billvon 3,131 #26 June 25, 2004 >Look Bill we almost got him And Clinton almost got Bin Laden when _he_ bombed him. Then he passed up several chances later. Which is exactly what Bush did with Zarqawi. >Seems your argument isn't holding water. Gotta decide which side you are arguing! Is it OK to take a pass on killing a terrorist leader if you do try once or twice, and fail? Answer carefully! You may find yourself in a moral quandry if you can honestly consider the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #27 June 25, 2004 I don't see the moral quandry.... Is it OK? No, not if you know where he is and the opportunity is almost 100% chance of success. What scale are we talking about though... an OBL, a Zarqawi or just some stupid non mastermind terrorist... a pawn? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #28 June 25, 2004 >Is it OK? No, not if you know where he is and the opportunity is almost >100% chance of success. OK, fair enough. Are you still going to vote for a non-leader who would take a pass on something like that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #29 June 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteFunny thing is, GWB didn't go get BinLaden either. msn It is ridiculous to compare the two. Obviously, Bush sent an army to Afghanistan to find him. Clinton knew where he was exactly. Clinton knew exactly where he was. He was in his compound in Afghanistan where he was known to live. They have video of him. He is 6'5, towers over his peers, walking in a group of bodyguards at his home. How much did all of his failures cost us? OK first off you make it seem like OBL was standing around scratching is arse waiting for BC to kill him. Do you have any idea how hard it was to get him? You make it seem like it was just "oh there he is, launch a cruise missle and thats it." By the time we "knew" where he was to when it reached the Pres it took several hours. Oh but wait we can launch fighters, who the hell would give us clearance over their airspace? The Pakis? Iran? OBL knows Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan like the back of his hand. He has many sympathizers on both sides of the border. He and AQ have strong connections to the Intel deparment of Pakistan since the Pakis sympathized with the Taliban. It aint that simple, and it aint like Patriot Games. FYI look up EO 12947 and tell me BC didn't try. How many of you would have supported BC going into Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole and before you answer look at when it happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #30 June 25, 2004 I am going to vote based on one thing and one thing only this time around. This is the question I will ask myself since i think terrorism is our biggest threat and problem. Who would OBL want to be elected... Kerry or Bush? My opinion is he would rather see Kerry in office. I am voting Bush. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #31 June 25, 2004 QuoteWho would OBL want to be elected... Kerry or Bush? My opinion is he would rather see Kerry in office. I am voting Bush. AQ endorsed Bush. QuoteIn a statement released today, the Al Qaeda-associated group that murdered 201 people in Spain last week endorsed George W. Bush for POTUS.The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom." In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization." "Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #32 June 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteFunny thing is, GWB didn't go get BinLaden either. msn It is ridiculous to compare the two. Obviously, Bush sent an army to Afghanistan to find him. Clinton knew where he was exactly. Clinton knew exactly where he was. He was in his compound in Afghanistan where he was known to live. They have video of him. He is 6'5, towers over his peers, walking in a group of bodyguards at his home. How much did all of his failures cost us? OK first off you make it seem like OBL was standing around scratching is arse waiting for BC to kill him. Do you have any idea how hard it was to get him? You make it seem like it was just "oh there he is, launch a cruise missle and thats it." By the time we "knew" where he was to when it reached the Pres it took several hours. Oh but wait we can launch fighters, who the hell would give us clearance over their airspace? The Pakis? Iran? OBL knows Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan like the back of his hand. He has many sympathizers on both sides of the border. He and AQ have strong connections to the Intel deparment of Pakistan since the Pakis sympathized with the Taliban. It aint that simple, and it aint like Patriot Games. FYI look up EO 12947 and tell me BC didn't try. How many of you would have supported BC going into Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole and before you answer look at when it happened. The CIA has video, shot from a Predator, that has Bin Laden in its sites. All Clinton had to do was tell them to pull the trigger and 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 June 25, 2004 QuoteThe CIA has video, shot from a Predator, that has Bin Laden in its sites. All Clinton had to do was tell them to pull the trigger and 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Good point, now I'm definitely not voting for Clinton. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #34 June 25, 2004 First of all where is the link to that one..... Secondly did you not notice the sarcasm???? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #35 June 25, 2004 The link's dead now, I had posted it previously though. It was a reuters report right after the Spain train bombings. Didn't notice sarcasm, my backpeddling detector is in the way Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #36 June 25, 2004 >Who would OBL want to be elected... Kerry or Bush? >My opinion is he would rather see Kerry in office. Clearly Bush. He is easily distracted from hunting OBL, and he creates new converts for Al Qaeda like crazy. Heck, a senior US intelligence official is predicting that Al Qaeda will attack the US before November to help ensure a Bush win. The Iraq war has proven a godsend to them, and the Abu Ghirab photos, scandals with US appointees to the Iraq government, and the strong anti-american sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere (even the Indian Hindus and Muslims are united against Bush!) is doing them a lot of good. Makes sense that they'd want their good fortune to continue. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0621/dailyUpdate.html http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily/news/features.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=24274 So want to give the terrorists what they want? Vote Bush! Four more years! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #37 June 25, 2004 Pack peddling Hahahahahaaa... Well if you notice i did have a disclaimer in my post anyway!!!! the word "opinion". And for the record I noticed sarcasms as well as a personal shot at W. It is OBL way at getting back at him since he doesn't have as strong of a foot to stand on nor a constant bed to sleep in since he has to move all the time. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #38 June 26, 2004 Yes the CIA does have video from 2000, shot from an UNarmed predator. Even if we knew where he was how do you sugest we get him. Push an button and bam a bomb comes outof no where. Tomahawks? Fighters? I'm sure the Pakis would be more than willing to let us use their airspace. Or maybe Iran would say "yeah sure go ahead. Fly cruise missels or jets in our airspace to go get a freedom fighter." It aint that simple. I remember when people were crucifing BC for the Sudan incident in 1998, What if in 2000 something along those lines wouldve happened while going after OBL. Hell you wouldve drawn and quartered BC. Most people wouldve said "who the hell is that 6'05" Arab and why is he so important" Dont look at the past with post 9/11 eyes. Dont say "if we got OBL in 2000 9/11 wouldnt have happened." It wouldve, it was already planned and the wheels were in motion. Pre USS Cole AQ tried the same tactic with another US warship, that attempt failed. It was years prior to the Cole and AQ learned what they did wrong. That's what makes them so freaking dangerous, theyre not a bunch of uneducated idiots, they learn and adapt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
