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.
If the U.S. would have nabbed Bin Laden before the Spring of '03, how much support would George Bush have had for the Iraq war, considering how successfully he and his administration tied 911 to that invasion?
And if we do get him now, how many of us American voters will be sufficiently suspicious of the timing?
If the U.S. would have nabbed Bin Laden before the Spring of '03, how much support would George Bush have had for the Iraq war, considering how successfully he and his administration tied 911 to that invasion?
And if we do get him now, how many of us American voters will be sufficiently suspicious of the timing?
---------------
Great point so true. Bush real objective was Iraq anyway was never Osama .
Great point so true. Bush real objective was Iraq anyway was never Osama .
You know we had him, had Bin Laden cornered early on, and backup was requested to get him while the getting was good. That backup never came. Sometimes things are just what they seem. This war has been the most privatized of all wars ever. More money has been made than ever before. Coincidence, I think not.
I understand but in attempting to solve the problem you do not want to create more problems.
What if Pakistan tells us to go to heal and now they arm the Tali same way they did to keep the Russian's at bay.
What if they give them what they need to hit our chopper's,etc. To go in and impose our will in Pakistan could blow up in our face.
Agreed, we should not anger a nuclear armed country by killing their citizens and ignoring their borders. I can't tell the difference between an armed Pakistani civilian and an armed terrorist, neither can our government. We should be working with Pakistan and not against them. They are our allies and they should be treated as allies.
Agreed, we should not anger a nuclear armed country by killing their citizens and ignoring their borders. I can't tell the difference between an armed Pakistani civilian and an armed terrorist, neither can our government. We should be working with Pakistan and not against them. They are our allies and they should be treated as allies.
A lot of Pakistanis do not like the US. But, many in the cities (their "liberals") are against the extreme right. Mush milked the US relationship for money and arms, and did not do much against terrorists. Calling them an ally would be a serious stretch - they do not behave as one. They are still creating a lot of trouble in Afghanistan - Karzai's statements confirm that. If it were not for their support, taliban etc would simply not exist.
If the U.S. would have nabbed Bin Laden before the Spring of '03, how much support would George Bush have had for the Iraq war, considering how successfully he and his administration tied 911 to that invasion?
And if we do get him now, how many of us American voters will be sufficiently suspicious of the timing?
He's dead. There's no boogyman to get. You know, I wish we could all just be honest. I wish Bush had the guts[mod edited] to say, "He's dead. He's been dead. I just wanted to finish the fight my daddy started. So there. I'm the decider and I decided!" I mean seriously, Bin Laden is rotting away in a grave somewhere and politicians are still attempting to insult our intelligence by trying to maintain the facade of "terror".
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 09-05-2008 at 10:58 AM..
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.