What should we do about bin Laden?

Well we are in our seventh year now since the deadly attacks on the wtc by the outlaw gang led by Osama bin Laden.

Meanwhile, he remains holed up and taunting George Bush and his cronies and threatening an encore.

It is clear Bush and cro will do nothing for the remainder of their term to bring them to justice.

So what should the next President do?

Protect America.

Don't you agree!!!

Well Aaron you are pussyfooting.

That is not like you.

Should the next Pres. bring bin Laden to justice or just continue the Bush policy of live and let live?

If you mean go into the mountains and get OBL, no, I don't think anyone should. One man is not worth the risk. They're are ways to combat his terrorist organizations and that should be done first. Capturing OBL will not change the overall scheme of things and it certainly won't end terrorism.

No mas in other words.

Owell at least you are man enough to admit it just like Roberto.

I didn't say that. I didn't say anything like that. IMO, the only person saying no mas is the cut and runners like you and Ziggy.

I said I wouldn't send troops into the hills where OBL is hiding but then I have a little bit of an understanding of what is actually going on over there. It's apparent you don't. Do a little research and studying and tell me how you go get him!!!

Now if he's ever in our sights as he was with Clinton in 98 I think or with the French in 2003, I most certainly would take him out. But I'm smart enough not to send troops into an environment where about the only thing that's going to happen is get a ton of troops killed real quick like.

You're saying without a doubt you would send in an endless amount of troops to certain death with no regard to causalities to capture or kill one man while ignoring thousands of others.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Well Aaron usually you just kind of exaggerate and spin but in this instance I guess you are so boxed in you are doing like your pal Sam and just making stuff up.

I thought we could have a civil discourse on this topic but if you just want to make up stuff and attribute to me then I am done with the conversation.

Have a good day and I hope you enjoy yourself in Florida.

What, you don't like someone taking what you said and turning it completely around into a load of garbage???

So you can dish it out but you can't take it!!!

So tell me, how do you go get him and just how many lives is it worth?

Aaron wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:Well Aaron usually you just kind of exaggerate and spin but in this instance I guess you are so boxed in you are doing like your pal Sam and just making stuff up.

I thought we could have a civil discourse on this topic but if you just want to make up stuff and attribute to me then I am done with the conversation.

Have a good day and I hope you enjoy yourself in Florida.

What, you don't like someone taking what you said and turning it completely around into a load of garbage???

So you can dish it out but you can't take it!!!

So tell me, how do you go get him and just how many lives is it worth?

Aaron, the only reason Sherman made the post criticizing Bush for not capturing/killing OBL was because of a story he read in his Sunday Gazette, the actual newsprint ya know. The minute he read it, .... holy moley, ... he knew he had to act quick to prevent the public from focusing on the pityful, deployable, awful, incompetent job that him and his buddies are noted for.

The story he read, ........ another shooting in Charleston ...... at a GoMart,

The same GoMart where one of the victims was shot ...... by the now famous



YUP, ..... that sniper, ....... the very one that Shermmy's buddies failed to catch and is still walking/riding around Charleston, ...... not in hiding in the mountains of Pakistan.

Sherm likes to throw ya off the "trail", ....... because he knows for damn sure where that "trail" will lead.

.

I agree that Bin Laden's capture must be valued in relation to the potential lives lost; However, he is a known murderer, so that alone should be "worth" it? Do we not send cops after murderers?

Also, that "Clinton coulda got him" myth is pure crap, and more evidence of how the GOP deliberately thwarts American interests to win elections:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Tell you the truth, I didn't believe Clinton when he was blaming a crazy Arab myself. I guess I was busy believing the lying fools at the GOP who said it was Clinton "wagging the dog".

"when an administration embarks on a war justified by little or no intelligence, speaking the truth can be regarded as treachery. The country could use more of that kind of "treachery." Ray McGovern

What war was embarked on with little or no intelligence?

The NIE in 2002 said what it said and was the consensus of the intelligence community.

Seems to me about the only thing that's changed is liberals!!!

Aaron wrote:What war was embarked on with little or no intelligence?

Based on what the President said was the excuse for going to war vis-a-vis what turned out to be, both the Vietnam and Iraq wars were embarked upon with little or no accurate intelligence.

Hindsight's 20/20 and unfortunately, you have to go with the facts that are before you, not a crystal ball.

It is not all "hindsight". There were many in the intelligence community who warned that the "consensus" intelligence estimate of 2002-03 was riddled with uncertainty and outright errors, and that it was not adequate to support going to war in Iraq. But of course there was a "consensus" between Curveball and Chaliby- who each had their own agendas.

Aaron wrote:Hindsight's 20/20 and unfortunately, you have to go with the facts that are before you, not a crystal ball.

So then why did you oppose the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

ziggy wrote:It is not all "hindsight". There were many in the intelligence community who warned that the "consensus" intelligence estimate of 2002-03 was riddled with uncertainty and outright errors, and that it was not adequate to support going to war in Iraq. But of course there was a "consensus" between Curveball and Chaliby- who each had their own agendas.

Well Zigster, why don't you cite a reference to the "intelligence reports" they had at the time they made said accusations that prove their "uncertainty and outright errors".

If you can not cite said ....... then your BS "hindsight" still smells like feces.

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Hindsight's 20/20 and unfortunately, you have to go with the facts that are before you, not a crystal ball.

So then why did you oppose the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

So why do City Officials attempt to disperse a "rowdy crowd"?

So why do Health Officials "stock up" on flu vaccine?

So why do some people refuse to get a "flu shot"?

.

Ziggy,

Then what sense does the UN resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply "or else" make? What was it, 1441?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Then what sense does the UN resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply "or else" make? What was it, 1441?

If it was about a UN resolution, then why didn't the U.S. let the UN enforce its own resolution, complete its weapons inspections, etc.?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Hindsight's 20/20 and unfortunately, you have to go with the facts that are before you, not a crystal ball.

So then why did you oppose the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

When my oldest ask me the same question, I told him that you know may who the bully is in the school yard but that doesn't give you the right to go bust him in the mouth to keep him from stealing someone else's lunch money.

I didn't buy the 'pre-emptive' strike crap.

Ziggy,

The UN wasn't willing to back up its own resolution, just as it is in general an organization given to making great pronouncements (say, against genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda) and then proving itself completely impotent in implementing it's own decrees.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

The UN wasn't willing to back up its own resolution, just as it is in general an organization given to making great pronouncements (say, against genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda) and then proving itself completely impotent in implementing it's own decrees.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Then what sense does the UN resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to comply "or else" make? What was it, 1441?

So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

ziggy wrote:So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

So, if the Cops and the Courts refuse to "enforce the Laws" ....... should the citizens just let the criminals run rampant, doing whatever they want to do?

My guess is you will say "YES" ........ as long as the criminals are not doing it to you, ...... RIGHT.

Zigster, why is it you piss n' moan to high heaven because the State of WV doesn't enforce compliance of Federal coal mining "resolutions" ........ but also piss n' moan to high heaven whenever the US does enforce compliance of United Nations "resolutions"?

GEEEZUS, you are as remotely uninvolved with "coal country" doings as you are with "foreign country" doings ....... so just what the hell is either any of your business and/or concern ..... in that your two "positions" are contrary to each other?

.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:So then should it be a priority for the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions?

So, if the Cops and the Courts refuse to "enforce the Laws" ....... should the citizens just let the criminals run rampant, doing whatever they want to do?

We do not allow vigilante citizens to "enforce the laws". Nor should vigilante nations take it upon themselves to decide what the law is for one nation while at the same time encouraging other nations to violate the same kinds of laws (U.N. resolutions).

What "criminals"? The U.S. armed and bankrolled Saddam Hussein for decades. When did he all of a sudden become a criminal?

What about the Israeli "criminals" who violate U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution every day? Why do they get a free pass from the U.S.?

Zigster, why is it you piss n' moan to high heaven because the State of WV doesn't enforce compliance of Federal coal mining "resolutions" ........ but also piss n' moan to high heaven whenever the US does enforce compliance of United Nations "resolutions"?

The coal mining laws you call "resolutions" allow the federal government to engage enforcement agreements with the states- in which the feds direct and the states agree to enforcethe federal mining laws.

But the U.N. did not direct nor even authorize the U.S. to enforce U.N. resolutions re: Iraq in 2003. Hell, the U.S. ran the authorized U.N. personnell out of Iraq in 2003. Since 2003 the U.S. has been nothing more than just another terrorist organization in Iraq.

GEEEZUS, you are as remotely uninvolved with "coal country" doings as you are with "foreign country" doings ....... so just what the hell is either any of your business and/or concern ..... in that your two "positions" are contrary to each other?

Not contrary at all. Through enforcement agreements authorized by both state and federal laws, and through adoption of federal regulations into its own state laws, the state of WV is mandated to enforce the coal mining laws.

No such agreements existed and applied to the U.S. and the U.N. re: the U.S. invasion of Iraq on 2003.