Bin Laden dead!

trav72 wrote:

Jager - why do you keep using Obama's name instead of Osama's when it's obvious you meant the latter? Typo?

Yup, the dangers of typing around 100 wpm...

On the other hand, maybe I get the two of them confused.

After all, both Osama and Obama have one thing in common...

... both have terrorist friends who have bombed the Pentagon.

Maybe that's why I get the two names mixed up all the time?

Now I'm going to go turn on the TV and hopefully watch the socialists and separatists in Canada take a licking and a conservative majority government.

Hopefully Layton's explanation that he was getting a "theraputic massage" from an RMT at 0130hrs in the morning instead of patronizing a rub 'n tug isn't going to wash with the masses. And it turns out Jack Layton's real first name is John - how appropriate!

IndigoWolf wrote:

Instead of a burial at sea they could have put him in a brick lined box and dropped him squarely in Mecca plaza from 10,000 feet. We have bombers that can do that.
Think that would ruffle the feathers of a few Clergy... ??

Burial at sea within 24 hours of death was the most intelligent action I've seen come out of Washington in a long time. An Islamic cleric conducted the service too. That was also really smart.

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." ~Martin Luther King Jr.

+1 I choose to look at it this way.

IndigoWolf wrote:

Instead of a burial at sea they could have put him in a brick lined box and dropped him squarely in Mecca plaza from 10,000 feet. We have bombers that can do that.
Think that would ruffle the feathers of a few Clergy... ??

IndigoWolf wrote:

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." ~Martin Luther King Jr.

+1 I choose to look at it this way.

These are slightly contradictory in nature are they not?

New thoughts for a new day perhaps?

motokid wrote:

True, but Bush entered Iraq. Bush neglected Afghanistan.

Bush entered Iraq on the heels of a report just days before from the Chief Arms Inspector to the UN that there were WMDs apparently unaccounted for, missiles capable of delivering WMDs that Iraq was not destroying, refusal to provide documentation, and grudging and minimal cooperation at best. Bush's decision was sided by many Democrats at the time, including the previous President, the current Secretary of State, the current Vice President, and two previous Democrat presidential candidates.

Apparently, they shared Bush's fears about Iraq under the same precautionary principle of safeguarding the US.

"Bush neglected Afghanistan" is simply a parrotted media line. Lots of Bush haters love to trot it out, but I have yet to meet one who can give specific examples of how US/Coalition efforts in Afghanistan were somehow curtailed when the Coalition opened a second front in Iraq. This, to those of us who have served in the military during this period, is almost amusing.

Someday, perhaps we will find a "Bush neglected Afghanistan" parrot who will actually attempt to support this statement. Perhaps one actually knowedgeable enough about Afghanistan (none have been there, after all) who can even name ONE of the battles US troops fought during this period? Perhaps one Neglecter who can even provide a ball park answer of how many times Bush increased troop numbers in Afghanistan during this Period of Neglect?

And assuming we can ever find a Neglecter who can pass those two knowledge barriers that parrots can't manage, then we can discuss American efforts in Afghanistan in the context of being part of a Coalition, where various countries, such as Canada and Britain assumed (and in some cases like Canada requested) taking over high combat areas of Afghanistan. It wasn't a case of the US saying "ah... don't want to do this anymore - you guys do it". That's why it's called a "Coalition".

And for a real eye opener, go look at the history of ISAF (our presence there) and see just how little time there has actually been an American overall commander in Afghanistan.

Quote :

AND - the incredible financial burden of insane over-spending and debt really came into it's own under the watch of GWB.

Not to be compared to the incomprehensible spending of the Obama administration in just their first two years, of course.

And not to elaborate on how much of that spending was Democrat spending from a Democrat controlled Congress while Bush was president.

Nor to consider the implications of the 1995-2000 Dot Com bubble crash, which helped Slick Willy to his financial status at the time he left, and Bush with the crash of that bubble. Along with the unresolved issues of dealing with Iraq WMD concerns, bin Ladin still running around, and the CRA insanity of giving mortgages to those who couldn't afford them, of course.

But if we did that, then we'd have to buy into Obama acolytes saying Obama isn't responsible for his presidency, his spending, and his abject failures, because he got stuck with problems Bush left him.

Quote :

yes - Obama has grown the deficit by trillions, but in an effort to derail the massive freight train heading for complete self-destruction. Right or wrong - there are many things Obama has had to deal with that were started by Bush.

Yeah - just like that. It was the guy who sat in that office before who is at fault. Funny that excuse doesn't apply to Bush and what he inherited from Slick Willy.

Quote :

Bin Laden was not created by Bush - but he was killed under Obama.

Yeah, and he wasn't killed by Clinton.

Quote :

So that is indeed a feather in Obama's cap.

Right.

That's why we give/gave Richard Nixon credit for putting a man on the moon. Because it happened on his watch. Oh wait. No, we give that credit to JFK.

And while killing bin Ladin is a feather in Obama's cap because it happened on his watch, the economic debacle, rising gas prices, the falling dollar, etc are all Bush's fault - even though they too occurred while Obama was President.

Always a very predictable double standard.

This report from UN might shed some light about Iraq's mass destruction potential in 2003.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2007-314.pdf

motokid wrote:

IndigoWolf wrote:

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." ~Martin Luther King Jr.

These are slightly contradictory in nature are they not?

New thoughts for a new day perhaps?

Indeed new thoughts for a new day... OH, by the way it has been discovered that the quote is not from MLK jr. ... I will correct this when and if I find out who actually brought these words to life, ... Apparently the person I got this from had not done their homework either. Sorry for the miss-quote.

IndigoWolf wrote:

motokid wrote:

IndigoWolf wrote:

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." ~Martin Luther King Jr.

These are slightly contradictory in nature are they not?

New thoughts for a new day perhaps?

Indeed new thoughts for a new day... OH, by the way it has been discovered that the quote is not from MLK jr. ... I will correct this when and if I find out who actually brought these words to life, ... Apparently the person I got this from had not done their homework either. Sorry for the miss-quote.

No worries...that quote is being posted by thousands.

click me for more <-- enough to warrant this

thanks motokid for the link. the quote was only partially MLKjr's then. Still giving it a +1

Apparently Elton John sang at the sea burial.































Sandals in the Bin.

Shit between your response and the pics Jager posted in the other thread...dammit now my gut hurts. I wonder what they did with his tin camel?

Jäger are you blind, word is that the real reason the US is in Afghanistan is because that's where the Lithium is

The LITHIUM... of course! How could I have possibly forgotten!

Damn! You've nailed it! I forgot lithium is used as a mood stabilizing drug for mentally ill people!

Okay, I admit it. We screwed up going into Afghanistan. In going there to secure a sufficient supply of the drug to treat delusional people, we actually created even more of them with all the conspiracy theorists that have come out of that.

Talk about short sighted on our part.

So an military buddy sends me an email with the audio of Obama's news conference announcing bin Ladin's death. Along with telling me the squids say he got proper Wahabbist preparation for burial and an hour long funeral service on an American warship - in his native Arabic tongue, just in case his spirit was hanging around listening, I guess.

What the fuck, X 2????

First. Obama... holy shit, that guy sure likes the words "me" and "I" a lot. Practically wears them out! Smartest guy in the room! Was anyone else involved in that mission?

Second, just why the hell is this animal being given honour and respect before throwing the trash over the rail?

I guess I don't grasp the concept. Here we have all these Wahabbist terrorists, running around murdering Muslims and Christians alike who they don't like - all as a matter of honour and righteousness to them. So we take out the King Scumbag, and his Wahabbist buddies watch us honouring and respecting the body of the man leading the murders of 3000 Americans in just a couple of hours?

There is an enormous difference between deliberately desecrating his body by feeding it to the pigs or whatever, and bending over backwards to show the body of this mass murderer honour and respect.

When do we start trying to track down what remains of the old Nazi leaders' bodies so we can give them a proper military funeral?

I can't imagine being the unlucky navy corpsmen who probably got stuck with the job of reverently washing that shithead's body and compassionately and with all honour preparing it for burial and wrapping it properly in a shroud - no doubt with a few officers hovering about to ensure it was done exactly just like that, and a videographer to prove that's exactly what was done if necessary.

What the fuck. Does anyone think we didn't bend over backwards for those trying to murder us enough? Is the thought now in the Arabic mind that they should think better towards us - or proof we're weak and not deserving of respect?

Take the death pics, the DNA samples, the fingerprints, the dental X-rays; throw the mess in a bodybag. Wrapped in cable, weighted with scrap metal, and photos of it going over the rail. Start to finish, one hour. Done.

If I was a Wahabbist scumbag, seeing the American military treating my leader's body with all that honour and respect after he killed 3000 Americans - I'd KNOW that they were getting soft and we were influencing them.

"...the real reason the US is in Afghanistan is because that's where the Lithium is..."

A while back I read an account of geologic surveys being done in Afghanistan. They found gold, copper and lithium deposits. Those are the minerals that I remember- there may have been others. The Soviets knew about these also. What has NOT been in the mainstream press is any mention of oil deposits and/or the significance of Afghanistan's location as to existing, and proposed, oil and gas pipelines in the region. As we can not get Iran to play ball with us we are encircling Iran using countries that WILL play ball and therefor render Iran's position moot. The global chess game continues...

TBird1 wrote:

"...the real reason the US is in Afghanistan is because that's where the Lithium is..."

A while back I read an account of geologic surveys being done in Afghanistan. They found gold, copper and lithium deposits. Those are the minerals that I remember- there may have been others. The Soviets knew about these also. What has NOT been in the mainstream press is any mention of oil deposits and/or the significance of Afghanistan's location as to existing, and proposed, oil and gas pipelines in the region. As we can not get Iran to play ball with us we are encircling Iran using countries that WILL play ball and therefor render Iran's position moot. The global chess game continues...

What the newspaper accounts of the "wealth" of minerals in Afghanistan usually fail to mention is that the Afghan riches are dwarfed by the precious metals to be found under the Arctic ice cap. We've known about them for quite a while - what we haven't figured out is what the Arctic and Afghanistan have in common: how to be able to physically extract them given their geological location. Sort of like the Bakken oil shale here in Montana and next door in the Dakotas and Wyoming. It is one thing to know it's there, another thing to have the technology to get it. One reason the Soviets made little effort on the mining front, even though they were sinking for lack of money the last three years they were in Afghanistan.

Western countries - any countries - would be making efforts to develop resources there or anywhere else, even if Iran were our strongest ally. If it suits a strategic purpose as well, that's just an added bennie. But increasing oil supply - particularly a non-OPEC oil supply - helps keep world oil prices down, important in a world where so many countries regardless of their political system have oil based economies. Money from oil development and sales should reduce poverty, build infrastructure, reduce energy costs in developing nations, purchase social growth and development, reduce child mortality, etc. That in turn should lead to political and economic stability. It doesn't always - look at Nigeria - but it beats just telling a country owning those resources to leave it there. Norway is a country which has traded it's enormous petro wealth into funding a nice little socialist system that wouldn't have been possible in the decades prior to oil coming along. Visiting Norway as a soldier, back in the bad old days of the Soviet Union when Reforger was still an annual exercise, and the price on things like beer, hamburgers, etc was staggering.

Jäger wrote:

The LITHIUM... of course! How could I have possibly forgotten!

Damn! You've nailed it! I forgot lithium is used as a mood stabilizing drug for mentally ill people!

Okay, I admit it. We screwed up going into Afghanistan. In going there to secure a sufficient supply of the drug to treat delusional people, we actually created even more of them with all the conspiracy theorists that have come out of that.

Talk about short sighted on our part.

Damn Jäger, I thought I could get a 2000 word essay out of you with that one, I heard it from Jessey Ventura and figured I would use it on you but you didn't come through for me, I will have to try harder
I don't think it's the drug anyway, they want it for battery's

Jäger wrote:

First. Obama... holy shit, that guy sure likes the words "me" and "I" a lot. Practically wears them out! Smartest guy in the room! Was anyone else involved in that mission?

Are you closely related to each other ?

Ohhhh my I'm gonna need something for this. *runs off to go find a bottle of ice wine*

Dancamp wrote:

Jäger wrote:

First. Obama... holy shit, that guy sure likes the words "me" and "I" a lot. Practically wears them out! Smartest guy in the room! Was anyone else involved in that mission?

Are you closely related to each other ?

Expressing an opinion backed it up with rational logic is normally something done in the first person, buttercup. Which is different than offering an opinion that Bush went into Iraq for his personal profit, with nothing else to back it up for example.

Talking about a mission like this - and we hear today Obama was apparently planning this mission personally way back at the same time he was making his bracket picks - as though you were the major player in it is just a tiny bit different. Particularly when you never even served in the military, much less have the tactical knowledge and experience to lay out a mission like this.

Here's more amusement. We had a picture of the Prez and Billary supposedly watching the raid in real time, very dramatic. Then we find out the photo was just another staged photo op - there was video blackout during the raid. And Hillary describing it as the most tense 38 minutes of her life - apparently forgetting the time she spent going through labour and that other famous incident where she claimed she landed in Bosnia other sniper fire.

The spin continues...

The info to take out Bin Laden started with information obtained from waterboarding. No it didn't. Yes it did. No it didn't. Well, apparently now yes it did.

He was armed. No he wasn't. Yes he was. No he wasn't.

And apparently, we can watch Americans jumping to their deaths from the 103d floor of the Twin Towers, we can see pictures of Saddams sons dead after being killed by American troops, we can watch Saddam being hung, we can watch Daniel Pearl slowly having his head sawed off - but Americans simply could not stand the psychological shock of seeing bin Laden's dead body.

Right.

This is the same President having the AG continue to investigate the interrogators who waterboarded THREE Al-Queda terrorists. That provided the information that led to "Obama's victory". The same President who as Commander in Chief allowed three SEALs from the same team to be charged for assault because Ahmed Hashim Abed, on of Al-Queda's top terrorists, got a fat lip while being captured (maybe that's why bin Laden got double tapped instead of captured). Maybe because he didn't personally plan that mission?

Whatever. The dirt bag is dead and went over the rail to feed the crabs.

Oh yeah you great owner of the only and whole truth. Nothing that doesn't fit your point of view is possible. You were closer to the command center than anyone else so You can decribe what went on or not.

I guess the section leader waited for your approval before entering mission.

I apologize for saying anything critical about your socialist buddy to the south. I stand by what I said, but if it prevents you from feeling the need to fill out a Hurt Feelings Report, then I apologize.

But I feel it is only fair to point out what was said and done by the White House and the players in that administration. I didn't make those statements; they did.

The whole truth?

Is it possible that Obama as Commander in Chief actually prevented three SEALS being charged with assault because a wanted Al-Queda terrorist got a fat lip while getting captured instead of the nine mill pill in the head? Their Commander in Chief didn't allow them to be charged?

The Commander in Chief actually isn't continuing to have his AG investigate the SEALs and CIA interrogators who used enhanced interrogation (approved by the previous government including Pelosi et al) to get the information which was key to being able to track bin Laden down?

Is it possible that Obama was part of the planning team that drew on their careers' worth of training and service to work out the complex tactics and logistics that formed how this mission was carried out - while multitasking and making his bracket picks at the same time? Just like Harper rolls his sleeves up and sits down with JTF2 up in Canada to help them plan their missions?

Hillary actually WAS under sniper fire as she said while flying into Bosnia?

I don't know - how about you give us the tin foil hat version of "the whole truth" if I've got it wrong?

Unlike you I don't feel compelled to be holder of the truth on everything.

If God exists maybe he knows eerything. I'm human and I don't know everything and I realised long ago that what looks logic at first sight if wrong because we don't hold all the variables. 1 + 1 always give 2 but it doesn't serve anything if in fact there is a 4 that we didn't account for because we didn't see it or didn't want to see it.

That's exactly why I have my doubts about Iraq. Did the administration gave false information to get support like the Brits are now saying ? Did the CIA told the administration that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just before the invasion ? I don't know.

All I can see is that many of the dictators we are spitting on now were once supported by us. And when I say us it's not only the governments but private companies seeking profits without bothering about people. This kind of situation creates some Chavez and gives them arguments to get support from people that are abused.

I like Jager. While I don't necessarily always agree with his point of view, he backs everything up with sound reasoning and a good amount of proof, too.

kjharn wrote:

I like Jager. While I don't necessarily always agree with his point of view, he backs everything up with sound reasoning and a good amount of proof, too.

Proof???

Please. The "proof" Jager posts regarding Iraq is slanted, biased, incomplete, and/or just false.

America was never threatened or attacked by anyone or anything that could be even remotely associated with Iraq.

Iraq was not a part of the war on terror. Not until after we invaded.

There are plenty of countries and dictators that "could be threats" to America. North Korea comes to mind pretty damn fast. So does Iran.

Have we invaded NK? Iran?

The attack on Iraq was senseless, costly, and it redirected focus away from Afghanistan, which has now shown to be a massive error in judgement.

We've gained very little to nothing by attacking Iraq, and lost huge. For what? Nothing.
So many lives lost on both sides. So many innocent people, and courageous soldiers have been sacrificed for what?

Chances are the attack on Iraq did more for bolstering hatred towards America than it did for defeating terrorists.