ProudAmerican
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,694
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
shuamort said:Me? I blame not only Clinton and Bush for not catching him, but Reagan for installing him. It's an impotent circle jerk of blame though, let's just get the job done.
ProudAmerican said:everyone say it with me......
P O L L S A R E C R A P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html
though I kinda agree with this one in one sense. Its hard to blame Clinton for not catching him, when he wasnt really trying to in the first place.
It makes more sense to blame the president that is ACTUALLY PERSUING him for not catching him.
Follow the link I had in my post. I'll snip out the relevent quotes, go to the link for the full story (and so my snipping isn't construed as cherry-picking):aquapub said:Installing him where? Are you talking about us giving stinger missiles to the Afghanis during the Soviet invasion?
If so, that's a pretty weak claim. Bin Laden came into that conflict halfway through and funded it, but I've never heard anything indicating he was involved with Reagan.
Reagan's Osama Connection
How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin.
Reagan and, even more, his intensely ideological CIA director, William Casey, saw the battle for Afghanistan as a titanic struggle in the war between Eastern tyranny and Western freedom.
The exit strategy, he said, would be a negotiated deal with Washington: The Soviets pull out troops; the Americans stop their arms shipments to the rebels.
However, within days, Gorbachev learned to his surprise that Reagan had no interest in such a deal. In a conversation on Feb. 27 with Italy's foreign minister, Giulio Andreotti, Gorbachev said, "We have information from very reliable sources … that the United States has set itself the goal of obstructing a settlement by any means," in order "to present the Soviet Union in a bad light." If this information is true, Gorbachev continued, the matter of a withdrawal "takes on a different light."
Without U.S. cooperation, Gorbachev couldn't proceed with his plans to withdraw. Instead, he allowed his military commanders to escalate the conflict. In April, Soviet troops, supported by bombers and helicopters, attacked a new compound of Islamic fighters along the mountain passes of Jaji, near the Pakistani border. The leader of those fighters, many of them Arab volunteers, was Osama Bin Laden.
Had Gorbachev thought that Reagan was willing to strike a deal, the battle of Jaji would not have taken place—and the legend of Bin Laden might never have taken off.
However, Reagan—and those around him—can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger.
Installation was underwritten by the US vis-a-vis the ISI.While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.
Exactly. I wouldn't doubt if he were dead. We've got troops all over there and a bounty on his head big enough for someone over there to give in for the cash. It'd be good to find him/his body for peace of mind but it would mostly be a symbolic gesture at this point as he's been stripped of any power he's had.Navy Pride said:I personally believe that Bin Laden has become a non factor..........He is cowering in some cave on the Pakistan border.............He has not made a video since prior to the 2004 presidential elections......We will get him sooner or later but then the left will say it makes no differnece that someone else will just take his place.............That is exactly what they did with Zaquawi....
Navy Pride said:I personally believe that Bin Laden has become a non factor..........He is cowering in some cave on the Pakistan border.............He has not made a video since prior to the 2004 presidential elections......We will get him sooner or later but then the left will say it makes no differnece that someone else will just take his place.............That is exactly what they did with Zaquawi....
Iriemon said:You know, every time I start thinking you are moving a little more into the rational/reasonable column like the last post you wrote in response to Aquapub, you write something like this.
Clinton "wasn't trying" but Bush is "ACTUALLY PERSUING" him. You mean with all the 8500 guys the Bush Admin had in Afghanistan the first two years? Or the 1/7 of the guys we have there compared to Iraq now?
Back into the rabid partisan column you go for me.
Never underestimate a cornered tiger.shuamort said:Exactly. I wouldn't doubt if he were dead. We've got troops all over there and a bounty on his head big enough for someone over there to give in for the cash. It'd be good to find him/his body for peace of mind but it would mostly be a symbolic gesture at this point as he's been stripped of any power he's had.
ProudAmerican said:everyone say it with me......
P O L L S A R E C R A P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html
though I kinda agree with this one in one sense. Its hard to blame Clinton for not catching him, when he wasnt really trying to in the first place.
It makes more sense to blame the president that is ACTUALLY PERSUING him for not catching him.
Gibberish said:Bin laden is a threat if he is still alive. Just because he's in a cave doesn't mean he can't plan and orchestrate an attack.
IMO it is not Bin Laden himself that is dangerous, it is any person with his power, money, and agenda. Bin Laden is not the last terrorist America will see. So killing him or capturing is a short-term resolution if it is a resolution at all. The mob (America) just wants someone to hang and burn so they feel better.
dragonslayer said:Sure they are when everyone votes against you. Think of the coming election. hehehee
Clinton never tried to catch him, at least publically not publically. he did fire Cruise Missiles to try to kill him. Remember we had not started Bush War or invaded Afghanistan.
Bush's problem is that Bin Laden gave him leverage with the people, why would he want to kill him, when Bush can keep him alive and manipulate America. Thing have gone from bad to worse under Bush.
Navy Pride said:I personally believe that Bin Laden has become a non factor..........He is cowering in some cave on the Pakistan border.............He has not made a video since prior to the 2004 presidential elections......We will get him sooner or later but then the left will say it makes no differnece that someone else will just take his place.............That is exactly what they did with Zaquawi....
ProudAmerican said:so how many soldiers did Clinton send in persuit of him?
anyway.......I blame the terrorists for the problem, and the entire federal government equally for what happened on 9-11.
and hey, at least you have had reason to thin I might move more to the rational/reasonable column. I certainly cant say the same about you.
Iriemon said:heh heh yeah, I'm sure you'd be telling us what a "non-factor" bin Laden is if they actually got him.
Iriemon said:heh heh yeah, I'm sure you'd be telling us what a "non-factor" bin Laden is if they actually got him.
Same number Bush sent before 3000 died on 9-11.
Aren't we still under multiple attacks today?ProudAmerican said:difference is Clinton had multiple attacks. you whould have thought At SOME POINT he may have done something.
jfuh said:Aren't we still under multiple attacks today?
ProudAmerican said:Bush decided to do something after the first one. Clinton NEVER DID.
independent_thinker2002 said:What was that about comparing apples to apples? Are you equating the other attacks with 9/11? I am sure the families of those who lost their life that day are proud of how you are politicizing their tragedy. You may be the Dems best campaigner.
Partisan slave, not even going to bother re-debunking you over and over.ProudAmerican said:this would be where you want to claim a guerilla war is the same thing as terrorist attacks on specific American targets.
the answer is NO....as long as you are comparing apples to apples.
we are definate NOT under multiple attacks.
unless I missed the last suicide bomb on a warship, or plane flown into a building, or bomp placed in a business basement.
soldiers being attacked IN A WAR is hardly the same as AMerican civilians being attacked at will in country, or at specific targets.
as a matter of fact, more of those types of attacks have been thwarted than during Clintons term. Unless he just chose not to tell us when he stopped one because he didnt want the publicity....LMAO.
ALSO......
Bush decided to do something after the first one. Clinton NEVER DID.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?