bin laden near capture!!!

perris said:
on this, I have to respectfully dissagree

this president withheld the vital documents he is opbligated to present so that the other branches of our government can pass law with the best information

this was circumvented by this president, and he did in fact take us into a war coungress would NOT have approved if he presented the information he was obligated by law and office to present

The president is required by law to ensure the congressional Intelligence
committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities
of the United States.

this is the law of this land

I still believe he doesn't have the power, even if he did withhold documents, our Govt leaks like a sieve! Gotta run to a meeting...be back in 45 min!
 
MOTTO OF THE PRINCE OF WALES'S OWN REGIMENT OF YORKSHIRE
"Frightened by No Difficulties,"

"Difficulties Do Not Daunt"

"Difficulties daunt us not"

"Not even hardships deter us"

"No Fear on Earth"

''Difficulties be damned''

which one or all?
 
ThePatriot said:
I still believe he doesn't have the power, even if he did withhold documents, our Govt leaks like a sieve! Gotta run to a meeting...be back in 45 min!


he DOESN'T have the power, he TOOK the power, without regard to the laws of this land
 
perris said:
he DOESN'T have the power, he TOOK the power, without regard to the laws of this land

I still can't believe our system of checks and balances would let that happen. Maybe I have too much faith in the system for some, but it's the system I said I would give my life for years ago, and it still holds true. It sure as hell ain't perfect, but I just can't see it broken to that extent. Too much at stake mobilizing that big of a force for underhanded reasons. Now, did we go to war on flawed intelligence? Maybe...but I don't think it was purposely fudged to go to war...maybe a little too much "tell them what they want to hear", but still doesn't give one man the power to bring our war machine to bear. If this was a conspiracy, it involved many, many people. Too many to be realistic in my book.
 
ThePatriot said:
I still can't believe our system of checks and balances would let that happen.
this is my very point the patriot

it clearly did happen though, and myself and yourself who love this country...we don't want one man to be able to cause a failure of our government of this magnitude...you and I would like to think it's impossible...we have checks and balances that are designed to prevent these things and people like this from taking us into make believe war...so hard to believe, that even after we see that that it happened, it's still hard to believe for some of us.

documents withheld, dissipation and deception to America as a people, telling us Iraq was about 9/11 though the documents are clear that this president knew it was not about 9/11, not telling us that his own aids told him he was exaggerating and misinterpreting his wmd claims, continuing his wmd deception even after he was given the Kay report (his own trusted aid and his own commisioned report) that there are and WERE no weapons, still telling us that this is about weapons of mass destruction even after said report

hard to believe it could be pulled off in America, and yet it was.

now, back to what this thread is about,,,an alleged bin laden conspiracy

I by no means know this with the same vigor that I knew the war in Iraq was a deception, but this would be a far easier feat to accomplish, then that was as their are no checks and balances in war

simple thepatriot, you send your troops, you bomb, you make allot of noise, you tell the "boots" ; "we can't do anything yet because we are not sure where he is"...though we are sure where he is and we are shuffling him around without him even knowing it

and then when we need to do it, the "boots" are simply given the orders;

"NOW WE ARE SURE WHERE HE IS...THE SUCCESS TO FAILURE RATE IS ACCEPTABLE, MOUNT AN ALL OUT OFFENSIVE"

and there you have it...simple...only two men need to be involved in the deception...the man, and the man that gives the final order to mount the offensive against bin laden
 
ThePatriot said:
I think the only thing we did wrong in Iraq is not send the force required to get the job done right. I've seen too much already to convince me that Saddam either was, or was soon to be, a threat to us and mideast stability in general. His track record and his associations left alot to be desired.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/124_dirty_wars/page2.shtml

have a listen to that...

I have long maintained that are actions in iraq are unwarranted and that the entire game-plan was flawed...

there was never a question we would win, we have the best armed forces in the world and were using generally long-range strikes anyways for the most part... couple that with saddam's army for the most part being in general disarray and the job becomes easier...

the lack of planning for post-war iraq and the series of compounded failures from intelligence gathering to alliances on the ground and the lack of credibility in certain cities like fallujah has continued to hamper the interim iraqi government and the US forces in Iraq that are supposed to provide security...

now back to the topic of how dangerous saddam was... it is all PR... you can make a case about attacking anyone else in the world and continue hammering it in... saddam's own people after their capture have said the exact same thing... his programs were no where near as developed as was claimed and he was about a decade or so removed from nuclear aspirations...

documents and evidence we have found (or the lack thereof) seem to support this...

if in light of this saddam could have been a bigger threat than say libya, syria, iran, north korea, pakistan or malaysia than ok, I think you have a point... the fact that all these other nations have so far not had anything action taking against them while many parts of iraq is in ruins (literally) tells me a little something about policy making...

listen to the audio clip @ the bottom of the page I linked to and you will get an inkling of what I am talking about... keep in mind also the precedence we have established wrt attacking nations w/o provocation and apparently w/o needing anything to backup our claims against them... which of those nations, which definitely sound more dangerous to world security than saddam anytime in the past decade has done, should we attack next?

besides we never finished the job in afghanistan... no matter what anyone tells me about iraq, we should NOT have gone in w/o a finished job in afghanistan... its more than a year and we are still struggling in iraq which has far better infrastructure than afghanistan... I seriously doubt the bush administration believes it can bomb some caves over a few months time and win a war...

what we did wrong in iraq started from the beginning and has continued till today... we should never have been in there in the first place...
 
ThePatriot said:
I still can't believe our system of checks and balances would let that happen. Maybe I have too much faith in the system for some, but it's the system I said I would give my life for years ago, and it still holds true. It sure as hell ain't perfect, but I just can't see it broken to that extent. Too much at stake mobilizing that big of a force for underhanded reasons. Now, did we go to war on flawed intelligence? Maybe...but I don't think it was purposely fudged to go to war...maybe a little too much "tell them what they want to hear", but still doesn't give one man the power to bring our war machine to bear. If this was a conspiracy, it involved many, many people. Too many to be realistic in my book.

it need not have been a conspiracy..

politics is all about PR and bush has the best PR team since clinton's era...

present an argument a certain way and everyone will bite.. I seriously doubt many politicians would commit hara-kiri by opposing a "war on terrorism" style package post 9/11...

I too would love to believe in the system but unfortunately when it comes to policy making the ol' farts who sit in washington DC do what they think is best... and its not always the best for us or the people in the nations they decide to create a regime change for...

soldiers are @ the end of the day expendable assets... I know it sounds cruel and harsh but if you are a law-maker in D.C. or a member of bush's staff... do you actually get to see or meet any of these people? I know colin powell and mcCain and a coupla other veterans know what its like but the rest of them? they dont' care...

its well and good to claim you are all for the soldiers and patriotic and wave a little flag while voting against veterans benefits or while voting for the soldiers when in effect you are voting for the defence contractors and pork barrel projects...

this week or the next we will arrive @ 1,000 soldiers killed in iraq... for the removal of a dictator and a tyrant like saddam I think that was way too high a price... for our security from camels and locusts and the like that was too high a price...

add the $200 billion odd we have so far spent in this effort and you can see how a little bit of PR can sway people one way or the other :)

like I said no one wants to be branded unpatriotic...

----

I appreciate your service to the country and the flag m8... I really do and I wanted to reiterate that before you started questioning my motives :) as I have said before, i have some family on a couple of sides (parent's and wife's) serving in one capacity or another...
 
perris said:
he DOESN'T have the power, he TOOK the power, without regard to the laws of this land

I don't know if you can claim that... he had the powers granted to him by the people of america (via the supreme court) and also from the politico's in D.C.

they bear as much blame as bush... I am sure he was genuinely misguided rather than had an agenda on some of the things (ie he may have genuinely believed saddam had wmd's and what not) and hence may have been more keen to pursue that...

keep in mind saddam did cause the start of desert storm and he did try and take out bush sr...
 
j79zlr said:
At least there is one person with a little bit of sense.

his comment is misguided too :)

you don't necessarily need hundreds of people to capture bin laden... how many captured saddam? it is however difficult to imagine osama being captured and no one making a mention of it to the press anywhere...

admittedly there is not much press in most of afghanistan, but still...

Don't you left wingers have some terrorist's rights to protect?

this is an inappropriate comment j79zlr... feel free to contribute and disagree with people with your posts but there is no need to post inflamatory comments such as this that have no merit whatsoever...

I am sure you are aware that there are plenty of left-wingers fighting and giving their lives for this country in iraq...

---

actually let me make this a general comment so I am not singling anyone out

everyone... please keep pertinent discussions structured appropriately... ie cut out the personal attacks and/or inflamatory comments...

discussions can get heated due to disagreements and thats understandable but I am sure we can at least make an attempt to keep the topic civil... there is no need to rile up others based on a different POV...
 
Sazar said:
keep in mind saddam did cause the start of desert storm and he did try and take out bush sr...

I supported Bush sr, and so did America when he made the case without deception


I don't know if you can claim that (bush TOOK poiwer that is not his to take)... he had the powers granted to him by the people of america (via the supreme court) and also from the politico's in D.C.

he convinced the other branches of govenrment that war was neccessary due to some kind of "imminent threat" he convinced them by witholding dicuments he is obliged to present whcih would have show that there was no threat of "imminent" proportion.

this is circumventing our form of government, and super ceding out checks and ballances...this is what I mean when I say he " took" the power
 
perris said:
I supported Bush sr, and so did America when he made the case without deception

he convinced the other branches of govenrment that war was neccessary due to some kind of "imminent threat" he convinced them by witholding dicuments he is obliged to present whcih would have show that there was no threat of "imminent" proportion.

this is circumventing our form of government, and super ceding out checks and ballances...this is what I mean when I say he " took" the power

I understand that but the other politicians were absolutely spineless post 9/11 anyways... bush could have launched a war against Mars for example and they would have voted for it coz it was the patriotic thing to do...

even if they had all the information they would have still authorised for bush to be granted powers to potentially use force... I assume that bush didn't realise that meant he did not NEED to use force and so he went in like a cowboy anyways :cool:
 
Didn't Saddam attack Kuwait in the Gulf War because Kuwait was drilling at an angle to steal Iraq's oil? And did he not give Kuwait multiple warnings before attacking?
 
I understand that but the other politicians were absolutely spineless post 9/11 anyways... bush could have launched a war against Mars for example and they would have voted for it coz it was the patriotic thing to do...

even if they had all the information they would have still authorised for bush to be granted powers to potentially use force... I assume that bush didn't realise that meant he did not NEED to use force and so he went in like a cowboy anyways
there's my point sazar...if this president made the case without deception, and we went to war, I'd support it

even given the climate at the time, I don't think congress would have stood for us leaving Afghanistan to start a second front unless there was a national concern of imminent proportion...don't forget, there were record breaking demonstrations against the war back then
 
Grandmaster said:
Didn't Saddam attack Kuwait in the Gulf War because Kuwait was drilling at an angle to steal Iraq's oil? And did he not give Kuwait multiple warnings before attacking?

well that is part of the reason saddam gave... and from the reports I have read they did have merit...

the US backed Kuwait @ the time against the claims and also conducted some war exercises to deter saddam...

obviously didn't work...

prior to that saddam was an ally...
 
Sazar said:
it need not have been a conspiracy..

politics is all about PR and bush has the best PR team since clinton's era...

present an argument a certain way and everyone will bite.. I seriously doubt many politicians would commit hara-kiri by opposing a "war on terrorism" style package post 9/11...

...............

this week or the next we will arrive @ 1,000 soldiers killed in iraq... for the removal of a dictator and a tyrant like saddam I think that was way too high a price... for our security from camels and locusts and the like that was too high a price...

add the $200 billion odd we have so far spent in this effort and you can see how a little bit of PR can sway people one way or the other :)

...
I totally agree with ya here bro! The mess that has become Iraq is due to piss poor planning and rushing into the job. Any carpenter will tell you, measure twice, cut once. With the US having the most technoligicly advanced satilites, weapons, and supposedly inteleigence gathering sources, they sure didn't seem to use them.

That is the one question that has always stuck with me. Why the big rush job to goto to war with Iraq? I suppose it is the same reason that a simple disagreement and rapidly turn into a fist fight. Same concept, different application.
 
Unwonted said:
Too many people would have to be involved in this to make it work like you're trying to say. Osama is being pulled out of a hat just before election time? With the several hundred people necessary for a capture of this magnitude, (including some Clinton-appointed generals), there would have been a whistleblower already. To believe the timing is part of a giant conspiracy is pretty silly.
It doesn't take serveral hundred people to capture 1 man. It take time, patience, and proper planning. With those 3 elements it can be done with 3 people! In addition, you don't even have to "capture" a person. Once you find them, all you have to do from there is track them. If you know where they are at all times, capture can happen at a time of your choosing. It is not a giant conspiracy theroy, it is simple political logistics.

Is this the case? I have no idea, all I am saying is that it is easily possible.
 
perris said:
well, how many of have said that Bush will march bin laden out just before the election to guarantee another four years?

it was a joke at the time, but reports right now is that bin laden is being boxed in, and capture is near

I can't find a link to the story, but it's what's being reported in the news hear in new york
Well, I heard the same story like 2 years ago... It's as if they have seen him walking up the next mountain on the other side. :p
 
perris said:
there's my point sazar...if this president made the case without deception, and we went to war, I'd support it

damn perris, sooner or later you would understand that everyone was telling him he need to act now. I think only Michael Moore and yourself are the ones that still believe this. MI6, CIA, German intelligence, Czech Intelligence, even the French, all said he had WMD's. Russian intelligence said that he was planning on attacking the US. Again, I've said this approximately 1000 times, you chastize him for not doing anything about 9/11 [which I don't believe] prior to its occurance via the ambiguous terror threat notice he received, yet by going ahead and doing a preemptive strike he is evil. :rolleyes:
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back