- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Champs or the rest of "ilk" I've no idea, but as for myself you're wrong big time. Had they did this in 2005 it would've been a great victory, yet instead what has happened? OBL is still at large and far more influential than ever before.
Would I still be screaming foul about Iraq though? Absolutely. But that's because Iraq had nothing at all to do whatsoever with OBL.
The Bush admin is incompetent, those they should strike they don't, those they shouldn't they do. Those initiatives where they should take unilateral leadership actions they don't, those that they shouldn't they do. They do the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Of course, I'll give a bit here in that hind sight is 20/20. However that Iraq had anything to do with AQ and his lot was not a matter of debate at all within the admin. They were going in regardless of.
I've said it a million times here, I've supported the war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. If taking out OBL meant going over into Pakistan so be it - afterall, aren't they our "allies"?
So you would have supported sending troops into Pakistan and risking war with an ally based solely on the possibility of OBL being there and on the chance that we might be able to get him?
Funny thing is that (at least based on these little tidbits of info we have), I would too. But I can easily see how someone would decide not to, which is why I'm not screaming about how terrible this is. And regardless of what you say, I can guarantee you that if we had tried and failed and caused an incident with Pakistan, there would be 3 dozen posts right now about how Bush is so dumb and has ruined the US's standing in the world. Your own post about the missile strike confirms it.
I think Pakistan would forgive us for taking out the most wanted man in the world. It would be a payoff for what they were doing with A.Q. Khan.
Let me make it perfectly clear - my answer to your question is yes. If they have confirmation of where he is - not the kind of confirmation we used to going into Iraq.So you would have supported sending troops into Pakistan and risking war with an ally based solely on the possibility of OBL being there and on the chance that we might be able to get him?
RightinNYC said:Funny thing is that (at least based on these little tidbits of info we have), I would too. But I can easily see how someone would decide not to, which is why I'm not screaming about how terrible this is. And regardless of what you say, I can guarantee you that if we had tried and failed and caused an incident with Pakistan, there would be 3 dozen posts right now about how Bush is so dumb and has ruined the US's standing in the world. Your own post about the missile strike confirms it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/14/alqaeda.strike/It killed 3 senior al'Qaeda members, how do you figure it hit the wrong target? (see post #18 by dixon76710)
Now as for the missle strike I've been blasting. It wasn't OBL thus not worth it.
And every source mentions that bodies were still being identified, because they written before this:jfuh said:CNN.com - Pakistan protests airstrike - Jan 14, 2006
Also
Pakistan’s Islamic groups assail U.S. - International Terrorism - MSNBC.com
FOXNews.com - Pakistan Condemns Deadly Strike Targeting Al Qaeda No. 2 - U.S. & World
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Pakistan warns US over air strike
Every source states that the intended target was missed.
I realize we're bogged down in Iraq and shouldn't be, but how is this an example of that? If anything this shows we're still on al'Qaeda's trail in spite of Iraq, no?jfuh said:This is a perfect example of how we've lost focus of killing/capturing the real culprits of 9/11 through being bogged down in Iraq.
Zawahiri was not killed in the attack and thus "missed target" applies.???? In the attack that was called off, the primary target was Zawahiri. In the attack where 18 Pakistanis died, the primary target was Zawahiri.
IN contrast to a few foot soldiers/technicians, Al-Zawahri is a far more valuable target. He is currently the voice of AQ.And every source mentions that bodies were still being identified, because they written before this:
ABC News: U.S. Strike Killed Al Qaeda Bomb Maker
Which says the following people were killed in the attack:
1. al'Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical expert
2. al'Qaeda's operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan
3. a senior al'Qaeda operations commander.
If we targeted bin Ladin and killed Al-Zawahri instead, would you call that a failed attack too?
They're gaining more and more influence and power; we're the exact opposite - that's because of Iraq.Binary_Digit said:I realize we're bogged down in Iraq and shouldn't be, but how is this an example of that? If anything this shows we're still on al'Qaeda's trail in spite of Iraq, no?
Zawahiri was not killed in the attack and thus "missed target" applies.
So violating sovereignty is o.k. in some instances, but wrong in others?
It's a tough call to make, but if one is to have a position, that position should be consistant rather than just the product of partisanship.
So violating sovereignty is o.k. in some instances, but wrong in others?
It's a tough call to make, but if one is to have a position, that position should be consistant rather than just the product of partisanship.
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?