Rome burned as Nero fiddled. So goes the myth of the destruction of ancient Rome. There was more to Nero's rather extensive "Urban Renewal Project", of course. Much has been lost in the mists of time, and some has just plain been invented.
But, today, if Nero decided to burn Rome, we'd have TV cameras there as he struck the match and applied the flame to the nearest drapes or, thatched roof, as the case may be.
What am I rambling on about? Well, I'll tell you. It is just this: While Obama fiddles; American soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan.
The US military commander of Afghanistan has requested 40,000 more troops as fast as he can get them in country to fight the resurgence of the Taliban and whoever else has, and is, joining their ranks.
The Commander-in-Chief says it will be weeks before he will respond with a "Yes" or a "No." In the meantime, more American lives are being lost and the loss of those lives can be laid at the feet of Obama! The war in Afghanistan is now "Obama's War!" And so far, he is bungling it, like nearly everything else this inexperienced president has touched.
I'd very much like to see an amendment to the constitution which says that a candidate for President of the United States must show proof of honorable service in the military of the United States.
Let me spell it out for you as plainly as I know how. Unless you have served in the US Military, you have no idea what fighting for your country, (war), is all about. You cannot understand the inner workings of the military. You cannot understand the code of honor, which is the common thread that binds all the military services to one another and to the country.
I do not care how much propaganda those who disagree with me on this throw at you, take it from another old vet, the military is different from anything you have ever experienced in your life and there is zero comparison with anything political or the political world our Commander-in-Chief resides in at the White House.
Now: Here's what I think is about to happen. Obama dearly wants out of Afghanistan. The delay in answering General Stanley McChrystal is Obama buying time with the blood of American patriots.
The long and the short of it is, Obama is going to pull US troops out of Afghanistan. He doesn't care about how bad it will make America look around the world. He doesn't care about that. He has no idea how badly the American character will suffer. He doesn't care how such an action will damage the US military. He has no understanding of how badly the Vietnam fiasco rocked the US Military for decades. Some say the US military did not fully recover from Vietnam until Gulf War One. Many of the Vietnam vets are STILL not over it! But Obama doesn't care. Why? Obama is a Narcissist. He cares only for himself. Everyone, and everything, else is here to serve him and his interests.
Now: Do not entertain the erroneous notion that Obama is willing to take the blame for losing a war, specifically the war in Afghanistan. Oh, NO! Obama will not lose the Afghanistan War. The US Military will lose the Afghanistan War. You can count on it. There will be Congressional Hearings and kangaroo courts much like the old "Star Chamber" proceedings where the heads of Generals will roll, but nothing will touch Obama. Obama's henchmen on the Hill and in the Mainstream Media will see to that. All the while, though, you and I and the thousands upon thousands of soldiers and military veterans will know who the culprit was.
The American Left HATES the US Military. It has a cold, unreasonable, hatred for anything military. I have leftist friends who all but spit anytime I mention the military for any reason. Their hatred goes deep. It is primordial. It seems to come from some place deep inside the pre-caveman depths of their brains. It is pathological. They would be quite happy to see the US Military go down to defeat no matter how many American lives are lost. They hate the US Military that much.
There is no reasoning with them. I have tried. I explained that the US military was the only organization that stood between them and annihilation. I explained that the US military made their freedom possible and without the military they would not be free men but slaves. Nothing made any difference. There is simply no reasoning with them. So, I must conclude that it is something in their internal wiring. It should not be difficult to detect in Obama's White House.
The men and women who give of themselves to defend this country deserve better. They have earned the respect of the world. It seems to me the American people could insure that the Commander-in-Chief is always a military veteran with a constitutional amendment, which would require that a candidate for President of the US always be a veteran of one of the military services of the United States. It would not insure victory on the battlefield but it would show respect for the military by providing that one of their own is always in command. They deserve that -- and more -- much more.
Amen
I totally agree with you, Warph. It is just not possible to understand what the military man/woman goes through whether at home or on a battlefield. It is the old saying, "walk a mile in my shoes." While the Prez might be getting all the advice there is, unless he has actually crawled in the mud with people shooting at him and his friends dying right next to him, he cannot fathom how the situation really is.
There really should be a law that requires the CIC to have served in the military.
Many people just don't realize the scope of military service, i.e. the discipline required, the different cultures that one sees and lives with on a daily basis and the (sometimes) negative reaction and opinions of the civilians at home that you are protecting.
If he is listening to his Generals, he needs to move faster than he is moving. Every minute counts.
Larryj
I love the hypocrisy of the far right, tell me warph, how many months was the troop surge in Iraq debated before Bush took action? How many American soldiers died while we waited for that? Where were you and all these silly pundits when that was going on?
Bush was not "far right", at least not in my opinion.
He's much more liberal than I ever want to be.
I didn't mean bush when i said far right, I agree that he wasn't conservative or right wing at all. I was referring to the right wing social commentators who are screaming right now about Afghanistan.
Let me jump in ahead of you, Warph, and then you can say what you want to say.
Nobody has said that Bush was any better as far as the troop surge. It was suggested by his Generals and acted upon and it did what it was supposed to do. Neither president, as far as I am concerned has handled these military conflicts with any gumption. It is unfortunate that politics plays a big role in wars dating back centuries.
Politics played a role in the division of Germany after WWII. Truman and Churchhill wanted to appease the Russians to avoid conflict and we wound up in a Cold War. Politics played a role in the invasion of North Korea all the way to the Chinese border only to settle on a dividing line much farther south. And, that "police action" as it was termed is still not totally resolved. Politics played a role in Vietnam as Eisenhower did not want to step on Chinese or Russian toes. The North Vietnamese could travel through and attack from Laos and Cambodia. We could not for political reasons. President Johnson sent thousands to Vietnam and then tied their hands on where and when they could do their job. And, now we are on two battlefronts where, again, politics is a factor in that the current and past administrations are dragging their feet as to how to run a war.
What Warph was saying is that the current administration is not doing what it should. He did not say anything about the past 40+ administrations doing anything. It isn't about Liberals or Conservatives here, it is about those in charge getting the job done, NOW. Whoever, they are. Meaning, it is time now to "get 'er done."
Okay, Warph, it's your turn.
Larryj
oooo, i love condescending old men.
First, let me address your fantasy. I know that you would like to think i'm a little girl, that it would suit the dirty old man fantasy that you have going on. I recognize that in your old age, you may not have the mind or memory that you had when you are younger, so i'll politely remind you again that I am in fact a man. If it suits your fantasy to continue to call me a girl, thats fine, whatever gets you off in between rounds of golf and cashing in your social welfare checks.
Secondly your post with regards to knowledge of the military seems to be incomplete. I kept waiting for the punchline but there was none. I have no knowledge of the military, therefore..... what? Tell me, where in my first post did i bring up the military? What the hell are you reading? I believe you are actually projecting your inadequecies onto other people. I haven't spoken one way or the other in terms of military strategy. I haven't given my opinion on sending more troops or pulling out. Frankly i don't think its possible to win no matter what action we take. There are many reitred generals saying the same thing.
Both you and Larry missed the entire point of my post. Also warph, allow me to educate you on another topic while it's on my mind
Quote
rhetorical question
–noun
a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply, as "What is so rare as a day in June?"
The point is when Bush was in the same situation, NONE OF YOU SAID A WORD FOR MONTHS. Now that a democrat is in the same situation, your panties are in bunches after 6 days. You claim to be a military man, yet this is the epitome of a political hack, spewing hatred and hypocracy at every opportunity he can get. You are politicizing something that needs to be handled very carefully.
Tell me, as a reaganite, why did reagan choose to arm the Iraqi's and the Taliban to the teeth instead of fighting and winning their own wars, like you put it in your post. Ever consider how the Reaganites ignorant foreign policy decisions created these messy situations? Look at how my generation is going to have to clean up after your crap. I'm not even going to start on the national debt that you reaganites left us with.
As for not knowing anything about the Military, that may be true. But i do know history. I know that no army has ever conquered Afghanistan Militarily. From Alexander to the Russians, empires and their armies have collapsed trying to invade the forsaken place. The only successful invasions into the region were those that forced a cultural conversion, that is the Arab and Aryan conquerers.
I'll admit to having limited knowledge of the military, but will you admit that you don't know history? Will you admit that you have a problem with reading comprehension? will you admit that different problems require different solutions?
Quote from: Anmar on October 10, 2009, 02:30:35 PM
The point is when Bush was in the same situation, NONE OF YOU SAID A WORD FOR MONTHS. Now that a democrat is in the same situation, your panties are in bunches after 6 days. You claim to be a military man, yet this is the epitome of a political hack, spewing hatred and hypocrisy at every opportunity he can get. You are politicizing something that needs to be handled very carefully.
Because bush was not in the same situation. First of all the surge wasn't tested nor had it been done. So that data was not available. It was a unknown risk. Secondly, congress (democratic controlled congress), drug petraus up and went to crucifying him for his idea making him take all that time to give them details that they debated for months about. Waste of time wasn't it! And the dems didn't want success because it would have made President Bush look good so they did the normal tactics of delay. Finally when Congress decided ok we had better do it, it worked successfully.
Now you have obama here, and his generals are saying lets do the surge, he drags mccrystal to copenhagen to rip him a new one for suggesting it only because now the public is demanding why obama is so inept he can't make a decision without his handlers permission.
The fact is that the surge would not be in his handlers plans right at this moment in time. Their telling obama no.
Third obama isn't going to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. That was a campaign lie, one of many he made to get elected. The goal is control of all of these countries. But i am afraid its not for the benefit of us, but his handlers.
Whether I agree or disagree with any of the opinions on here is up to me, but I don't believe that makes anyone a punk, idiot, or a communist. I just find everyone's opinion interesting. I haven't learned much from the name calling though. I'm waiting for the blast!
Quote from: greatguns on October 10, 2009, 04:53:54 PM
Whether I agree or disagree with any of the opinions on here is up to me, but I don't believe that makes anyone a punk, idiot, or a communist. I just find everyone's opinion interesting. I haven't learned much from the name calling though. I'm waiting for the blast!
lol, i'm used to it. I think it just means they ran out of arguments.
Anmar is right about one thing and that is that NOBODY has ever won a war with Afghanistan. Everyone who has ever tried has had to pack their diddywa bag and go home and that's a fact. The only way to beat them is to kill every last one of them because they WILL not quit. You can't beat them by fighting a political war like Vietnam, you got to follow them wherever whenever however.
Quote from: pamsback on October 10, 2009, 07:27:12 PM
Anmar is right about one thing and that is that NOBODY has ever won a war with Afghanistan. Everyone who has ever tried has had to pack their diddywa bag and go home and that's a fact. The only way to beat them is to kill every last one of them because they WILL not quit. You can't beat them by fighting a political war like Vietnam, you got to follow them wherever whenever however.
Soviets tried that already.
duh......and after what like 23 years they packed their shit and went home. Vice versa tho the Muslim hordes have never been able to take over the rest of the world either, they've always got their asses handed to em and go home sooner or later too. Problem is neither side has ever learned anything so instead of just agreein to disagree and stay on their own real estate every so often one or the other decides to give it another shot. Look under retarded in the dictionary and you will find a description of what I just said..er described that is :P
Quote from: pamsback on October 10, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
duh......and after what like 23 years they packed their shit and went home. Vice versa tho the Muslim hordes have never been able to take over the rest of the world either, they've always got their asses handed to em and go home sooner or later too. Problem is neither side has ever learned anything so instead of just agreein to disagree and stay on their own real estate every so often one or the other decides to give it another shot. Look under retarded in the dictionary and you will find a description of what I just said..er described that is :P
Lol, Pam i have to say that i may have misread your previous post. It's unfortunate that our country is in such a difficult situation, we shouldn't be there, the series of events that led to 9/11 and our involvement in Afghanistan are a tragedy. Thats all behind us and the only thing we can do know is figure out a way to get out with our security and dignity intact.
I've seen some people say "kill 'em all" or "blow the whole thing up" Well, many of the people living in Afghanistan aren't really our enemies. In fact, several of them are our allies. Remember that Al-Qaeda and to a lesser degree, the taliban, are not actually Afghani.
Geez, Warph, don't ya just hate it when someone who believes they have the world by the gonads calls you old? Not just old but "condescending old" and then "dirty old man," all titles which you and I have come by honestly. The one big problem with being older is that these people will grow old and see the light and we won't be around to say, "I told you so!"
Larryj
Don't get me wrong Anmar....I've studied the history of it BUT I've also said ever since this thing first started that the only way to win it IS to just kill them all because as long as there is one left they won't quit and that last one will take as many of whoever is their enemy at the moment WITH them when they go. That is the only thing I find respect worthy about them.
As for al queda and the taliban being afghani or not....technically they are religious movements I know but the PEOPLE we are fighting in Afghanistan who are members of said sects ARE afghani, I know there are soldiers from OTHER arab countries there fightin also but that makes no difference. We are arrogant enough to think we are winnin the hearts and minds of the civilian population.......no we are not, they are USING us for whatever...money mostly and when they decide they are done or we kick em off the tit they will turn every man woman and child and spit on us on the way out and then go back to the status quo that has existed since the beginning of time. If they truly hated their religion and their governments the way they say they do, as mean and tenacious as them people are they would've changed lanes CENTURIES ago.
The only place I might agree is that we should not be there to start with......because it was a no win situation before we ever started it. Unfortunately we HAD to go or look like cowards in the eyes of the rest of the arab world. Now we are in a pissin contest we can't win.
whippersnapper
whip·per·snap·per [ wíppər snàppər, hwíppər snàppər ] (plural whip·per·snap·pers)
noun
Definition:
somebody insignificant and outspoken: an impudent and unimportant person, especially somebody who is young ( dated )
[Late 17th century. Origin ?]
I remember being called a whippersnapper probably in a humerous sort of way by those much older than me. I got the drift of the meaning of the word even though I never really knew the true meaning of the word. So see above. No, I don't think you were being too harsh. One who would suggest that you are old and becoming incapable of competent thoughts deserves to be called a whippersnapper.
I HATE IT WHEN YOU DO THAT, WARPH!!!! DO NOT TEASE ME WITH HINTS ABOUT FUTURE STORIES! Now I have to sit in anticipation of the story.
Larryj
What do ya do when your whipper doesn't snap any more? Whimper? Droop? Leak? ;D ;D ;D
I think it is supposed to be: Snapper won't whip any more. Either way, the answer is------------yes. :'(
Larryj
To the "No ones ever done it so it can't be done crowd" I would like to point out that no one had ever beaten the Spartan, Roman, British empires, until they did. Also, no one had ever walked on the moon, until we did. If the Afghan people were worth their salt they would have kicked the taliban out long ago. You all seem to forget that we are fighting a cowardly enemy that doesn't have the nerve to face us in open combat. In an enviroment where the civilian population shares in that cowardice.
ha show me where I said it can't be done. It CAN be done just not the way wars are fought lately. They aren't cowards..they are guerillas, they are outgunned and they don't follow the rules, they USE our rules to their advantage. If the government would turn our soldiers loose let em do what they CAN do WHEREVER they need to do it instead of where so and so SAYS they can do it we COULD win.
QuoteIf the Afghan people were worth their salt they would have kicked the taliban out long ago.
I'm serious .....I write what I think and it seems perfectly plain to me and then somebody will jump on it and all of a sudden what I wrote means something entirely different. They don't kick them out I believe I said because they don't DISAGREE with them. Has nothin to do with bein worth their salt...it's WHAT THEY ARE.
The British, Romans, and Spartans got beat because they got ARROGANT and forgot they COULD be beat. They forgot that you can only stand on people so long before they WILL stand up and whup your ass with a STICK if they don't have anything ELSE handy. I realize that this has to be bull simply because I said it but try thinkin about it for a minute before you tell me I'm full of *&^%
First of all, I didn't mention you specifically, but from the way you had worded your posts, that is the message I got.
Secondly, if the afghani people agreed with the taliban and al queda so much then why is it in areas that have been liberated, you see women going to school, not wearing the full body cover, and such?
Third, if the taliban and al queda weren't cowards they wouldn't target innocent civilians. Nor would they beat their women.
I do agree with you however on turning our soldiers loose. There isn't a better guerilla fighter than our special forces.
yeah I went back and guess I didn't make it clear I was sayin we can't win the way we have been operatin not that we can't win period.
Seriously, ...I'm gonna stop talkin about this because I have a SERIOUS problem with hatred on the subject of them and their "beliefs"....the more I talk about it the more negativity it brings and I don't need any more negativity...I will have to answer for those feelings if I can't beat em.....just suffice it to say I will NEVER live under ANY kind of muslim rule.
From the Associated Press:
DEM URGES TROOP BOOST IN AFGHANISTAN
by Richard Lardner
WASHINGTON--The U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in "serious jeopardy" and needs more troops to turn the tide against an increasingly potent Taliban Insurgency, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday, putting her at odds with an influential Democratic colleague on military matters.
Sen. Diane Feinstein's views are more closely aligned with those of key Republicans than members of her own party. Sen Carl Levin, chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee, urged a more methodical approach that begins with crafting a new, comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan.
"I'm saying at this time, don't send more combat troops," said Levin, D-Mich., who wants the emphasis to be on strengthening Afghanistan's own security forces so they can bear a greater share of the security burden.
But Feinstein, D-Calif., whose post gives her access to sensitive information about the wars progress, said delaying the reinforcements also puts the forces already in Afghanistan at greater risk. She pointed to an Oct. 3 battle in northeastern Afghanistan in which eight U.S. soldiers were killed during an enemy attack on their remote outpost.
"We didn't have the ability to defend them, and now the base is closing, and effectively we're retreating away from it," she said.
The diverging opinions came as President Barack Obama and his war council wrestle with how many more troops might be needed in the 8-year-old conflict. Key to the deliberations are whether to focus the fighting more narrowly on al-Quaida or more broadly on Taliban insurgents.
Obama's military commanders are pressing him to escalate the war despite slipping U.S. support for the fight. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is believed to have presented Obama with a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 troops to -- the general's strong preference --- as many as 40,000.
Levin said a better blueprint for the way ahead in Afghanistan is even more important then additional personnel. He also said key points in McChrystal's 66 page assessment of the situation in Afghanistan have been lost in the noisy debate over the right number of additional troops and how quickly they need to be sent.
"He also says deliberate," Levin said of McChrystal's review. "Take the right amount of time to think this thing through. And he also says that what is even more important than numbers is the resolve."
Meanwhile, Republicans argued that Obama would be making a major mistake if he doesn't quickly answer McChrystal's call for more troops.
Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said it would be "an error of historic proportions" if Obama decides against a significantly larger U.S. presence. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Afghan national police are "getting slaughtered" and thousands more forces are needed to bring security and stability to the country.
"It's hard to train people, send them off to fight when they get killed.....at their first duty station," said Graham, who is also a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
_______________________________________________
So, it appears, from this story, that some Democrats are backing the idea of more troops and it is time, IMHO, for Obama to get the troops there and get the job done.
Larryj
Larry, If Barrack does send the additional troops he says he "might send"--if they are just support troops to be farmers, build schools and such---then we will be back to square one. When will the polititions ever learn ? You want to win, send in combat troops , not all support troops,and kick some ass. They are trying to win this war the same way the polititions thought they could win in Vietnam. When we had 500,000 plus troops in Nam the Infantry troops ranged from 30,000 to 60,000. So the guys actually doing the fighting were out numbered at all times by the NVA & VC---but we still kicked their ass in every major ( and most minor) battles. To those that say no one has ever won a war against Afghanistan---all them other sissies didn't have Stealth bombers--and Drones---and a whole bunch of other bad boy weapons.
Quote from: jarhead on October 13, 2009, 07:55:07 PM
Larry, If Barrack does send the additional troops he says he "might send"--if they are just support troops to be farmers, build schools and such---then we will be back to square one. When will the polititions ever learn ? You want to win, send in combat troops , not all support troops,and kick some ass. They are trying to win this war the same way the polititions thought they could win in Vietnam. When we had 500,000 plus troops in Nam the Infantry troops ranged from 30,000 to 60,000. So the guys actually doing the fighting were out numbered at all times by the NVA & VC---but we still kicked their ass in every major ( and most minor) battles. To those that say no one has ever won a war against Afghanistan---all them other sissies didn't have Stealth bombers--and Drones---and a whole bunch of other bad boy weapons.
I agree that this shouldn't be half-assed. We either need to be all in or all out.
Where i disagree is that our technology will give us an advantage. Whats the difference between a stealth bomber and an old b-52 when the taliban don't have radar? They've been bombed for the last 30 years, it doesn't work. They have learned how to counter the helicopters. What happens when they learn how to shoot down the drones and sell the tech to pakistan or china?
This thing is a lot more complicated than just going in there and blowing everything up. It's been tried over and over, it doesn't work.
Anmar,
Maybe you're right. i just don't know. Like you I'm just an armchair General, but I say never under-estimate the power of massive bombing. Except for American advisors,all troops had left Vietnam by Nov 1972 and in Dec 1972 we began what was called Operation Linebacker II. We bombed the crap out of North Vietnam but quit too soon. History now shows us that the North were about ready to fold their hand . If we had only known how close they were to quitting !! The Taliban and their ilk aint seen no bombing like the NVA/ VC saw so we don't know how they might react after a campaign of carpet bombing. We will probably never know because our troops can not even call in air strikes or arty for fear of killing a civilian. No way to conduct a war.If we can't use our Air , then send in ALL of our grunts/ infantry and at least give it a shot. I still say, "kill them all and there will be nobody left to fight us "
With all the greedy spies we have I'd imagine China aleady has all the info they need to build Drones.
Quote from: jarhead on October 14, 2009, 08:47:29 AM
Anmar,
Maybe you're right. i just don't know. Like you I'm just an armchair General, but I say never under-estimate the power of massive bombing. Except for American advisors,all troops had left Vietnam by Nov 1972 and in Dec 1972 we began what was called Operation Linebacker II. We bombed the crap out of North Vietnam but quit too soon. History now shows us that the North were about ready to fold their hand . If we had only known how close they were to quitting !! The Taliban and their ilk aint seen no bombing like the NVA/ VC saw so we don't know how they might react after a campaign of carpet bombing. We will probably never know because our troops can not even call in air strikes or arty for fear of killing a civilian. No way to conduct a war.If we can't use our Air , then send in ALL of our grunts/ infantry and at least give it a shot. I still say, "kill them all and there will be nobody left to fight us "
With all the greedy spies we have I'd imagine China aleady has all the info they need to build Drones.
Jarhead, i will answer more in detail later, and i'm curious in discussing this with you. I don't mean to be a "whippersnapper" (although sometimes i do fit that description) so please don't take this the wrong way.
I did some research, and it turns out the Taliban have already shot down several drones, as far back as 2001. Apparantly they have to fly low to the ground and have a pretty substantial lack of manuverability, which makes them sucseptible to RPG's, which is something the Taliban do have.
As far as the bombing, from what i understand, there have been several instances in which areas where very heavily bombed. Tora Bora comes to mind. I need to look it up, but as i recall, the majority of the Taliban forces survived the bombing and put up a fight while the top brass (and maybe Bin Laden) escaped through a pass. 60 minutes did a peice on this particular battle and they said something very peculiar. The soldier being interviewed said they could have had Bin Laden but his unit was ordered to let them go. I honestly wonder why we are really there, but thats another story.
On Tuesday evening, November 12, 2001, Babrak Khan, a Jalalabad resident and former guard at a nearby base for Islamic militants, saw the distinctly bearded and emaciated Osama bin Laden standing in front of a guesthouse. The next day, Osama and his al-Qaeda and Taliban followers headed into the nearby Tora Bora mastiffs.
American bombing of the region intensified. The 11th day of Ramadan - November 26, 2001 - saw Osama seated deep inside a cave complex with a glass of hot green tea in hand. Mohammed Akram, who occasionally cooked for bin Laden, was fixing dinner in another cave when a huge bomb exploded, blowing him 30-feet backwards. Two of his colleagues were killed, and Mohammed, along with another Saudi and a Kurdish fighter, decided not to hang around.
Osama bin Laden fled Tora Bora around December 1, heading for Pakistan's Parachinar region. Eastern Afghanistan's intelligence chief, Pir Baksh Bardiwal was astounded when the Pentagon failed to use convenient helicopter Landing Zones to insert U.S. forces to block the most obvious exit routes.
But the Americans did not know the ailing terror financier had left Tora Bora. When Osama bin Laden phoned back to the enclave on December 10, urging his followers to keep fighting, U.S. intelligence officers picked up his transmission and conclued that Osama bin Laden was still in his caves. [Christian Science Monitor Mar 4/02]
Which might also explain why a USAF C-130 had dropped the heaviest bomb in their conventional inventory - a 15,000 pound "Daisy-Cutter" - against Tora Bora the previous day. [London Times Dec 10/01]
Rushed into production after 9/11, at least eight BLU-118Bs were quickly deployed into the Afghan theater. The Global Security website confirms the first field-test of this new weapon: "On or about March 3, 2002 a single 2,000-pound thermobaric bomb was used for the first time in combat against cave complexes in which al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in the Gardez region of Afghanistan." [globalsecurity.org]
Guided by U.S. Special Forces "lasing" cave complexes with invisible laser pointers, the Navy's new polymer-bonded "thermobaric" bomb would be more accurately termed a "thermobarbaric" terror weapon.
"It works as a combination of a shock wave and a fuel explosion," explained CENTCOM Commander Matthew Klee. "The first explosion spreads flammable aerosols through the underground complex. Then, the second ignites the fuel" - crushing the internal organs of everyone caught in the blast zone.
"Instead of boom, this bomb goes BOOOOOOOM!" thundered Air Force spokesman Captain Joe Della Vedova. "This thing kills the earthworms." [Las Vegas Review Jan 21/02]
Now, you take that bomb today and multiply it by five.... and you have the new bombs available for airmail to afghanistan by B-2's.
These bombs will tear a mountain and everything in it down to a molehill. It will make Tora Bora look like a picnic. But unfortunately, Obama will never use them.
your quote from the general about the bomb is from 2002. That means Bush had 6 years to use it and didn't. I like how you ignore that fact and immediately try to jump on Obama. Look who's politicizing the war now.
I suspect that if anyone can verify where he ( Bin Laden), is our military will do whatever is necessary to take him out. They sure don't have to tell me about it, just do it. It becomes complicated if he is in Pakistan.
I don't believe the war is about Bin Laden or Al Queda. Bush was planning an invasion before 9/11 and refused 2 offers from the Taliban to work out a deal for Bin Laden.
I hadn't heard this theory before. I find it intriguing. Could you provide some sort of documentation for this thought? I would like to know if what you say is "word."
Larryj
There were two instances in which the Taliban tried to Give Bin laden up. The first time, The taliban wanted to allow the American government to try Osama Bin Laden in an Arghani court. This was understandibly rejected by Bush and i don't fault him for that.
Here's a link to the article.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/
A few days after that offer was rejected, the Taliban offered Bin Laden up on a silver platter if the military would stop the bombing. This offer was also rejected, although I'm not really sure why. Here's the link
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html
If you go back to Operation Desert Storm, it was the same deal. Bush 41 demanded Sadam Hussein leave kuwait, and eventually, his army did try to leave, but instead of keeping our end, we blew the crap out of their retreating military anyway.
In my humble opinion, the goal is not Bin laden, we could have had him several times. As i mentioned, there was a 60 minutes report that was based on a series of articles from the Christian Science Moniter. The story outlines how Bin Laden was allowed to escape by the military. Here is the link...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html
I forgot to give links for the US planning to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 happened, here goes...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
Furthermore, the 9/11 commission report said that on 9/10/2001, Bush had already made the decision to remove the Taliban from government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2
Paul O'neal and Dick Clark, two former Bush cabinet members have also said the same thing, and it's been reported on CBS. Yes, i'm a big fan of 60 minutes.
Here is an article from March 2001 from one of my favorite news sources.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
Information is a good thing.
I know there is probably somebody who will say this makes me some kind of ignorant brain-washed blah blah blah but I watch the BBC world news alot because they report on things I never hear on US news.
Same here Pam. I find it very interesting to hear other countries' reporters opinions on things that we rarely hear about here. We used to listen to news from around the world on radio but have changed to TV in recent years.
Back when we had satellite before they got the phone line run in here so we could get cable thru it I even watched the arab news shows on it just to see what their side of the story was. I truly believe in gettin as much of ALL sides of a story before I go off half-cocked like chicken little :P
Let me also add that Clinton had several chances at Bin Laden as well, pre 9/11 of course. He didn't take him out either, although he later claimed that he had the desire to do so.
I can only make guesses as to why.
Back before dirt, I had (still have but don't listen to much anymore) a shortwave radio. I could listen to radio stations from all over the world. It was really interesting to hear international opinions about the U.S. as opposed to the American news radio.
Larryj
Anmar, thanks for posting the links and providing documentation for me. I followed the links and read all of them.
I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think you might have missed some of the points.
First, it is a fact that previous to 9/11 prior administrations were after Bin Laden. You are reading these posts as those in charge before 9/11 failed to do their job in working with the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden and that would have prevented 9/11. They did not want to "surrender" Bin Laden to the United States, they wanted to try him in a Islamic court where, probably in most opinions, he would have a received a slap on the hand for his transgressions which was not acceptable to the U.S. The Taliban were asking for a cessation of bombing in return for this "favor".
Second, I think you need to separate the fact that all this talking back and forth between the Taliban and the Americans are in many ways unrelated to 9/11. The question? If Bin Laden had been tried in an Islamic court, and punished in some way, would 9/11 still have happened. If the Taliban punished him in any way other than killing him, would 9/11 still have happened?
Go back and read your links again with a different look and see if you still believe as you do.
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on October 16, 2009, 10:55:19 AM
Anmar, thanks for posting the links and providing documentation for me. I followed the links and read all of them.
I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think you might have missed some of the points.
First, it is a fact that previous to 9/11 prior administrations were after Bin Laden. You are reading these posts as those in charge before 9/11 failed to do their job in working with the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden and that would have prevented 9/11. They did not want to "surrender" Bin Laden to the United States, they wanted to try him in a Islamic court where, probably in most opinions, he would have a received a slap on the hand for his transgressions which was not acceptable to the U.S. The Taliban were asking for a cessation of bombing in return for this "favor".
Second, I think you need to separate the fact that all this taling back and forth between the Taliban and the Americans are in many ways unrelated to 9/11. The question? If Bin Laden had been tried in an Islamic court, and punished in some way, would 9/11 still have happened. If the Taliban punished him in any way other than killing him, would 9/11 still have happened?
Go back and read your links again with a different look and see if you still believe as you do.
Larryj
Larry, the first time they asked that he be tried in an Islamic court. I mentioned in my post that Bush rejected the offer and that i dont fault him for that. I agree with the decision, i don't think it would have been fair to the victims of 9/11 that he be tried in Afghanistan. However, the second time they offered him up, they did not make that stipulation. The taliban were so terrified of the bombings that had begun a few days prior that they just wanted to get rid of him.
I'm not implying that the Taliban wanted to rid themselves of Bin Laden before 9/11. They made 2 offers, both in the month after the attack.
QuoteIf Bin Laden had been tried in an Islamic court, and punished in some way, would 9/11 still have happened. If the Taliban punished him in any way other than killing him, would 9/11 still have happened?
I'm not sure how i understand how the Taliban were supposed to punish Bin Laden for 9/11 before 9/11 actually happened. Maybe i'm reading your post incorrectly.
I don't think his capture or assasination pre-9/11 would have stopped the attack. It's my understanding that Bin Laden is not the mastermind in the organization, he's a figurehead and a financier. I still believe that he is not the actual goal for this war.
I thought Bin Laden's main appeal was his funding. He had /has so much money he could buy off anybody anywhere. Is that no longer true?
My apologies, Anmar, I was confusing myself reading your posts. After going back and reading them again and rereading the links, I can see where I was mistaken.
You were stating that previous to 9/11 there were no efforts to take out Bin Laden by the previous administrations. And, that the offers to give him up were post 9/11. I had thought you said the offers were made prior to 9/11.
I will try to pay more attention.
Larryj
Hi: I've been a lurker on this thread and have found it to be interesting & entertaining ;)
But I'm coming out of the shadows now in the interest of pouring a little gasoline on the embers ;D. Yesterday (16 Oct. 2009) the on-line edition of Foreign Policy magazine published a 9 page article by Steve Coll on a strategic approach that U.S. security establishment might be considering. I've posted a link (http://elkcokan.typepad.com/txpolitics/2009/10/humility-in-afghanistan.html)on my seldom visited web site which will lead you to it. For those of you who read it I'm sure it will stir the pot. :o
As a balancer for those of you who might think I'm a flaming liberal stalking horse here is another link to an audio archive (http://www.tpr.org/programs/newsmakerhour.html) on the San Antonio NPR station. The only law school who has a center focused on terrorism is here at St. Marys University. The director of it's Center of Terrorism Law (http://www.stmarytx.edu/ctl/) gave the talk in the audio and I was in the audience. I'm sure you will find the talk interesting.
Now back into the shadows 8)
A good read.Thanks.