What kind of life does Bin Laden have?

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 37]

Back on topic for a minute. My guess would be that OBL is either dead or in our custody. The guy just has too big an ego to be silent this long.

 

And now for a conspirasy theory: The real reason we are in Iraq is that Al Quida was/is much stronger in Iraq than has ever been let on. Maybe we got OBL early on in this mess and found out just how prevalent they were in Iraq. Saddam was either a supporter or tagged to be taken out by Al Quida with AQ taking over. Give those people oil $ and we have a BIG problem. Just a thought. In any event, it will be years (if ever) before we find out why we are really in Iraq.

[MDC 5,913]

I think bin Laden feels lonely and unfulfilled. Sure, he's public enemy #1 and regarded as the criminal mastermind behind 9/11. But none of that really means anything when you come home from a long day of terrorizing and there's no hairy, burka-wearing terrorette to share your cave with.

 

[GobbleDog 822]

You can't separate the invasion from the occupation. It all goes together. It was sold to us that way and I don't think there's anyone who would have said "let's invade and then just bail". We were given multiple reasons for the invasion, not just WMD. We were told we were removing an evil dictator and would replace him with a democracy. So, you can't use just the invasion on which to base parts of your argument, such as that we look stronger. Because, in totality it's a net loss and that's what matters.

 

It should have been "let's invade - lock down the country - and then hand it over". Instead they invaded and basically allowed the country fall into a civil war which they didn't forsee (and they should have).

 

I do seperate the invasion and occupation, because I think there were still some benefits to the invasion. Americans desperately wanted a bad guy to beat up following 9-11 and they got it. I wouldn't be surprised if economic stats showed a big increase in American consumer confidence and other economic indicators comparing before the Iraq War and after... although I don't know that for sure.

 

Overall, I'm starting to think that the way things turned out, the costs (financial, human, and other things such as loss of worldly respect and other intangibles) probably outwiegh whatever benefits were gained.

[Strike 4,009]

It should have been "let's invade - lock down the country - and then hand it over". Instead they invaded and basically allowed the country fall into a civil war which they didn't forsee (and they should have).

 

I do seperate the invasion and occupation, because I think there were still some benefits to the invasion. Americans desperately wanted a bad guy to beat up following 9-11 and they got it. I wouldn't be surprised if economic stats showed a big increase in American consumer confidence and other economic indicators comparing before the Iraq War and after... although I don't know that for sure.

 

Overall, I'm starting to think that the way things turned out, the costs (financial, human, and other things such as loss of worldly respect and other intangibles) probably outwiegh whatever benefits were gained.

 

Dude, you keep saying we needed someone to beat up. We did beat someone up. In fact, it turned out to be the people who blew up our WTC. Who da thunk?

 

You also keep saying we should just invade, lock down, then hand over. Who were we supposed to hand it over to?

[paulinstl 295]

Good arguments from both sides delivered without personal animosity. I guess it's possible in a thread without input from some more of the fringe types.

 

Here is the way I see it, both good and bad:

 

1. Attacking Afghanistan and removing the Taliban, good.

2. Not finding or killing Bin Laden at the time, unfortunate.

3. Diverting forces, equipment and attention to Iraq at that time, misguided.

4. Smoking the Iraqi army and deposing Sadam, good.

5. Having no clue what would come after toppling that regime, inexscusable.

6. Having Bin Laden still alive, sickening.

7. Having Sadam hanged, awesome.

8. No end in sight in Iraq, horrible.

9. Reenergized Mid East enemies, avoidable.

 

I could not have been more proud of Bush after 9-11. His speeches were right on point with the right amount of anger aimed at terrorists, and the right amount of sympathy toward the victims' families. If he can ever be proud of one thing as an ex President, he should be proud of his leadership immediately following 9-11. I don't think it could have been handled any better.

 

Unfortunately that is where the wheels fell off. Even the most strident Bush supporter has to admit at some level that he and his administration did a sales job to the American public on invading Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but every time Iraq was mentioned, it was immediately followed by a 9-11 referrence. Like I said earlier, Iraq and Sadam needed what it got, but the timing wasn't right then, and it looks like some of the backlash may cause greater threats than Sadam's rogue dictatorship did.

 

Off the soapbox now. Thanks for the respectful discussion.

[GobbleDog 822]

Dude, you keep saying we needed someone to beat up. We did beat someone up. In fact, it turned out to be the people who blew up our WTC. Who da thunk?

 

You also keep saying we should just invade, lock down, then hand over. Who were we supposed to hand it over to?

 

I don't believe attacking Bin Laden and Al Quieda did enough for America to atone for 9-11. That's subjective, but I believe it's true. The U.S. needed to flex a little more military muscle.

 

I do believe if the U.S. had invaded Iraq with the mindset of preventing a civil war, things would have gone much smoother and the costs wouldn't be nearly as much as what they've turned out to be. (By "hand it over", I meant hand it to over to the newly elected goverment with the power to keep to the country secure.)

[D_House 0]

I don't believe attacking Bin Laden and Al Quieda did enough for America to atone for 9-11. That's subjective, but I believe it's true. The U.S. needed to flex a little more military muscle.

 

I do believe if the U.S. had invaded Iraq with the mindset of preventing a civil war, things would have gone much smoother and the costs wouldn't be nearly as much as what they've turned out to be. (By "hand it over", I meant hand it to over to the newly elected goverment with the power to keep to the country secure.)

I would argue that even as an expression of military muscle, the war was a failure. If Iraq effectively scared the world straight, then explain NK, Iran, Venezuela, etc, etc. These nations were so "shocked and awed" by our display in Iraq that they have ramped up both their anti-US rhetoric and their own military programs.

[GobbleDog 822]

I would argue that even as an expression of military muscle, the war was a failure. If Iraq effectively scared the world straight, then explain NK, Iran, Venezuela, etc, etc. These nations were so "shocked and awed" by our display in Iraq that they have ramped up both their anti-US rhetoric and their own military programs.

I think it did more for the American public than it did internationally. Although it did seem to have an effect on some countries... Afganistan for one.

 

I almost hate to use the term "military muscle" because it sounds arrogent and that's not what I'm trying to convey. I guess a better euphemism would be "a large show of force".

 

Unfortunately that is where the wheels fell off. Even the most strident Bush supporter has to admit at some level that he and his administration did a sales job to the American public on invading Iraq.

 

I'm somewhat of a Bush supporter, and you're right it was a sales job. I can admit that. But that's what you do when you're trying to gain support to go to war. Although like you, I didn't care for the mixed messages: terrorists...Iraq...911...etc. And obviously the over emphasis of WMD's, even if he Bush really did think they had some and I think he did, he pushed the enveloope.

 

And I agree with most everything else you said.

[What is the deal? 1]

Bush does not deserve the blame for not forseeing the Sectarian violence. I'm sure he was listening to the same "experts" Clinton was when he wrote this:

 

(if you don't want to read it all, focus on the bold)

 

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998

 

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

 

THE WHITE HOUSE

 

Office of the Press Secretary

 

For Immediate Release

 

October 31, 1998

 

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

 

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

 

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

 

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

 

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

 

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

 

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

 

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

 

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

 

October 31, 1998.

 

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

[GobbleDog 822]

I'm sure he was listening to the same "experts" Clinton was when he wrote this:

 

Regardless, they were wrong and it cost us dearly. Who else should be blamed besides Bush and his advisors? How unexpected could it possibly have been? The costs from this mistake have been monumental.

[What is the deal? 1]

Regardless, they were wrong and it cost us dearly. Who else should be blamed besides Bush and his advisors? How unexpected could it possibly have been? The costs from this mistake have been monumental.

I agree we should have done things differently. Although we can learn from those mistakes...

 

Why are you looking for someone to blame? Does it make you feel better? Also, why do you blame Bush alone, but not put any blame on Clinton? This is unfair. Especially since Clinton offered that up in 1998. Obvious evidence that before Bush, the US was leading towards war in Iraq if the sanctions weren't being followed and that they rejected the notion that democracy wouldn't work in Iraq because of the Sectarian differences becuase the Iraqi people would embrace it.

 

Clinton laid the groundwork, Bush just followed up on the policies that were in front of him. I'm not saying he didn't want to, but it's not some war that was created by Bush like all the haters want to believe. There were measures being taken to liberate the Iraqi people before Bush was in office...

[wiffleball 4,654]

I don't think any of us has a clue where OBL is. He very easily could be living the good life in Saudi, Paki, Iran, or some country we haven't even thought of. One of his deputies claimed a while ago that he'd been stashed away someplace safe. - I wouldn't be surprised if he's not even in the area anymore.

 

Hell, we hid nazi war criminals all over the country - and even in our own - while claiming not to know where they were. It's not like is hasn't been done before.

 

 

 

What pissed me off most was Bush first saying "he's our number 1 priority" and all kinds of shiit like that. Then, when it became obvious we didn't have a focking clue where he was, he makes some snarky off-handed dismissive comment like "I don't know where's he's at and I don't care. He's not a priority. " It was pure politics. He went something like 200 days w/o even mentioning the guy's name. You can be sure Rove basically told him to downplay the guy and the American people would forget about him. Guess what, Mr. President? We haven't. And we won't. And we DO care where the fock this murdering ###### is. - Even if you don't. Focking flip-flopping axxhole.

[paulinstl 295]

I agree we should have done things differently. Although we can learn from those mistakes...

 

Why are you looking for someone to blame? Does it make you feel better? Also, why do you blame Bush alone, but not put any blame on Clinton? This is unfair. Especially since Clinton offered that up in 1998. Obvious evidence that before Bush, the US was leading towards war in Iraq if the sanctions weren't being followed and that they rejected the notion that democracy wouldn't work in Iraq because of the Sectarian differences becuase the Iraqi people would embrace it.

 

Clinton laid the groundwork, Bush just followed up on the policies that were in front of him. I'm not saying he didn't want to, but it's not some war that was created by Bush like all the haters want to believe. There were measures being taken to liberate the Iraqi people before Bush was in office...

 

There is a huge difference between preparing strategies for liberation and actually invading a country. Sure Clinton's administration worked on scenarios for ousting Saddam, so did Bush I. A couple of points that should be made are:

 

1. Bush was Commander-In-Chief and decided to invade Iraq, Clinton did not.

 

2. As President the ultimate credit or blame goes on them, not their predecessor.

 

Those two points are huge.

[Strike 4,009]

I like to imagine OBL sitting on a beach chair at a tropical resort like Milton, from Office Space, complaning about his Mai Tai and how he could blow up the place

[What is the deal? 1]

There is a huge difference between preparing strategies for liberation and actually invading a country. Sure Clinton's administration worked on scenarios for ousting Saddam, so did Bush I. A couple of points that should be made are:

 

1. Bush was Commander-In-Chief and decided to invade Iraq, Clinton did not.

 

2. As President the ultimate credit or blame goes on them, not their predecessor.

 

Those two points are huge.

If you can't see passed your blind Bush hatred to figure out that this war was started before Bush was in office there isn't much I can say for you.

 

Criticize Bush for not reacting and managing the war correctly as commander that's fine. He deserves some criticism because there have been some mistakes. But to say he led us into war in Iraq by himself is ridiculous. Last I checked the House/Senate both approved the war or he wouldn't have had the authority...

 

That's the problem with America, you have a bunch of people that would rather point fingers at the cause of problems rather than figure out what to do to help.

 

The US is capable of focusing on more than one thing at a time. The focus on Afghanistan was never reduced like some people wish to believe. It's a shame OBL is still at large, but we can't run around Iran looking for him...what good is sending more troops to Afghanistan going to do if he's not there and left before the Iraq war even started?

[parrot 789]

The focus on Afghanistan was never reduced like some people wish to believe.

[Strike 4,009]

 

You sound skeptical?

[wiffleball 4,654]

1) This war was started before Bush was in office

 

2) Criticize Bush for not reacting and managing the war correctly as commander that's fine. He deserves some criticism because there have been some mistakes. But to say he led us into war in Iraq by himself is ridiculous. Last I checked the House/Senate both approved the war or he wouldn't have had the authority...

 

 

 

1) This decision to invade Iraq was initiated the GWB administration. Period. Even they'll admit that. They're the ones who made the case to Congress, to the U.N. and the American People.

 

2) We keep having this conversation. Yes, Congress granted approval for the war. They did so because their CIC told them repeatedly that Iraq definitely had WMD, in fact, we KNEW where the WMD was. The GWB admin also went to the UN and said the same thing in front of the world. Of course, ANY responsible representative who is told by their President that they know for a fact that any hostile country has WMD and we know where they are SHOULD approve going after that WMD. Hell, I supported him too - based upon what he told us.

 

The inronic - no disgusting - thing is, Bush and Co called anybody who didn't support him 'unpatriotic' and dragged them through the mud. THEN, when the War turned out to be a total bust, threw all the people who DID support him under the bus too. ("Well THEY supported it!")

 

Blaming everybody else isn't leadership, it's chickenshiit. They made the case for invasion and executed their plan. They own it. You don't get to be "the decider" only when it's convenient. You either are, or you're not.

[GobbleDog 822]

If you can't see passed your blind Bush hatred to figure out that this war was started before Bush was in office there isn't much I can say for you.

 

Criticize Bush for not reacting and managing the war correctly as commander that's fine. He deserves some criticism because there have been some mistakes.

 

I don't have blind Bush hatred. I voted for him twice and I supported the invasion. My critisism is the lack of foresight by Bush and his advisors who clearly missed the boat that Iraq would fall into a civil war if the US didn't take necessary steps to prevent it. Because of this mistake, the benefits of the invasion are beginning to be outweighed by the ever-increasing costs.

 

I felt the same way about Clinton and the CIA when it comes to 9-11. They knew damn well radical Muslims were trying to blow up the Trade Center and other landmarks. I took a tour of the Trade Center 2 years after the first bombing in '92 and even I was nervous standing up there because I knew it was a target. Instead of infilltrating these groups and gathering intelligence, it seems the US was too busy spying on China or Russia or doing god knows what, and completely missed the boat with the real threat. They should have known and taken steps to prevent it. And apparently, many countries around the world were already locking c*ckpit doors even before 9-11 to prevent hijackings and terrorism. But not us. The people in charge of protecting the U.S. failed miserably IMO. And what really hurts is they should have known and did nothing.

[Snuff 10]

Oh for fock sake, are you blathering fools doing this again? For the 36th billionth time? Are you focking kidding me?

 

[GobbleDog 822]

Oh for fock sake, are you blathering fools doing this again? For the 36th billionth time? Are you focking kidding me?

 

Sorry Snuff. I won't blather no more.

[What is the deal? 1]

I don't have blind Bush hatred. I voted for him twice and I supported the invasion. My critisism is the lack of foresight by Bush and his advisors who clearly missed the boat that Iraq would fall into a civil war if the US didn't take necessary steps to prevent it. Because of this mistake, the benefits of the invasion are beginning to be outweighed by the ever-increasing costs.

What about Clinton said that he categorically rejected the assertion that a peacefull Iraq was not possible because of their sectarian makeup did you not understand.

 

We couldn't have expected Bush & Co. to know this. Yes, they could have handled things better, but who knew that a radical minority in Iraq would cause the country to go into shambles? It also doesn't help that Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria are all throwing gas on the fire either.

 

1) This decision to invade Iraq was initiated the GWB administration. Period. Even they'll admit that. They're the ones who made the case to Congress, to the U.N. and the American People.

 

2) We keep having this conversation. Yes, Congress granted approval for the war. They did so because their CIC told them repeatedly that Iraq definitely had WMD, in fact, we KNEW where the WMD was. The GWB admin also went to the UN and said the same thing in front of the world. Of course, ANY responsible representative who is told by their President that they know for a fact that any hostile country has WMD and we know where they are SHOULD approve going after that WMD. Hell, I supported him too - based upon what he told us.

 

The inronic - no disgusting - thing is, Bush and Co called anybody who didn't support him 'unpatriotic' and dragged them through the mud. THEN, when the War turned out to be a total bust, threw all the people who DID support him under the bus too. ("Well THEY supported it!")

 

Blaming everybody else isn't leadership, it's chickenshiit. They made the case for invasion and executed their plan. They own it. You don't get to be "the decider" only when it's convenient. You either are, or you're not.

are you sure it was initiated by the Bush Admin.? It sure seemed like Clinton was considering it when he passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Are you saying that Clinton wasn't initiating an action against Iraq back then? Why did he sign that then?

[wiffleball 4,654]

are you sure it was initiated by the Bush Admin.? It sure seemed like Clinton was considering it when he passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Are you saying that Clinton wasn't initiating an action against Iraq back then? Why did he sign that then?

 

You should read the act & Clinton's comments regarding same. Clinton goes out of his way to NOT mention direct US military invasion. At the same time he repeatedly references supporting Iraqi opposition groups by every means available. Here's the first sentence of his comments on the bill:

 

the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers

[parrot 789]

Yes, they could have handled things better, but who knew that a radical minority in Iraq would cause the country to go into shambles?

No one "knew" it would happen, but plenty predicted it very likely might happen and was definitely a contingency to be planned for - hope for the best but plan for the worst - that whole thing. They just weren't listened to.

 

From The Army War College;

The administration of an Iraqi occupation will be

complicated by deep religious, ethnic, and tribal

differences which dominate Iraqi society.

U.S. forces may have to manage and adjudicate

conflicts among Iraqis that they can barely comprehend.

An exit strategy will require the establishment of

political stability, which will be difficult to achieve given

Iraq’s fragmented population, weak political institutions,

and propensity for rule by violence.