In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Osama Bin Who?

ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
edited April 2003 in General Discussion
Okay, so with a quarter of a million men in Iraq, and more on the way, when are we going to get back to hunting down the ba$!ard responsible for the deaths of over three thousand people?

If I recall correctly, we had a chance to nab him last December, but there weren't enough men available to seal off the Pakistan border.

In the whole rush to prove our patriotism, we seem to have forgotten who is responsible for 9-11. We scream for Saddam's head but fall strangely quiet when Osama bin Laden comes up.

Where were the six carrier battle groups when we were hunting for him in Afghanistan? Where were the 250,000 soldiers?

And now we have the CIA targeting Saddam... a notoriously single-minded organization being given two tasks to do at once... oh joy.

I hope we don't forget who the real enemy is. Bin Laden has a real nasty habit of striking us when we least expect it.

Comments

  • familyguyfamilyguy Member Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The real enemy? Since when is Saddam not a real enemy? Things just came to a head and had to be dealt with now. Were we supposed to ignore all this until we catch OBL? The OBL effort so far yielded the sheik (don't remember his whole name), and it's my understanding he's provided valuable information in hunting down terrorists and stopping attacks. Don't mistake media focus for the priorities of the government.

    Got a new gun for my ex-wife.....pretty good trade, huh?
  • MercuryMercury Member Posts: 7,731 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "Things came to a head....."

    HUH?

    What was different in Iraq than in the previous 10 years?????????

    Merc



    NO! You may not have my guns! Now go crawl back into your hole!

    ****************************************

    "Tolerating things you may not necessarily like is part of being free" - Larry Flynt
  • familyguyfamilyguy Member Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's not what was different in Iraq, it's what was different in the US --- Bush, not Klinton.

    I meant "just" as in 'simply', not as in 'recently'. I didn't think about how it came across because I knew how I meant it when I read it...diffucult part of having discussions in a forum.

    Got a new gun for my ex-wife.....pretty good trade, huh?
  • Patriots49Patriots49 Member Posts: 751 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I know we still have troops over there looking. We had a raid by the 101 or the 82nd the other week. We haven't stopped in our pursuit because we are taking care of saddam. Everyone wants to blame the current admin. for the world's terrorist problems. We aren't the problem, but we are going to be the solution. As my dad used to say (RIP) "Boy you might not have started it...but you better well finish it!"

    The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
  • SP TigerSP Tiger Member Posts: 872 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Apparently something is still going on over there. Two Special Forces soldiers were killed this past weekend.

    Better to have and not need, than need and not have.
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    Li'l socialist simian, scamper back up your liberal nut bearing tree.[:D]

    "If your gonna be stupid, go find a democrat."
  • oughtsixoughtsix Member Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    DeadMonkey,

    I hate to give this thread any more life, but this is too stupid to ignore:

    "If I recall correctly, we had a chance to nab him last December, but there weren't enough men available to seal off the Pakistan border."

    There aren't enough men in the whole US Military to "seal off
    the Pakistani border" and still do all the other missions with
    which they're tasked. A glance at topo maps or satelite images
    of the region would provide a dose of CLUE!

    "In the whole rush to prove our patriotism, we seem to have forgotten who is responsible for 9-11. We scream for Saddam's head but fall strangely quiet when Osama bin Laden comes up."

    The only silence I've noticed on the subject of bin Laden is
    apparent from members of the previous administration who failed
    to nail him on numerous occaisions and had clear provocation
    to use "any and all means" to do so.

    "Where were the six carrier battle groups when we were hunting for him in Afghanistan? Where were the 250,000 soldiers?"

    And just how, in your expert military opinion, would you employ
    six carrier battle groups in the search for one man in the
    mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Oh, yes...the 250,000
    soldiers are on their way to Baghdad to kill a terrorist worse
    even than bin Laden, one who could make Osama's dreams come true
    if we let them. Those troops would be of little use in the hunt
    for bin Laden. Intel and special forces are the proper tools.

    "Okay, so with a quarter of a million men in Iraq, and more on the way, when are we going to get back to hunting down the ba$!ard responsible for the deaths of over three thousand people?"

    Okay, first and now last, those quarter million men are hunting
    down thousands of murdering, torturing psychopaths who are
    responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS!!!!!!!!!! and
    who would, every last one of them, love nothing more than the destruction of the United States since plainly we are the only
    force on earth preventing them from carrying out Saddam's
    dreams of conquest and glory.

    In reading your posts, I'm always left to wonder at their
    consistently contrarian nature, and the generally clueless
    content. Are you just looking for an argument, do you enjoy
    being exposed to the sound rebuttals of the other members, or
    are you simply a Bush hating liberal in disguise, trying any
    way you can to sew the seeds of doubt?

    You once visited a site I suggested, and were gracious enough to thank me for it. Well, here it is again, with a brand new essay
    from Bill Whittle entitled, "HISTORY," which I hope you will go
    read at: www.ejectejecteject.com It's his best yet, but
    too long to c+p here. Wonderful and inspiring, I urge every-
    one to read it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being
    proud to be an American, and with writing like Whittle's, we may
    even make it fashionable once again.

    Oughtsix
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    Oughtsix, as ever your response was measured and insightful. While I believe our efforts to apprehend Bin Laden were given less than full support once the flashier aspects of the war in Afghanistan were over, you bring up some valid points to counter mine(like the topography of the region, something, I will readily admit, I did not consider).
    The one thing I have trouble seeing, however (and maybe some of you can help me out here) is how did Saddam become "the" enemy? He didn't attack America and there is no evidence linking him to any terrorist organization like Al Qaeda. Even the Pentagon and CIA say as much.
    So why the war? I'm not trying to imply anything here, just want some opinions above and beyond, "You're a liberal $#it-head."
  • BoltactionManBoltactionMan Member Posts: 2,051 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    ElMuerto Monkey,

    Since when has there been "no evidence" linking Iraq to the terrorists. They were trained there, probably helped with the financing, etc.

    I wish this would get over and get our people back home, but I'm afraid this fight (not the war) is gonna last forever. There are always people out there looking to take down #1.

    KC
  • GotdeereGotdeere Member Posts: 293 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    BoltactionMan and OughtSix are correct. From the sources that I have heard on a couple occasions, the terroist training occured in Irag and money to help fund terrorist acts against the US were from Irag. I believe that the reason the US went into Irag is due to the fact that Saddam wouldn't disarm his army. This disarmorment was supposed to have been done 10 or so yrs ago. You may ask "why Saddam wasn't placed out of power the first time we were there", well that is because the mission in the early 90's was to liberate Kuwait.

    The ordeal with Osama isn't forgoten, you just hear more on the news about the missions in Irag.
  • madmarc0madmarc0 Member Posts: 862 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Let me elaborate, America good... Iraq bad.
  • oughtsixoughtsix Member Posts: 1,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Monkey,

    On another thread, you complain that Bush (that should be President
    Bush to you) should just "shut up" when he said "We will hunt you down," in reference to bin Laden. Here you complain of silence and
    inaction when it comes to bin Laden. You are hard to please. And to
    educate.

    Oughtsix
  • chuckchuck Member Posts: 4,911
    edited November -1
    Hey monkey I here you, And 06 Whats your point?
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    Funding for Osama Bin Laden has been linked to members of the Saudi royal family, not Hussein. Even the CIA is muted on linking Saddam with bin Laden at this point.

    Ought, ss for Bush, I did not refer to him as "Mr. Bush", which would have been a gross breach of etiquette (like when Charlton Heston referred to Clinton as "Mr. Clinton" when he was still president), but last name only is not disrespectful and was not meant to be.

    As for telling Bush to shut up, if I recall correctly, that was in reference to him telling any Iraqi war criminals that "we will hunt you down" and that since he's done such a sterling job so far with bin Laden, he should stop trying to sound like such a tough guy.

    And as far as being educated, I'll learn when the lesson is more than rhetoric. I'm not too stubborn to learn, but some of you can be mighty lazy when it comes to teaching.
  • idsman75idsman75 Member Posts: 14,524
    edited November -1
    Saddam is/was in charge of an entire country. Osama was in charge of an entire Army of terrorists--INDEPENDENT cells scattered all over the world. They don't need Osama around in order to carry out orders that they may have been given a decade ago and are slowly working on today. You can cut the so-called (by the liberal media) "head" of Al Qaeda which is, allegedly, Osama bin Laden. The snake won't die because there's no real head. It just looks like there's one.

    I love the crowd that says, "Don't attack Saddam, so-and-so is a bigger threat than Saddam." Well, if we attacked "so-and-so" then the same crowd would be screaming that someone ELSE is a greater threat. Those folks just want something to gripe about because President Bush wasn't an ideal choice for them in 2000. Remember, socialists are idealists too.
Sign In or Register to comment.