NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, two short days after the anniversary of 9/11 Rummy makes it official. He want the troops home........ from Afghanistan. Yes indeed, the place where the prosecution of the War on Terror to eliminate Al Qaeda began is no longer a project of interest I guess.

All those men and women who died that day?

On September 11th, we remembered them

By the 13th, it seems that Donny had put their memories away on a shelf somewhere to be taken out, dusted off, and passed around again in 363 more days.

No longer is it important for Americans to find those responsible for the horrors of the WTC and bring them to justice as was promised to us then. Any further work on this is to be outsourced to NATO if he can manage it. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_re_eu/nato_rumsfeld)

One had to wonder how the families of those who died that terrible day that feel about this. Have they received any satisfaction? Seen any justice meted out?

Not really. Well, not unless they only wanted the sad satisfaction of seeing the lives of others as shattered as their own were.

But with this statement the administration officially throws in the towel. The search for the culprits started four years ago is now an unneccessary drain on resources. the search for the culprits a collossal (and expensive) failure.

In 2001 and 2002 Republicans stated with pride that they were treating this as a war instead of some asinine law enforcement problem as they assumed the Democrats would have chosen. But you know something? Police don't close a case until the culprit is caught. Wars, on the other hand, give way to geopolitics. And in this case this administration is planning to leave the battlefield with their primary objective still not achieved. To hand it over, perhaps to the Freedoms!

Sorry, meant to say "The French". I still do that automatic replacement sometimes...




So, let's review the relevant quotes on how important this objective was in order shall we?


"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02


"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)


"I'm pretty tired. I think I'll go home now."
-- Donald Rumsfeld.


Whoops, sorry, that last one was Forrest Gump.


I get those two confused sometimes...

Ugh.

well said. i especially liked this part-


One had to wonder how the families of those who died that terrible day that feel about this. Have they received any satisfaction? Seen any justice meted out?

Not really. Well, not unless they only wanted the sad satisfaction of seeing the lives of others as shattered as their own were.

"I'm pretty tired. I think I'll go home now."
-- Donald Rumsfeld.

Whoops, sorry, that last one was Forrest Gump.

I get those two confused sometimes...
Dude, WTF are you talking about?? :confused:

Dude, WTF are you talking about?? :confused:

It's a joke, man...

Dude, WTF are you talking about?? :confused:


It's a quote from the movie Forrest Gump.


Here, I'll quote you from another movie:

"That's humour. I recognize that."

Let me get this straight...

You think that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11?

You swallowed that story? You really think that we are in Iraq because of what Bin Laden did? YOu think we are looking for Osama in Iraq?

Turn off the FOX news and start reading internet sources for your information. You can avoid a lot of the government propaganda that way. YOu know, the propaganda that had a large percentage of americans believing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

The only connection between Iraq and 9/11 is that the PNAC needed a 'new Pearl Harbor' to have an excuse to invade Iraq. Why did they want to invade Iraq? might have something to do with Saddam threatening to go to a Euro standard for his oil (which would have tanked the US dollar, whose value is buoyed by the oil market using the dollar standard)

America dropped the ball on bin Laden the day they went into Iraq, not the day they leave.

*sigh* four years and the american populace is still repeating the Bushie lies as truth.

Let me get this straight...

You think that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11?

You swallowed that story? You really think that we are in Iraq because of what Bin Laden did? YOu think we are looking for Osama in Iraq?

Turn off the FOX news and start reading internet sources for your information. You can avoid a lot of the government propaganda that way. YOu know, the propaganda that had a large percentage of americans believing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

The only connection between Iraq and 9/11 is that the PNAC needed a 'new Pearl Harbor' to have an excuse to invade Iraq. Why did they want to invade Iraq? might have something to do with Saddam threatening to go to a Euro standard for his oil (which would have tanked the US dollar, whose value is buoyed by the oil market using the dollar standard)

America dropped the ball on bin Laden the day they went into Iraq, not the day they leave.

*sigh* four years and the american populace is still repeating the Bushie lies as truth.


YEs, please do get it straight.


Nowhere do I mention Iraq. you viewpoint on Iraq is interesting, largely one that I agree with, but entirely immaterial to this thread.


The subject of this thread is Afghanistan.


Please take the time to READ the post before commenting on it.

YEs, please do get it straight.


Nowhere do I mention Iraq. you viewpoint on Iraq is interesting, largely one that I agree with, but entirely immaterial to this thread.


The subject of this thread is Afghanistan.


Please take the time to READ the post before commenting on it.
You make good points about the 9-11 events and the resulting War on Terror, and how the priorities are shifting.

Your words about bailing on Afghanistan before the job is done makes the rest of us realise just how screwed up the priorities of the Bush administration really are.

Well anyone silly enough to take a clear objective and translate it into a sloganized "war on a noun" is almost sure to lose focus on the initial target because you chucked that away right at the start.

Yes, two short days after the anniversary of 9/11 Rummy makes it official. He want the troops home........ from Afghanistan. Yes indeed, the place where the prosecution of the War on Terror to eliminate Al Qaeda began is no longer a project of interest I guess.

Congratulations... You are even more slanted and misleading than I am when posting these sorts of articles. From the article, I got the idea that he'd like to reduce the number of troops in Ashcanistan after NATO developed the capability to do anti-terrorism work.

Seems like a reasonable goal to me.

Yes, lets ignore Osama... he's probably dead.

Let's remember it was really Saddam. We have to find and get Saddam. Again. Only that way will we be truly safe from terrorism committed by Osama.

And we have to "stay and clean up our mess" in Iraq. Afghanistan? Clean as a whistle! No terrorists there. Osama is, of course, probably dead, and "probably" is good enough justice for me and those 3,000 dead.

...the sad thing is I am not being sarcastic enough and there are people who agree with this.

Congratulations... You are even more slanted and misleading than I am when posting these sorts of articles. From the article, I got the idea that he'd like to reduce the number of troops in Ashcanistan after NATO developed the capability to do anti-terrorism work.

Seems like a reasonable goal to me.


Oh yes, that's fair. So the United States can remove their troops for a fight they started with the people who attacked them and let the rest of the world fight their battle, while they are off fighting a war of choice in Iraq? Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense, NOT!

Yes, lets ignore Osama... he's probably dead.

Let's remember it was really Saddam. We have to find and get Saddam. Again. Only that way will we be truly safe from terrorism committed by Osama.

And we have to "stay and clean up our mess" in Iraq. Afghanistan? Clean as a whistle! No terrorists there. Osama is, of course, probably dead, and "probably" is good enough justice for me and those 3,000 dead.

...the sad thing is I am not being sarcastic enough and there are people who agree with this.

That is funny based solely on bitter sarcasm.

Oh yes, that's fair. So the United States can remove their troops for a fight they started with the people who attacked them and let the rest of the world fight their battle, while they are off fighting a war of choice in Iraq? Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense, NOT!
Excellent reactionary answer. It hardly even makes sense. NATO has already provides about a third of the troops presently in Ashcanistan. Drug interdiction and counter-terrorism activity should also concern Europeans. I just don't see where this is such an radical idea.

Congratulations... You are even more slanted and misleading than I am when posting these sorts of articles. From the article, I got the idea that he'd like to reduce the number of troops in Ashcanistan after NATO developed the capability to do anti-terrorism work.

Seems like a reasonable goal to me.



You know something though? A day or so after the anniversary of 9/11 you might instead remember WHY you went in there in the first place and be thinking more about UPPING the manpower in Afghanistan in order to try and finally complete the mission rather than focusing on ways to get your team out of there.


Because you just don't seem all that serious about the "War on Terror" (or, more pointedly, the effort to get the man who ordered the killing of so many of your citizens) if you're not willing to prosecute it yourself.


The Republican's sold themselves over the Democrats last year primarily as the People Who Could Keep You Safe. The Tough Guys Who Will Kick Butt And Get the Job Done.


If by keeping people safe they mean abandoning the search for a master terrorist while simultaneously screwing up the disaster reponse capabilities at home, then I guess America is "safe" now.


Frankly I take issue with that idea.

Oh you silly people of short memories… Saddam and Bin Laden have always been on the same side. Pre 9/11 data that people conveniently forget now when they protest the War in Iraq… There's tons of this stuff.

06 November 1998, US Grand Jury Indictment against Usama Bin Laden
Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development. According to the indictment, Bin Laden's group also tried to recruit Americans to travel through the United States and the West to deliver messages and to conduct financial transactions to aid their terrorist activities. The indictment also states that Al Qaeda used humanitarian work as a conduit for transmitting funds to affiliate terrorist groups.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

February 13, 1999
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
However, in recent weeks, both the United States and Britain have renewed their pressure on the Taliban to expel bin Laden. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Excellent reactionary answer. It hardly even makes sense. NATO has already provides about a third of the troops presently in Ashcanistan. Drug interdiction and counter-terrorism activity should also concern Europeans. I just don't see where this is such an radical idea.

How about the old shop saying, "you break it, you pay for it." The US led the breaking of Afghanistan, it can damn well lead the effort of paying for it until Afghanistan is fixed.

Or is the US only good for breaking things? Because if it is, someone will make it pay.

Someone like Mr Osama Bin Laden perhaps.

Oh you silly people of short memories… Saddam and Bin Laden have always been on the same side. Pre 9/11 data that people conveniently forget now when they protest the War in Iraq… There's tons of this stuff.

06 November 1998, US Grand Jury Indictment against Usama Bin Laden
Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development. According to the indictment, Bin Laden's group also tried to recruit Americans to travel through the United States and the West to deliver messages and to conduct financial transactions to aid their terrorist activities. The indictment also states that Al Qaeda used humanitarian work as a conduit for transmitting funds to affiliate terrorist groups.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

February 13, 1999
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
However, in recent weeks, both the United States and Britain have renewed their pressure on the Taliban to expel bin Laden. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/


Interesting. A grand jury was convinced by intelligence briefings that there was an Iraq-Osama connection.

In other news, a Congress was convinced by intelligence briefings that Iraq had WMD.


In further news, an independant Senate commision did a post-mortem that basically said that the Intelligence community was without.... intelligence.



Besides, this whole subject is outside the scope of the original thread which is about the desire to personally abandon the search for Bin Laden by senior members of this administration.

You make good points about the 9-11 events and the resulting War on Terror, and how the priorities are shifting.

Your words about bailing on Afghanistan before the job is done makes the rest of us realise just how screwed up the priorities of the Bush administration really are.

You have 1 problem here. We h aven't bailed on Afghanistan!

As to this thread, we're not going to leave till the job is done. There isn't even a timetable to leave.

I'm bush like. I know Donald Rumsfeld hes a good man and he said no such thing. You know this administration is not in a presidential election any more they dont have to be accountable for anything. All the "laberals" are just worried about Tom Delay and Carl Rove who are good people. Why do Americans always question the president hes not to be questioned. Hes the president. Donald Rumsfeld served with George Bush Sr. Hes got a lot of experience. So all you "Laberals" can just go hug a tree.

You have 1 problem here. We h aven't bailed on Afghanistan!

As to this thread, we're not going to leave till the job is done. There isn't even a timetable to leave.

Then you missed the article in the first post.

The Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_re_eu/nato_rumsfeld)

Basically saying Rummy wants the rest of the world to clean up their mess.

You have 1 problem here. We h aven't bailed on Afghanistan!

As to this thread, we're not going to leave till the job is done. There isn't even a timetable to leave.


It's an issue of intent Corneliu.

The fact that Rummy CAN'T pull out because he doesn't have a replacement yet doesn't change the fact that he WANTS to personally abandon the search for the masterminds of 9-11 and hand that job over to others.

Excellent reactionary answer. It hardly even makes sense. NATO has already provides about a third of the troops presently in Ashcanistan. Drug interdiction and counter-terrorism activity should also concern Europeans. I just don't see where this is such an radical idea.
It's not a radical idea. It's a lazy, corrupt, arrogant idea, and the message behind it is, hell, we never gave a damn about any war on terror. we got our political capital out of those sound bites, so screw it, let's find a new target to exploit. We'll just make up some dumbass reason and leave the mess for those eurotrash to deal with. Of course, they'll do it, what choice will they have? Anyway, our base of gullible, self-destructive, authority worshipping followers is big enough that we don't have to care what others think.

PS: The fact that you think that post was reactionary goes to show just how radical the Bush philosophy is. Sorry, but conservative, my ass.

Then you missed the article in the first post.

The Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_re_eu/nato_rumsfeld)

Basically saying Rummy wants the rest of the world to clean up their mess.

Yes I read the article.

Now by their mess, who is their? The rest of the world that has screwed this planet over long before the United States ever arrived on the scene? Or is their refering to the United States.

I'm all for the rest of the world to clean up their mess. I'm tired that it always seems to fall to the United States to clean it up for the rest of the world.

You know something though? A day or so after the anniversary of 9/11 you might instead remember WHY you went in there in the first place and be thinking more about UPPING the manpower in Afghanistan in order to try and finally complete the mission rather than focusing on ways to get your team out of there.


Because you just don't seem all that serious about the "War on Terror" (or, more pointedly, the effort to get the man who ordered the killing of so many of your citizens) if you're not willing to prosecute it yourself.


The Republican's sold themselves over the Democrats last year primarily as the People Who Could Keep You Safe. The Tough Guys Who Will Kick Butt And Get the Job Done.


If by keeping people safe they mean abandoning the search for a master terrorist while simultaneously screwing up the disaster reponse capabilities at home, then I guess America is "safe" now.


Frankly I take issue with that idea.

There isn't anything inconsistent between what Rumsfield said and what you are asking for. There isn't any sense in trying to reason with a unreasonable person. All you're doing is repeating platitudes that you probably read on the demcraticunderground or MoveOn.

It appears to me that he has not set any timetable for withdrawal. All it says in the article is that he would like to hand over counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to NATO when they are able to assume those duties. And since the US is part of NATO, we will probably provide troops to support NATO missions.

I'm also quite confused about why the discussion of withdrawal from Ashcanistan is equated with abandoning a search for Bin-Laden. Maybe we are just getting ready to move in and help Pakistan in their search-and-destroy efforts against terrorists. That's what your article quotes Karzai as saying. In fact, he's not entirely sure there is much more terrorism to fight in his country.

It's not a radical idea. It's a lazy, corrupt, arrogant idea, and the message behind it is, hell, we never gave a damn about any war on terror. we got our political capital out of those sound bites, so screw it, let's find a new target to exploit. We'll just make up some dumbass reason and leave the mess for those eurotrash to deal with. Of course, they'll do it, what choice will they have? Anyway, our base of gullible, self-destructive, authority worshipping followers is big enough that we don't have to care what others think.

PS: The fact that you think that post was reactionary goes to show just how radical the Bush philosophy is. Sorry, but conservative, my ass.
So what you're saying is that having a plan to reduce troops to some unspecified number at some unspecified time when there are replacements adequately trained and available is a bad idea. Okay. I think you read a lot more into that article that is possible.

So he wants to pull troops out of Afghanistan. So what? The longer they stay there, the more innocent Afghan civilians will be killed.
Do you think more or less innocent Afghan civilians have been killed than innocent American civilians were on 9/11? Do you think America is "even" with the Afghans yet? Of course that's not the point but it's a result nonetheless.

Anyway, they need to get the troops home to prepare them for war in Syria or god knows whoever's next on the list.

So what you're saying is that having a plan to reduce troops to some unspecified number at some unspecified time when there are replacements adequately trained and available is a bad idea. Okay. I think you read a lot more into that article that is possible.
Sorry. I should be clear about my stance. I actually think it won't make any difference if the troops stay, come home tomorrow, or come home in three years. The US is doing fuck-all in Afghanistan, other than killing people. If they come home tomorrow, fewer Americans will be killed (a good thing) but just as many Afghanis will be killed by warlords/factions, etc. (a bad thing), maybe even more when the Taliban or their successors retake control, which they are almost certain to do.

If we have any responsibility at all in Afghanistan, it is to support a government that can beat back the Taliban, because those people needed liberation even more than the Iraqis did (and yeah, sure, the Iraqis needed help; the Afghanis were even worse off). If we don't get some work done there, whenever we pull out our troops, we will leave a power vacuum that the Taliban and warlords both will rush to fill. And that will be a very bad thing for us.

But regardless of what we do with the troops -- the US administration has a bad freakin' attitude and is not looking for Osama bin Ladin.

If we're really interested in getting Bin Laden, we should be largely pulling out of Afghanistan. Just leave enough troops along the border so that when we pick up his trail in Pakistan, he can't flip-flop again. Except, we won't go into Pakistan, because they're our allies. Hence, we will never catch Bin Laden.

If we're really interested in getting Bin Laden, we should be largely pulling out of Afghanistan. Just leave enough troops along the border so that when we pick up his trail in Pakistan, he can't flip-flop again. Except, we won't go into Pakistan, because they're our allies. Hence, we will never catch Bin Laden.
I forgot about that -- he's not even in Afghanistan anymore. Crap.

When are we going to get sick of these why-bother wars?

Yes I read the article.

Now by their mess, who is their? The rest of the world that has screwed this planet over long before the United States ever arrived on the scene? Or is their refering to the United States.

I'm all for the rest of the world to clean up their mess. I'm tired that it always seems to fall to the United States to clean it up for the rest of the world. Well the rest of the world is not gonna clean up the Iraq mess after the United States. :p

And as for Afghanistan, I blame the USSR.

Yes I read the article.

Now by their mess, who is their? The rest of the world that has screwed this planet over long before the United States ever arrived on the scene? Or is their refering to the United States.

I'm all for the rest of the world to clean up their mess. I'm tired that it always seems to fall to the United States to clean it up for the rest of the world.

??? Did or did not the United States of America invade Afghanistan, topple the government, set up their own, and is now dealing with lots of cross border insurgency as well as loss of control in some territorial areas to more insurgency?

Didn't they "break" Afghanistan to speak? Why should anybody else pay for it?

Pansies. Dammit, they should stay in Afghanistan until the job is done, ie until George Bush can stuff and mount bin Laden's head on a wall plaque. I thought the US was supposed to be able to fight one major and two bushfire wars all at once, and yet we're hearing stories about "overstretch" because of a second-rate occupation and a third-rate occupation. WTF.

Pansies. Dammit, they should stay in Afghanistan until the job is done, ie until George Bush can stuff and mount bin Laden's head on a wall plaque. I thought the US was supposed to be able to fight one major and two bushfire wars all at once, and yet we're hearing stories about "overstretch" because of a second-rate occupation and a third-rate occupation. WTF.

Bush had a change of decorative preferences and now wants Saddam's head. Since Saddam hasn't died in prison yet, he's going after Saddam's friends and family! Makes sense, in a not-related-to-9/11 way.