|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by BP:
both bush's had a shot at obl. doesn't take an intel analyst to know that. yet it's mostly clinton's fault that action wasn't taken earlier. again the blame game has no winners.
When Bush 41 was in office, OBL hadn't yet tried the first attempt at bringing down the WTC...that was the truck bombing there in '93, first year of the Clinton presidency. OBL may have been on the radar as a potential threat, but nothing on a par with Hussein at the time.
By the time Bush 43 landed in the office, OBL had hit the WTC in '93, Khobar Towers in '96, US embassies in '98, and the USS Cole in 2000. Bin Laden was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, and was in hiding (something he surely learned to do more of after finding out that the US had tabs on him on and off through the 1990s).
It's probably a good thing you're not an intel analyst, because you really wouldn't be a very good one. It's pretty naive to say that both Bushes "had shots" at Osama when you're faced with historical evidence.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
By the time Bush 43 landed in the office, OBL had hit the WTC in '93, Khobar Towers in '96, US embassies in '98, and the USS Cole in 2000. Bin Laden was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, and was in hiding (something he surely learned to do more of after finding out that the US had tabs on him on and off through the 1990s).
ohhh...i get it. we knew bin laden was hanging out in afghanistan from 1992-2000 and then he dissapeared when bush was elected until 9/12/2001 when he miraculously resurfaced in....afghanistan. riiight. ok jeb. your vote of confidence on my intel analyst capabilities are that much more valid now. thanks, i'll keep my day job as long as you do the same.  ...lol
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
By the time Bush 43 landed in the office, OBL had hit the WTC in '93, Khobar Towers in '96, US embassies in '98, and the USS Cole in 2000. Bin Laden was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, and was in hiding (something he surely learned to do more of after finding out that the US had tabs on him on and off through the 1990s).
ohhh...i get it. we knew bin laden was hanging out in afghanistan from 1992-2000 and then he dissapeared when bush was elected until 9/12/2001 when he miraculously resurfaced in....afghanistan. riiight. ok jeb. your vote of confidence on my intel analyst capabilities are that much more valid now. thanks, i'll keep my day job as long as you do the same. ...lol
Try again. OBL was sequestered in Sudan for five years before moving to Afghanistan, where he ingratiated himself to the Taliban with money and arms and they returned the favor by giving him places to hide (and we know that Afghanistan is not much more than one big place to hide) and refusing to cooperate with extradition attempts. Come on, this is all historical fact...it's not that hard to look it up, even if you don't remember it.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
maybe you should sign up for that intel analyst position. you seem to know it all.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by BP:
maybe you should sign up for that intel analyst position. you seem to know it all.
See, there's your problem. Analysis isn't about knowing everything, it's about taking what is known (not to mention the "known unknowns" that Rumsfeld talked about), and developing scenarios and plans of action, not to mention estimating potential consequences. When Clinton was in office, we knew that OBL had made active strikes against the US (and probably plannign more), and more than any time before or since, we knew where he was and had opportunities to take him in or down. This was before he disappeared into Kandahar. That's why people tend to view the failure to nab him as resting mostly on the Clinton Administration.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,116
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,116 |
An iteresting idea was brought to my attention the other day. If a poll was issued like this:
If using more force is what it takes for our troops to be brought home sooner, should we use it: Yes, No.
A vast majority of people would say yes. We are fighting this war wrong, the president is trying to be too politically correct in running it. Would we have won WWII if we had to think about how everyone felt, how the press would view us, or if the troops couldn't do their jobs? Seriously who in the world thought it would be a good idea, in a war zone, that one coudn't fire apon someone until they were fired apon. Get the press out, let the armed forces do what they need to do, and this war would be over fairly quickly. Same thing happened in Vietnam and look at how that turned out.
95 SE MTX
svt exhaust
intake
deer killer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
see there's your problem
wrong. my problem is that i can't stand people who act like their side of the issue is the only correct one. you and a couple other people continue to point fingures and place blame when it's very clear that every president since 1992 could have done something that would've reduced or eliminated the issues we're facing today. the bushes aren't royalty nor are they exempt from mistakes. we already know that about clinton, but you guys get in a tizzy when people point out that bush 1 & 2 contributed to the problem as well. why is that?
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Originally posted by BP:
both bush's had a shot at obl. doesn't take an intel analyst to know that. yet it's mostly clinton's fault that action wasn't taken earlier. again the blame game has no winners.
And yet again you refuse to accept the fact that President Clinton was handed Osama on a silver platter, yet refused to act, even though it would have ultimately saved thousands of lives.
Quote:
i never said we did nothing. i said none of the goals of the wot have been accomplished.
Mission Goals for the Iraqi Campaign:
1. End the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Check. No debate there...
2. Eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Surely we didn't find the "smoking gun" -- but we have managed to account for a small percentage of known WMD's. The rest are still listed as "missing", meaning they ARE out there someplace.
3. Capture or drive out terrorists.
Eliminated the Ansar al-Islam terror training camp along the border of Iran.
4. Collect intelligence on terrorist networks.
Interrogations with captured persons during the conflict has resulted in a treasure trove of information.
5. Collect intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activity.
Captured the key players in Iraq's various weapons programs. Also aquired documents showing how Iraq was attempting to restart its various programs, and its strong desire to do so.
6. Secure Iraq's oil fields.
These have been under our control for quite some time now, although there have been constant attacks, we still manage to keep Iraq's primary income flowing.
7. Deliver humanitarian relief and end sanctions.
Check.
8. Help Iraq achieve representative self-government and insure its territorial integrity.
Check.
So again, NONE of our goals have been achieved? Of course, I assume you were talking about the WMD's, because that's the only mission objective anyone here seems to care about, but the fact remains that we've done quite a bit, even according to the original military plan.
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Originally posted by BP:
we already know that about clinton, but you guys get in a tizzy when people point out that bush 1 & 2 contributed to the problem as well. why is that?
No, you just take it like that. I know there have been mistakes on both sides of the political spectrum -- but the grandest failure was by Clinton -- and like I said he was my CiC, and therefore I can speak firsthand about that event. You can't seem to understand that I don't make comments unless I know something to be fact, or I clearly label it as an opinion.
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
The problem with all this talk about mission goals is that there is ONLY ONE GOAL THAT MATTERS: getting our troops out of Iraq and leaving behind a self-governing, stable, West-friendly democracy.
Now, I and other sane people know that the chances of this happening are similar to a snowball surviving in Hades. I think the best we can hope for at this point is to allow Iraq to be divided into 3 countries.
Sunniville aka Sadamistan in the West
Kurdistan aka "Turkey's worst nightmare" in the North
and "New Iran" or "Little Iran" or "West Iran" in the East
After all, this is what they really want. It's high time we abandon our expectations for a new Iraq to become a shining beacon of democracy, tidy up the best we can and get the hell out.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
