Attention punter

[Dave007inVegas]

Here you go punter. I know how much you despise war and anyone or anything associated with it. So this one’s for you.

WASHINGTON – Defense and congressional officials say President Barack Obama has approved an increase in U.S. forces for the flagging war in Afghanistan. The Obama administration is expected to announce on Tuesday or Wednesday that it will send one additional Army brigade and an unknown number of Marines to Afghanistan this spring. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the total is about 17,000 troops.
That would be the first installment on a larger influx of U.S. forces that have been widely expected this year. It would get a few thousand troops in place in time for the increase in fighting that usually comes with warmer weather and ahead of national elections this summer. Change only you can believe in.

 

[punter]

I hope they are not going down the same road the Ruskis did. That being said, If they woulda kept their eye on the ball 7 years ago and got Bin Laden we could have all come home.

Going into Iraq is what I considered stupid. But Afgannystan is a trap. They have been fighting amongst themselves for as long as Railbird thinks the world is old.

 

[eek.]

I hope they are not going down the same road the Russkis did.

If I could predict shares as accurately as human stupidity I'd be a squillionaire.

Seven years and counting...

:grandmais

 

[Dave007inVegas]

I hope they are not going down the same road the Ruskis did. That being said, If they woulda kept their eye on the ball 7 years ago and got Bin Laden we could have all come home.
Going into Iraq is what I considered stupid. But Afgannystan is a trap. They have been fighting amongst themselves for as long as Railbird thinks the world is old.

Nice fantasy spin.

On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.
Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?
The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.
After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."
In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.
Steven Simon, Clinton's counterterrorism director on the National Security Council thought that kicking bin Laden out of Sudan would benefit U.S. security since "It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time." Buys time? Oh yeah, 1996 was an election year and team Clinton did not want to deal with bin Laden until after it was safely reelected.
And the rest is history, not fantasy.

 

[ScottL]

I hope they are not going down the same road the Ruskis did. That being said, If they woulda kept their eye on the ball 7 years ago and got Bin Laden we could have all come home.

Going into Iraq is what I considered stupid. But Afgannystan is a trap. They have been fighting amongst themselves for as long as Railbird thinks the world is old.

Punter you have often claimed the US gov't murders civilians, most recently yesterday. Above you have stated -- "If they woulda kept their eye on the ball 7 years ago and got Bin Laden."

Now my scenario for you. It's early 2001 and WE have a fighter jet in the air over a compound where we know bin Laden to be. But he is surrounded by 5 of his fighters, and all 20 of their wives and their 140 children. Take the shot? YES or NO?

 

[eek.]

Would an Israeli or a German hesitate?

 

[ScottL]

I don't know. Are there any threads in which you hesitate to interject at least one line of stupidity?

 

[punter]

Of course you shoot.

Can you see the difference in that and takeing out every living being in Tehran because their leadership has been hard to deal with.

 

[punter]

Dave

So?

 

[ScottL]

Of course you shoot.

Can you see the difference in that and takeing out every living being in Tehran because their leadership has been hard to deal with.

We haven't done that. But since you brought it up, if Iran is able to obtain nukes will they use them? How far should we go to stop this from becoming a reality?

Right now we are using subterfuge, like sending CIA agents to sell them bogus parts to fuck up their advancment.

Iran is already fighting a war with Israel using terrorist proxies like Hez and Hamas. Do you think Israel is in peril if Iran gets nukes? Here is what Israel is doing now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Israel-launches-covert-war-against-Iran.html

 

[punter]

Interesting and they have every right to protect themselves.

Question, With all that underground espionage, why were the Israelis not able to warn Dubya how wrong he was about WMD in Iraq? Or was it in their best interest to have it take the turn it did?

 

[ElTaino]

That being said, If they woulda kept their eye on the ball 7 years ago and got Bin Laden we could have all come home.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lqdpAQFQlHQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lqdpAQFQlHQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[ScottL]

Interesting and they have every right to protect themselves.

Question, With all that underground espionage, why were the Israelis not able to warn Dubya how wrong he was about WMD in Iraq? Or was it in their best interest to have it take the turn it did?

Punter you would be surprised how many Israelis were against the US going into Iraq, right or wrong. But to say Israel knew Saddam had no WMD would be quite a stretch. If Israeli intelligence is so great why can't they find the soldiers kidnapped by Hez and Hamas?

The whole world was wrong about WMD. But you should realize it was in Saddam's best interest to maintain the illusion that his military and his armaments were more powerful than they actually were as a deterent to all enemies, the US included.

But as we've seen over the past few years, Saddam was one of many of Israel's adversaries. And as shown by the subject of this thread, for some reason our current president whose name is not Bush feels that there are radicals who must be defeated in Afg to preserve our own safety. Are there things our gov't hides from us? Absolutely! But it's for our own safety. Some things don't 'Change.' [Hopefully] for a good reason.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Dave

So?

Are you referring to the fact that had WJC acted in the best interest of the citizens of the USA instead of his own 9/11 might not have happened, no. I was merely pointing out that your perception of the time frame was incorrect.

 

[punter]

No I'm referring to imprisoning people because of what you think they might do. Keep an eye on them yes but we know who dropped the ball on that.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

punter, I don’t have a clue of what you’re taking about. You need to be a little more specific. Spit it out. :think2:

 

[punter]

punter, I don’t have a clue of what you’re taking about. You need to be a little more specific. Spit it out. :think2:

Referring to your post #4.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Referring to your post #4.

What about it? I though it was self explanatory. Which part didn't you understand?

 

[punter]

Then why dont you understand my answer? Its very clear.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Then why dont you understand my answer? Its very clear.

Only to you. If you want to continue taking in semantic terms you’re going to have to do it by yourself.