US 'in secret overseas strikes'

66 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Not a great way to make or keep friends imho

BBC NEWS | Americas | US 'in secret overseas strikes'


and some Americans wonder why folks overseas get annoyed ???
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[239982].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Wakunahum
      Do Americans not get annoyed too?

      Trust me, Americans don't revel in these types of attacks.

      We (for the most part) hate them too.

      Be frustrated with those involved in these secret attacks and not in the American people themselves.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240001].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
    We were attacked by these terrorists and should have every right to go after them wherever we find them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240458].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by Richard Odell View Post

      Yes - but through the United Nations, otherwise your administration is no better than them!
      We are not ruled by the UN. Many of us here think we should leave the UN, and quit funding that monstrosity. Let's see how far they would get without us.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242313].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
        Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

        We are not ruled by the UN. Many of us here think we should leave the UN, and quit funding that monstrosity. Let's see how far they would get without us.
        Then the US would truly be a "Rogue Nation" in the eyes of the world.
        In todays troubled times, that would be extreme foolishness.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242424].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
        Originally Posted by Richard Odell View Post

        Then lets see how you get alone in 'total' isolation?

        There is such a thing as embargo's and restrictions on travel - face it, your country still needs to import and export.

        I think its a matter of how far you would get along without us.

        Believe it or not there is real world outside of the US and not just a battle ground.
        No one said anything (at least I didn't) about being isolationist. We can import/export, etc... without the intrusion of the UN. Do you really think the UN does a good job?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242677].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
          Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

          No one said anything (at least I didn't) about being isolationist. We can import/export, etc... without the intrusion of the UN. Do you really think the UN does a good job?
          The US has found the UN an excellent tool for vetoing every attempt
          to implement sanctions against Israel for the last 50 years or so.

          However, the US does not "own" the UN.

          I note that since ignoring the UN over Iraq, the present US Administration
          has slunk back quietly to the UN again as some cloak of respectability
          over US agendas and foreign activities. Tut tut :rolleyes:
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242758].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
            Originally Posted by Mike Wright View Post

            The US has found the UN an excellent tool for vetoing every attempt to implement sanctions against Israel for the last 50 years or so.
            True. Good for us!

            However, the US does not "own" the UN.
            No, we are just the major source of funding for it.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242771].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Thomas
              Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

              No, we are just the major source of funding for it.
              No, not the major source but a major source: the U.S., Japan, and the so-called "Big 3" European bloc all contribute roughly the same to the U.N.

              Also, the U.S. is already several billion dollars in arrears anyway (and has been since the early 80s)

              Tommy.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242874].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
                Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

                No, not the major source but a major source: the U.S., Japan, and the so-called "Big 3" European bloc all contribute roughly the same to the U.N.
                From the UN's website | UNAUSA.org

                The US share of the UN budget
                The United States is assessed for the regular budget at the ceiling rate of 22 percent, which in 2006 was $423,464,855 of the total $1,924,840,250. This works out to be a contribution of about $1.42 per American citizen, according to 2006 census data. Japan, the second largest contributor to the regular budget at 19.47 percent, pays $374,727,900 or about $3.94 per citizen in comparison.
                As stated above, the USA is THE major source of funding.



                BTW, How much does Ireland pay?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242905].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Thomas
                  Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

                  From the UN's website | UNAUSA.org



                  As stated above, the USA is THE major source of funding.



                  BTW, How much does Ireland pay?
                  1. That's not the United Nation's website.

                  2. Contributing 2% more (less than $50million) of the total budget than the next highest donor does NOT make it THE major source of funding. It makes it A major source of funding. There is a difference. (Really, there is.)

                  3. If anything, the fact that the average Japanese citizen pays nearly 3 times more than the average American means that maybe Tokyo should be calling the shots?

                  4. Your "how much does Ireland pay" question suggests you think whoever pays the most should be calling the shots so, again, are you willing to say "how high?" when Tokyo says "Jump!"? As for the amount: The average Irish citizen pays U.S. $8.59 per annum to the U.N. (The page you cite says the average American pays U.S. $1.42). Maybe you should be saying "how high" to Dublin then? (Actually, IIRC, the U.N. owes Ireland a considerable amount for military deployments it hasn't paid for yet.)

                  5. You should re-read the page you indicated (which, again, isn't even the U.N.'s own website) and see how the contributions are assessed and how, given each country's share of global wealth, U.S. contributions are actually lower than Japan, Germany, France, the U.K., Canada, and Italy.

                  Tommy.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243533].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

                    1. That's not the United Nation's website.

                    2. Contributing 2% more (less than $50million) of the total budget than the next highest donor does NOT make it THE major source of funding. It makes it A major source of funding. There is a difference. (Really, there is.)

                    3. If anything, the fact that the average Japanese citizen pays nearly 3 times more than the average American means that maybe Tokyo should be calling the shots?

                    4. Your "how much does Ireland pay" question suggests you think whoever pays the most should be calling the shots so, again, are you willing to say "how high?" when Tokyo says "Jump!"? As for the amount: The average Irish citizen pays U.S. $8.59 per annum to the U.N. (The page you cite says the average American pays U.S. $1.42). Maybe you should be saying "how high" to Dublin then? (Actually, IIRC, the U.N. owes Ireland a considerable amount for military deployments it hasn't paid for yet.)

                    5. You should re-read the page you indicated (which, again, isn't even the U.N.'s own website) and see how the contributions are assessed and how, given each country's share of global wealth, U.S. contributions are actually lower than Japan, Germany, France, the U.K., Canada, and Italy.

                    Tommy.
                    Using the same web page you both looked at I'd say you're right Tommy.
                    This is a quote from that page.
                    Arrears and late payments
                    As referenced above, the US has accrued a large amount of debt, or arrears, to the UN. (Arrears refer to the portion of a state's assessment that remains unpaid after it is due). By 2005, the US owed $963.1 million in total to the UN in dues to the regular and peacekeeping budgets. At the same time, the US gave $8.7 billion to voluntary causes in 2003, the last year the UN released information on donations to programs funded in this manner.
                    Although the US does contribute a large share of the UN budget, one should consider this information in the context of World GDP (the total wealth produced on Earth). When GDP is measured by purchasing power parity (a method of calculation that looks at how much goods and services cost in different countries as opposed to exchange rates), the US takes in 20.9 percent of global GDP. If one divides the percent of US contribution to the UN budget by America's share of world wealth, the ratio is almost one-to-one. Other wealthy states contribute significantly more given their share of global wealth. For example, using the same formula as above: Japan: 2.9; Germany: 2.1; France: 1.8; UK: 2.2; Canada: 1.6; and Italy: 1.7. There are, however, nations that contribute much less, such as Russia: 0.4, and China: 0.2.
                    In addition, the US has a record of late payments to the UN, turning in its assessed contributions almost a full year late, and thus leaving the UN and its agencies in capricious financial states for several months. In fact, it has been US practice since the early 1980s to pay late based on a one-time budgetary dilemma. As it stands today, the UN issues its regular budget assessments at the beginning of each calendar year and expects payment within one month, but Congress does not appropriate funds for the UN until late in the calendar year. However, the US is hardly alone in its late payments-only 40 member states out of 191 paid on time in 2006. In fact, since each state comes up with its own excuse for meeting assessment deadlines, late payment is considered standard practice by many nations
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243572].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
              Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

              True. Good for us!



              No, we are just the major source of funding for it.
              But you still don't own the UN, control the UN or control the
              UN Security Council. If you did, then it would not be the UN
              and would consequently collapse into a "Coalition of the Willing"
              ... and nobody wants to buy into that can of worms again .. ever!

              Kentucky fried dogma .....dear oh dear me
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243214].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
                Originally Posted by Mike Wright View Post

                But you still don't own the UN, control the UN or control the
                UN Security Council. If you did, then it would not be the UN
                and would consequently collapse into a "Coalition of the Willing"
                ... and nobody wants to buy into that can of worms again .. ever!
                I never said that we did.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243249].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
                  Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

                  I never said that we did.
                  That omission was almost deafening
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[245037].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240469].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      If we want others to respect us, we've got to respect them, don't we?
      They have already shown us how much they "respect" us. Being nice to terrorists and nations that harbor them certainly won't change their attitude toward us. I have absolutely no problem with what has been done and think we should do a lot more of it. We need to let these folks know that we mean business and will not tolerate their behavior anymore.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240478].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author write-stuff
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      How would we like it if Mexico started shooting across our Southern border?
      Big difference. If we were harboring large organized groups that planned and carried out terrorist attacks into Mexico, we'd do something to put a stop to it. People seem to ignore that when this type of argument comes up.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242432].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm with Bush 100% on this one.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240524].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240576].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      America's not perfect but there's still some good things about it.
      It is by far the greatest country in the world. We still have people dying (literally) to get in this country, so we must be doing something right.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240602].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
      The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the harmful effects to friendly forces when some weapons are used under certain conditions (for example nuclear fallout, chemical weapons, etc. used upwind from friendly troops or assets, or a torpedo circling and hitting the firing vessel, etc.). The word is believed to have appeared for the very first time in the CIA document on the 1953 Iranian coup d'├ętat titled "Clandestine Service History - Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran - November 1952-August 1953."
      Other often cited examples of blowback includes CIA support for using radicalized Muslim extremists in confronting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Both operations would later lead to confrontation with the United States.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240612].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Bush has done a lot of damage to the worldwide credibility of the United States."

    Talk about understatements.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240597].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
    I'm confused -- I thought the 9/11 terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia? And they all died in the planes that day? So why are we bombing Syria and Pakistan? (Or Iraq, for that matter?)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240637].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by KenStrong View Post

      I'm confused -- I thought the 9/11 terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia? And they all died in the planes that day? So why are we bombing Syria and Pakistan? (Or Iraq, for that matter?)
      Do you really believe they acted alone?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240676].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KenStrong View Post

      I'm confused -- I thought the 9/11 terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia? And they all died in the planes that day? So why are we bombing Syria and Pakistan? (Or Iraq, for that matter?)
      The ones in the planes where Saudi's but the group as a whole are not all Saudi's. They are the same group we supported in Pakistan against the Russians. We supplied them with weapons and CIA agents who fought along side them. The idea was for the US to get a stronger foothold in the Middle East. Problem was/is our support and backing of Israel. That in a nutshell is why the Muslim extremist don't like us and want us out of there.
      Think of it like this.
      If a stranger just walked into your house and told you that you had to do what they say and wouldn't leave. Wouldn't you get pissed, especially if you knew they supported your neighbor who was your enemy?
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240722].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
    Another question -- who are these "secret" strikes a secret from? Probably not the people being bombed, I'm guessing... They're being kept secret from the American people... that gives you an idea who the US govt is REALLY afraid of... they're not afraid of terrorists.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240643].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[240780].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yuri12
      As much as I would like to believe the story of the CIA involved with 911, I will reserve my opinions for now until we get better evidence. It is both disgusting and disturbing to realize what Bush and the CIA will do to protect American interests if it is indeed proven. What I don't understand is that the US is trying hard to crack down on terrorist by encroaching on sovereign nations. Is it because these nations don't want them there? Do they really support the terrorists? Again we go back to national interest. I can understand why some would opt to protect Americans abroad and prevent another 911 but they have to justify them for the sake of the innocent.

      The fact remains, civilians are the first victims of any war, may it be clandestine operations by the CIA and the US Military or a truck and suicide bombs by Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The casualties are mounting on both sides but the innocent ones are left to fend for themselves. Justice for the lives lost that were not a part of the war. And you wonder why some of the victims hate the US more than the other side, because they can't win this war without proving the reason for starting it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242105].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author write-stuff
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      [/b]
      As I've said before, 9/11 was an inside job performed on us by the Bush administration as the excuse to start a war with Iraq, not with terrorists. The saudi terrorists who crashed the planes into the World Trade Center towers were patsies used by the CIA to make it happen and give Bush someone to blame.
      Oh, jeeze, not another one of those. Yeah, and Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon and the world is flat. Sheesh...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242449].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "We are not ruled by the UN. Many of us here think we should leave the UN"
    Please post your sources for that comment?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242327].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Wakunahum
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "We are not ruled by the UN. Many of us here think we should leave the UN"
      Please post your sources for that comment?
      I'm not 100% sure on this, but didn't you say you supported Ron Paul at one point?

      He advocated leaving the UN.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242362].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "We are not ruled by the UN. Many of us here think we should leave the UN"
      Please post your sources for that comment?
      You need sources for this? It is common knowledge.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242397].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Yes, I did say that I supported Ron Paul at one point. And he may have advocated leaving the UN, I never heard him say it, but I don't doubt that could be one of his positions.
    But even so, that does not make the statement true.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242376].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    no it's not, which is why I said post your source.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242402].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      no it's not, which is why I said post your source.
      You have never heard people discuss leaving the UN? Do you watch the news? It has been a theme of many conservatives for years. Do a Google search and you'll find all the sources you need.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242405].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    In other words you can't back up that statement, which is what I thought.
    Nuff said.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242410].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      In other words you can't back up that statement, which is what I thought.
      Nuff said.
      It's like having to prove that water is wet. If you really don't know this, then you certainly are not up on world affairs.

      Here, from your own Ron Paul:
      Time to Renounce the United Nations? by Rep. Ron Paul
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242417].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

        It's like having to prove that water is wet. If you really don't know this, then you certainly are not up on world affairs.

        Here, from your own Ron Paul:
        Time to Renounce the United Nations? by Rep. Ron Paul
        The once again, you cannot back up what you said... quoting one or two people does not in any way indicate MANY.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242491].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
          Has US politics changed forever?

          BBC NEWS | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Has US politics changed forever?


          Obama and the rest of the world

          BBC NEWS | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Obama and the rest of the world


          Palin looks to God over 2012 bid

          BBC NEWS | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Palin looks to God over 2012 bid

          Brown faith in alliance with US

          BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Brown faith in alliance with US



          Obama prepares for promised change

          BBC NEWS | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Obama prepares for promised change




          Maybe time for the more extreme views of American "conservatives"
          to change. The rest of the world has also adopted an "either you
          are with us or against us" view.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242543].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          The once again, you cannot back up what you said... quoting one or two people does not in any way indicate MANY.
          Kim,
          That is one example. Ron Paul has hundreds of thousands of followers (do I need to document that for you too?). How many means "many" to you? And there are many other than Ron Paul followers. Look it up for yourself.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242675].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

            Kim,
            That is one example. Ron Paul has hundreds of thousands of followers (do I need to document that for you too?). How many means "many" to you? And there are many other than Ron Paul followers. Look it up for yourself.
            Another lame attempt. I have said I was for Ron Paul in the past, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. And other RP supporters that I know didn't agree with everything he said. Trying to say RP said this and he has 1000s of followers so they must all think like he does is totally insane.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242743].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              Another lame attempt. I have said I was for Ron Paul in the past, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. And other RP supporters that I know didn't agree with everything he said. Trying to say RP said this and he has 1000s of followers so they must all think like he does is totally insane.
              Kim,
              Why do I get the feeling that if I listed 10 million names, with addresses, phone numbers, and signed affidavits, that you still wouldn't be satisfied? And why is this so hard to believe? There have been many Americans who have wanted us to leave the UN since its founding. Do you really not know this?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242755].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

                Kim,
                Why do I get the feeling that if I listed 10 million names, with addresses, phone numbers, and signed affidavits, that you still wouldn't be satisfied? And why is this so hard to believe? There have been many Americans who have wanted us to leave the UN since its founding. Do you really not know this?
                No , what I really know though is that you are incorrect. There are many Americans that WANT the US as a participating member of the UN, and not just as a country that tries to control it and bully other nations.
                Why do I get the feeling if I produced the same amount stating they were for the UN you wouldn't be satisfied?
                Do you really not know this?
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242804].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
                  Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                  No , what I really know though is that you are incorrect. There are many Americans that WANT the US as a participating member of the UN, and not just as a country that tries to control it and bully other nations.
                  Yes, there are many who want the UN. I never said that there weren't.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242810].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Most Americans think the UN is doing a poor job. However most think the UN should play a "leading" or "major" role in world affairs. 68%. Even 59% of Republicans believe this. 2% of Americans say the UN's role "should not exist". Here's a good poll by Gallop on this which goes back to 1954:

                    Americans? Opinion of U.N. at Record Low
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242907].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242601].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jeremy123
      yeah, the US is the ruler of the world, all you worm slaves must and will comply,
      you all work for and are the Property of THE FED GOV. your freedom is given to you by US.

      You are constantly monitored, your food and drink have been tweaked to dumb you down,
      all electrical devices frequencies influence your thoughts. You are just a body that consumers in order to profit others. ha ha ha haaaaa
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[242658].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
    Thomas,
    No matter how you slice it, the USA spends the most overall. And it is wasted money for the most part.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243552].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Thomas
      Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

      Thomas,
      No matter how you slice it, the USA spends the most overall. And it is wasted money for the most part.
      Why do you think that?

      Do you believe the Japanese, British, French, Germans, etc. are also wasting their money... or is it just the U.S.?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243561].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
        Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

        Why do you think that?

        Do you believe the Japanese, British, French, Germans, etc. are also wasting their money... or is it just the U.S.?
        I think we are all wasting our money, not just the US.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243568].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Thomas
          Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

          I think we are all wasting our money, not just the US.
          If the U.N. was gone in the morning, what would happen?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243581].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Barry Davis
            Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

            If the U.N. was gone in the morning, what would happen?
            A big yawn across the globe.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243654].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Thomas
              Originally Posted by Barry Davis View Post

              A big yawn across the globe.
              Heh heh...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    I support strikes in W. Pakistan with the intent to kill Bin Laden.

    1. That part of Pakistan is anything but "sovereign". The Pakistan gov. has no control over the tribes living in that area, and that tribal system doesn't respect anyone else's laws and traditions.

    2. Bin Laden murdered almost 3,000 Americans by invading our sovereign nation. Any county that supports and harbors him, has become an accessary to this crime.

    3. We gave Musheyev about 40 billion dollars, when he was still president, to get Bin Laden, but he spent it on protecting his regime and building the Pakistan army vs. India. We tried letting Pakistan handle the situation and got ripped off.

    No American wants to disrespect another country, but letting Bin Laden remain free/alive is not an option.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[243651].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      I support strikes in W. Pakistan with the intent to kill Bin Laden.

      1. That part of Pakistan is anything but "sovereign". The Pakistan gov. has no control over the tribes living in that area, and that tribal system doesn't respect anyone else's laws and traditions.

      2. Bin Laden murdered almost 3,000 Americans by invading our sovereign nation. Any county that supports and harbors him, has become an accessary to this crime.

      3. We gave Musheyev about 40 billion dollars, when he was still president, to get Bin Laden, but he spent it on protecting his regime and building the Pakistan army vs. India. We tried letting Pakistan handle the situation and got ripped off.

      No American wants to disrespect another country, but letting Bin Laden remain free/alive is not an option.
      In the event that Bin Laden is probably dead ...
      Osama bin Laden - a dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
      and that Al-Queda has now splintered into a variety of commands,
      factions and cells ..... when will there be an end to this senseless
      carnage and hugely disproportionate loss of civilian and military
      lives on both sides ?????? Politically, the West is between a rock
      and a hard place in that it has to win an unwinnable war or bow
      out and admit defeat. Perhaps pragmatism and (political) cost
      will bring an end to this terrible adventure.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[245148].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Mike, that article is old. Osama's come out with several audios and one video last year. Seems he is still alive.

        Originally Posted by Mike Wright View Post

        In the event that Bin Laden is probably dead ...
        Osama bin Laden - a dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
        and that Al-Queda has now splintered into a variety of commands,
        factions and cells ..... when will there be an end to this senseless
        carnage and hugely disproportionate loss of civilian and military
        lives on both sides ?????? Politically, the West is between a rock
        and a hard place in that it has to win an unwinnable war or bow
        out and admit defeat. Perhaps pragmatism and (political) cost
        will bring an end to this terrible adventure.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[245563].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Mike, that article is old. Obama's come out with several audios and one video last year. Seems he is still alive.
          Lol Tim, it also seemed that there were WMD. Definitive proof of
          the status of OBL is still lacking either way.

          The massive US bounty on OBL's head would have made somebody
          spill the beans on his location before now ....surely! With half the CIA
          and covert ops teams out there and a bottomless wallet, it seems
          improbable that OBL is alive and in that region. A few tapes via
          Al-Jazeera is not exactly quality grade A intel material imho.
          How many "doubles" did Sadaam and Hitler have ??

          PS. I assume the hunt is for OSAMA ....not OBAMA ?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[245649].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Mike Wright View Post

        In the event that Bin Laden is probably dead ...
        Osama bin Laden - a dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
        and that Al-Queda has now splintered into a variety of commands,
        factions and cells ..... when will there be an end to this senseless
        carnage and hugely disproportionate loss of civilian and military
        lives on both sides ?????? Politically, the West is between a rock
        and a hard place in that it has to win an unwinnable war or bow
        out and admit defeat. Perhaps pragmatism and (political) cost
        will bring an end to this terrible adventure.
        If this is true, then of course you don't go after Bin Laden.

        However, the source is weak, at best, and offers no real proof.

        BTW, Christiana Amanpour reports that her sources claim Bin Laden is alive and living in a villa somewhere in Pakistan, but she doesn't know where.

        I believe hard evidence, like a body or multiple trustworthy witnesses, needs to be presented before we can believe he's dead.

        The US is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. We have to respect Paakistan's rights, but we also have to keep going after Bin Laden, until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he has died.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[245782].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          What strikes me as strange is if we could find Suddam Hussein (sp) hiding in a hole why can't we find Bin Liden.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[246134].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            What strikes me as strange is if we could find Suddam Hussein (sp) hiding in a hole why can't we find Bin Liden.
            He probably has had a makeover and living somewhere unexpected

            Logically, this would be somewhere icy and snowy, where you can
            carry guns, be handy for US military bases and oil resources and
            a few miles from a strategically safe friendly country.

            If you factor in some hormone treatment and transgender surgery
            (pocket change for OBL) you get OSARAH BIN PALIN and Alaska

            It all makes good sense ....keep your enemies close to you ...
            hide in plain sight ..... get in line to run for President of your enemy.
            Thats what I call a really cunning plan. Even Baldrick would not
            have thought that one up

            Course he could just be "brown bread". (rhyming slang alert)

            This shocking possibility may be freely posted without attribution in
            all the reputable media like Huffington Post, Fourwinds, Drudge
            report etc.,etc...

            MWuhhahahahaaaaaaa, OBL could have lent Paulson the money
            to bailout the US Banks as well

            Where would we be without paranoia?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[247472].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
              By one of those "spooky" coincidences ... on the BBC News website today..

              Bin Laden 'cut off from al-Qaeda'

              BBC NEWS | Americas | Bin Laden 'cut off from al-Qaeda'

              If they don't know where he is or isn't .... then how the heck
              do they know anything else about him with any certainty based
              on hard definitive intel ????


              And.....
              'US raid kills eight' in Pakistan

              BBC NEWS | South Asia | 'US raid kills eight' in Pakistan


              I might be an old cynic, but there does seem to be a significant
              escalation of these attacks as the current Presidency sinks into
              a sea of sh*te. I doubt GWB will get the Xmas gift he wants
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[250052].message }}

Trending Topics