I told you so: Taliban winning in Afghanistan
 

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:02:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

Yes, it was -- but tactically, it was badly bungled. And it took our
attention
away from destroying the people who attacked us on Sept. 11.

If you mean Osama ben Laden, it was NEVER the goal of the United States to
capture or kill Osama ben Laden.

The singular goal of the United States was to prevent an attack on the
United States or its interests abroad. To accomplish this goal, several
tactics were undertaken at the same time to disrupt or destroy our enemies
communications, funding, recruitment, training, and sanctuaries and to deter
those who would assist our enemies.

If, during the execution of these tactics, ben Laden ended up dead, that
would be a plus, but it was certainly never a goal (after the first week).

Before 9-11, there was, on average, one or two attacks on U.S. interests
overseas every year (the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the bombing of our
embassies in Kenya and elsewhere, kidnapping or killing of U.S. ambassadors,
etc.). Since 2001 there has not be a single successful attack on either the
U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.


There's been no need to, bush has done more to destroy this country
then bin laden ever dreamed of. And your statistic is baloney in many
ways. The official reports of terrorist activity showed a huge
increase all thru the bush jr years. The bushies even tried to
redefine "terrorism" to make the numbers look lower but they were
outed.

I told you so: Taliban winning in Afghanistan
 

Ashton Crusher wrote:

So what should we have done in response to 9/11 then?
Invite the taliban over for a beer and sing kumbiya and tell them
how it's all our fault?
Get real


The president should have gotten on the TV and in a forceful voice
said that we would get those responsible in our own time and our own
way. he should have said that as in the past the US would overcome
this tragedy and emerge stronger and free'er then it has ever been. He
should have said that we would SOON begin rebuilding the towers. He
should have said that the US welcomes the support from around the
world and that we would begin talking to all our friends about
appropriate ways to deal with the people responsible.


Of course, that's not what our feeble minded president did. he got on
TV and looked like he was scared of his own shadow. It didn't help
that in the aftermath of 9/11 he snuck off like a coward to fly around
in circles. I know, you will say the SS made him. Really!! The SS
determines what the president does?? He also immediately started
taking away our rights and started spying on us. Even thought there
was no evidence that Iraq was involved he attached them. Wow, what a
signal that sent to Al Quada. He made no effort to get the towers
rebuilt. Instead, he, like Gulliani, used the burned out hulk of the
towers as a backdrop for political grandstanding. It's been nearly a
decade and the US still has not rebuilt the towers. What does THAT
tell Al Quada about our national will? He created teh largest
peacetime expansion of gvt in our history by creating the horrible
sounding "HOMELAND SECURITY" agency and filling the airports with
their goon squads of shoe sniffing morons.

The short answer to your question would be, whatever bush did, we
should have done the opposite.

Interesting narrative and one would be here all day refuting all the points
raised. I'll tackle just one: "He immediately started taking away our rights
and started spying on us." I think you're referring to the interception and
monitoring of telephone (and other) communications by the government.

The first instance of interception and monitoring of electronic
communications took place by both the Union and Confederate forces during
the recent unplesantness. They discovered that there's a difference between
"Aunt Mary arrives Memphis by train 8:00 p.m. on 7th" and "Ordnance arrives
Memphis by train..."

We broke the Japanese Purple code. We employed Navaho "Code Talkers" so the
other side wouldn't know what we were talking about when they DID intercept
our communications. All other governments in all conflicts, from our Second
American Revolution to the present do it.

Monitoring of electronic communications from or to known (or suspected)
enemy forces is not only prudent but a sensible government requires it.

I told you so: Taliban winning in Afghanistan
 

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:02:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

Yes, it was -- but tactically, it was badly bungled. And it took our
attention
away from destroying the people who attacked us on Sept. 11.

If you mean Osama ben Laden, it was NEVER the goal of the United
States to capture or kill Osama ben Laden.

The singular goal of the United States was to prevent an attack on
the United States or its interests abroad. To accomplish this goal,
several tactics were undertaken at the same time to disrupt or
destroy our enemies communications, funding, recruitment, training,
and sanctuaries and to deter those who would assist our enemies.

If, during the execution of these tactics, ben Laden ended up dead,
that would be a plus, but it was certainly never a goal (after the
first week).

Before 9-11, there was, on average, one or two attacks on U.S.
interests overseas every year (the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole,
the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and elsewhere, kidnapping or
killing of U.S. ambassadors, etc.). Since 2001 there has not be a
single successful attack on either the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.


There's been no need to, bush has done more to destroy this country
then bin laden ever dreamed of. And your statistic is baloney in many
ways. The official reports of terrorist activity showed a huge
increase all thru the bush jr years. The bushies even tried to
redefine "terrorism" to make the numbers look lower but they were
outed.

It's true that terrorist attack spiked upward (though not against the U.S.),
but have now diminished to what John Kerry called "a mere nusiance level
that we can accept."