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.
Options
Osama Bin Who?
ElMuertoMonkey
Member Posts: 12,898
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.
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
Got a new gun for my ex-wife.....pretty good trade, huh?
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
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?
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
Better to have and not need, than need and not have.
"If your gonna be stupid, go find a democrat."
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
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."
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
The ordeal with Osama isn't forgoten, you just hear more on the news about the missions in Irag.
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
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.
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.