Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,745,357 times
Reputation: 3146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
? bin Laden was never in Iraq....

Oh, you say "a priority." Not "the priority."

Okay.

As for "revenge for Daddy," it might have been some of that but it was mostly The Decider being manipulated by the PNAC boys.

Who said he was?

One can have multiple priorities.

See crazy unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:11 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,655 posts, read 18,656,890 times
Reputation: 2829
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
I certainly don't think he forgot about it but things change. They correctly knew Bin Laden was on the run and unable to coordinate further attacks. And he was probably in Pakistan anyway. Were/are you in favor of us running into Pakistan after him?
Yes.

You're not? You're fine and dandy with Bin Laden getting away?

If someone murdered your wife/sister/mother/brother, and they were on the run, and the cops said "eh, he's on the run, he won't be able to kill anyone else, it's not a major concern of ours", would you just accept that as fine and dandy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:15 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,141,005 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
I certainly don't think he forgot about it but things change. They correctly knew Bin Laden was on the run and unable to coordinate further attacks. And he was probably in Pakistan anyway. Were/are you in favor of us running into Pakistan after him?
Do you think we shouldnt waste time bothering with him?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,745,357 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli View Post
Yes.

You're not? You're fine and dandy with Bin Laden getting away?

If someone murdered your wife/sister/mother/brother, and they were on the run, and the cops said "eh, he's on the run, he won't be able to kill anyone else, it's not a major concern of ours", would you just accept that as fine and dandy?

I don't recall I said I was fine and dandy with Bin Laden not being captured. But I am certainly not in favor of inavding Pakisyan to capture him.

Wow lefties are suddenly becoming very muscular in their approach to terrrorism. So I guess you are very disappointed in Obama for not invading Pakistan to get him. I suppose it is fine and dandy with Obama for him to get away with it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:19 AM
 
1,048 posts, read 2,387,181 times
Reputation: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Do you think we shouldnt waste time bothering with him?
I think he's been dead for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,745,357 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Do you think we shouldnt waste time bothering with him?
Keeping constant pressure on him using drones in the tribal regions of Pakistan is about all we can do short of invasion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:20 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,141,005 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Who said he was?
"It is silly in the extreme to think that catching Bin Laden wasn't a priority for that administration."

But we invaded Iraq.

See?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
One can have multiple priorities.
Yes, and some things are higher priority than others. Too bad "catch bin Laden" was way down the list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
See crazy unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Oh, that's so sad and blind.

US News / Special: Empire Builders / Spheres of influence: Neocon think tanks and periodicals | Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.html - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:23 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,655 posts, read 18,656,890 times
Reputation: 2829
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
I don't recall I said I was fine and dandy with Bin Laden not being captured. But I am certainly not in favor of inavding Pakisyan to capture him.

Wow lefties are suddenly becoming very muscular in their approach to terrrorism. So I guess you are very disappointed in Obama for not invading Pakistan to get him. I suppose it is fine and dandy with Obama for him to get away with it?
Obama has said multiple times that Bin Laden is our principal focus and target. Obama has been in office for less than 6 months, and needs to work with countries that could be harboring Bin Laden to assist in his capture.

I have always been very muscular in the approach to capturing Bin Laden, absolutely. In that aspect - we have full and good reason to go after him - we were attacked first.

Hopefully the window of opportunity has not passed. My gripe with Bush is the pressure and focus should have been placed on Bin Laden IMMEDIATELY after 9/11 until he was caught, while we still had the backing of the majority of the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:25 AM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,141,005 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Keeping constant pressure on him using drones in the tribal regions of Pakistan is about all we can do short of invasion.
You dont seem interested in catching him, either. Obama is, though
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2009, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,745,357 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
"It is silly in the extreme to think that catching Bin Laden wasn't a priority for that administration."

But we invaded Iraq.

See?

Yes, and some things are higher priority than others. Too bad "catching bin Laden" was way down the list.

Oh, that's so sad and blind.

US News / Special: Empire Builders / Spheres of influence: Neocon think tanks and periodicals | Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.html - broken link)
Yes we invaded Iraq because intelligence told us they were trying to build WMDs. And that relates to Bin Laden how? Are you saying because we invaded Iraq we couldn't catch Bin Laden. Don't you recall we were in Afghanistan at the same time.

I prefer preventing terrorist attacks in the US being the top priority.

Huh? And you link prooves what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top