Jump to content

Bin Laden is dead


ricco67

Recommended Posts

Spot on. Dubya only cared about getting revenge on Iraq on behalf of his daddy's failed war. ...who between the 2 of them (Bush Senior and Junior), have sent thousands (and counting) of American Soldiers to die for their own personal agenda and to save the family name.

How was the Gulf War a failure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Was Bush going to find Osama in Iraq? Was he going to find him in Afghanistan after he neglected that front?

NO.

Sorry, but it was the Obama Administration who spearheaded the movement by beginning to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan about two years ago. It began with drone attacks within Pakistani borders and ended with the Navy SEALS operation yesterday. By international law, Obama's Admin. had started a third war; a war within Pakistan. It was via this third war that the U.S. operatives were able to kill OBL.

Also, just as an fyi, we've been searching for Osama for a lot longer than ten years. George W. didn't begin the search for him and he didn't end it either.

In point of fact we've been violating Pakistan's sovereignty for years, at least since 2004 with drone attacks. As I recall, that was during Bush's admin. I doubt that those violations will end with Sunday's raid. While it's true we've been searching for OBL since at least the Clinton admin, it wasn't til after 9/11 that significant resources were put on the job. You have to credit the Bush admin for getting the intelligence community back on it's feet and pointed in the right direction after years of neglect. Not that they really had much choice in the matter, but without doing that and squeezing what we could out of various detainees Sunday wouldn't have happened.

My point here was that this was a joint intelligence/special forces mission. It doesn't have much to do with whether a front was being neglected or not. Regardless of what is or was going on elsewhere in this theater of operations, the intelligence op had been going on for a long, long time and once he was found special ops troops would have been sent in regardless of his location. Like it or not, the US has little compunction in executing strikes on the sovereign soil of nations we are not at war with. Just ask the Yemenis, Iranians, Libyans and many others. I'm sure we could scare up an example for every president in the last 50 or so years.

The politicos and their supporters will try to take as much credit as possible, but it was the dedicated work of hundreds if not thousands of lower level folks in the military and intelligence communities that made this happen, not Presidents Obama or Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the conspiracy theory...what show did BHO pre-empt to make the live announcement? Coincidence it was "Celebrity Apprentice"? It is very strange that UBL lived in a walled compound just a few blocks from a military training facility in a major Pakistani city and no one knew he was there? Seriously?

Was it? That would be amusing considering President Obama spent Saturday listening to folks make fun of Trump to his face and then poking him personally during the white house press correspondents dinner. Given the type of personality Trump has, he pretty much has to run for president now. Don't cross the Donald. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We failed to take out Saddam the first time. We're just too nice for our own good sometimes.

That wasn't the goal of the First Gulf War. It was to enact the U.N. Resolution to remove Saddam's regime from Kuwait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't the goal of the First Gulf War. It was to enact the U.N. Resolution to remove Saddam's regime from Kuwait.

I'm looking at this from a Machiavellian viewpoint, as I think you should if you are going to commit to war. True, the official mandate was only to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but we should have gone ahead and taken out Saddam anyway. Would have saved 10 years of expense in blood and treasure enforcing the no-fly zone not to mention saving many Kurds and others plus all the time, trouble, treasure and lives during the second gulf war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was this confirmed?

This isn't the best article that I've read, but it gets the point across, the point being that though harsh techniques were used, the useful information did not come out at that time. Some have suggested that the fear of more harsh treatment may have caused KSM to talk, but I have my doubts about that. If you don't give it up when things are at their worst, you probably won't give it up under threat of more.

But, as I said, the debate will continue. What is most important is what the interrogators believe. If they do not believe it yields useful information, they will not be inclined to use harsh techniques.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42863247/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was the Gulf War a failure?

An American diplomat, April Glaspie, told Hussein that the United States had no opinion on Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait, and that the United States and Iraq were friends. It was basically an open invitation to invade. Responsibility for all the deaths is something that the HW Bush administration shares with Hussein.

So uh, congratulations on expelling Hussein after you invited him, HW. What a successful mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ball was in motion long before Obama took office and has little to do with increases or decreases in overt activity in Afghanistan or Iraq. This came from years of pavement pounding by the intelligence and military communities during both administrations. It wasn't Obama that got this guy any more than it would have been Bush. It was the people working for years following up leads and squeezing those detainees behind the scenes who got him. If we have to give politicos credit, then it was Bush who started the ball going almost 10 years ago and Obama who finally caught it.

Since folks insist on giving equal credit to Bush, remember that it was he who said, "I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run" with regards to Osama Bin Laden back in 2002. This was the time frame when the administration's attention started to refocus on invading Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KSM did not reveal the courier's name during the torture. He gave it up months later during regular interrogation, leaving the use of torture question unanswered. However, the satellite and drone surveillance of the courier was spectacular.

http://www.msnbc.msn...h_of_bin_laden/

Pros-

It was those sometimes controversial interrogations that first produced descriptions of members of bin Laden’s courier network, including one critical Middle Eastern courier who along with his brother was protecting bin Laden at his heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad.

After Qahtani was subjected to some of the humiliating interrogations at Guantanamo that later became public, he started to cooperate and, for a while, provided a wealth of information about al-Qaida, including references to the courier in question, the U.S. official said
.

In addition, a senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem that both Mohammed, who was repeatedly waterboarded by the CIA, and al Libi, who was aggressively interrogated but not waterboarded, provided the nom de guerre of the courier.

Cons-

“They waterboarded KSM (Khaled Sheikh Mohammed) 183 times and he still didn’t give the guy up,” said one former U.S. counterterrorism official who asked not to be identified. “Come on. And you want to tell me that enhanced interrogation techniques worked?"

Like some of the detractors in the article, you're focusing to narrowly on what he didn't give.. a name.

He did however reveal his hand. He gave up enough useful information by what he said and how he said it that indicated the importance of this particular courier and that this was a thread worth pursuing. Also.. we are not only talking about KSM here. I only mentioned him as representative of all the HVTs we interrogate for info.

I believe the torture question has been answered. I understand the flip side of the argument that not all info gained under torture can be trusted, but I also firmly believe that good information can and does get produced. 3 cheers for the Jack Bauer Doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An American diplomat, April Glaspie, told Hussein that the United States had no opinion on Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait, and that the United States and Iraq were friends. It was basically an open invitation to invade. Responsibility for all the deaths is something that the HW Bush administration shares with Hussein.

So uh, congratulations on expelling Hussein after you invited him, HW. What a successful mission.

Actually, that was known as one of the biggest diplomatic blunders ever.

From what I understand, there was a misunderstanding in what happened or suggested.

Its quite easy to monday quarterback on such issues.

But the conversation didn't EXACTLY go like this:

Iraq: "We're having some issues on the where the border is with Kuwait."

AG: "SO? Why do I have to do with this?"

Iraq: "Would you have a problem with us re-establishing our border?"

AG: "Where do you think the border belongs to?"

Iraq: "Maybe the persian gulf."

AG: "Eh. What do I care. Okay."

Iraq: "Excellent. We'll start moving tomorrow."

AG: "Whatever. I just want to finish this crossword puzzle. By the way, what's an 8 letter word for 'Encroachment?'"

Iraq: "No clue. Goodbye."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An American diplomat, April Glaspie, told Hussein that the United States had no opinion on Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait, and that the United States and Iraq were friends. It was basically an open invitation to invade. Responsibility for all the deaths is something that the HW Bush administration shares with Hussein.

So uh, congratulations on expelling Hussein after you invited him, HW. What a successful mission.

And it wasn't the U.S. that had a problem - it was the U.N. Which is why we did NOT invade Iraq at that time. Bush left the door open for two countries to negotiate a border dispute. When it failed and the U.N. got involved, so did the U.S., by proxy.

I'm looking at this from a Machiavellian viewpoint, as I think you should if you are going to commit to war. True, the official mandate was only to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but we should have gone ahead and taken out Saddam anyway. Would have saved 10 years of expense in blood and treasure enforcing the no-fly zone not to mention saving many Kurds and others plus all the time, trouble, treasure and lives during the second gulf war.

Perhaps, but all the major players of the time are quick to admit that we would still be there today even if we had gone in back in 1991. I don't agree with Bush Jr's choice to invade, but I do agree with Senior's choice not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.

I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

Yeah, by the most generous reading it was a massive diplomatic blunder with a man we knew liked to go war with his neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since folks insist on giving equal credit to Bush, remember that it was he who said, "I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run" with regards to Osama Bin Laden back in 2002. This was the time frame when the administration's attention started to refocus on invading Iraq.

Personally, I'd rather not give either Bush or Obama credit (which is why I said "If we have to give politicos credit"). But, they're going to take it anyway. It's kind of like when you work your butt off to make sure a major project works out just to see your boss take all the credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but all the major players of the time are quick to admit that we would still be there today even if we had gone in back in 1991. I don't agree with Bush Jr's choice to invade, but I do agree with Senior's choice not to.

We almost inevitably stay around in every country we invade so such a broad generalization doesn't say much. We have hundreds of bases around the world. Do you mean we would still be there like we are at Ramstein in Germany or Yokohama in Japan? Or do you mean we would still be there like Fallujah in 2004?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd rather not give either Bush or Obama credit (which is why I said "If we have to give politicos credit"). But, they're going to take it anyway. It's kind of like when you work your butt off to make sure a major project works out just to see your boss take all the credit.

Did the project fairy leave the major project on your desk? You wouldn't have anything to work your butt off on if it weren't for your manager/boss/principal-in-charge securing that project for your firm.

The entire chain of command deserves credit. As awesome as the SEALs are and as proud as I am of their job well done.. .. they'd be sitting at home doing squat if we didn't have a commander-in-chief willing to build the infrastructure and gather the intelligence by any means neccessary that would allow the SEALs to act. They'd be sitting at home doing squat if we didn't have a commander-in-chief willing to take a huge risk and pull the trigger to unleash them. Bush and Obama both deserve credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone's a cynic. Seriously? Does everything with Obama have to be some conspiracy?

So hey, going back to your idea that this is a conspiracy. It does seem to be gaining traction. The burial at sea, the hesitance to release photographic evidence, and all the repoted hearsay is suspicious. Far be it from me to suggest that a sitting President might lie to the American people. That could never happen. We know that to be incontrovertible fact. But I must admit, the way that it's been handled, it sure looks like there's something to hide.

They certainly could have prevented conspiracy theorists like yourself and RedScare from having jumped to such extreme and obviously incorrect conclusions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WorldNews/conspiracy-theories-proof-bin-ladens-death/story?id=13508746

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-bin-laden-death-add-fuel-to-conspiracy-theorists

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bin-laden-conspiracy-20110503,0,3052618.story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the project fairy leave the major project on your desk? You wouldn't have anything to work your butt off on if it weren't for your manager/boss/principal-in-charge securing that project for your firm.

The entire chain of command deserves credit. As awesome as the SEALs are and as proud as I am of their job well done.. .. they'd be sitting at home doing squat if we didn't have a commander-in-chief willing to build the infrastructure and gather the intelligence by any means neccessary that would allow the SEALs to act. They'd be sitting at home doing squat if we didn't have a commander-in-chief willing to take a huge risk and pull the trigger to unleash them. Bush and Obama both deserve credit.

More often than not I am the project fairy. Fortunately for me, though, I don't work for a politician so I do get the lion's share of credit for my work.

In the case of the SEALs they don't ever just sit at home doing squat, but I get your point. But, I think you are giving the commander-in-chief way too much credit for what actually happens. The career intelligence and military communities do the work day in and day out, year after year, regardless of the political leadership. The commander-in-chief just makes the go, no-go decision, usually with much consideration given to the risks to his own political future and not so much to those actually doing the fighting and dying. I'd say give the c-in-c 5% credit and the operational guys 95% of the credit, but the way it works in the real world is that the c-in-c gets or tries to take 95% of the credit and give the rest the remaining 5%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More often than not I am the project fairy. Fortunately for me, though, I don't work for a politician so I do get the lion's share of credit for my work.

In the case of the SEALs they don't ever just sit at home doing squat, but I get your point. But, I think you are giving the commander-in-chief way too much credit for what actually happens. The career intelligence and military communities do the work day in and day out, year after year, regardless of the political leadership. The commander-in-chief just makes the go, no-go decision, usually with much consideration given to the risks to his own political future and not so much to those actually doing the fighting and dying. I'd say give the c-in-c 5% credit and the operational guys 95% of the credit, but the way it works in the real world is that the c-in-c gets or tries to take 95% of the credit and give the rest the remaining 5%.

I'm not going to get into the %s.. I only opened my mouth because you implied earlier than O and W deserve zero credit.. 0%. I think that's wrong. Obama would have gotten the blame had it been revealed that we knew where he was but failed to act. He would have gotten the blame a la Carter had had the mission gone FUBAR. I think its only fair to give him his share of the credit for an outstanding successful mission. .. and that's coming from a military-loving conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to me that there are so many conspiracy theories when al-qaeda has essentially confirmed his death by releasing statements vowing vengence. They would have had much more to gain by contesting reports of his death and claiming that the US was lying. If he was still alive, he would have nothing to gain by laying low at this point.

Whether he was armed or not, there's no way they should have brought him out alive to go on trial. They did the right thing - kill him and dispose of the body (according to Islamic customs) somewhere a shrine can't be built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get into the %s.. I only opened my mouth because you implied earlier than O and W deserve zero credit.. 0%. I think that's wrong. Obama would have gotten the blame had it been revealed that we knew where he was but failed to act. He would have gotten the blame a la Carter had had the mission gone FUBAR. I think its only fair to give him his share of the credit for an outstanding successful mission. .. and that's coming from a military-loving conservative.

I agree completely. There was huge risk in this for Obama. Not only did Carter have a complete disaster in a similar situation, Clinton did also in Somalia. It's easy for us to sit here and question the decisions that presidents in both parties make, but it's another matter entirely when you're the one making the decision and takubg the responsibility when things go wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get into the %s.. I only opened my mouth because you implied earlier than O and W deserve zero credit.. 0%. I think that's wrong. Obama would have gotten the blame had it been revealed that we knew where he was but failed to act. He would have gotten the blame a la Carter had had the mission gone FUBAR. I think its only fair to give him his share of the credit for an outstanding successful mission. .. and that's coming from a military-loving conservative.

Fair enough, though the way this works in real life is that Obama will get much more than his fair share (just as Bush would have in a similar circumstance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, though the way this works in real life is that Obama will get much more than his fair share (just as Bush would have in a similar circumstance).

I'm not really sure how we judge credit received vs credit deserved here... But both Newsweek and Rasmussen are saying Obama has gotten virtually zero bumps in the polls and most news analysts are saying any bump will be short lived ...so if the election is any indication of credit received, I hope you end up wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we can agree that Obama gets credit for making a bold choice that was the culmination of years of hard work by people working in multiple administrations under multiple leaders (at many different levels), the risky choice Obama made directly resulted in Bin Laden being brought to justice for his crimes.

This is a choice I believe that any commander in chief would make in the position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we can agree that Obama gets credit for making a bold choice that was the culmination of years of hard work by people working in multiple administrations under multiple leaders (at many different levels), the risky choice Obama made directly resulted in Bin Laden being brought to justice for his crimes.

This is a choice I believe that any commander in chief would make in the position.

I'm not sure I'd say it was a bold choice. More like your last sentence, it was the inevitable choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure how we judge credit received vs credit deserved here... But both Newsweek and Rasmussen are saying Obama has gotten virtually zero bumps in the polls and most news analysts are saying any bump will be short lived ...so if the election is any indication of credit received, I hope you end up wrong.

In a year from now when we're in the midst of the 2012 election season we'll hear plenty from the "Hugh Stones" of the world about how Obama single-handedly brought down OBL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'd say it was a bold choice. More like your last sentence, it was the inevitable choice.

You're right, difficult choice, choice not made easily, but a choice he had to make regardless.

Similar choices panned out horribly for Carter, bush jr and Clinton, but similar choices panned out well for Kennedy and Truman.

Anyway, justice is served!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'd say it was a bold choice. More like your last sentence, it was the inevitable choice.

Not the inevitable choice at all, for many reasons:

- Reportedly, the CIA only gave a 60% probability that OBL was there.

- The strike took place in Pakistan, a country that we are not at war with. There was cooperation, but no specific approval of the Pakistani government.

- The strike involved sending in Seals instead of using a targeted missile strike, which was a viable option.

We've been hunting this guy for more than a decade. There have certainly been other opportunities for Obama, Bush, and Clinton for that matter to take out OBL and they were either unsuccessful or not attempted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the inevitable choice at all, for many reasons:

- Reportedly, the CIA only gave a 60% probability that OBL was there.

- The strike took place in Pakistan, a country that we are not at war with. There was cooperation, but no specific approval of the Pakistani government.

- The strike involved sending in Seals instead of using a targeted missile strike, which was a viable option.

We've been hunting this guy for more than a decade. There have certainly been other opportunities for Obama, Bush, and Clinton for that matter to take out OBL and they were either unsuccessful or not attempted.

Pakistan had given a blanket waiver for us to cross the border to capture OBL or senior Al Qaeda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...