| |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:01:03 PM |
I guess you didn't see the 7th largest army in the world reduced to a bunch of smoldering junk in a matter of days during the first Iraq war?
To paraphrase the late great Bill Hicks - "after the first three biggest armies in the world, there is a real big drop off....the hare krishnas are the fourth biggest army, and they've already got control of the airports" | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:05:49 PM | gentlepatrick said:
since you claim special status as a historian, enlighten us then.
World War I had numerous causes. Anyone who thinks the assassination was the cause is completely misinformed as it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. It alone could not have caused the war (it can easily be argued that none of its causes, taken alone, were sufficient to start it).
Some of the factors that contributed to it were: militarism (misguided because of previous conflicts), nationalism, the alliance system, imperialism, various crises in the preceding years (and some unresolved disputes), the arms race (primarily a naval race between Germany and Britain), and economics.
Consider yourself enlightened. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:16:50 PM | | Sometimes looking at the result can give a hint as to the reasons behind a particular action. Many will say that WWI accomplished little....but it eradicated the Ottoman Empire, and resulted in the middle east being carved up into artificial countries made up of warring relgious/ethnic groups. Oil at the turn of the last century was just becoming a very important commodity....modern warfare relied on it. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:23:36 PM | | as long as bin laden is still free to roam, it's a great cover for the us to continue with there oil exploits.When bins caught the media pressure turns significantly back to the oil.Why catch him when the USA profits on exploiting the villan.Once USA has no more interest or falls out,they catch em. Personally i think the USA should mind their own bussiness and save there sons and daughters from this war while the still can.just my opinion. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:03:13 PM |
World War I had numerous causes. Anyone who thinks the assassination was the cause is completely misinformed as it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. It alone could not have caused the war (it can easily be argued that none of its causes, taken alone, were sufficient to start it).
Some of the factors that contributed to it were: militarism (misguided because of previous conflicts), nationalism, the alliance system, imperialism, various crises in the preceding years (and some unresolved disputes), the arms race (primarily a naval race between Germany and Britain), and economics.
Consider yourself enlightened
gasp I feel so enlightened. sheesh, we all knew all that. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:15:26 PM | We didn't win the War of 1812??OMG..we have been under British rule all this time??? GOOD..Blame all the dillusional conpiracy crap on them. You know so much, you are aware that our National anthem was written during an attack by the British Navy on us...EH?? Man, thats one big cover up to hide the fact we lost. At what point was O Canada written?? When the French planted their ass there and just stayed?? Now at the first sign of trouble you and France can both see who can say WE SURRENDER the fastest.
And we didn't get anything done in Korea?? Pull your head out of whatever hockey game your watching, and checkout what kind of life North Koreans have. Last time I checked, Nobody from South Korea risks Electrocution, or being shot , or having their family tortured and killed to get to the north.
Same ole Same Ole......yip..yap..yip ...yap from the little dog up north barking at the mail man in someone elses yard. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:51:20 PM |
We didn't win the War of 1812??
Read a little history sometime.
British and Canadian troops pretty much had the US's ass whipped. They agreed to a "status quo ante bellum" treaty because they were tired of fighting wars after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe (which were concurrent with the War of 1812 and ended only a month before the Treaty of Ghent was signed).
I suppose though you also believe the US won Vietnam, are winning in Iraq and have bin Laden in custody (or at least definitively know where he is buried). | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:00:52 PM | As somebody alluded earlier, finding UBL would require the cooperation of Pakistan, and that is problematic. Going into the Waziristan region of Pakistan in force would require a large presence of US troops. That would be very unpopular, costly, and time-consuming. Plus, the US military doesn't have the troops to spare at this point, unless they were pulled out of Iraq. And even assuming that this started to happen, UBL and his henchmen would just leave, just as most of the Iraqi insurgents left Baghdad during the buildup for the currently ongoing surge in Baghdad. They could probably rely on the help of Pakistan's security service, the ISI, which is reported to have many members sympathetic to the Taliban/al-Qaeda cause.
In short, at this point the chances of finding UBL by anything other than blind luck are pretty slim.
________________________________
There's a correction that I think needs to be made.
ReligiousSinner, msg #34:
The oil/gas pipeline in Afghanistan is being built, Iraq's oil reserves are now locked up as well....Everything else in the game of RealPolitik is just noise....Like the murdr of Arch Duke Ferdinand started the first WW...it was just a good excuse. Study history, major wars are started with lies and deception.
Colchar, msg # 43:
As a historian I just have to point out that that is a hopelessly misinformed version of A) how major wars start and B) how WW I started.
Colchar, msg #90:
World War I had numerous causes. Anyone who thinks the assassination was the cause is completely misinformed as it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. It alone could not have caused the war (it can easily be argued that none of its causes, taken alone, were sufficient to start it).
So, in your attempt to point out how "hopelessly misinformed" he is, you actually agreed with him. He did NOT state that the assassination started WWI. I would suggest that before you go around calling people ignorant, you first try to understand what they actually said.
| |
|
favs
|
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 96 | |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:06:06 PM | | pouhahah ^^^ i like when someone just killed those american like that!! but we should do it to ofthen they might want to invade us!! still so funny haha | |
|
favs
|
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 97 | |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:12:31 PM | hey rk thsi is from http://war1812.tripod.com/summary.html
In the end we ask who won and who lost the War of 1812. The clear loser in this conflict without any doubt is the Native People of North America. In the summer of 1815, the United States signed fifteen treaties with the tribes, guaranteeing their status as of 1811. But it did not return an acre of land. The dream of the Indian state never came true.
If any one could claim victory it was Canada. The United States declared war on Great Britain and set out to make Canada states in the union. Ten American armies crossed into Canada and all were driven out. so funny yeah u guys won the war of 1812 | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:43:36 PM | In my opinion the Lose change videos are SOOOO full of holes. they're not even a very GOOD conspiracy theory. They're coming out with a third edition now, apparently the truth changes enough that you need to release multiple version.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:58:59 PM | | OH Darn..we didn't get Canada. After the British got thier ass handed to them, they retreated to Canada. We no longer had to deal with them on our soil again...I call that a win. And even after the Ghent treaty was signed, they tried to invade through New Orleans and failed miserably. I know...they were trying to stop us from invading Canada coming in through Louisiana. | |
|
| |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 11:26:38 PM | gentlepatrick said:
One of the passengers on the first plane to strike the WTC was Ace Bailey
You have to be more precise when using a name like Ace Bailey. The original Ace Bailey played in the NHL from 1926-33 (the original All Star game was held as a benefit for him after his career was ended due to head injuries suffered as the result of a brutal hit by Eddie Shore) and died in 1992. Garnet Bailey, to whom you are referring, was nicknamed after the original Ace Bailey. Canadians would relate the name Ace Bailey with the original. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 11:33:09 PM | bookworm70 said:
So, in your attempt to point out how "hopelessly misinformed" he is, you actually agreed with him. He did NOT state that the assassination started WWI. I would suggest that before you go around calling people ignorant, you first try to understand what they actually said.
Mea Culpa...I had just quickly scanned the posts in this thread and replied without reading what he said in its entirety. I saw the "assassination started WW I" part of it and reacted because I am so used to people believing that to be the case. | |
|
| |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/11/2007 9:56:58 PM | Okay y'all are aware that the Bush family is in a business partnership with the Bin Laden's right?
Suuuuuuuuure his family disowned Osama, wink wink, nudge nudge, and george Sr and his predecessors had no qualms about supplying this same man with arms and funds while he faught the big bad Russians in Afghanistan. The reason he hasn't been caught is really very simple. Dubya cannot afford to have him taken alive, and has assumed that Osama is asmuch a coward as he is(willing to send others to die but unwilling to risk his own skin). Osama has too many tales to tell, that will hurt the "illuminati" of America (not that I actually believe in Illuminati controlling much, that was just a point at how they perceive themselves).
Hell Osama might even have proof Dubya had prior warning to 9/11 and chose not to act knowing that the only way his pathetic lame ass could garner support of the people was in wartime. Remember he had goons beatting people in Florida inorder to swing the election his way.
BTW ya all reeeeeeally messed up not giving Gore a decisive win that time. He has all the personality and character of a mushroom, but the man had intergrity, balls and intelligence, all things Dubya lacks. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/14/2007 3:28:31 PM | montreal guy~ reply to message 11
i don't think putting indian troops on the border of pakistan would be a good idea. i mean, the indians and the pakistanis aren't on that good of terms.
as far as getting bin laden... well, he is most likely in the border regions between afgh. and pakistan. mushariff is walking a tight rope as members of his own gov are sympathetic to the "cause." he's survived how many assasination attempts? the ISI most likely knows exactly where he is... and we probably do to.
we can't go invading pakistan because it would create a huge war that could possiblely draw india (nuclear power) into the mess... besides, pakistan has nukes too... which changes everything..
pakistan is a messed up scary country...
lar | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/14/2007 4:13:42 PM | | ^^^^^^^^ I can assure you that MG is perfectly aware of everything you just said. He said it as a way of pressuring Pakistan into actually doing what it probably could do at any time, given sufficient motivation. His point: a bunch of armed Indians on their border would be very motivating indeed. | |
|
| |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/16/2007 6:24:54 AM | Ref. to MSG 97_
Hey favs, please clarify what you meant by “pouhahah ^^i like when someone just killed those american like that!! but we should do it to ofthen they might want to invade us!! still so funny haha”
Your English is a little rough and painful to read, but if I‘m understanding you correctly, you are saying that you like it when someone kills Americans. Is that the gist of what you are saying? If so, I’m going to probably recommend that your post be deleted as well as your profile for such a vile remark. | |
|
favs
|
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 109 | |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/16/2007 8:50:32 AM | | im sorry my english aint as good as yours cuz it aint my first language, and i didt meant killing as bang bang ur dead, i mean it as kill in post back to ur ignorance!! | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 6/1/2007 12:36:30 AM |
Go figure, only the Bush clan and haliburton Chenney really knows what motives they had not to capture that old man.
It's actually pretty easy to understand. See, where OBL is the country is hilly and tribal. He is protected by people who are medieval in loyalty and not very cosmepoliton at all. Women in lumber tarps, stoning of suspected music listeners or whatever. Very tight crew and, all loyal to the Joes or Mohmars in charge.
You want to get OBL, first you have to figure out which valley he's in. Then, insert a very visable special ops team in there who will stand out like a sore thumb. Nobody will talk to them as if they do, the guys in charge will kill their family slowely in front of them and then, amputate parts of their body over a period of days so, nobody is going to talk. Of course, that's if the special ops team can talk to anybody as, they will spend most of their time negotiating the terain and getting shot at from a million different angles.
The other option is to just go in with force. A very popular idea with leftist morons. Go in having no idea of which valley the bad guys are in or where good guys are or even mediocre guys are much less where the target is. Kill everybody to keep advancing until you have enough body bags of kids, women and old men along with a few guys and then, which one is OBL?
Now the next part of the problem is political. Mushariff is sitting on the edge. A country where he is a dictator that is composed of about thirty percent Jihadist supporters and, posesses nuclear weapons. We want him to retain power for obvious reasons and therefore, don't want him to run in shotguns blazing and killing defencesless Pashtun women and children in order to find a terrorist boss in a smelly urine soaked cave dictating two month old camel gram messages to followerers across the globe. I may give his enemies a common ground to rally abround.
Hope this explains a bit. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 6/1/2007 8:48:53 AM |
The other option is to just go in with force. A very popular idea with leftist morons.
A very popular idea with rightest morons as well. One of the main reasons UBL is still on the run is because there weren't enough assets in Afghanistan to do the job effectively. And that's because troops were getting pulled out of Afghanistan starting in mid-2002 in order to get ready for the invasion of Iraq. The result? UBL is still on the lamb, and the Taliban is making a comeback.
But yeah, it's leftist morons who don't understand anything.  | |
|
Home
login 
