• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dems Vow to Get Bin Laden, Tough Natl Security

KCConservative said:
You didn't?

All right; I will concede my sarcastic remark. For the record and for all those confused; I do not actually think that Bush or his administration actually thinks or thought bin Laden was ever in Iraq.

Which, to me, does raise the question of why we put 10x more guys into Iraq, where the Bush Administration *knew* bin Laden was not -- if, as Bush stated, their goal was to get bin Laden "dead or alive."

As for your question about whether I think the military can multi-task, let's look at the record:

2001: Bush says we we'll get bin Laden dead or alive.
2003: Cheney says that the Iraqi operation will probably last weeks, unlikely 6 months.

2006: We still don't have bin Laden, the mastermind who attacked us, dead or alive, he is still the symbolic leader of the radical Islamic movement.
2006: We still have a presence in Iraq, we still have not stablized the country so we can bring our troops home and there is no end in sight -- our president indicating he'll pass the buck on any withdrawal to the next lucky president to win the WH.

So apparently neither task is being accomplished very effectively, is it? Maybe it would have been more effective to concentrate our available forces in the country where we knew bin Laden was, and not in the country we knew bin Laden was not.
 
Iriemon said:
All right; I will concede my sarcastic remark. For the record and for all those confused; I do not actually think that Bush or his administration actually thinks or thought bin Laden was ever in Iraq.

Which, to me, does raise the question of why we put 10x more guys into Iraq, where the Bush Administration *knew* bin Laden was not -- if, as Bush stated, their goal was to get bin Laden "dead or alive."

Because the war on terror is in both these countries. Finding bin Laden is not the only objective. To say that fighting terror in Iraq is the same thing as giving up on finding bin Laden is foolish. I'm glad to see you understand.
 
KCConservative said:
Because the war on terror is in both these countries.

Apparently it is now.

Finding bin Laden is not the only objective.

Apparently not a major one, since we only put 1/10th the troops in Afganistan. But "we'll get him, dead or alive" sounded great, didn't it?

To say that fighting terror in Iraq is the same thing as giving up on finding bin Laden is foolish.

It would be just as foolish to say that guys bogged down in Iraq can be effectively helping to hunt for bin Laden.
 
Iriemon said:
It would be just as foolish to say that guys bogged down in Iraq can be effectively helping to hunt for bin Laden.
There you go again. Tell us who said the soldiers fighting in Iraq are hunting for bin Laden? Didn't we just settle this?

And let's not foget the "dead or alive" comment came several years ago now. Clearly, bin Laden's ineffectiveness has changed that goal.
 
KCConservative said:
There you go again. Tell us who said the soldiers fighting in Iraq are hunting for bin Laden? Didn't we just settle this?

LOL! What are you talking about? Obviously they are not!
 
Iriemon said:
LOL! What are you talking about? Obviously they are not!
Right. And the one's in Afghanistan are. Why don't you give the military a little credit?
 
Originally Posted by Stinger That explains nothing at all, where is your cite or evidence that Bush thinks OBL is in Iraq instead of Pakistan or Afghanistan where we have over 25,000 troops?

Iriemon said:
I did not contend that.

Post #2 from you

"I reckon we'd have a better chance of getting him "dead or alive" if we at least put our effort into the right country. (Hint to Bush Admin: Bin Laden is not in Iraq)."

And why do you demean the EFFORTS of the over 20,000 troops we have in Afghanistan and on what authority do you make the claim that the reason we haven't gotten him is because we don't have an adequate force there?

How long did it take us to find the Atlanta bomber and he was right here in the US. How long did it take us to find some of the Nazi's hiding in South America.

And what exactly is the Democrat plan to capture him?
 
Stinger said:
And what exactly is the Democrat plan to capture him?

There can't be a plan because no one knows where he is. You just have to walk through the mountains and check cave by cave and hope he is still in them and hasn't fled Pakistan of Afgan in the 4 years we think he has been just sitting there.

You would think any logical person would have left the middle-east all together and headed north east into asia where there is a minimal population and minimal armed forces.
 
Stinger said:
Originally Posted by Stinger That explains nothing at all, where is your cite or evidence that Bush thinks OBL is in Iraq instead of Pakistan or Afghanistan where we have over 25,000 troops?

Post #2 from you

"I reckon we'd have a better chance of getting him "dead or alive" if we at least put our effort into the right country. (Hint to Bush Admin: Bin Laden is not in Iraq)."

Jeez if you are going to call me on posts from seven days ago at least read the posts in between so we don't have to repeat ourselves. Read #51

And why do you demean the EFFORTS of the over 20,000 troops we have in Afghanistan and on what authority do you make the claim that the reason we haven't gotten him is because we don't have an adequate force there?

There was originally less than 10,000 to find OBL in a country the size of California.

Within the last year the number of US troops was increased to about 20,000 to find OBL in a country the size of California.

I did not demean their efforts.

I demean our leadership for putting so few troops into a country the size of California to find OBL, and instead putting over 100,000 troops in Iraq, where we all know OBL was not.

How long did it take us to find the Atlanta bomber and he was right here in the US. How long did it take us to find some of the Nazi's hiding in South America.

Errr, I don't know.

And what exactly is the Democrat plan to capture him?

You'll have to ask the Democrats. I'd withdraw the troops from Iraq and put a bunch of them in Afganistan. But it may be too late now.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
There can't be a plan because no one knows where he is. You just have to walk through the mountains and check cave by cave and hope he is still in them and hasn't fled Pakistan of Afgan in the 4 years we think he has been just sitting there.

You would think any logical person would have left the middle-east all together and headed north east into asia where there is a minimal population and minimal armed forces.

Apparently they had pretty good intellegence he was there in 2001.
 
The war in Iraq started in 1991. There was never a surrender, only a cease fire which was really not a cease fire because Saddam kept shooting at planes. There is also plenty of evidence now that Saddam did have links to terrorism.
 
Alias said:
There is also plenty of evidence now that Saddam did have links to terrorism.

So does everyone else in the world, including our own govt. But I have never seen any reliable evidence that Hussein had any involvment in any terrorist attack, nor that it was involved in any way in 9-11 or any attack against the US, or that he was providing substantial assistance to any terrorist organization. He did send money to survivors of Palestinians who died fighting against Israel; I don't count that as substantial assistance to a terrorist organization.
 
Alias said:
The war in Iraq started in 1991. There was never a surrender, only a cease fire which was really not a cease fire because Saddam kept shooting at planes. There is also plenty of evidence now that Saddam did have links to terrorism.

Wait...now we never even went to war? Instead we were already in one....I swear this whole thing is giving me a perpetual headache. First its WMD hell...then its Osamas headquarters, followed closely by liberation of the oppressed, then spreading democracy....and now we were in a war the whole time....WTF will we come up with next?
 
Iriemon said:
So does everyone else in the world, including our own govt. But I have never seen any reliable evidence that Hussein had any involvment in any terrorist attack, nor that it was involved in any way in 9-11 or any attack against the US, or that he was providing substantial assistance to any terrorist organization. He did send money to survivors of Palestinians who died fighting against Israel; I don't count that as substantial assistance to a terrorist organization.

Timothy McVey, anyone???
 
tecoyah said:
Wait...now we never even went to war? Instead we were already in one....I swear this whole thing is giving me a perpetual headache. First its WMD hell...then its Osamas headquarters, followed closely by liberation of the oppressed, then spreading democracy....and now we were in a war the whole time....WTF will we come up with next?

Yeah, and we have been at war with North Korea for 56 years now -- it's a very well kept secret.
 
Iriemon said:
Yeah, and we have been at war with North Korea for 56 years now -- it's a very well kept secret.

We've got a war on everything: Drugs, Teen Pregnancy, Childhood Obesity, Terrorism, Communism...... the list could go on.
 
Donkey1499 said:
We've got a war on everything: Drugs, Teen Pregnancy, Childhood Obesity, Terrorism, Communism...... the list could go on.

I know ... my biggest fear is that they will declare war on internet time wasters and I'll be hauled off to some dungeon as an enemy combatant.
 
Iriemon said:
I know ... my biggest fear is that they will declare war on internet time wasters and I'll be hauled off to some dungeon as an enemy combatant.

Cool, then we could hang out at Club Gitmo together. :mrgreen:
 
Donkey1499 said:
Cool, then we could hang out at Club Gitmo together. :mrgreen:

I'll bring the cards, the Koran, and the hose. :)
 
Donkey1499 said:
Don't for get the prayer rug!

Wouldn't be Gitmo without that, would it?
 
Iriemon said:
Wouldn't be Gitmo without that, would it?

:rofl Naw it wouldn't. We'd also need the huge masculine looking woman soldier to jam our Korans and our heads in the toilets. We'd have swirly turbans!!!! :mrgreen:
 
Donkey1499 said:
:rofl Naw it wouldn't. We'd also need the huge masculine looking woman soldier to jam our Korans and our heads in the toilets. We'd have swirly turbans!!!! :mrgreen:

Jeez I just hope they let me be on top of the pile this time. I always end up at the bottom.
 
Iriemon said:
Jeez I just hope they let me be on top of the pile this time. I always end up at the bottom.

Do we have to let jallman in? :mrgreen:



(jallman, if you read this, I'm joking. I don't know what this site would do without ya.)
 
Donkey1499 said:
Do we have to let jallman in? :mrgreen:



(jallman, if you read this, I'm joking. I don't know what this site would do without ya.)

Maybe I'll pass on the session this time ... I uh, promised my wife I'd sharpen the pencils this evening. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom