bin Laden’s most successful attack on....

Ryan. OMG. You should teach at a college level with the degree of knowledge you posses on international relations and tribal customs. Wow. Im so impressed.

Look, your just some kid, dont think you in all your glory can second guess people that studdy, worked and trained their entire proffesional lives to plan and devise battle plans.

Stop regurgitating the words of whatever libral persons have been swiming around in your head for the past five years.

Stop already. Its not your area of expertise, you suck at it.

If the government were really as opressive and intrusive as you people make it out to be, we wouldn't be hearing from you. You'd be digging for oil in Alaska with a dull spoon.

Ok then. Why do you think we waited 16 days?

Trust me,

Dbib knows stuff, he knows people, he has connections.

He is NOT just some lamer who gets his kicks lieing about stuff to make his e-penis bigger on an internet forum, and he certianly would not fake being a girl in a chatroom for three weeks despite being cought the week before.

Not ever.

w00t I get to break down a quote!

.Ryan wrote: Elaboration: Hmm....where to begin...Ok, lets start with 9/11. He and Rummy delayed the full out invasion of Afghanistan for something like 16 days, highly weakening our chances of catching OBL and getting the justice he promised us. He then topples the Taliban and gives control, at least to the degree that it's possible in that area, to the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance are Islamic fundamentalists, just not as extreme at the former regiem. Not to mention they have strong ties to Iran. He also fails to shut down the Poppy industry in the country, allowing mucho heroin to continue to be made out of their products. SO, he pretty much sorta gets Afghanistan done up and decides he'll go ahead and try out the Neocon's little social experiment in Iraq. He cherry picks intelligence, and/or lies, to us and the rest of the world and convinces congress to give him the power to invade Iraq. He sends too few troops in with insufficient planning and topples the only thing, however brtual and evil that thing was, that was keeping that country together. He declares that we've won and then our under-enforced, under-equiped, under-prepared army gets to start fighting the verious insurgencies that pop up, meanwhile the islamic world is growing more and more intoleranant of us being there and anti-US sentiment is growing even more than it had up till then.

I'll agree partially with some of this text. I don't really want to break it down (because it violates my religious belief of laziness), so I'll just say "Yeah,he didn't handle Iraq the way I would have." Then again, what do I know.

I would like to point out the communication problems that existed between the FBI and the rest of the government. The intelligence may have been cherry picked, but not neccessarily by him.

Another point that I normally wouldn't have noticed, but you were rather emphatic on, was that our military was under-equipped. Granted it was-from eight years of presidency that downplayed the importance of properly funding the military. But I'll move onto that later (I'm bored so I'm going to rant a little )

.Ryan wrote: And not just in the mideast, the rest of the world sees how FUBAR "we" are and we miss out on the huge bank of support they gave us after 9/11, squandered by the cowboy who told the organization we set up to insure people didn't go invading other countries randomly, as well as the rest of the world except out awsome "coalition of the willing" to go screw themselves.

That point was, and still is meaningless. Our agenda as a nation is not governed by an outside body. If we feel the need to act, we don't need France and Germany to support us. They're entitled to their ideals, but their ideals are often not our ideals.  

.Ryan wrote:  So now we're bogged down in an insurgency that would probably take 20 years to finally snuff out if we could afford to stay that long, and so far we've lost about 2700 lives, about 4 trillion dollars, and had about 30,000 of our boys wounded for a false premises and an illconcieved notion that we would spread democracy to the hapless millions and they'd love us for it and start buying happy meals. Meanwhile, we're basically ignoring nuclear North Korea and the Iran thing could blow up at anytime.

A paragraph with some good points and some really bad ones. I agree on the insurgency problem-just like Vietnam, we can't fight their street battles. And we shouldn't. But your so called "illconceived notion" that we would "spread democracy to the hapless millions and they'd love us for it and start buying happy meals" never existed. That was never promised-it really had little to do with democracy, it was doing what should have been done a long time ago. These people may not "embrace democracy", but what we did was just. We didn't just topple a government-we saved the lives of possibly millions of people, many of whom were women and children. Yes, some of our boys laid down their lives. But what they saved an entire people from a nightmarish regime.  

.Ryan wrote: But that was just the foriegn policy stuff......Jesus, I could go on about the first tax cuts in history during war time, the budget cuts that will probably hurt our kid's chances of paying for college and getting medicaid and/or social security among other things, the Patriot Act, the illegal wiretaping, insecure ports and boarders, the whole Katrina debacle, they never found the Anthrax guy(s)or OBL, the various embarassing criminal investigations in the GOP, the questionable elections.....not to mention the fact that the majority of congess is now controlled by corporate America.

I love the way you phrased that. "...the first tax cuts in history during a war time". But can you prove that's a bad thing? Unless you choose to, I won't go into that here (since I'm way off topic anyway and this is your thread I'll respect that), but I'm a supporter of the tax cuts. Not because I'm rich (which I'm not), but because I agree with the theory.

I don't disagree with you as heavily as I have others, and I appreciate your intelligent response. I simply disagree with the core belief that Bush has "FUBAR'd" our nation, or ravaged it in the past years.

As for the troops' supplies, I said I'd go into that in further detail. Bill Clinton cut mlitary spending in his term. Maybe not an incredibly significant amount, but enough that it impacted our military's condition. Now, before the flames start in, I'm not neccessarily griping about that. Bill Clinton inherited a post-Cold War presidency. Therefore the emphasis on military spending was down.

As for Social Security, the government has been dipping into that for years. It was going to run out eventually no matter who was in office.

And as I said this at your discretion since it's your post, but I'd like to know how you got Katrina in there as part of why Bush has been bad for this nation. Just asking.

BTW, Bush isn't the only president who authorized wiretapping. President before him, including Clinton, authorized wire taps on various "suspected" economic terrorists and even into the mafia. Most of which were "illegal".

Oh boy I'm gonna have a field day putting holes in .Ryans 'arguement'.   It's like x-mas all over!!!

.Ryan wrote: He also fails to shut down the Poppy industry in the country, allowing mucho heroin to continue to be made out of their products.

Arfe you that ignorant? The poppy seed/opium in that area is one of their biggest sources of income. What were we supposed to do, screw them further economy wise when we're supposed to be helping? Its not our job to get rid of the drugs over there.

"Oh but what about Columbia, Linus?" Very different. The drug trade is so rampant there, corruption so obvious, that their government asked us to help, knowing that we are just as against the drugs as they are against the corruption. If the Afghan gov't asked us to help with their drugs, we'd be happy to oblige, but until then its not our call.

.Ryan wrote: He cherry picks intelligence, and/or lies, to us and the rest of the world and convinces congress to give him the power to invade Iraq.

1: WMD's were there. Proof of that, he even used them on the Iranians in the Iraq/Iran war.

2: He never gave proof that he got rid of the weapons.

3: He would require a 2 week minumum notice before he would let UN Inspectors into any area to look. Fishy...

4: When in Kuwait, he threatened to use Chemical/Biological weapons on us.

5: "Congress gave him power to invade" Its called the War Powers Act of 1973, the president is allowed to invade ANY country he so chooses for ANY reason he deems necessary, for a set period of time before Congress is required to vote to let us stay or not, NEVER having to declare war.

6: Few months after being in Baghdad, an IED exploded. "So?" you ask? It exploded a Sarin Nerve Agent canister, with the nerve agent inside. Luckily the stuff didnt mix right, so it caused no harm, except for the explosion.

7: And here's the doozey... "Faked intelligence"   C'mon... England, France, Russia, Israel, Germany and Japan all had the SAME EXACT INTELLIGENCE as we did, all pointing to him having WMD's at the time. Kinda hard to fool all those countries, let alone get half to go in with us or support us any other way.

8: General Sadr, one of Saddams top Generals, who is know helping us, said that just before we invaded, Saddam send some Chemical/Biological weapons to Syria, where they disapeared.

.Ryan wrote: He sends too few troops in with insufficient planning and topples the only thing, however brtual and evil that thing was, that was keeping that country together.

The Pres has the authority, right, and ability to send troops where he wants. BUT he doesnt say how much and with what equipment. Out generals are smart people. ALL Generals make mistakes, no matter how great (I.E. Rome's Crassus...) War is full of mistakes, get used to it and quit 'whining like a female dog in heat'.

.Ryan wrote: So now we're bogged down in an insurgency that would probably take 20 years to finally snuff out

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we occupied Germany and Japan, were there still not loyalist that commited insurgant acts? MMkay then...

.Ryan wrote: Meanwhile, we're basically ignoring nuclear North Korea and the Iran thing could blow up at anytime.

NK= Ignore? Hah... we had peace talks with them. They agreed to make no nukes if we help with Nuclear Energy, give them financial aid, and a few other things. And trust me, we still have active spies there just to make sure.

Iran= You dumb? We're working in conjunction with England, France, Germany and Russia to keep that threat to a minumum. Russia made a possible breakthrough the other day on this matter.

.Ryan wrote: Jesus, I could go on about the first tax cuts in history during war time

Please do. Our economy is in a recession, we need all the stimulation possible. I am 100% sure the White House is working with the Fed on how to maximize everything they can.

.Ryan wrote: the budget cuts that will probably hurt our kid's chances of... social security

Are you THAT IGNORANT? DId you watch the State of the Union Address?   Bush tried pushing for the Sociol Security reforms, and when he said that it didnt pass, ALL THE DEMOCRATS GAVE A STANDING OVATION. Do you see how childesh and dumb that looked? They were celebrating us getting screwed up the butts when we're older.

.Ryan wrote: among other things, the Patriot Act

Point? 100% LEGAL and passed by Congress

.Ryan wrote: the illegal wiretaping

Never heard of them being illegal.. Last I checked, I'm going to believe the word of the Alberto GOnsolaz over any power hungry Senator/Congressman ANYDAY. He is paid to know the law.

.Ryan wrote: insecure ports and boarders,

Tell me that last terror attack at one of our US Ports...

and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Bush push for more Border Patrol guards?

.Ryan wrote: the whole Katrina debacle

Screw up on EVERYONES behalf, not just the Pres. More so on the Mayor's and Govenors. Oh.. both democrats BTW. Govenors job to call in National Guard, not the Pres. Mayors job to mandate an evacuation and enforce it, not the Pres.

.Ryan wrote: they never found the Anthrax guy(s)

True... but it stopped didnt it? And what can Bush do? Expect him to do the investegations himself?

.Ryan wrote: the various embarassing criminal investigations in the GOP

All unsubstationated claims, some were dropped. The rest will amount to nothing, like the other 2 times he was accused for it.

.Ryan wrote: the questionable elections.....

Its called the Electoral College.. get over it. Jeeze.

.Ryan wrote: not to mention the fact that the majority of congess is now controlled by corporate America.

As opposed to it being controlled by Unions? Mmmkay...

.Ryan wrote: But hey, don't listen to me, I'm just an America hating, **edited** loving, gun banning, unpatriotic, loser, democratic, terrorist.

Maybe not terrorist, but hey, you said it, not me.

Gah that took a while...


EDIT-- Darn.. strato beat me.

Edited by Linus - 28 February 2006 at 8:27pm

Linus wrote: Oh boy I'm gonna have a field day putting holes in .Ryans 'arguement'.   It's like x-mas all over!!!

So where were the holes you poked in his arguement?

Reading your response was more painful then standing in line between Rosie O'donald and Star Jones at the grand opening of a candy factory

Hades wrote: Linus wrote: Oh boy I'm gonna have a field day putting holes in .Ryans 'arguement'.   It's like x-mas all over!!! So where were the holes you poked in his arguement?

Bingo.

Responding with more rhetoric =/= "poking holes"

I dont know if anyone cares anymore. But we waited 16 days because of logistics and other things like that, we cant just run into the country without paying off or helping out the local principalities(northern aliance)in some way.

Its easy point and critisise something that doesnt look right. But more often than not, there is a good reason things are done the way they are done.

Granted, the US government has kept things from us. But right now, i dont care, i dont want to know the specifics of this war, i know more than most, and far less than some. A lot of what i dont know, i perfer not to know.

Why does .Ryan need to bother proving his points to any of you?  Things are falling apart quite nicely on their own.