question, I believe, is why did we act at all in the first place?

To prevent future terrorist activity. We had a few choices in that matter.

Choice number one: run around in the desert looking for an old man in a cave like the Keystone Kops.

Choice number two: install a government in the heart of terrorist country which is both indebted to and dependent upon American interests.
[/quote]
Sweet–two choices: black and white, just like the commander in chief likes it!

[quote]
Choice number two is clearly a better course of action. Unfortunately, in order to install such a government, we have to eliminate one. That means war, and that means we need Congress and the American people to sign on for eliminating whomever we choose. We also don’t want to lose an ally or a significant source of imports.[/quote]

Are you serious? “eliminate whomever we choose”? Help us.

[quote]So how many countries in this area are not our allies, don’t export much to America, and can be sufficiently demonised in the press to get Congress (and the public) on board for a declaration of war?

Looks a lot like Iraq to me.[/quote]

So we attacked Iraq only to set an example? Is that right?

Perhaps so. But perhaps not.

20

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RSU:

I think you need to expand your thinking on world matters.[/quote]

Yes I know you do…and you should know by now that I don’t care what you think.

[quote]Who should we have focused on in World War Two? Germany, Japan, or Italy?

Japan attacked us directly! Should we have been fighting with Germany as well?

The fact is all three were totalitarian states, bent on world domination. Germany did not have to attack us in order for the US to move against them. [/quote]

Interesting point…but it is fallacious. This is not the same situation. We are speaking about priorities and you should tell me clearly who should have been the priority after 9/11?

How do you keep from throwing up all over yourself ZEB? lol…

Excellent point. Which reminds me of something I mentioned earlier which you overlooked, not surprisingly…why don’t we attack the Saudis? They’ve been shown, more conclusively I believe to have had a hand in more terrorism than Iraq, yet Iraq is…ah nevermind.

Yeah, ZEB, I honestly think that. Why would you even ask that? It’s like the people who say “If you don’t support the war, you don’t support the troops”. What bunk.

How do you feel about OB-GYN’s practicing their love with women all across the country? Doesn’t that violate the patient-doctor relationship?