What if Bush gets Osama?

[Almighty Colin]

How much would Osama ending up in US custody help Bush's re-election campaign? Seems to me it depends on the timing. If Osama were caught around the time of the Republican convention or really close to the election I think it would really give him a boost. Otherwise, it would probably fade pretty quickly as a factor.

Thoughts?

[TeenGodFather]

IF he's caught at just the right time, I'd be willing to say that they've had him for a longer period of time. :salute:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by TeenGodFather@Mar 5 2004, 07:43 AM
IF he's caught at just the right time, I'd be willing to say that they've had him for a longer period of time. :salute:
they did that already in anticipation
;-)))

[OldJeff]

Would be terrible, they would use it as proof that the goofy shit they have done since 9-11 is working and use it to further restict our freedoms.

I for one am frightend as hell over what the current group of christian pandering puppets would do with no thoughts of dealing with re election

[Almighty Colin]

I'm curious as to how well Bush could bang these messages home. I have doubts. He's no Ronald Reagan. That I have no doubts about.

[Gunni]

They already have him....
and I think Bush miht have some one write his speeches when he announces Osamas capture, just to be on the safe side :)

[kath]

I have to agree. They probably already have him, have him sitting "on ice" until the right moment... Osama is just another tool in the re-election arsenal... so is the Gay marriage ban and just about every other bogus thing that's been coming out of the whitehouse lately... it's all about getting votes and keeping those ultra conservatives & war mongers happy.

He's setting the stage... using those images from 9/11 for his campagin, getting Guliani back in the picture to support their use... then voila! Oh look - there's Osama! (see the 24/7 search in progress today!) We got him AND Saddam - so the world is safe again thanks to the super powers of Bushie! Let's vote him in office and aw heck, fuggedabout that 2 term limit, let's let him stay as long as he wants!

Sorry... but this is all making me sick.... <_<

VOTE people... just get out there and VOTE for crying out loud...

[Mike AI]

It is amazing how gullible some people are. Do you really think the US has Bin Laden in some jail somewhere waiting to bring him out for October right before the election???

It is amazing how liberals have prevailed in brainwashing people through the media.

Because of this if Bin Laden is caught close to the election, liberals will say it was a Bush plot.... hell you have some liberals who float the idea that Bush had something to do with 9-11, or at last knew about it - Dean pushed this.

[Mike AI]

It is amazing how gullible some people are. Do you really think the US has Bin Laden in some jail somewhere waiting to bring him out for October right before the election???

It is amazing how liberals have prevailed in brainwashing people through the media.

Because of this if Bin Laden is caught close to the election, liberals will say it was a Bush plot.... hell you have some liberals who float the idea that Bush had something to do with 9-11, or at last knew about it - Dean pushed this.

It is pretty sad that partisan politics comes to these kinds of slanderous conspiracies..... Another example of how this country is sinking rapidly.

If Bin Laden is caught tommorow, it will not help Bush for the election. The people in the US move on quickly, and demand instant satisfaction.

Right no National Security is my #1 issues, everything falls behind this - and while Bush is a fuckup when it comes to domestic policy - he had done a good job with National Defense and thus will get my vote.

Bush has been a victem of his own success in the war on terror.... because of his success in popular polls most Americans put other issues ahead of national security.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 5 2004, 11:59 AM
It is amazing how gullible some people are. Do you really think the US has Bin Laden in some jail somewhere waiting to bring him out for October right before the election???
Hell, no.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 5 2004, 12:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 5 2004, 12:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 5 2004, 11:59 AM
It is amazing how gullible some people are. Do you really think the US has Bin Laden in some jail somewhere waiting to bring him out for October right before the election???
Hell, no.[/b][/quote]


But there is a percetnage of people in the US who beleive this. This is not just from the wackos, I have heard it in national tv shows on major networks.

I am sure there is a corolation between those who beleive the Bin Laden story and those who think Bush "stold" the election.

[JR]

I dont think its a big stretch Mike to say that they know almost exactly where he is. Probably within a hundred mile radius. Probably less. I have wondered for a while if they are not saving this one for election time as well.

There is a person in the middle of nowhere... people are coming to him regularly and leaving him regularly and they can only be doing it by hiking in the middle of nowhere which i would imagine can be seen/detected fairly easily by aerial surveillence/satellite. JUST LIKE THEY MAINTAIN TODAY they can today when the press started reporting they are turning up the heat.

The administration has claimed several times that they knew where he was or had been there immediately after he was there. They have given quite a bit of detail about people who have been in contact with him, and when and where and have shared info about people who have been acting as couriers by moving his hand written orders and messages around etc. There was one time in particular (can't remember which event it was connected to) where they gave out enough details of where he was and who had been in contact with him that it seemed incredibly strange to me that they knew all this but did not have enough information to surround him.

I am definately not a conspiracy theorist, but this one has always made me wonder.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by JR@Mar 5 2004, 12:21 PM
I dont think its a big stretch Mike to say that they know almost exactly where he is. Probably within a hundred mile radius. Probably less. I have wondered for a while if they are not saving this one for election time as well.

There is a person in the middle of nowhere... people are coming to him regularly and leaving him regularly and they can only be doing it by hiking in the middle of nowhere which i would imagine can be seen/detected fairly easily by aerial surveillence/satellite. JUST LIKE THEY MAINTAIN TODAY they can today when the press started reporting they are turning up the heat.

The administration has claimed several times that they knew where he was or had been there immediately after he was there. They have given quite a bit of detail about people who have been in contact with him, and when and where and have shared info about people who have been acting as couriers by moving his hand written orders and messages around etc. There was one time in particular (can't remember which event it was connected to) where they gave out enough details of where he was and who had been in contact with him that it seemed incredibly strange to me that they knew all this but did not have enough information to surround him.

I am definately not a conspiracy theorist, but this one has always made me wonder.

If he is alive JR, I think you are very right. You can read all the news reports and it appears they have him sourrounded ( or think they do at least). But their idea of having him sourounded is a 300 mile area.

That is a HUGE amount of terain, that would take a HUGE army to make sure no one escaped.

I hope this time Bush has the balls to send US troops in and not rely upon Afgans or Pakistanis to handle it. Getting Bin Laden is worth taking casulties for.

There is a huge differene between this, and having the guy in a cell....

I don't beleive in most conspiracies because the nature of information - its hard to keep a secret with more then 1 person. If Bin Laden was caputured the information would get out - no matter what Bush or anyone else wanted.

[OldJeff]

Mike.

What National Defense thing has Bush done ?

War in Afganastan ? Al Queda still exists.

War in Iraq ? Iraq has proven to be a much greater threat to American lives since we have been there. Americans are dying in Iraq every day.

Although I wholeheartedly supported both of these military actions based on what we were being told, it really does not take an IQ much higer than that of a turnip to see we were lied to.

Based simply on the satalite photos taken of Ground Zero I have to say that if Iraq did have WMD and they moved them we would know exactly where they are.

Truth is we invaded a country that posed absolutely no threat to us in any way.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 5 2004, 12:38 PM
Mike.

What National Defense thing has Bush done ?

War in Afganastan ? Al Queda still exists.

War in Iraq ? Iraq has proven to be a much greater threat to American lives since we have been there. Americans are dying in Iraq every day.

Although I wholeheartedly supported both of these military actions based on what we were being told, it really does not take an IQ much higer than that of a turnip to see we were lied to.

Based simply on the satalite photos taken of Ground Zero I have to say that if Iraq did have WMD and they moved them we would know exactly where they are.

Truth is we invaded a country that posed absolutely no threat to us in any way.


Jeff how many terrorist attacks have occured on US soil?

Do you think this is just a coincidence? Do you think Al Quada is taking a break now? Just letting us slide?

Do you realize how many people the FBI rounded up right after 9-11? I read somewhere that 1 cell a week was being busted in the US. The reason they are not reporting it is because they are trying to turn these guys to get more information from other cells.

This is a war that 90% of what is going on, we do not see, and chances we will not know until all the files are declassified and released.

Al Quada is on the run. Smacking Iraq got attention from other Nations and hence they are making changes in their policies. Libya gave up their WMD program and more importanlty have given us the clues to break up the international WMD market. Which included Pakistans TOP nuclear scientist who is spilling the beans.

As far as Iraq, this will sound bad, but the reality is the amount of American dying in Iraq is statisticly zero, and does not effect combat productiveness. This is what you determine winning a war is about. Losing 1-2 soldiers a day is NOTHING - it only impacts the pshycology of those at home. Americans need to get tough like our forfathers. How many soldiers died a day during WWII?

While I beleive Iraq did posses WMD ( Whey else would Saddam risk everything on a bluff?), they were probably moved to Syria ( there are satilite photos showing truck conveys heading there before the war). I support the strick on Iraq in pure RealPolitik terms.

By invading Iraq the US is now able to pull our troops from Saudi Arabia, we can garrison them in Iraq ( Iraq will be like Germany and Japan - housing US troops for the next 50 years). With a big chunk of our military stationed in Iraq we will be able to exert pressure on those we need to. Iran, Syrian, Saudi Arabia, etc...

The reason we are there? OIL. There is no doubt about it. The free flow of market priced oil is the fuel of the US, and hence world economy. Stabilizing the area that has the most fuel is a national interest. Because most American's have a hard time accepting the realities of hard ball foreign policy, Presidents have to couch their actions in other acceptable ways. IN this case it is fighting terrorism.

Luckily for Bush, going to Iraq also helps out on the terrorist front as well. We are a big juicy target and terrorists are heading to Iraq to throw us out. I personally would much rather fight them in baghdad with out military then fight them in Manhatten.

Sorry for the long post....

[OldJeff]

How many attacks were there in the 4 years prior to 9-11 ?

Comparing Iraq to WWII makes no sense, the "War" in Iraq is over, it officially ended some time ago.

If we have pictures of the WMD's being moved, we should have pictures of them destroyed.

Absolutely having Iraq gives us a tremendous military strength in that area, but it really has nothing to do with national defense. Is it necessary ? probably.

If the WMD's are in Syria why have we not invaded ? Is it not the policy to make no distinction between the terrorists and those that aid and harbor them.

It's bullshit talk from a pin head most of which is centered around keeping people afraid so that he will be re elected.

[Buff]

Osama's dead. He's spent two years scrounging for food and medical care in a nasty environment, and he was looking rather frail to begin with. Add to that a couple of MOABs and consistent bombing, and I'd be surprised if he and his donkey didn't get vaporized a year ago.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 5 2004, 01:07 PM
How many attacks were there in the 4 years prior to 9-11 ?

Comparing Iraq to WWII makes no sense, the "War" in Iraq is over, it officially ended some time ago.

If we have pictures of the WMD's being moved, we should have pictures of them destroyed.

Absolutely having Iraq gives us a tremendous military strength in that area, but it really has nothing to do with national defense. Is it necessary ? probably.

If the WMD's are in Syria why have we not invaded ? Is it not the policy to make no distinction between the terrorists and those that aid and harbor them.

It's bullshit talk from a pin head most of which is centered around keeping people afraid so that he will be re elected.


I would love if Bush would go into Syria. Realisticly he cannot because the liberals would call him a war monger, and would do everything in there power to bring him down ( wait they are alrady doing that.)

Bush does not have the political capital to go into another country - 2 islamic regimes overthrown in 3 years is pretty good.

The main reason Bush is getting my vote, is that I am counting on him going into Syria if they don't turn themselves around. If they keep heloping terrorist into Iraq, don't turn over WMD, or Saddams $$ then hopefully around this time next year the 4th ID will be lined up on Syrian border.

How wide is Syria? I bet teh 4th ID could make it to the Med in less then 24 hours.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 5 2004, 11:59 AM
It is amazing how gullible some people are. Do you really think the US has Bin Laden in some jail somewhere waiting to bring him out for October right before the election???

It is amazing how liberals have prevailed in brainwashing people through the media.

Because of this if Bin Laden is caught close to the election, liberals will say it was a Bush plot.... hell you have some liberals who float the idea that Bush had something to do with 9-11, or at last knew about it - Dean pushed this.
People who admit to listening to Rush Limbaugh really ought to be careful when they toss around words like "gullible."

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Mar 5 2004, 01:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Mar 5 2004, 01:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--OldJeff@Mar 5 2004, 01:07 PM
How many attacks were there in the 4 years prior to 9-11 ?

Comparing Iraq to WWII makes no sense, the "War" in Iraq is over, it officially ended some time ago.

If we have pictures of the WMD's being moved, we should have pictures of them destroyed.

Absolutely having Iraq gives us a tremendous military strength in that area, but it really has nothing to do with national defense. Is it necessary ? probably.

If the WMD's are in Syria why have we not invaded ? Is it not the policy to make no distinction between the terrorists and those that aid and harbor them.

It's bullshit talk from a pin head most of which is centered around keeping people afraid so that he will be re elected.


I would love if Bush would go into Syria. Realisticly he cannot because the liberals would call him a war monger, and would do everything in there power to bring him down ( wait they are alrady doing that.)

Bush does not have the political capital to go into another country - 2 islamic regimes overthrown in 3 years is pretty good.

The main reason Bush is getting my vote, is that I am counting on him going into Syria if they don't turn themselves around. If they keep heloping terrorist into Iraq, don't turn over WMD, or Saddams $$ then hopefully around this time next year the 4th ID will be lined up on Syrian border.

How wide is Syria? I bet teh 4th ID could make it to the Med in less then 24 hours.[/b][/quote]
What are we going to do with it once we have it?

[SykkBoy]

If this whole fireworks show thing in Iraq is purely over oil, I think we're losing that war as the prices for a tank of gas hit in the $2.20 (and that's not the fancy premium stuff either).

While my vote is still undecided at this time, if I see the economy taking some upturns and gas prices going down and something being done domestically while still maintaining a strong military presence (even though I'ma "dove" I understand the importance of having a strong military), Bush could very well grab my vote, oh and that whole weak pandering to the Jesus Mob is going to haveto stop too or at least be toned the fuck down.

I'm not a huge Kerry supporter as I'd rather have seen Edwards in there.

The Libertarian Party has become such a mess lately, I'm not even sure I could vote party line there like I have in the past. I attended a Libertarian function last night and it was nothing more than a bunch of pissing and moaning with no real solutions or even a good dream scenario solution. If you can't get things worked out in your own party locally, why even try to make a dent nationally?

Maybe I'll just vote Nader just to piss everyone off...

This is truly a year I'm not sure where my vote is going to go...

[TheEnforcer]

Mike,

While I certainly agree that it is extremely unlikely that they already have him and are just waiting until the right time to say they caught him i would NEVER 100% fully say it couldn't happen.

Would you have said there is no way in hell a president would lie to get us into war back during Vietnam? Well, you would have been wrong as the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident proved. Our history is replete with examples of presidents lying, manipulating, and covering up things surrounding war to suit their political goals. Take a look at The Pentagon Papers sometime if you have any doubts.

Now, I am not saying Bush is doing this sort of stuff but people who blindly say people are crazy to not trust their government to tell them the truth or mainpualte it for their own purposes don't have their eye on history.

[RawAlex]

Mike, I hate to say it, but you bought the party line to the max.

Iraq and terrorism are TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS! The only links that exist are those that have been created by those very suspect reports that Osama's guys might have met with someone inside Iraqi government once. Osama is on record calling Saddam an infidel. I don't think they were working together on much of anything.

Afghanistan and Iraq are two different battles, for two different reasons. One was to get rid of a government that harboured terrorists OPENLY (the ones who claimed responsibility for 9-11), and the other to get rid of a guy who had pissed of the boy's daddy 10 years ago. the WMD thing has pretty much been proven to be a pack of lies, misleading information, and Saddam's own bravado. THERE ARE NO WEAPONS. If there were weapons, the US would have them by now.

Don't get tricked by the boy and his handlers... two wars, two different subjects, linked only by his words.

Alex

[Meni]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 5 2004, 11:59 AM
It is amazing how gullible some people are. Do you really think the US has Bin Laden in some jail somewhere waiting to bring him out for October right before the election???

It is amazing how liberals have prevailed in brainwashing people through the media.

Because of this if Bin Laden is caught close to the election, liberals will say it was a Bush plot.... hell you have some liberals who float the idea that Bush had something to do with 9-11, or at last knew about it - Dean pushed this.
Mike, so where is Osama?
do we have him cornered?


oh you see Balco?
they point out
how they were mentioned in a speech by Bush
and how they're trial date is going to be set early before the election
you go George get the steroid dealers
and brag about it
yeah
don't worry about jobs
or the deficit
Balco gave Barry Bonds THG
oh no!
an athelete used steroids!!!!!!!!

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 5 2004, 04:06 PM
Mike, I hate to say it, but you bought the party line to the max.

Iraq and terrorism are TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS! The only links that exist are those that have been created by those very suspect reports that Osama's guys might have met with someone inside Iraqi government once. Osama is on record calling Saddam an infidel. I don't think they were working together on much of anything.

Afghanistan and Iraq are two different battles, for two different reasons. One was to get rid of a government that harboured terrorists OPENLY (the ones who claimed responsibility for 9-11), and the other to get rid of a guy who had pissed of the boy's daddy 10 years ago. the WMD thing has pretty much been proven to be a pack of lies, misleading information, and Saddam's own bravado. THERE ARE NO WEAPONS. If there were weapons, the US would have them by now.

Don't get tricked by the boy and his handlers... two wars, two different subjects, linked only by his words.

Alex


Alex your a idiot. You are so consumed with the fact that I am member of a party. You are wrong!

Show me in "party literature" where it says the US invaded Iraq for geo-political purposes having nothing to do with terrorism. It was about OIL, and stability. Nothing more, nothing less. The Republican party from what I read are sticking to the guns of WMD ( which I have no doubt Saddam had or thought he had some), and getting rid of a ruthless dictator.

To me, I don't care about ruthless dictators - as long as they sell oil cheaply, and do not interfere with US National Interest.

I am about REALITY.... Countries must do what they must to defend there National Interest.

[Meni]

indecency on the radio
indecency on tv
indecency on cable is coming
indecency on satellite is coming
indecency online?

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Mar 5 2004, 02:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Mar 5 2004, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 5 2004, 11:59 AM
It is amazing how gullible some people are. Do you really think the US has Bin Laden in some jail somewhere waiting to bring him out for October right before the election???

It is amazing how liberals have prevailed in brainwashing people through the media.

Because of this if Bin Laden is caught close to the election, liberals will say it was a Bush plot.... hell you have some liberals who float the idea that Bush had something to do with 9-11, or at last knew about it - Dean pushed this.
People who admit to listening to Rush Limbaugh really ought to be careful when they toss around words like "gullible."[/b][/quote]


PD I spend more of my day reading you posts then listening to Limbaugh... what does that tell you? Only time I listen to Rush is if I happen to be in the car.

As far as Syria, what would we do after? Well we would turn it over to a gov't that is friendly towards the US National Interest. A country that does not support terrorism agains the US and Israel.

And while you clamour about Iraq.... its been less then a year since the start of the war. Who are you to judge any progress on an international scale in a few months. Expand your time reference - your an old man - you know that a few months is nothing in history.

[wig]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 5 2004, 04:06 PM
Mike, I hate to say it, but you bought the party line to the max.

Iraq and terrorism are TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS! The only links that exist are those that have been created by those very suspect reports that Osama's guys might have met with someone inside Iraqi government once. Osama is on record calling Saddam an infidel. I don't think they were working together on much of anything.

Afghanistan and Iraq are two different battles, for two different reasons. One was to get rid of a government that harboured terrorists OPENLY (the ones who claimed responsibility for 9-11), and the other to get rid of a guy who had pissed of the boy's daddy 10 years ago. the WMD thing has pretty much been proven to be a pack of lies, misleading information, and Saddam's own bravado. THERE ARE NO WEAPONS. If there were weapons, the US would have them by now.

Don't get tricked by the boy and his handlers... two wars, two different subjects, linked only by his words.

Alex
Alex,

Have you considered that (among other things like OIL) Iraq could also be the following:

1) a message to terrorists
2) a potential success story of democracy (a model)
3) a strategic operations center

All of these things look to be strategic choices in the administrations SOLUTION to terrorism and hence the connection.

It does not make how they sold it right, but it happens on both sides of the aisle ALL the time.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Meni@Mar 5 2004, 04:19 PM
indecency on the radio
indecency on tv
indecency on cable is coming
indecency on satellite is coming
indecency online?
Meni, I just got off the phone with Cheney. He said he is coming after you are #2 on the list after Howard Stern!

HAHAHAHA

Stern is a fool if he thinks Bush is out to get him because he said negative things abuot Bush. Maybe it helps Stern feel better about himself - it would be a big deal if the President of the US wanted to get some lame shok jock who has the talent of the average 8th grade boy.

[David Duke]

Originally posted by Meni@Mar 5 2004, 01:19 PM
indecency on the radio
indecency on tv
indecency on cable is coming
indecency on satellite is coming
indecency online?
Yes yes yes!
Family values return to the US. Perverts burn in HELL!!!

[RawAlex]

Mike, buying the party line doesn't make you a member of the party, just someone who buys into what they are saying. You are trying to read things into my posts that just aren't there. Your gotta admit, your pretty much repeating the current administration line on this issue. (and I am sure you will point out where it differs for me, I couldn't find those differences)

The reasons given for the war in Iraq by Bush had to do with WMD, failure to follow the UN deadlines, and (the kicker) fact that Saddam would likely give these weapons to his buddy Osama. Invading Iraq was made into a "war on terrorism" thing.

OIL? You think it is about oil? You didn't a year ago... nope, then it was all about them WMDs and terrorists... I mentioned it being about oil and maintaining the flow of the millions of barrels of oil and you (and many others here) made fun of the comments. I find it highly amusing to watch everyone changing their opinions and ending up on the square on the board that I started on.

Attacking Iraq hasn't stopped a single Terrorist act in America... and it has lead to scores of terrorist attacks on Americans inside Iraq.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Wig,

1) Capturing and killing Osama would be a much bigger message. No need to blow a whole non-terrorist sponsoring nation to bits to do it. There are plenty of places much more deserving on that basis.
2) Unlikely. Iraq is a country destined for a dictatorship, in one form or another. At this point, the people aren't even able to agree to have an agreement to agree to setting up an interim government appointed by them to be replaces be a democratically elected government some time in the future.
3) Also unlikely in the long run. I don't think Iraq will allow the US troops to stay on their soil for all that long... it just isn't politically popular in the end of the world. With the US working from Kuwait and other neighboring countries (including Turkey) adding bases of operation here is just a duplication of existing military setups. The only potential would be to allow the US to move all of their troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Alex

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 5 2004, 04:25 PM
Mike, buying the party line doesn't make you a member of the party, just someone who buys into what they are saying. You are trying to read things into my posts that just aren't there. Your gotta admit, your pretty much repeating the current administration line on this issue. (and I am sure you will point out where it differs for me, I couldn't find those differences)

The reasons given for the war in Iraq by Bush had to do with WMD, failure to follow the UN deadlines, and (the kicker) fact that Saddam would likely give these weapons to his buddy Osama. Invading Iraq was made into a "war on terrorism" thing.

OIL? You think it is about oil? You didn't a year ago... nope, then it was all about them WMDs and terrorists... I mentioned it being about oil and maintaining the flow of the millions of barrels of oil and you (and many others here) made fun of the comments. I find it highly amusing to watch everyone changing their opinions and ending up on the square on the board that I started on.

Attacking Iraq hasn't stopped a single Terrorist act in America... and it has lead to scores of terrorist attacks on Americans inside Iraq.

Alex


Alex, you must not read my posts. You just assume you think what I am going to say.

My stance, and you can look it up on the board, has always been the war on Iraq is about oil and stability.

We knew we had to pull our troops from Saudi Arabia - they asked us to pull them, there was some hostility going on. We needed a place to put our troops in this vital area. Saddam popped his head up and started making waves. He was the PERFECT patsy.

Saddam played right into the US's hand. So now we get to go into Iraq, and out military will be garrisoned there for the next 50+ years. We are alreadying bulding permanent bases throughout the country.

This should hopefully lead to stabilizing the region so we can have CHEAP oil flow. Iraq is a very key location in the middle east. Can put pressure on many countries. Syrian, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc....

Just because the main reason we went into Iraq was oil and stability, it STILL in my opinion does help on the war on terror. It helps the bad guys realize we are not playing around and will use our military might to secure our National goals.

Get over it Alex. The US will be in Iraq for our lifetime.... Hopefully we can do the same ot the middle east that we did to Europe and the Pacific rim.

[wig]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 5 2004, 04:30 PM
Wig,

1) Capturing and killing Osama would be a much bigger message. No need to blow a whole non-terrorist sponsoring nation to bits to do it. There are plenty of places much more deserving on that basis.
2) Unlikely. Iraq is a country destined for a dictatorship, in one form or another. At this point, the people aren't even able to agree to have an agreement to agree to setting up an interim government appointed by them to be replaces be a democratically elected government some time in the future.
3) Also unlikely in the long run. I don't think Iraq will allow the US troops to stay on their soil for all that long... it just isn't politically popular in the end of the world. With the US working from Kuwait and other neighboring countries (including Turkey) adding bases of operation here is just a duplication of existing military setups. The only potential would be to allow the US to move all of their troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Alex
Alex,

I am not trying to say what is right or wrong or what will or will not work. I am simply assessing the rational for why the decision was made -- in it's totality.

I said as the war started that it was a strategic choice, including oil and what I listed above.

All the opinions you just listed as a response my question are just that -- opinions.

You come across as a partisan person whose whole angle is pointing out that the other guy's glass is half empty.

[PornoDoggy]

Back to the original topic ... if GW catches Osama between now and the election, it will be viewed with a great deal of skepticism by a great many people.

Yeah, I'm one - but so would a lot of people who voted for him last time. These are ordinary, average folks who don't have the sophisticated world view and understanding of realpolitik of a Mike AI. These are folks who are still wondering "where's the beef (WMD)"? These are folks who remember that triumphant carrier landing and the announcement that major combat ops are over - and are wondering why the fuck we've had more killed SINCE that time than before.

Like it or not, I think an awful lot of people see GW as a profound liar. I think an October suprise might not have the same effect as it has in the past.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 5 2004, 05:14 PM

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 5 2004, 05:12 PM
Back to the original topic ... if GW catches Osama between now and the election, it will be viewed with a great deal of skepticism by a great many people.

Yeah, I'm one - but so would a lot of people who voted for him last time. These are ordinary, average folks who don't have the sophisticated world view and understanding of realpolitik of a Mike AI. These are folks who are still wondering "where's the beef (WMD)"? These are folks who remember that triumphant carrier landing and the announcement that major combat ops are over - and are wondering why the fuck we've had more killed SINCE that time than before.

Like it or not, I think an awful lot of people see GW as a profound liar. I think an October suprise might not have the same effect as it has in the past.
PD you are right on target with this post.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 5 2004, 04:25 PM
I find it highly amusing to watch everyone changing their opinions and ending up on the square on the board that I started on.
Complex event and set of causes. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that nailed everything on the head. Your square is just as round as the rest of ours. Remember that "domino effect" that was going to turn Iraq into the greatest bloodbath of the past 100 years?

[stargaze]

Well Hello..

Nothing like politics and terror to get me to post :D

Mike..I agree keeping the heat up is the way to go. There are many who say UBM is DEAD! Other's who say we will capture very soon.

But..the surrounding neighborhhod is a very dangerous place. Iraq is one place that may fall in to shambles. The Syrian fucks are dangerous and liars. It was common place to hang Jews in "public view" The Iranians...well with them it appears that they have nuclear tech and not for power purposes. The young people of that country want change..and want it badly.

Now to John Kerry...Does he not remind you of a "Roman Senator" :rokk:

[Meni]

Originally posted by David Duke+Mar 5 2004, 04:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Duke @ Mar 5 2004, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Meni@Mar 5 2004, 01:19 PM
indecency on the radio
indecency on tv
indecency on cable is coming
indecency on satellite is coming
indecency online?
Yes yes yes!
Family values return to the US. Perverts burn in HELL!!![/b][/quote]
i love Family Values 98 i think
great CD

[TheEnforcer]

No response Mike?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 5 2004, 04:20 PM
PD I spend more of my day reading you posts then listening to Limbaugh... what does that tell you? Only time I listen to Rush is if I happen to be in the car.

As far as Syria, what would we do after? Well we would turn it over to a gov't that is friendly towards the US National Interest. A country that does not support terrorism agains the US and Israel.

And while you clamour about Iraq.... its been less then a year since the start of the war. Who are you to judge any progress on an international scale in a few months. Expand your time reference - your an old man - you know that a few months is nothing in history.
Yup. I'm an old man.

As far as who I am to evaluate the situation - I'm just an ordinary average guy with an opinion, just like you. I am one skeptical S.O.B. I would be skeptical of Al Gore if he were President under the current circumstances. There's a black piece of granite in Washington D.C. that has the names of some personal friends of mine on it that is part of the reason I'm skeptical.

You can prattle on about what we did in Europe and the Pacific Rim after my daddy's war; unfortunately, that's not the approach we are taking.

We have nominal control of the cities. Our control of the countryside is iffy during daylight. Resistance is not coming from a state (although there may be some states backing the resistance - unfortunately, the people saying this [Bush, Cheney, and McRumsfeld, et al] have shot whatever credibility they had). Even though there are foreign elements involved in those resisting us, most of it is indigenous. Some of the action that we are required to take to crush this resistance will have the side effect of "proving the point" of our enemies.

We are in this situation in not one, but two different countries - and without yet achieving the sort of victory over our enemies that they did in my daddy's war, armchair warriors like yourself are already clamoring to expand the theatre of operations.

Since the triumphant carrier landing and proclamation of the end of combat we've lost more troops than before that event. The reasons given for going to war have proven to be questionable at best; the will of the American people to sustain this kind of operation for the 50 years you so glibbly talk about is very, very questionable.

That's not the recipie for my daddy's war. That's the recipie for another war entirely, and one that did not have such a neat little happy ending for our side.

Don't think that my opinion on this is based on some leftist "all war is bad" ideology - nothing could be further from the truth. This is my opinion of the tactical situation. While I have nothing but the utmost contempt for those who regard war as just another tool in international relations, I am not anti-military, nor so niave as to believe in disarmament. Quite the countrary - I think McRumsfeld's long term plan for the U.S. military is a shortsighted and incorrect approach. I am personally of the opinion that the appropriate way to negotiate with a terrorist is with a precision guided bomb.

The thing about it is - we ought to save it for the terrorists.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 5 2004, 06:55 PM