How can satellite images not help at all with possible locations? It seems as though it would narrow possible locations slightly...

 

I will return to answer your -thoughtful- questions. I don't have the time to properly address them right this second. In the mean time.. a lot of your answers can be found in world history books...

Your last question... Do I feel safe with open borders. Quick answer... no I don't. Does this mean no immigration? No it doesn't. I'm all for LEGAL and proper immigration. What the government can't protect me from, is also a reason to have a strong 2nd amendment as well as a NATIONALIZED "Castle Doctrine". I'm pretty sure had a few well qualified armed Americans been on the flights of 9/11 it may have been a VERY different story than the one that played out.

 

in 1972 my draft # was 262. Roll the dice baby! Good luck!

 

You can say that now... your too OLD! Easy to say when your at least 54. No one would take your saggy ***!

 

Right on! I do have to worry about my kids though! I will send them to other countries. Hell, I was considering Canada in 1972.
Peace, love, and all that hippie chit!

 

Yes the answers are history. I want to hear your take on the lessons learned since you support the Iraq invasion.

I was in the Gulf in support of Desert Storm...

 

Was it that the answers weren't "good" or just not what you wanted to hear?
My thoughts are with the current "plan", which by all accounts appears to be working in the practical sense. That is, clear, hold, rebuild and return.
A "win"? I’d consider a "win" being Iraq with a stable government of THIER choice... I don't care who they elect... as long as they get the choice. Is that not what is happening now? I remember the thousands showing up to vote in the middle of "operations". Remember the "blue thumbs"? That one (of many) instance quieted any doubt that I might have had about us "doing the right thing" there. Furthermore, they have a strong enough military to protect their interests, and country.


Then why am I answering your questions? You seem to have your mind already made up? I still don't understand this defeatist attitude.

Some Islamic leaders are better than others... With out getting too deep into this, my point remains. As long as they (the people) elect or have a say in their government, I'm ok with it. Mullah, president, grand ruler... what ever. When that "elected official" starts jailing and killing the opposition... then I have a problem with them.



Considering that these "leaders" reject anything "Western", are you surprised? I'd say that the Saudi's have the final say whether we stay or not. As of right this second, I believe we are welcome there. Last I checked Bin Laden was pinned down or hiding in the mountains -somewhere-, missing the ever important title of "President, Mullah, Grand Ruler, or General Recognized Idiot of (insert Middle Eastern country of your choice here)".

9/11… What were we supposed to do? Oh… sorry Mr. Bin Laden… we’ll leave right away... just let us sweep up the wreckage of the WTC first? You understand, that outside of the mind of your typical hippy liberal… what was done to the WTC constituted an act of war, right? Personally… I think our initial reaction was quite restrained and I think public perception and anger on 9/12 gave Bush a much larger berth for retaliation, than what he actually did and what you’d view today as acceptable. IF Bush ordered the immediate carpet bombing of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, -most- (not all) would have been perfectly fine with it. Yet, we go through the UN, talk with our allies, and go to the world media… WARNING that we’re pissed off, and we’re coming for ya’!

I’d like to see all illegal aliens returned to their country of origin, but I’m not going to sanction –anyone- to strap on a bomb vest, or build IEDs to deliver the “get out” message them. Nor am I going to call for the erasure of their homeland from the face of the planet.

Since you framed your question in such a way… I’m thinking you fall more on the side of a pacifist.

What lesson do -you- think "we" learned"? I'm not aware of any generally recognized Iranian lesson that we were taught, other than not to elect a wishy washy president (Carter) that couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag, let alone administer a poorly thought out "rescue mission".

Think there was a reason why those hostages were released almost immediately after Reagan's inauguration? (yeah, I’m aware of the Algiers Accord)

Ask a Russian, that fought there, what the trouble was... Then hit the books.

I'm confident that our military leadership has a grasp on what's needed there. You, me, a politician, or any other keyboard quarterback, doesn't.

Ummm to win? How this is achieved...? Ask the Generals. It's their job to know, not mine.

 

From that same passage...the word "spearheaded".


spearhead
n
a. The leading forces in a military thrust.
b. The driving force in a given action, endeavor, or movement.

Since the US spearheaded the invasion, a unilateralism with the UK was the result which violated the UN Resolution 1441. Why is it OK that we violate UN rules....because someone else does? Then it's OK??? I can see a table full of military officials around a table screaming, "He did it first!!!!!!!!!" like a bunch of first graders.


From:
http://www.123exp-history.com/t/0376923792/


"2003 invasion of Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force. The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, and later China all signaled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq."

There are many sources that will say the complete opposite as above....it depends on the individual to come to a conclusion to whatever they believe.

 

So, you've established leadership... good. Some one has to lead.

Unfortunately for you, your definition proves nothing to your argument. You realize that "spearhead" and "unilateral" are two different words with two different meanings? You see a connection between these two words, how?

You forget:
United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, Kurdistan and the Iraqi National Congress supplied troops for your so called "unilateral invasion".

Ahh yes.. the "unjust war"... Bush Lied people died argument... You're gona' have to do better than that if you wish to continue this "discussion".

Russia, China? Are you joking? Surely you remember all the "French jokes" floating around at the time... and the distain that was sent their way for their perceived lack of support in the US defending it's self?

let's take a look who was benefiting from -no action in Iraq-
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm217.cfm
As I stated in another thread... 9/11 was an act of war, like it or not. We just so happened to make Iraq our second stop...

Bottom line, armed with 1441, and the events of 9/11 we finally decided we've had enough and decided to do something about it, rather than bomb an asprin factory or launch congression investigations. There are times to talk, and there are times for action.

 

Without the US spearheading into war, this endless war would have never happened. There were other ways to handle this. We were doing the right things by inspections and things of that nature, but when there were no WMD's found, well....you know the rest.

If war was the right answer, why didn't we declare immediately and forgo the inspections for WMD? We declared war against Japan the day after Pearl Harbor.


Please read the link again and pay attention to the bold:

"The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, and later China all signaled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq."


One can see why France, Russia and China would use their veto power, thank you for providing the research as to why they would do so.

 

More like endless cliché...

UN1441... get off your @ss and read it.

To pacify the incessant whining from those like you... and to perhaps give the UN a chance to be something other than a paper tiger.


Back in the 1940s most people had the strength of character to act and see an act of war for what it was... Something the lib-dems don't have the stomach for.

Why don't you actually do some research in to that period of time, and see what it was like for yourself? Find out why they are called the "Greatest Generation"

You're welcome, and may I suggest you keep going with your own, rather than relying on other to do the work for you.

 

I was looking for something along the lines of American interest. Maybe the term I used was wrong when I said, "weren't good." I will change it to not making sense. I don't like to see American lives and resources wasted on stupid phrases. We went in for one reason which was accomplished, then it morphed into something more and it still changes. Bottom line for me is loss versus gains.

I have read middle eastern politics and culture for several years after visiting with the military. Our definitions, terms, culture and government/religious views will never fit in the middle east. The majority of people in Afghanistan and Iraq cant read. They vote how they are told to by religious elders.
The blue thumbs looked cool by American standards but the fact is most that voted, voted how they were told to.
One of our strongest allies in the region Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy. There is no vote there.

I wanted to hear your take. My mind is made up by facts and reality. Maybe my attitude is defeatist, maybe yours is naive and misinformed.
When it's all done the end result and history will make the real call.

As was said before most middle eastern oil countries don't elect governments. If they dont elect they don't actually have a say and they do jail and kill opposition when it gets out of place or actually threatens.

You lost me with your answers, we are in Saudi Arabia because the KING wants us there. The majority of Saudi's don't like it just as we would not like a large Muslim army in our country. WTC attack occured because of our presence. This is why they don't like us. Christian Army in their muslim holy land.

Now since you want to play name games, why cant you get it thru your thick right wing skull why they want to kill us? Our government invites people we dont like to our country in large numbers carring guns.
What would we do? Nothing?

You are very funni and very wrong. Im a pacifist that volunteered and served 20 years in the military directly involved in 2 wars.
I don't believe in stupid fights for stupid reasons.
Somebody attack me or my family I kill them not their neighbors. I finish one fight before I start another.

One day America will learn that nation building, especially in that region doesn't work by American standards.

Rescue attempt: Personally I think they should have had more backup aircraft and better weather intel and should have gone forward anyway.
H-53 aircraft were/are very unreliable and failed the mission and the sandstorm didn't help but as usual your right wing bias blames the democrat.
It's ok to lie, distort and be misinformed about a republican administration's mismanagement of this current war because right is right, right?
Did you? I have hit the books unlike your republican counterparts.

 

The surge Mccain wanted in Afganistan will not work as has already been stated by the top military brass but wait....They didnt listen to them when we went to war with Iraq over 5 years ago did they?

Top Military officials have been saying for some time there is no amount of troops, no amount of money to win.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Maybe you and the rest of your right wing nut friends need to stop listening to that right wing talk radio crap and read yourselves.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Unless the Iraqi government takes advantage of the "breathing space" that U.S. forces are providing, Mullen said, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference."

I guess he is also a pacifist and has a defeatist attitude?

 

Work smart, not hard.

 

Are you sure?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/wo...06soldier.html


http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/1...g-in-iraq.html

Sgts. Asa Rubman and Rachel Littenberg, both paralegal specialists assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, assist service members and civilians while they register to vote Oct. 4, 2008 at Forward Operating Base Falcon, Iraq. Through their efforts, more than 550 civilians and Soldiers from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National Division – Baghdad, registered to vote.


I don't see any Iraqi military around? If you feel they have a strong enough military to protect their interests and country, why are we still there? Haven't we spent enough money we don't even have on a country when we should be spending it in our own? Nice English sign inviting the Arabic speaking Iraqis to vote....