NationStates Jolt Archive

"Just decide who Osama bin Laden would vote for, and vote for the other guy!" We've all heard this plenty of times, the implication being, of course, that bin Laden would like to see Kerry in power. But why would he be so dissatisfied with Bush's administration? He practically got off scot free for 9/11, because we directed our attention to Iraq instead of him. Even Bush said something to the effect of, "I'm really not that concerned about him." Way to show support for the families of the deceased, GW. And now much of Iraq is under the control of radical Muslim clerics, as opposed to Saddam Hussein's largely secular regime. Bin Laden was never a big supporter of Hussein in the first place, so why would he have a problem with this? And does anyone really think bin Laden isn't absolutely elated about 1,000+ dead American soldiers in Iraq? Not to mention how much easier recruitment must be for him now. You don't defeat terrorism by making new terrorists. Wake up, people. Osama would probably like nothing more than to see another 4 years of Bush, so that anti-American sentiment will be even higher than it is now.

Don't forget. As a radical Islam Fundamentalist, Osama isn't really all that worried about being killed either, so he's not all that worried about Mr. Gung Ho Cowboy, President Bush. This is why there are so many suicide bombers. They get to go immediately to paradise. No, Osama is only worries about getting the infidels wherever they are and recruiting new members to his cause.

Clearly, Bush has been successful in helping Osama's recruitment efforts. There are more terrorist attacks around the world than ever before, luckily, none of which has been here in America. But, as both Bush and Kerry agree, it's not a question if "if" it's a question of "when."

"Just decide who Osama bin Laden would vote for, and vote for the other guy!" We've all heard this plenty of times, the implication being, of course, that bin Laden would like to see Kerry in power. But why would he be so dissatisfied with Bush's administration? He practically got off scot free for 9/11, because we directed our attention to Iraq instead of him. Even Bush said something to the effect of, "I'm really not that concerned about him." Way to show support for the families of the deceased, GW. And now much of Iraq is under the control of radical Muslim clerics, as opposed to Saddam Hussein's largely secular regime. Bin Laden was never a big supporter of Hussein in the first place, so why would he have a problem with this? And does anyone really think bin Laden isn't absolutely elated about 1,000+ dead American soldiers in Iraq? Not to mention how much easier recruitment must be for him now. You don't defeat terrorism by making new terrorists. Wake up, people. Osama would probably like nothing more than to see another 4 years of Bush, so that anti-American sentiment will be even higher than it is now.

You question too much, people might get the idea that you're un-patriotic... Just think of 9/11 and wave your flag.

You question too much, people might get the idea that you're un-patriotic... Just think of 9/11 and wave your flag.
Oh, ok. Heil Bush!

http://freewayblogger.com/images/911.jpg

Is Osama still alive? Haven't heard much from that camel jockey lately.

Is Osama still alive?
Not a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Someone did a great essay on here at one point that it was ridiculous to assume that the 'terrorists' care who we elect, and I would do a pisspoor job of paraphrasing the whole thing and am not about to go looking for it.

I do agree with it, though. It seems like a catastrophic misunderstanding of what terrorists are doing or working towards to assume that they care what is going on in american politics, relegating terrorist organizations as 527s with bombs. They are not planning their attacks so that one candidate wins over another. It's extrapolation to presume we can know who they prefer and oversimplifies what is going on.

Either candidate will not end American imperialism in the world and American influence in the muslim nations, so it really does not change anything who wins.

Some people "in the know" believe Osama was killed at Tora Bora.


But let's just assume he's alive and well, cooking up some other plan right now. True, our troops are in Iraq, but the one's that are still in Afghanistan are special forces specifically trained for that terrain, and it's debatable that more troops would be of any more use considering the area. Under Bush, about 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership has been captured or killed and their financial transactions have been severely hampered. IMO Osama should now be number 3 on the "to kill" list, behind Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. (Zarqawi because he seems to be operating autonomously in Iraq, and Zawahiri because he's the one who actually conceived the 9/11 attacks.)

Could Bush have done a better job? Overseas I don't think so, although I wish we had more troops in Afghanistan right now to get rid of the drug trade and make the country more stable. IMO that's his greatest mistake. At home, there are plenty of holes that Homeland Security has yet to address.

Could Kerry do a better job? Doubtful. He could do much worse though, if he listens to a portion of his backers who think we should prosecute the terrorism "issue" as if it's a criminal matter.

Some people "in the know" believe Osama was killed at Tora Bora.

I'm assuming these are the same people who are also "in the know" about the whereabouts of Elvis. For everyone else, however, the evidence is pretty frapping clear (eyewitness reports, electronic surveillance, etc.) that he is in fact alive, and still in the Afghanistani/Pakistani border region.


But let's just assume he's alive and well, cooking up some other plan right now. True, our troops are in Iraq, but the one's that are still in Afghanistan are special forces specifically trained for that terrain, and it's debatable that more troops would be of any more use considering the area. Under Bush, about 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership has been captured or killed and their financial transactions have been severely hampered. IMO Osama should now be number 3 on the "to kill" list, behind Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. (Zarqawi because he seems to be operating autonomously in Iraq, and Zawahiri because he's the one who actually conceived the 9/11 attacks.)


1) Umm, no. To be a Special Forces unit is not to be trained exclusively to work well in a single environ. It's just to be extremely well-trained at certain missions (which mission depends on which Spec. Force troops you talk about. SEAL's are trained for amphibious assault/recon/extraction, Green Berets for recon, Delta Force for shock combat/assault and recon, Rangers for heavy general combat, etc.) However, the problem with Special Forces is that despite the fact that they are extremely effective on a man-for-man basis, what is needed more than anything in the Afghani region right now is weight of numbers, because that would allow you to blanket an area and search it while simultaneously preventing anything from getting in or out. Weight of numbers, however, is not the forte of any unit other than possibly the Rangers, but even then you'd be talking about a pretty small area. This is one area where a lot more general combat troops would be very beneficial.

2) You make it sound as if those people we've captured/killed are irreplaceable linchpins without which Al Queda couldn't exist. That's ridiculous. For every person that we've captured or killed, Al Queda has simply breveted up someone to take his place--and they've gotten two or more troops to replace the grunt, thanks to Bush's efforts in Iraq.

3) . . .And it's how difficult to freeze bank accounts again? Not much more than a point and click with a mouse button after receiving the appropriate phone call, AFAIK. If so, then. . .you're lauding Bush for doing work a chimpanzee could do?


Could Bush have done a better job? Overseas I don't think so, although I wish we had more troops in Afghanistan right now to get rid of the drug trade and make the country more stable. IMO that's his greatest mistake. At home, there are plenty of holes that Homeland Security has yet to address.

Could Kerry do a better job? Doubtful. He could do much worse though, if he listens to a portion of his backers who think we should prosecute the terrorism "issue" as if it's a criminal matter.

1) That's the whole problem: had we not gone to Iraq, we wouldn't have the manpower shortage in either Afghanistan or Iraq that we do now.

2) Bush has prosecuted a war based on a connection (Saddam=Al Queda) that was completely false. As a result of this war, we have diverted troops from reconstructing Afghanistan, which has both not elevated our image in the rest of the world and allowed for a continued Al Queda presence in the areas we can't reach (which, namely, is everywhere except for the capital city), in order to create a nation that is just on this side of anarchy, at constant risk of civil and religious war, and who's only common cause is to get us out, which incidentally provides for recruiting material for the very people that we wanted to take out by invading Iraq in the first place.

That being the case, I have to ask: exactly how could Kerry possibly do a more FUBAR job in foreign policy?

I'm assuming these are the same people who are also "in the know" about the whereabouts of Elvis. For everyone else, however, the evidence is pretty frapping clear (eyewitness reports, electronic surveillance, etc.) that he is in fact alive, and still in the Afghanistani/Pakistani border region.

Actually those are people in the intelligence community. Of course there's also a report of two Iranian intelligence members who claimed to have spoken to Osama face to face in Iran shortly after Tora Bora. /shrug



1) Umm, no. To be a Special Forces unit is not to be trained exclusively to work well in a single environ. It's just to be extremely well-trained at certain missions (which mission depends on which Spec. Force troops you talk about. SEAL's are trained for amphibious assault/recon/extraction, Green Berets for recon, Delta Force for shock combat/assault and recon, Rangers for heavy general combat, etc.) However, the problem with Special Forces is that despite the fact that they are extremely effective on a man-for-man basis, what is needed more than anything in the Afghani region right now is weight of numbers, because that would allow you to blanket an area and search it while simultaneously preventing anything from getting in or out. Weight of numbers, however, is not the forte of any unit other than possibly the Rangers, but even then you'd be talking about a pretty small area. This is one area where a lot more general combat troops would be very beneficial.


Point of fact, I didn't say they were trained exclusively for the terrain. My point was they had the training and the equipment and the troops that were sent to Iraq didn't. Also I've heard at least one military analyst say that the US could put the entire military into Afghanistan and still not find Osama. It's the reason why the British, the Soviets, and iirc the Greeks didn't do so well in Afghanistan :).

2) You make it sound as if those people we've captured/killed are irreplaceable linchpins without which Al Queda couldn't exist. That's ridiculous. For every person that we've captured or killed, Al Queda has simply breveted up someone to take his place--and they've gotten two or more troops to replace the grunt, thanks to Bush's efforts in Iraq.

Point of fact I never said they were impossible to replace, but losing that much of their leadership has hurt Al Qaeda. It's worth noting at this point that Al Qaeda is a very complex organization with very fluid associations.


3) . . .And it's how difficult to freeze bank accounts again? Not much more than a point and click with a mouse button after receiving the appropriate phone call, AFAIK. If so, then. . .you're lauding Bush for doing work a chimpanzee could do?


It may not be that difficult to freeze bank accounts, but finding the right bank accounts to freeze I'd imagine is a bit tricky, otherwise it would have been done under Clinton. Btw I should point out that it was Clinton's team that came up with the protocols for dealing with Al Qaeda. I suppose he didn't follow through because people were already accusing him of engaging in "Tail Wagging the Dog" like political maneuvers.




1) That's the whole problem: had we not gone to Iraq, we wouldn't have the manpower shortage in either Afghanistan or Iraq that we do now.

2) Bush has prosecuted a war based on a connection (Saddam=Al Queda) that was completely false. As a result of this war, we have diverted troops from reconstructing Afghanistan, which has both not elevated our image in the rest of the world and allowed for a continued Al Queda presence in the areas we can't reach (which, namely, is everywhere except for the capital city), in order to create a nation that is just on this side of anarchy, at constant risk of civil and religious war, and who's only common cause is to get us out, which incidentally provides for recruiting material for the very people that we wanted to take out by invading Iraq in the first place.

That being the case, I have to ask: exactly how could Kerry possibly do a more FUBAR job in foreign policy?

The issue is the war on terror, not overall foreign policy :). I think Bush could have done better for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but in the overall terror issue it's been mostly positive for Bush. Consider the fact that Bush is the first president to actually get Saudi Arabia to crack down on extremism. Consider further that we no longer have troops in Saudi Arabia, which was an incredible recruiting tool for muslim extremism. Consider also the fact that Shiites are once again allowed to make their pilgrimage to Iraq, something they couldn't do under Saddam.

How could Kerry do worse? By approaching terrorism as if it was a criminal matter, and not a war. Al Qaeda has tried several times to establish new training bases in different countries, and US successfully destroyed each attempt using covert action. Would Kerry do the same?

Oh, ok. Heil Bush!

That's not enough! Go join the Bush-Jugend! TODAY!

But What I'f He votes for the guy to try to get you to vote for the other guy?

Actually there is about 17K troops in Afghanistan at the moment. Few are SPECOPS.

I would just like to get a little info. If "Delta Force for shock combat/assault and recon" then who conducts anti-terrorism, espionage, and hostage rescue?

Either vote for the guy in bed with Saudi Arabia or the other guy bending over for the Chinese Government. Either way, "whoever wins we lose".

Wow Rodney Dangerfield is dead? that is so sad.