Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan for NINE YEARS!

[Tyrannical]

Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan for NINE YEARS!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/30 ... -children/

Former Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden entered Pakistan across the Afghan border during the early months of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, then spent nine years on the run in Pakistan living in several safe houses and fathering four children.

Testimony from bin Laden's youngest wife -- the 29-year-old Yemenite Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah -- before a joint investigation team in Pakistan reveals the Al Qaeda kingpin fled over the border into Pakistan early in 2002, just after the U.S. launched attacks on Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan.

One more thing Ron Paul was right about, we spent too much time screwing around Afghanistan with this nation building bullshit instead of chasing down Osama like we were supposed to.

[Ian]

Ron Paul?

This isn't a surprise. There was a large consensus that he was somewhere in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. I was only surprised that he was found in Abbottabad - I was convinced he was hiding in Peshawar.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ron Paul?

This isn't a surprise. There was a large consensus that he was somewhere in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. I was only surprised that he was found in Abbottabad - I was convinced he was hiding in Peshawar.

We'd been looking for him in Paki for quite a while. We found him there. Ta-fucking-Da!

[Robert_S]

Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan for NINE YEARS!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/30 ... -children/

Former Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden entered Pakistan across the Afghan border during the early months of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, then spent nine years on the run in Pakistan living in several safe houses and fathering four children.

Testimony from bin Laden's youngest wife -- the 29-year-old Yemenite Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah -- before a joint investigation team in Pakistan reveals the Al Qaeda kingpin fled over the border into Pakistan early in 2002, just after the U.S. launched attacks on Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan.

One more thing Ron Paul was right about, we spent too much time screwing around Afghanistan with this nation building bullshit instead of chasing down Osama like we were supposed to.

I wonder what things would have been like if instead of dicking around in Iraq, we would have put about half that much effort into building up Afghanistan.

Somehow a good portion of the population became fucking redneck goober wannabes and went on another warpath because Rumsfeld ran out of targets. How many people got killed for so little gain because our stupid and willfully ignorant white trash hicks were scared of being called cowards?

[Tyrannical]

Ron Paul?

This isn't a surprise. There was a large consensus that he was somewhere in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. I was only surprised that he was found in Abbottabad - I was convinced he was hiding in Peshawar.

Paul criticized Bush for changing the mission from getting Osama to nation building and bombing the Taliban. That probably cost us our chance of getting him in 2002. Why even have troops in Afghanistan if the target isn't there?
Of course 9/11 is really Bill Clinton's fault as Saudi Arabia had offered him Osama and Clinton wasn't interested.

[Ian]

Ron Paul?

This isn't a surprise. There was a large consensus that he was somewhere in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. I was only surprised that he was found in Abbottabad - I was convinced he was hiding in Peshawar.

Paul criticized Bush for changing the mission from getting Osama to nation building and bombing the Taliban. That probably cost us our chance of getting him in 2002. Why even have troops in Afghanistan if the target isn't there?
Of course 9/11 is really Bill Clinton's fault as Saudi Arabia had offered him Osama and Clinton wasn't interested.

As long as those pesky Democrats can be blamed somewhere in history.

[Warren Dew]

I wonder what things would have been like if instead of dicking around in Iraq, we would have put about half that much effort into building up Afghanistan.

A lot of people would have died in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, but unlike Iraq, it's very unlikely we would have established a democratic government in Afghanistan. And Bin Laden would still have been in Pakistan instead.

[Tyrannical]

I have to wonder if all our recent middle-eastern involvement was a silly waste of time.
So Iraq invades Kuwait, so what? Iraq still has to sell oil just as much as we need to buy it. Even if Saddam too over Saudi Arabia, we'd probably never have an Osama 9/11 because Saddam would kill the Islamist extremists. We should have left well enough alone, smiled, and bought their oil.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan for NINE YEARS!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/30 ... -children/

Former Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden entered Pakistan across the Afghan border during the early months of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, then spent nine years on the run in Pakistan living in several safe houses and fathering four children.

Testimony from bin Laden's youngest wife -- the 29-year-old Yemenite Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah -- before a joint investigation team in Pakistan reveals the Al Qaeda kingpin fled over the border into Pakistan early in 2002, just after the U.S. launched attacks on Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan.

One more thing Ron Paul was right about, we spent too much time screwing around Afghanistan with this nation building bullshit instead of chasing down Osama like we were supposed to.

I wonder what things would have been like if instead of dicking around in Iraq, we would have put about half that much effort into building up Afghanistan.

Somehow a good portion of the population became fucking redneck goober wannabes and went on another warpath because Rumsfeld ran out of targets. How many people got killed for so little gain because our stupid and willfully ignorant white trash hicks were scared of being called cowards?

This is a false choice.

They aren't one for one, guns or butter, choices here. Even if we took the same money and manpower and sent it to Afghanistan to try to "build up" the country, it would not necessarily have been more effective. There was good reason to have a near zero footprint in Afghanistan in 2001. Sending in 500,000 troops is not necessarily better, and they would not have been well received in Afghanistan. We weren't, and aren't, there to be the new 1979-Soviets.

In 2002, Iraq was not a target because of fearful rednecks. It was the general consensus among Democrats as well as Republicans that something needed to be done about Iraq, and that consensus extended to Europe as well. The UK government was full on with the American consensus. Some continental countries had financial interests which held them back. Everyone was pretty much done with Hussein, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have to wonder if all our recent middle-eastern involvement was a silly waste of time.

Paraphrasing a Four Star General at US Central Command about a month or so ago..... in response to a question from an individual asking what he thought - if we should have gone into Iraq. He said that supported the effort from the beginning, but that the way we just left -- he thinks it rendered the entire effort a waste of time and lives.

So Iraq invades Kuwait, so what? Iraq still has to sell oil just as much as we need to buy it.

It's an issue of who controls the oil. The west doesn't mind paying for the oil. What we mind is being blackmailed and gouged.

Further in 2001, there was a real interest in enforcement of international law. Iraq invaded Kuwait, a member of the UN. Kuwait complained to the UN and asked for UN action to oppose the plainly illegal invasion. The UN answered the call, in a rare instance of doing the right thing.

Even if Saddam too over Saudi Arabia, we'd probably never have an Osama 9/11 because Saddam would kill the Islamist extremists. We should have left well enough alone, smiled, and bought their oil.

I think we should just get US oil companies doing more drilling, and more alternative energy production to increase the supply of energy such that huge downward pressure is placed on oil prices.

[Warren Dew]

I have to wonder if all our recent middle-eastern involvement was a silly waste of time.
So Iraq invades Kuwait, so what? Iraq still has to sell oil just as much as we need to buy it. Even if Saddam too over Saudi Arabia, we'd probably never have an Osama 9/11 because Saddam would kill the Islamist extremists. We should have left well enough alone, smiled, and bought their oil.

I think we would have needed to defend Saudi Arabia - they were an ally, and they had and have also cooperated with us many times in taking the edge of oil price swings caused by less stable oil producers.

Kuwait was not an ally, and I was against intervention in the Gulf War at the time. I would note also that Saddam Hussein had gotten a tacit go ahead from the U.S. state department before invading.

Further in 2001, there was a real interest in enforcement of international law. Iraq invaded Kuwait, a member of the UN. Kuwait complained to the UN and asked for UN action to oppose the plainly illegal invasion. The UN answered the call, in a rare instance of doing the right thing.

I don't think things were so simple. According to Iraq, Kuwait was slant drilling across the border, which also violated international law. Also, the fact that the U.N. makes a finding does not automatically mean that the U.S. has to lead a military expedition.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have to wonder if all our recent middle-eastern involvement was a silly waste of time.
So Iraq invades Kuwait, so what? Iraq still has to sell oil just as much as we need to buy it. Even if Saddam too over Saudi Arabia, we'd probably never have an Osama 9/11 because Saddam would kill the Islamist extremists. We should have left well enough alone, smiled, and bought their oil.

I think we would have needed to defend Saudi Arabia - they were an ally, and they had and have also cooperated with us many times in taking the edge of oil price swings caused by less stable oil producers.

I agree.

Kuwait was not an ally, and I was against intervention in the Gulf War at the time. I would note also that Saddam Hussein had gotten a tacit go ahead from the U.S. state department before invading.

Not correct. I take it by the word "tacit" you are tacitly acknowledging that they did not expressly give any such "go ahead."

Further in 2001, there was a real interest in enforcement of international law. Iraq invaded Kuwait, a member of the UN. Kuwait complained to the UN and asked for UN action to oppose the plainly illegal invasion. The UN answered the call, in a rare instance of doing the right thing.

I don't think things were so simple. According to Iraq, Kuwait was slant drilling across the border, which also violated international law. Also, the fact that the U.N. makes a finding does not automatically mean that the U.S. has to lead a military expedition.

Yes, but if Kuwait was slant drilling in violation of international law, they could have filed a complaint before the International Court of Justice and/or asked for a resolution from the UN security counsel or general assembly. Such drilling isn't hard to prove.

No, of course the US doesn't have lead the expedition, but the US did so because of its own interests in maintaining the free flow of oil at market, rather than controlled, prices, and because of an overall globalist agenda of Bush 41's administration. They were big on fostering UN cooperation and getting nations under control through UN machinery.