|
Osama's gonna say something stupid (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by BigManwithaPlan
This might be a "liberal" question but if we're in a real War on Terror with so many troops deployed, why isn't this guy dead yet? |
legitamate question. why? think about it, how many troops do we have deployed actively looking at any given time? 10,000? 15,000? who knows, but i guarantee you they're looking in the wrong place. he's not dead yet because there is easily 10 times that many willing to hide him in countries that aren't condusive to American troops nosing around.
there were millions of soldiers in Western Europe and Hitler ended up offing himself. i'm not trying to draw too many parallels with that, but if a man wants to hide from people trying to kill him, it helps to have friends. |
|
|
| BigManwithaPlan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
legitamate question. why? think about it, how many troops do we have deployed actively looking at any given time? 10,000? 15,000? who knows, but i guarantee you they're looking in the wrong place. he's not dead yet because there is easily 10 times that many willing to hide him in countries that aren't condusive to American troops nosing around.
there were millions of soldiers in Western Europe and Hitler ended up offing himself. i'm not trying to draw too many parallels with that, but if a man wants to hide from people trying to kill him, it helps to have friends. |
You're about right... It's somewhere between 10,000-15,000 troops in Afghanistan. Most of what I read says Osama is somewhere between Afghan. and Pakistan. But we had good relations with the Pakistani government when we went into Afghanistan. My deep problem with the administration is that we went in with only 10,000-15,000 and trusted warlords for alot of the ground level intelligence. While they were all at it this administration pulled CIA assets of the trail of Osama and geared up to invade Iraq with 130,000 American troops.
Today's results: 130,000 troops are stuck in a badly planned post war scenerio (unless you think the news out of Iraq is great) where they won't be leaving regardless of who gets elected. Osama's group murdered 3,000 people ON OUR SOIL yet he's got 10K-15K after him... 1/10th the amount we sent after Saddam. Saddam's in jail & Osama's sending us more new videos than Tupac. God knows the next one will be about weather in Macon.
Again... it's a "liberal" idea but I think it would have been smarter to send 130,000 into Afghanistan to wipe out that Sonovabitch and Al Queda right after 9/11 & before Al Queda could seep out into so many countries. That would have sent a message to terrorists that messing with us gets you IMMEDIATLY ED. Of course this is just a "liberal" idea for the War On Terror. An idea that many people like you see as "short-sighted". I'll just sit back and listen for Osama's weather report. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
the "liberal" notion that we should have sent 130,000 troops into Afganistan first is fundamentally flawed by one very important fact: geography.
look at a map of Afganistan and tell me, as a ground commander, where in the bloody hell am i going to bring half a dozen divisions of troops, firepower, support and command structure from?
the commanders had it right the first time and performed flawlessly. the only thing that limited thier ability to put as many boots on the ground for the hunt was that logistically, Afganistan might as well have been on Mars with respect to placing manpower there for the hunt much less taking over of the country. ergo, the use of indiginous manpower.
they knew the lay of the land. they had the inside track. they fought and died in the hundreds maybe thousands for our benefit and liberals want to accuse the President of incompetence? dude, f**k that! i don't fall for that easy. and i sure as hell won't get sucked in to the liberal feeding frenzy wanting to put a douche like Kerry in office.
i realize no one can help but look back and believe that things could have been done better, but i believe the margin for error was much thinner than what a liberal wants us to believe. we did fantastic and still are IMO
BTW if you want to blame someone for the lack of manpower or timing causing a flaw in the invasion. blame the Turks, seriously. when they backed out at the last minute they f**ked us good. leave it to the 3rd I.D. to pick up the ball and perform better than any invading army in the history of warfare. |
|
|
| BigManwithaPlan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the "liberal" notion that we should have sent 130,000 troops into Afganistan first is fundamentally flawed by one very important fact: geography.
look at a map of Afganistan and tell me, as a ground commander, where in the bloody hell am i going to bring half a dozen divisions of troops, firepower, support and command structure from?
the commanders had it right the first time and performed flawlessly. the only thing that limited thier ability to put as many boots on the ground for the hunt was that logistically, Afganistan might as well have been on Mars with respect to placing manpower there for the hunt much less taking over of the country. ergo, the use of indiginous manpower.
they knew the lay of the land. they had the inside track. they fought and died in the hundreds maybe thousands for our benefit and liberals want to accuse the President of incompetence? dude, f**k that! i don't fall for that easy. and i sure as hell won't get sucked in to the liberal feeding frenzy wanting to put a douche like Kerry in office.
i realize no one can help but look back and believe that things could have been done better, but i believe the margin for error was much thinner than what a liberal wants us to believe. we did fantastic and still are IMO
BTW if you want to blame someone for the lack of manpower or timing causing a flaw in the invasion. blame the Turks, seriously. when they backed out at the last minute they f**ked us good. leave it to the 3rd I.D. to pick up the ball and perform better than any invading army in the history of warfare. |
| quote: | | where in the bloody hell am i going to bring half a dozen divisions of troops, firepower, support and command structure from? |
Easy. Airforce dude. I've seen old footage from when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. They pushed 1000's of people + Jeeps and other tank-looking vehicles out of the backs of their old transport jets and that was 20+ yrs ago. Our Airforce has the capability to do that faster and more precisely today and our ground forces are far stronger & more agile. If you don't believe me I'll send you pics from Warner Robins Airforce Base where as my friends say "they'll haul anywhere"
I know members of the 3rd id. Their based here in GA. They performed flawlessly when it came to following the plan. And we'll never forget the stories of their bravery & the sacrifices they made.
Geography, history, and reality matter. Turkey is very very far away from Afghanistan. Turkey's political stance did interfere with the original plan IN IRAQ NOT AFGHANISTAN. But that didn't stop much. Our soldiers marched in and toppled Saddam Hussein faster than most people expected. Saddam sits in jail. My problem with that war is that the administration totally underestimated the post-war plan. They had the wrong mentality to begin with. Your buddy Cheney was on the record saying "We'd be greeted with roses and open arms." SEVERAL TIMES. Your other good friend Dep. Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz gave SEVERAL INTERVIEWS saying he thought we could stand up security forces and a government IN 6 MONTHS and be on our way out. Rumsfeld told us he believed the war would almost pay for itself (iraqi oil).
Consider that & the fact that the 3 people I mentioned have 0days combat experience. All this was going on while the Army Cheif of Staff, veteran from Vietnam and carrer soldier, was screaming in the Pentagon for more troops and armor FOR A REALITY-BASED POSTWAR PLAN. But we know he was overuled and today General Shensheki is retired in HA. Hell he could be your next door neighbor. Since then calls for more troops from Senators Lugar, Hagel, and McCain (all army vets) have been completly ignored. If ignoring all these people doesn't label you incompetent I don't know what will.
Points aside... I'm glad Saddam's in jail but I still think we should have wiped out Osama B. Laden immediatly with whatever it took. Sending more than 1/10th the number we sent after Saddam ore better relations with Pakistan to get their border guard up... whatever. I will concede better relations with Turkey might have meant something in Afghanistan... even if the countries are 1000+miles apart.
| quote: | | they knew the lay of the land. they had the inside track. they fought and died in the hundreds maybe thousands for our benefit and liberals want to accuse the President of incompetence? dude, f**k that!" |
That's all fine and dandy except for the warlords which were shooting at our troops just weeks before. There is an old saying when it comes to the presidency "The Buck Stops Here". A president should take responsiblity for all the screwups when he's in charge. Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, many other did. I can't think of any excuse for Osama to still be alive yrs after the War on Terror Started. Now do you think Osama's weather report will turn up on FOX or the Weather Channel first? |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
First of all this is not an October surprise by the GOP
Reasons being:
1)Al Jazeera released it specifically to influence our elections.
2)Translators around the world know the content/authencity of the tape
Dem Spin:
"Bin ladin is still out there, another Bush Admin failure"
Rep Spin:
"Bush is the terror gladiator, Bin ladin is out there and wants us to not vote for Bush....Should we listen to Bin ladin?"
In my opinion this story does several things:
1) Thank god it completely blew the explosives story out of the picture for the weekend.
2) Brings Bin Ladin back into the picture and ties him to extreme liberals like Micheal Moore.
a) How else did he know about the children, Bush was reading to on Sept. 11? I doubt he dug up the actual news clip. I think he probably popped some popcorn and watched the Fahrenlies 9/11 dvd...in his cave.
3) From the actual transcript, He mentioned Bush more than Kerry throughout the 18minute tape. Yea yea Kerry and Bush will not secure Americans....But its obvious he was saying that he doesn't want Bush in office. The effects of this?
a) Brings back the memories of 9/11- People from states like New Jersey will definitely have this in mind when going out to vote. This state is well in play....and Terrorism is the biggest issue in that state.
b) Brings back the word TERRORISM into the election bid
- Bush has polled in every poll nationwide consistently higher than John Kerry in the category of Terrorism. He leads Kerry in the terrorism category in double digits.
4) Brings an emotional message into America overall.
a) the DNC spin will bring a more rational approach by saying yea,"Bush failed to catch Bin Ladin." Fact of the matter is that him sending a video rather than actually attacking the U.S. says alot about the Bush Adminstration containing the terrorists by fighting them on their turf.
Lets think about this for a second:
- America is not Spain :Not to diss spain in any manner because my mom is from Spain. Our elections are protected and the fact that Bin lading sent a tape and didnt hit us. Imagine if terorists hit us? What will that say about the security Bush has implemented throughout his 4 year term? A failure right? So this tape saws alot about the capacity of Al Queda to attack our country and the job the U.S. Has done to destroy 75% of the group.
- Some Extreme Jihad Liberals might even want an attack to show how "pathetic" Bush has been....which is pretty sad but true.
b) Will the American Public listen to Bin Ladin?
He basically endorsed Kerry...he mentioned Kerry once in the tape and mentioned his hatred towards Bush many times. Who will the American public trust more with the face of Bin ladin back into televisions nationwide across all homes in all battleground states.
The polls suggest Bush strong on terrorism and this plays right into his hands.
overall effect:
Swing voters will now be once more reminded of the big issue : TERRORISM -------Bush advantage nationwide. |
|
|
| NiteKiD |
| quote: |
In my opinion this story does several things:
1) Thank god it completely blew the explosives story out of the picture for the weekend.
|
yea
| quote: |
2) Brings Bin Ladin back into the picture and ties him to extreme liberals like Micheal Moore
|
This video does bring Bin Laden back into the picture. The question is, why was he ever out of the picture? After comments from Bush that (despite what he said in the debates), that he was “truly not concerned about him”, and after Cheney speculated that he’s probably dead, this guy is still alive and kickin and making videos.
Bush’s reaction to the first aircraft is well known throughout the world. It’s probably commonplace on the internet, which these Islamic extremists seem to be familiar with.
I’m not discounting the possibility Osama has watched Fahrenheit. I don’t see how that would tie him in with Michael moore though. They both ridicule Bush?
| quote: |
3) From the actual transcript, He mentioned Bush more than Kerry throughout the 18minute tape. Yea yea Kerry and Bush will not secure Americans....But its obvious he was saying that he doesn't want Bush in office. The effects of this?
|
If you can argue he has the complexity to demean Bush as a ploy to convince the american people to vote Kerry, you can also the argue he has the complexity to demean Bush as a ploy to convince the American people to vote Bush, after all, he must know he is the most hated man in America.
| quote: |
a) Brings back the memories of 9/11- People from states like New Jersey will definitely have this in mind when going out to vote. This state is well in play....and Terrorism is the biggest issue in that state.
|
I don’t think 9/11 memories will ever go away. It was the greatest crime in history against our country. Why is the main perpetrator still at large?
| quote: |
b) Brings back the word TERRORISM into the election bid
- Bush has polled in every poll nationwide consistently higher than John Kerry in the category of Terrorism. He leads Kerry in the terrorism category in double digits.
|
Yes bush does lead Kerry heavily on terrorism. This is because we have seen how he’s reacted, its passionate, and it appears no joke to him. It’s a “War on Terror.” That really resonates with some people. IMO, the severe crackdown on terrorism around the world would have been a given, no matter who was president, after 9/11. The question is, are we going about it the right way? Are we actually making the situation worse?
| quote: |
a) the DNC spin will bring a more rational approach by saying yea,"Bush failed to catch Bin Ladin." Fact of the matter is that him sending a video rather than actually attacking the U.S. says alot about the Bush Adminstration containing the terrorists by fighting them on their turf.
Lets think about this for a second:
|
yea that’s pretty rational. Why still haven’t we caught bin Laden? Three years into the war on terror, and we’re still at square one, with the same terrorist threatening us.
Bin Laden and terrorists have always been making video tapes, it’s their method of communication. He made tapes before 9/11, and 9/11 happened. This is no substitution for his attacks.
| quote: |
- America is not Spain :Not to diss spain in any manner because my mom is from Spain. Our elections are protected and the fact that Bin lading sent a tape and didnt hit us. Imagine if terorists hit us? What will that say about the security Bush has implemented throughout his 4 year term? A failure right? So this tape saws alot about the capacity of Al Queda to attack our country and the job the U.S. Has done to destroy 75% of the group.
|
75% of the group? 75% of known leaders, as the president said in the debate? 75% of what, exactly?
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2373651
Al Qaeda has had more recruitments than it could have ever dreamed of since the war in Iraq.
And yes, we never had a terrorist attack since 9/11. but we never had a terrorist attack for 8 years before that. Osama is still out there and planning.
| quote: |
Some Extreme Jihad Liberals might even want an attack to show how "pathetic" Bush has been....which is pretty sad but true
|
Actually, the Extremist Jihadists would be religious conservatives, whereas the liberals would have more tolerance for other cultures and religions.
| quote: |
b) Will the American Public listen to Bin Ladin?
He basically endorsed Kerry...he mentioned Kerry once in the tape and mentioned his hatred towards Bush many times. Who will the American public trust more with the face of Bin ladin back into televisions nationwide across all homes in all battleground states.
The polls suggest Bush strong on terrorism and this plays right into his hands.
|
yes, who should the American public trust. The man who runs for president and makes Osama bin Laden an issue, or the president who does not. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by BigManwithaPlan
Easy. Airforce dude. I've seen old footage from when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. They pushed 1000's of people + Jeeps and other tank-looking vehicles out of the backs of their old transport jets and that was 20+ yrs ago. Our Airforce has the capability to do that faster and more precisely today and our ground forces are far stronger & more agile. If you don't believe me I'll send you pics from Warner Robins Airforce Base where as my friends say "they'll haul anywhere" |
the Russians had anywhere from 120,000 to 180,000 troops over a 10yr. period and most rolled in over the border, and a lot of good it did them. they still have 25,000 troops at the border. you can't deliver entire armored divisions using the airforce it would take forever.
I wasn't referring to Turkey with regards to Afghanistan.
if it takes 18 months to topple 2 countries and impose freedom as opposed to 6, so be it. it's still one of the most decisive politcally correct invasions ever fought. i'm not ashamed to admit it and neither are my leaders. i'm not gonna hold their words on a string and bring them down with it after the fact. it's too easy and shortsided.
done hijacking this thread. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| Does anyone has the full script or not? |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NiteKiD
yea
This video does bring Bin Laden back into the picture. The question is, why was he ever out of the picture? After comments from Bush that (despite what he said in the debates), that he was “truly not concerned about him”, and after Cheney speculated that he’s probably dead, this guy is still alive and kickin and making videos.
Bush’s reaction to the first aircraft is well known throughout the world. It’s probably commonplace on the internet, which these Islamic extremists seem to be familiar with.
I’m not discounting the possibility Osama has watched Fahrenheit. I don’t see how that would tie him in with Michael moore though. They both ridicule Bush?
If you can argue he has the complexity to demean Bush as a ploy to convince the american people to vote Kerry, you can also the argue he has the complexity to demean Bush as a ploy to convince the American people to vote Bush, after all, he must know he is the most hated man in America.
I don’t think 9/11 memories will ever go away. It was the greatest crime in history against our country. Why is the main perpetrator still at large?
Yes bush does lead Kerry heavily on terrorism. This is because we have seen how he’s reacted, its passionate, and it appears no joke to him. It’s a “War on Terror.” That really resonates with some people. IMO, the severe crackdown on terrorism around the world would have been a given, no matter who was president, after 9/11. The question is, are we going about it the right way? Are we actually making the situation worse?
yea that’s pretty rational. Why still haven’t we caught bin Laden? Three years into the war on terror, and we’re still at square one, with the same terrorist threatening us.
Bin Laden and terrorists have always been making video tapes, it’s their method of communication. He made tapes before 9/11, and 9/11 happened. This is no substitution for his attacks.
75% of the group? 75% of known leaders, as the president said in the debate? 75% of what, exactly?
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2373651
Al Qaeda has had more recruitments than it could have ever dreamed of since the war in Iraq.
And yes, we never had a terrorist attack since 9/11. but we never had a terrorist attack for 8 years before that. Osama is still out there and planning.
Actually, the Extremist Jihadists would be religious conservatives, whereas the liberals would have more tolerance for other cultures and religions.
yes, who should the American public trust. The man who runs for president and makes Osama bin Laden an issue, or the president who does not. |
You sir fall into spin number 1
I fall into spin number 2 |
|
|
| NiteKiD |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
You sir fall into spin number 1
I fall into spin number 2 |
wana play starcraft?
:D |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by NiteKiD
wana play starcraft?
:D |
hey how did you know i played that game?
I quit it last year and began playing wc3 FT
I quit that one too a few months ago :toocool: |
|
|
| NiteKiD |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
hey how did you know i played that game?
I quit it last year and began playing wc3 FT
I quit that one too a few months ago :toocool: |
i played with you some time last year under the name Andain
you whupped me 3v3 0clut LOL |
|
|
|
|
