Did they finally get Bin Laden ?

Boid Brain · **Reply #25 on:** May 03, 2011, 05:59:46 AM

Quote from: JazzBill on May 02, 2011, 06:17:32 PM

I'm talking about a failed rescue attempt to get the 52 hostages out of Iran on April 24th 1980. We lost 2 aircraft and 8 servicemen were killed in the attempt. And I blame it on Carter. As a matter of fact I blame a lot of the shit going on today on Carter. He let them Iranian militants hold those hostages for 444 days. If he would of done more to stop them back then, things might be different today. Carter had no balls and he made the US look weak. That's just my opinion.

Jazz, either you are under 40 or you were so stoned in the 70's that you didn't know what was going on....Carter was in an incredible catch 22. The odds were very high that ANY form of rescue attempt would result in the EXECUTION of the hostages. What good would it be to to liberate corpses? And how can you blame Carter for the inept military failure in equipment and planning? Was HE the aircraft mechanic?

The attempt was stupid in the 1st place. A president depends on his cabinet and the Joint Chiefs to come to a decision on issues this big. What the hell does a gentleman farmer turned politician know about about this kind of shit? He was no Grant or Eisenhower. The military dropped the ball. And the American people elected him. A bible thumping farmer. WTF did we expect?

I say all the blame goes back to Bush Sr. He and his cabinet were so worried about world opinion that they ignored lessons from the past. It was like a bully grabbing and shaking a geek but not punching him out for fear that the onlookers would see him for what he was. They already knew what he was so finish the fucking job!

Shit! I'm getting pissed off all over again. That's all for now.

Boid Brain · **Reply #26 on:** May 03, 2011, 06:18:37 AM

Quote from: shemps#1 on May 02, 2011, 06:48:40 PM

Got Saddam for what? What did he ever do to the US? Nothing! Bush should have went after bin Laden but instead used 9/11 to go into Iraq. I thought I was clear in my last post. If Bush hadn't been fucking about in Iraq for NO GOOD REASON he would have gotten bin Laden as he had plenty of time to do so and it's not like Osama was hiding in a hole somewhere. They got him outside his $1 million mansion for fuck's sake.

What did Saddam HAVE to have done to us? The barbaric sadist needed killing, and we need OIL! A stupid despot like him that actually thought he could stand up to the most gawd awful powerful machine of destruction the world has ever known deserved what he got. Did we have a right to do it? Might makes right.

When a lion approaches a feeding hyena to rob him of his kill, the hyena will spit and snarl, but will ultimately slink off. Sure, he could have put up a fight and got in a couple of good bites, but he knows the lion WILL end up tearing his throat out.

Any leader of a country without the sense of a hyena needs gutting.

shemps#1 · **Reply #27 on:** May 03, 2011, 07:46:29 AM

So you believe the US needs to be the World Police and even World Dominator if I'm reading your post correctly. And here I thought ILMM's post about there actually being WMDs in Iraq because the Bush Administration didn't plant any to be some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

JazzBill · **Reply #28 on:** May 03, 2011, 08:20:55 AM

Quote from: Boid Brain on May 03, 2011, 05:59:46 AM

Shit! I'm getting pissed off all over again. That's all for now.

Too bad, you've been pissing people off with your stupid posts since you got here. I'm not going to argue over an opinion with you. You have yours and I have mine.

xraffle · **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2011, 08:32:50 AM

Quote from: Boid Brain on May 03, 2011, 05:59:46 AM

Shit! I'm getting pissed off all over again. That's all for now.

Why should this debate piss you off? The rules on this site clearly state that it's ok to express an opinion and for others to disagree with it. It's fine to have a debate over something like this as long as we can discuss it in a mature manner. There's no need to get pissed off.

Boid Brain · **Reply #30 on:** May 03, 2011, 08:50:48 AM

Quote from: shemps#1 on May 03, 2011, 07:46:29 AM

So you believe the US needs to be the World Police and even World Dominator if I'm reading your post correctly. And here I thought ILMM's post about there actually being WMDs in Iraq because the Bush Administration didn't plant any to be some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

It ain't what I believe that matters. It's the reality of what IS that does. The USA is the world's police. I can't think of another country that I would rather see in that role.

And no, you didn't read my post correctly.

Boid Brain · **Reply #31 on:** May 03, 2011, 08:57:02 AM

Quote from: xraffle on May 03, 2011, 08:32:50 AM

Why should this debate piss you off? The rules on this site clearly state that it's ok to express an opinion and for others to disagree with it. It's fine to have a debate over something like this as long as we can discuss it in a mature manner. There's no need to get pissed off.

You missunderstand. I'm fine with the debate. I was remembering all the blunders by this government that I've seen in my life. It just get's to me sometimes.

Boid Brain · **Reply #32 on:** May 03, 2011, 09:09:17 AM

Quote from: JazzBill on May 03, 2011, 08:20:55 AM

Too bad, you've been pissing people off with your stupid posts since you got here. I'm not going to argue over an opinion with you. You have yours and I have mine.

As I stated in a reply to another, the subject, and my memories are what pissed me off, not you or anyone else with an opinion. OK?

And I think ILMM's post was missunderstood. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was saying that he knew there were no WMD but that Bush believed there was. If he did NOT believe it and was using that as an excuse to invade, he would have provided his own fake evidence....planting dirty weapons for the press to photograph.

I think that's a tad far fetched, but not idiotic.

shemps#1 · **Reply #33 on:** May 03, 2011, 10:51:41 AM

Okay, perhaps I did misread your post. Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek. The issue I have is if the US never had their noses in this Mid-East bullshit none of this crap would have happened: the Iran Hostage Crisis and 9/11 included. There shouldn't be anybody in the role of World Police and no country has the right to impose their will on others. And people wonder why these countries hate us so much. If I came to your house and proved myself "mightier" than you by beating you up and moving in on you while making you do all of the chores would you like me?

As for ILMM's post: "a tad far-fetched" is the understatement of the young century. I don't buy for one millisecond that Bush believed their were WMDs in Iraq. The only reason the Bush's went after Saddam was to do the bidding of Saudi Johns that they continuously suck off (and junior had the added incentive of finishing what his father started). Both Bushes are war criminals and if the world were just they would be hung and disemboweled for their crimes.

shemps#1 · **Reply #34 on:** May 03, 2011, 12:50:54 PM

For those of you who might want to credit Bush for bin Laden's death or think that Bush wanted to get the man I direct you to this clip.

[youtube=425,350]YfgspheJNkY[/youtube]

ILMM · **Reply #35 on:** May 03, 2011, 12:55:10 PM

Quote from: Boid Brain on May 03, 2011, 09:09:17 AM

As I stated in a reply to another, the subject, and my memories are what pissed me off, not you or anyone else with an opinion. OK?

And I think ILMM's post was missunderstood. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was saying that he knew there were no WMD but that Bush believed there was. If he did NOT believe it and was using that as an excuse to invade, he would have provided his own fake evidence....planting dirty weapons for the press to photograph.

I think that's a tad far fetched, but not idiotic.

Yes! that's exactly what I meant. To shemps#1 and everyone else, I am not a Bush fanboy, and I do not want the USA
to be the Worlds police. What I don't understand is the intense hatred that Bush seems to get. Bush wasn't that great, but every thing
he did wrong other Presidents did wrong too and worse. I just don't see why everybody seems to single-out and pile
on Bush. BTW what exactly do you mean by "War Crimes" ? Be specific.

shemps#1 · **Reply #36 on:** May 03, 2011, 01:33:58 PM

He invaded and occupied Iraq under false pretenses. That sounds like a war crime to me. Look, Bush did not say "Iraq might have WMDs" or "we believe they have WMDs but I could be wrong" he said "Iraq has WMDs" that, along with the myriad of other lies and backhanded deals to his buddies and members of his administration is the reason Bush gets dogpiled. You cannot name a worse President in modern times, not even Carter.

EDIT: I also want to add the bullshit "Faith Baised Initiatives" he started. While this doesn't pertain to him being a war criminal it does (along with the PATRIOT Act) show that he used the Constitution as mere toilet paper.

JazzBill · **Reply #37 on:** May 03, 2011, 02:37:58 PM

Nice clip. Driving back from Pennsylvania I was flipping through stations to get more information on OBL and I stumbled onto Rush Limbaugh. I don't normally listen to him but I was curious to see how he was going to spin it. He give all the credit to Bush, saying the only thing Obama did was follow Bush's lead. Pretty much like everyone on your clip was saying.

ILMM · **Reply #38 on:** May 03, 2011, 04:13:32 PM

Quote from: shemps#1 on May 03, 2011, 01:33:58 PM

He invaded and occupied Iraq under false pretenses. That sounds like a war crime to me. Look, Bush did not say "Iraq might have WMDs" or "we believe they have WMDs but I could be wrong" he said "Iraq has WMDs" that, along with the myriad of other lies and backhanded deals to his buddies and members of his administration is the reason Bush gets dogpiled. You cannot name a worse President in modern times, not even Carter.

EDIT: I also want to add the bullshit "Faith Baised Initiatives" he started. While this doesn't pertain to him being a war criminal it does (along with the PATRIOT Act) show that he used the Constitution as mere toilet paper.

It's not false pretenses if he actually believed Saddam had WMDs. It's a fact that Saddam refused to allow any more U.N.
inspectors in and it just made perfect sense at that time that Saddam had WMDs. To say nothing about
him being a state sponsor of terrorists. And as we appear to be repeating the same thing over to each other I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. As for Bush being given credit for Osamas death is the fact that Obama has largely carried on the Bush foreign policy,
despite the fact that he attacked Bush as a senator and candidate for the same thing he now does! Don't get me wrong, I'm happy
that Obama gave the order that he did, but his overall foreign policy is rather hypocritical.

shemps#1 · **Reply #39 on:** May 03, 2011, 04:31:47 PM

Perhaps you don't understand: he made like he KNEW Saddam had WMDs, not that he "believed" there were. He distinctly said there were WMDs as an excuse to go in there and finish his father's war. Also Saddam was no friend of Al Queda if that's what you're referring to, if anything he kept the savages in check in Iraq. I'm not say Saddam was great or anything but he was no threat to the US.

We are repeating ourselves, but it's not about "agreeing to disagree" when the facts are out in front of you and you choose to ignore them because you think the shaved chimp/war criminal has "gotten a bum rap". As for "carrying on the Bush foreign policy" Clinton did much of the same that Bush did but had better intelligence. Obama has faltered on many promises but the fact of the matter is Obama got the job done as far as bin Laden is concerned and Bush couldn't care less when he was in office. The proof of that is in the clip I posted, straight from the shaved chimp's Saudi cock filled mouth.

The simple fact of the matter is whether they are democrat or republican politicians lie and make promises they have no intention of keeping during election time. Obama promised we'd be out of Iraq and DADT would be repealed while Bush promised abortion would be outlawed (like Reagan). Don't trust either part because they are both out to fist you without any lube.

vomit · **Reply #40 on:** May 04, 2011, 12:09:55 AM

Quote from: shemps#1 on May 03, 2011, 10:51:41 AM

Okay, perhaps I did misread your post. Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek. The issue I have is if the US never had their noses in this Mid-East bullshit none of this crap would have happened: the Iran Hostage Crisis and 9/11 included. There shouldn't be anybody in the role of World Police and no country has the right to impose their will on others. And people wonder why these countries hate us so much. If I came to your house and proved myself "mightier" than you by beating you up and moving in on you while making you do all of the chores would you like me?

As for ILMM's post: "a tad far-fetched" is the understatement of the young century. I don't buy for one millisecond that Bush believed their were WMDs in Iraq. The only reason the Bush's went after Saddam was to do the bidding of Saudi Johns that they continuously suck off (and junior had the added incentive of finishing what his father started). Both Bushes are war criminals and if the world were just they would be hung and disemboweled for their crimes.

I agree. 9/11 was an excuse to get us involved in the Middle East and to secure oil supplies. Anyone who thinks America is oh so innocent should read Stinnett's Book, "Day of Deception" about Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt and his crew knew all about the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor and more or less let it happen, to get us in the war. Lives don't mean a lot to those at the top.

ILMM · **Reply #41 on:** May 04, 2011, 01:05:25 AM

First of all, I've watched your video and I don't think it's as damning as you say; 1 Bush talks about the mission being
bigger than one guy, which is true, and then is the money quote where he basically says that he doesn't think
about Osama all the time. Well I don't see how him doing that every minute of every day helps anybody.
Remember the reporter asks him "Why does't he talk about him more?'' He's basically saying not perpetually on his mind.
And then the host makes some stupid comments about Osama being in his compound and not thinking about
Bush wanted him; well I heard that the compound was built in 2005 and the video as apparently from late 2001-2002
although we can't be sure because the host doesn't tell us; maybe he was in a cave at that time.
And Osama wasn't under any delusions about Bush not wanting him. Apparently there was no telephone or TV connection
and he communicated by courier. And as for Bush's attitude? He was in a light mood and it reflected in his tone.
Not the best for the subject matter but I'd rather have that than a robot that spits out a perfectly worded
answer every time.

Boid Brain · **Reply #42 on:** May 04, 2011, 08:15:52 AM

Of course I have no way to substantiate this, but could Bush have been Dekeing OBL with this blase attitude on camera? I think it's possible. One thing is for sure: the USA never stopped looking for the guy. Bush is an idiot but he must have some smart guys around him. It would make sense to give OBL a false sense of security.

shemps#1 · **Reply #43 on:** May 04, 2011, 10:29:50 AM

They had bin Laden in Afghanistan but Rumsfeld gave the order for those troops to back down. That's common knowledge. If the shaved chimp wanted bin Laden so bad then why would he give the orders through Rumsfeld to back off? Also, if I were President I bin Laden would be my top priority and I wouldn't rest until the man was dead (unlike Bush who took record vacations during his time in office). You are sounding like a Limbaugh-loving dittohead that is making up excuses for the shaved chimp out of thin air. The simple fact is Bush had PLENTY of time to get the man and he instead chose to spend most of the military's time and energy chasing paper tigers in Iraq for his Saudi Johns.

Boid, OBL was too smart to fall for some stupid convoluted shit like that. Most people over the age of 13 are too smart to fall for that. He was in his nice compound because he knew Bush couldn't be bothered and I would imagine he also knew about the earlier order not to take him out when they had the chance.

Boid Brain · **Reply #44 on:** May 04, 2011, 12:16:40 PM

Limbaugh Ditto head? That's a good one. I don't know shit about what really went down, and that was the 1st time I saw that Bush press conference. Your point about him having the troops stand down is the first time I heard that as well. It just crossed my mind that his blase statements could have been a ploy.

FYI: I'm as left wing as they come. Legalize Pot...legalize prostitution...and seriously decriminalize ALL victimless crimes. And of course REDUCE THIS GOVERNMENT and pull the teeth of the IRS.

I do confess to a few right wing leanings: Gun control...every law abiding citizen should have one....and stiffer, way, way stiffer immigration laws.

OK, now you know where I stand.

ILMM · **Reply #45 on:** May 04, 2011, 12:18:33 PM

I read the NYT article he talks about and while I didn't study it I didn't read anything about Rumsfeld giving
pull-back orders, unless your talking about the guy who wanted to send in thousands of troops.
The only thing that proves is that leaders sometimes make boneheaded decisions during war.
What I think probably hindered getting Bin Laden is the rampant Political Correctness that infects our
Government and culture in general.

ILMM · **Reply #46 on:** May 04, 2011, 12:23:00 PM

Quote from: Boid Brain on May 04, 2011, 12:16:40 PM

Limbaugh Ditto head? That's a good one. I don't know shit about what really went down, and that was the 1st time I saw that Bush press conference. Your point about him having the troops stand down is the first time I heard that as well. It just crossed my mind that his blase statements could have been a ploy.

FYI: I'm as left wing as they come. Legalize Pot...legalize prostitution...and seriously decriminalize ALL victimless crimes. And of course REDUCE THIS GOVERNMENT and pull the teeth of the IRS.

I do confess to a few right wing leanings: Gun control...every law abiding citizen should have one....and stiffer, way, way stiffer immigration laws.

OK, now you know where I stand.

That sounds more like modern right-wing than modern left-wing!

shemps#1 · **Reply #47 on:** May 04, 2011, 12:42:13 PM

Sorry Boid, re-reading my last post I can see where you can think the dittohead comment was directed towards you but it was actually directed towards ILMM.

ILMM look up Tora Bora, that's where they had him. I could be mistaken that Rumsfeld gave the order to stand down, it could have been Bush himself. Usually the President sends in those type of commands through the SoD.

Boid Brain · **Reply #48 on:** May 04, 2011, 02:34:43 PM

Quote from: ILMM on May 04, 2011, 12:23:00 PM

That sounds more like modern right-wing than modern left-wing!

Hmmm....you may have something there!

ILMM · **Reply #49 on:** May 05, 2011, 12:38:20 AM

Quote from: shemps#1 on May 04, 2011, 12:42:13 PM

Sorry Boid, re-reading my last post I can see where you can think the dittohead comment was directed towards you but it was actually directed towards ILMM.

ILMM look up Tora Bora, that's where they had him. I could be mistaken that Rumsfeld gave the order to stand down, it could have been Bush himself. Usually the President sends in those type of commands through the SoD.

I've done some reading about Tora Bora and I stand by my earlier comments; to much reliance on
Afghan troops and the Pakistanis.
Here's an article with a quote you might find interesting: www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54160.html
By-the-way, Do you think Obama is a war criminal too ? After-all he did start a war without Congressional Approval,
unlike Bush who got it.