why can't US capture/kill OBL

135678

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    u gotta have a bad guy to wage war around the world ... without these yings to their yangs - you can't up pentagon spending to more than all of the rest of the world combined ...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris wrote:
    u gotta have a bad guy to wage war around the world ... without these yings to their yangs - you can't up pentagon spending to more than all of the rest of the world combined ...

    the US would be fighting el queda and islamic extremism whether or not osama has been caught or dead. we also would continue to spend money at the pentagon. actually on 9/11 rumsfield was holding a meeting to determine how they could cut costs. but we would always lead the world in spending we are simply too far ahead of anyone else
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    again, are you suggesting we invade pakistan?

    my first and foremost suggestion would have been to stay the fuck out of iraq and put those 100,000 soldiers in afghanistan to cover every inch and make sure nobody took a piss without our permission until we'd found him and subsequently established a stable democracy there.

    however, since our president is a dumbass, i would advocate twisting some serious arms in pakistan to get his location and then dropping some navy seals or something in there to take him out. i dont think an invasion would be necessary. but barring that, yes. pull us the hell out of the clusterfuck that is iraq (a country that had no involvement with terrorism and no nuclear capabilities) and invade pakistan, a country that has made it clear it will harbor terrorists and has nuclear weapons.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    soulsinging wrote:
    my first and foremost suggestion would have been to stay the fuck out of iraq and put those 100,000 soldiers in afghanistan to cover every inch and make sure nobody took a piss without our permission until we'd found him and subsequently established a stable democracy there.
    how did I know an Iraq reference would come up.

    soulsinging wrote:
    however, since our president is a dumbass, i would advocate twisting some serious arms in pakistan to get his location and then dropping some navy seals or something in there to take him out.
    we cant. that would be considered an invasion.
    soulsinging wrote:
    i dont think an invasion would be necessary. but barring that, yes. pull us the hell out of the clusterfuck that is iraq (a country that had no involvement with terrorism and no nuclear capabilities) and invade pakistan, a country that has made it clear it will harbor terrorists and has nuclear weapons.
    invading pakistan would be 100 times the mess that Iraq is
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how did I know an Iraq reference would come up.



    we cant. that would be considered an invasion.

    invading pakistan would be 100 times the mess that Iraq is

    it's not an invasion if they never know about it. but we're not concerned with taking out terrorists. we're concerned about the politics of taking out terrorists. killing bin laden is not as important as showing it off to the american people for ratings.

    how would pakistan be worse? india would certainly be happy about it. and if we were going to talk so much shit about terrorist sympathizers and dangerous nuclear powers, pakistan makes more sense than iraq.

    let me get this straight, just so i know what you're saying:
    osama is bad
    but not so bad he's worth pursuing
    it was a really good idea to start a war in iraq and we should "stay the course there" becos it's not a clusterfuck and very winnable
    but a war in pakistan would be a clusterfuck and is a bad idea becos they actually harbor terrorists and have nuclear weapons?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the US would be fighting el queda and islamic extremism whether or not osama has been caught or dead. we also would continue to spend money at the pentagon. actually on 9/11 rumsfield was holding a meeting to determine how they could cut costs. but we would always lead the world in spending we are simply too far ahead of anyone else

    its nice to have a figurehead u know ... someone everyone can put a good hate on ...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    soulsinging wrote:
    it's not an invasion if they never know about it.
    hey im all for it but evn the US isnt that good to drop some soliders on the ground and take out some terrorists in the most lawless area of the world


    soulsinging wrote:
    how would pakistan be worse? india would certainly be happy about it. and if we were going to talk so much shit about terrorist sympathizers and dangerous nuclear powers, pakistan makes more sense than iraq.
    because of the sheer size. there are 180 million people there all of which would rise up and become suicide bombers. India would be happy but wouldnt help.
    soulsinging wrote:
    let me get this straight, just so i know what you're saying:
    osama is bad
    yes, the worst man alive.
    soulsinging wrote:
    but not so bad he's worth pursuing
    yes he is worth pursuing. absoulutely 100% yes. but we simply can not invade pakistan to get him. I dont like it but its true. I hate pakistan even though they have given some level of support. its a tricky balancing act for the president of pakistan.
    soulsinging wrote:
    it was a really good idea to start a war in iraq
    fuck no. when have I ever said that? a good idea? what the fuck is wrong with you
    soulsinging wrote:
    and we should "stay the course there" becos it's not a clusterfuck and very winnable
    again, who the fuck are you? of course its a clusterfuck. I never said otherwise. winnable? yes I think it is.
    soulsinging wrote:
    but a war in pakistan would be a clusterfuck
    yes much larger and worse then Iraq.
    soulsinging wrote:
    and is a bad idea becos they actually harbor terrorists and have nuclear weapons?
    I stated why its a bad idea.
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    polaris wrote:
    its nice to have a figurehead u know ... someone everyone can put a good hate on ...

    It certainly makes policy easier to dictate...something to rally people around....make even an abstract concept of terrorism be labelled to one face.

    However that politcal route has a consequance that being once you paint a face to an abstract concept you will undoublty create some sort of hate not just for the man (where reasoning for ill feelings is more than acceptable) but for who he is, the colour he is, the race he is, etc.

    Certainly not all, in fact the majority, will fall into that hate trap but it does create more problems.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    hey im all for it but evn the US isnt that good to drop some soliders on the ground and take out some terrorists in the most lawless area of the world



    because of the sheer size. there are 180 million people there all of which would rise up and become suicide bombers. India would be happy but wouldnt help.

    yes, the worst man alive.
    yes he is worth pursuing. absoulutely 100% yes. but we simply can not invade pakistan to get him. I dont like it but its true. I hate pakistan even though they have given some level of support. its a tricky balancing act for the president of pakistan.

    fuck no. when have I ever said that? a good idea? what the fuck is wrong with you

    again, who the fuck are you? of course its a clusterfuck. I never said otherwise. winnable? yes I think it is.

    yes much larger and worse then Iraq.


    I stated why its a bad idea.

    fair enough, then what do you propose we do about bin laden?

    how i wish al gore had been elected in 2000. we'd have osama in chains, less spending and a balanced budget, and no americans dying in iraq.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    soulsinging wrote:
    fair enough, then what do you propose we do about bin laden?
    I think the best way to get him is similar to what we are doing now. keep our armed drones flying around the area and shoot whenever they see him or leaders. sadly they are smarter then that and probably dont see the light of day much. besides that, load up our forces in afgahistan along the border and take out anyone who steps over.
    soulsinging wrote:
    how i wish al gore had been elected in 2000. we'd have osama in chains, less spending and a balanced budget, and no americans dying in iraq.

    whille I agree with the last 2, I dont see how gore is a guarantee osama would be caught.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I think the best way to get him is similar to what we are doing now. keep our armed drones flying around the area and shoot whenever they see him or leaders. sadly they are smarter then that and probably dont see the light of day much. besides that, load up our forces in afgahistan along the border and take out anyone who steps over.



    whille I agree with the last 2, I dont see how gore is a guarantee osama would be caught.

    gore would not have been distracted by a foolish vendetta against iraq and would have kept our eyes on making sure afghanistan was in the bag. he also would not have squandered our international support, which would have helped.
  • Rushlimbo
    Rushlimbo Posts: 832
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I think the best way to get him is similar to what we are doing now. keep our armed drones flying around the area and shoot whenever they see him or leaders. sadly they are smarter then that and probably dont see the light of day much. besides that, load up our forces in afgahistan along the border and take out anyone who steps over.

    Where do we get these forces to park at the border? Are you going to join the military and do this? No... I didnt think so. So where????
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    soulsinging wrote:
    gore would not have been distracted by a foolish vendetta against iraq and would have kept our eyes on making sure afghanistan was in the bag. he also would not have squandered our international support, which would have helped.

    osama still would or could have escaped into pakistan. gore would have stopped at the border just like bush.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    Where do we get these forces to park at the border?
    the american military. many of the ones that are currently there, along with NATO, and hopefully troops coming over from Iraq when we leave.

    Rushlimbo wrote:
    Are you going to join the military and do this? No... I didnt think so. So where????
    if I'm called upon to do so I will. thanks for stopping by
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    soulsinging wrote:
    gore would not have been distracted by a foolish vendetta against iraq and would have kept our eyes on making sure afghanistan was in the bag. he also would not have squandered our international support, which would have helped.


    Come on you know Gore would have run up the white flag and handed Bin Laden the keys to the White House. ;)
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mammasan wrote:
    Come on you know Gore would have run up the white flag and handed Bin Laden the keys to the White House. ;)
    :D
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    suns rival wrote:
    with it's state of the art defense & intelligence capabilities, why can't the world's most powerful nation capture/kill a mere mortal like Osama? just curious.

    this is the thread that caused all the confusion a few months ago so i'm going to answer your question while clearing my name on this board.
    i was wrongfully accused of a crime. my ex-wife told the government the perpitrator was me. she was trying to collect the reward. I DIDN'T DO IT. so i got an attorney to clear my name in a case where it looked impossible to do. with a supposed collaberating witness the governments case was basically a slam dunk. so i transfered everything to my daughter and didn't draw a salary. if your income is zero; you don't have to file taxes. there is no law in the us that says a person can't just disappear.
    it turned out the real perpitrator fled to poland where he died in a car crash. i was cleared when the real evidence was presented and all is cool.

    THE POINT HERE IS: i was able to hide under the governments nose for years. thousands of people go missing each year and are not found. all the technology we have doesn't make the world smaller. people disappear out here in the desert. they cheat someone and are tied to fire ant hills; never to be heard from again. so it's quite easy for a person to disappear and not be found.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    soulsinging wrote:
    gore would not have been distracted by a foolish vendetta against iraq and would have kept our eyes on making sure afghanistan was in the bag. he also would not have squandered our international support, which would have helped.

    so you know gore and he's discussed his plan with you then? or is this just your speculation and what you expected he'd do.
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the US would be fighting el queda and islamic extremism whether or not osama has been caught or dead. we also would continue to spend money at the pentagon. actually on 9/11 rumsfield was holding a meeting to determine how they could cut costs. but we would always lead the world in spending we are simply too far ahead of anyone else


    isn't he the same guy that on 9/10/01 said the pentagon couldn't find 2.3 trillion dollars worth of funds,...
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    osama still would or could have escaped into pakistan. gore would have stopped at the border just like bush.

    could have. but i dont think he would have. anyway, it was conjecture on my part. i think for all the "war president" rhetoric bush tosses around, gore would have handled both of these wars far better than bush has done.

Categories