|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,132 |
Originally posted by Pete D:
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
interesting link I found at the Lebonese embassy website in Washington DC..
and no im not making a political statement here..
I've seen some of those before from a friend that is pro-palestine. The American media seems to only present one side of the story (IMO).
We need to get out of the ME entirely in terms of military and politics. That includes Isreal, which we have supported for far too long. Let them fight their own wars without the support of American money, intelligence, technology etc. If some American companies wish to do business over there, that is their call, but our politics and our military don't need to be there.
The problem is that it would affect free trade if there were no military in that part of the world. The world depends on the waterways and oceans for free trade. The Navy keeps the waterways open (a full time job). There are already pirates and hijackers that attack ships. I think the terrorists (Muslim extemists) would be quick to close down free trade. They might only choose American ships but it would not be good. The military is needed for free trade and to keep the waterways open.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Tom Thumb:
I don't think anyone ever wins in war. Both sides suffer. The new wars seem more like peacekeeping and less like war. Terrorists blend in with the civilians and that strategy seems to work. In other wars it was military against military.
Exactly why you can't negotiate with terrorists. They have nothing to lose since they are stateless persons - or at least don't represent any government or nation. Many of the insurgents in Iraq were bussed in from Syria. What do they care if Iraq gets leveled? What do they care if thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed from their thug tactics to keep them quiet, or by using them as shields.
Just like in Lebanon. The cease fire started & despite the agreements, Hammas immediately start re-arming & trying to infiltrate into southern Lebanon again. When the terrorists are caught violating cease fire agreements, who do you punnish & how?
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Sorry, been away a few days at a client site... So lemme catch up a bit... Quote:
and you can't be so gullible to think that clinton created bin laden or put him in the position to gain the strength he eventually did. you know, with you being an intel analyst and all i'd think you'd know better than that.
Not at all. What I meant was that during Clinton's term in office I was also in a position to be "in the know". I know what we were telling him on a daily basis, I know we had solid intel previous to certain terrorist attacks, yet nothing was done. When we provided solid intel on links to Osama along with current information on his where-abouts, we were bushed off. Only a few weeks later, when it was more politically sound to do so, did we lob a few cruise missles at the location -- of course by then Osama had moved on.
Quote:
i was just pointing out that there's enough blame to go around for the people prior to clinton (who armed and empowered bin laden, then left him to his own devices) and the people who ignored or mishandled the information about the 9/11 attackers that were gallivanting around our country prior to getting behind the wheel of 747s.
I agree, there is plenty of blame to go around -- unfortunately I can only comment on what I saw firsthand during the Clinton years -- which is what I did. I saw a first class intelligence failure, and felt the daily frustrations while we made more and more links, and connected the dots, and explained everything in briefings that even a 2 year old could understand. But at the time the administration was too busy riding the .com boom to worry everyday Americans about a growing threat.
Quote:
Very true. A request for an all out attack/search and destroy put on Osama at that time would have made it nowhere. National and international support for such an endeavour at that time was non existant. Congress and the House would have shot such a proposal down in minutes.
We did not need an all out search and destroy mission, though. We had SOLID intel as to his very location -- during this time Osama stayed in one spot a bit longer at a time because the whole world wasn't looking for him. We had the perfect opportunity, and a valid reason. (Just ask anyone who served during this time how they felt after the various terror attacks on their friends and fellow service members -- to them it was obvious something needed to be done.)
Quote:
However at that time, Bin Laden had no qualms with the US
Wow. Bin Laden started his "holy war" against us way back in August of 1990 -- when we first set troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia. Some experts believe it goes further back than that, but we know (from his own private writings) that this is when he considers the US his "final target" before he can make the world an Islamic one.
Quote:
you mean this isn't all clinton's fault, as our resident 'intel analyst' and neo-con crew would like us to believe?
Spiiiiiin. I never said it was all Clinton's fault -- again all I said was it was the biggest intel failure of all times. He could have cut the head off the snake very early on, which would have quelled the issue before it exploded into the worldwide Jihad that we have today.
Quote:
the abysmal way that intel was gathered and handled by the Clinton Administration
The intel gathering was going on just fine during that period -- unfortunately the War on Terror was as popular then as it is now.
Quote:
give yourself more credit than that. my opinion is islamic extremism has been exacerbated by the bush admin foreign policy and the very badly managed wot.
I do agree with you here, BP. I do believe that the terrorist "problem" has been made worse in the past few years -- unfortunately I also saw no other choice. History proves we cannot ignore the problem, because it doesn't "just go away".
Quote:
that said, there is hope for lasting peace in the me and a reduction in the threat of terror attacks on US interests. i just think it's a lot further off than some of us are willing to accept, and we'll have to forgo the scorched earth approach that so many people love in order for us to get there.
I also hope for lasting peace. Unfortunately I feel that Americans (and the world in general today) is far too short-sighted. You cannot expect a country radically change overnight. I do not believe this will be solved in the next year or two, we're talking 5-10 years as a more accurate assessment. Back in the day we theorised that if Osama was left unchecked, that his hatred would grow, as would his power (given the nearly unlimited funds he had available at the time). We concluded that the end result of this would be either a major attack on American soil, or an attack overseas so devistating that the American public would lose all faith in the gov't to protect them, and we would end up falling back to an isolationist country, which would be a bad thing for the entire world.
Quote:
We need to get out of the ME entirely in terms of military and politics.
...[snip]...
our politics and our military don't need to be there.
In otherwards you'd rather have entire countries fall into the hands of terrorist leaders, willing and able to exert their influence across the entire region? Do you even understand what this would do to the global economy, or do you just not care?
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by EternalOne:
....the fact remains that had Clinton got off his ass when those of us in the military told him to, we would not be sitting in this mess today.
E1
this is the statement that my original post was in response to. you could substitute at least two other presidents in place of clinton's name and that statement would be accurate. but that wasn't the statement you made. with you having the exposure you had, even if it was only under the clinton admin, you should know better than to place blame.
and the impatience of the american public in regards to the wot is because of what's happened over the past 3+ years. the plan and strategy wasn't well defined and look at where we are now. NONE of our goals have been accomplished. obl gellin like magellan somewhere in pakistan or afghanistan, a resurgence of the taliban and general unrest in afghanistan, iraq..well you see it. how can you have confidence and patience in a process when it's not producing results and there is no clear plan or strategy other than 'stay the course'?
i'm willing to bear through an uncomfortable patience but i'd say i'm much more resilient than the avg voter/citizen. i can pretty much guarantee you that no presidential candidate in the next election will continue the path that the current admin started and still adheres to.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
....the fact remains that had Clinton got off his ass when those of us in the military told him to, we would not be sitting in this mess today.
E1
this is the statement that my original post was in response to. you could substitute at least two other presidents in place of clinton's name and that statement would be accurate.
Two other presidents didn't have Osama handed to them on a silver platter only to let him walk!
BrApple-its all in the way it is presented...but everythign on my resume is all me
TexasRealtor-I hope you spelling improves on your resume.
MxRacer-ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ironyville. population, texasrelator.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by EternalOne:
....the fact remains that had Clinton got off his ass when those of us in the military told him to, we would not be sitting in this mess today.
this is the statement that my original post was in response to. you could substitute at least two other presidents in place of clinton's name and that statement would be accurate. but that wasn't the statement you made. with you having the exposure you had, even if it was only under the clinton admin, you should know better than to place blame.
Well, I didn't work directly under any other President, so I cannot confirm this, but to my recollection I do not remember a single other President in American history that dealt with terrorist attacks on US interests and personel, and then was given the full story along with a full assessment report showing who was responsible and where they were at that very moment. I can, however, confirm that this was the case with President Clinton -- which is what I was speaking to. If you can provide other examples, I am more than willing to listen, but in all of my training an example like this was never mentioned. Our basic training taught us that if we provide solid information, then the CiC would act, the more solid the info, the faster the action was likely to be taken. Everyone up the chain of command was telling him what to do, but the political climate and economic stability at the time prevented him from taking action. (That's my thoughts at the time, at least.)
Quote:
and the impatience of the american public in regards to the wot is because of what's happened over the past 3+ years. the plan and strategy wasn't well defined and look at where we are now. NONE of our goals have been accomplished.
This is also the first time in history that an administration has been told they had to lay out the entire war plan to the general public. Granted, I can see where there have been failures as well, but overall I believe there was no other way. Seriously, what great "war plan" has anyone else laid out? There has only really been one "plan" proposed, and that is pull out. Very few people say we should send more troops (which I disagree with help, but that's a whole other discussion) -- most just say we should get the hell out, and I believe even you agree that is a bad idea at this point. (I think I recall that from a previous conversation, if not I am sorry.)
To say that none of our goals have been accomplished is rather harsh, as well. That's really gotta make a soldier proud there. Seriously, when my brother-in-law got back last year we sat down and discussed his mission goals. Of his goals 100% were met, and under the proposed timeline. Do you also not realize that 90% of the country now has electricity, when before during Saddam they did not. Granted, its hard to keep it operational 100% of the time, but even 10 hrs of power is more than never, and goes a long way towards improving life for the people. What about the $6 BILLION we've spent in reconstruction efforts? The schools we've built, the infrastructure we're upgraded, etc. How about the fact that the majority of the North and South of Iraq is under their gov't control, and the majority of the problems lay within Sadr City, or originate there into the rest of the city? There are problems, yes, and there will be for years and years, but to say we've done nothing is very closeminded, and surely does not give our troops enough credit.
Quote:
i can pretty much guarantee you that no presidential candidate in the next election will continue the path that the current admin started and still adheres to.
Yeah, but that's politics driving that -- most politicians will say whatever they have to so they get elected, we all know this. I still would like to hear what they plan on doing differently -- it's obvious that people will distance themselves from the current admin, that's just "smart politics" given todays climate, doesn't mean they have better ideas, or any ideas for that matter.
I'd also bet that the dems don't make the Kerry mistake of not saying anything except "We aren't Bush", as well.  All of the reading, researching, etc I did during the last election still never got me a solid answer on what the hell that guy wanted to do... Somehow I'm afraid this will happen again. I'd just be happy if they'd all come out and lay out a mission plan, for Iraq, the War on Terror, the ecnonomy, trade relations, everything. I think that should become a prereq for people running for office, it'd definately make our choices as citizens a little easier...
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
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.
a great war plan? how about......don't go to war without a plan for 300 billion alex. how about listening to your analyst saying we needed more troops before attacking iraq in order to stabilize the country afterwards. how about not using intel and info that you know is tainted before making up your mind that you're going to "liberate" iraq regardless and make things worse. how about not telling the soldiers one thing and then when they're packed and ready to come home telling them they have to stay for another freaking year!! pisses me the fock off.
i never said we did nothing. i said none of the goals of the wot have been accomplished. of course we've done good things in iraq after tearing the place up.
and politics isn't driving the direction of the wot. results is what's driving the direction of the wot, and it doesn't take a steven hawking to realize that.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by BP:
and politics isn't driving the direction of the wot. results is what's driving the direction of the wot, and it doesn't take a steven hawking to realize that.
Oh, really...
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Quote:
the abysmal way that intel was gathered and handled by the Clinton Administration
The intel gathering was going on just fine during that period -- unfortunately the War on Terror was as popular then as it is now.
I'm going to have to bite back on that one. The CIA budget was strapped, head-count was gutted, HumInt was at an all-time low, etc., etc....the list is practically endless in the '90s. I'm not saying that our intelligence agencies were asleep at the wheel, but that the Executive Branch was of the absolutely mistaken perception that a bank of computers were more valuable than a field agent developing assets and gathering firsthand intel in the back-alleys of Baghdad, Beirut, Kabul, etc. They tried putting things on "autopilot" to a degree...
The Cold War was over so why keep the headcount, right? This was the stated reason of chopping so many warm bodies out of the intelligence community at that time and thinking that satellite feeds mixed in with threat assesment programs and other technical wizardry would counter that loss and it proved to be a complete mess when trying to adjust to the events in the Middle-East and elsewhere.
I also have some marked issues on the attention that OBL in conjunction with Pakistani and Afgani events warranted with Clinton's staff. You guys may have been shooting some top-notch briefs towards the Oval office given the limited resources you had at your disposal, but they were rarely acted on due to "political" reasons...
I'll never knock the rank and file intel folks that bust their asses on a daily basis for this country, but I think that it was a case of too much work and too few hands to properly handle and effectively disseminate it all. Couple that with the way the Clinton administration hobbled intel gathering efforts in terms of resource allocation, funding and ultimately proper attention...and we have the mess that presented itself to the Bush administration early on.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
