No. 2 Al Qaeda leader dead from drone strike

#126
#126
therealUT said:
Again, things we absolutely do not know. One can speculate in many ways, but one will never know what the future will bring.
Click to expand...

I for one am not willing to risk the future of my children and nuclear war on the good will of people who support terrorists.
 
#127
#127
601573_421114061243921_2041191898_n.jpg
 
#128
#128
therealUT said:
The Taliban was willing to hand over bin Laden in September and October 2001. We chose not to negotiate with the Taliban. What makes you think an agreement would not be enforced? Wouldn't you rather give someone the opportunity first and then if they break the agreement resort to force? War should be a last resort, not a first resort.



This is most likely a fallacy. It has never been proven correct. Further, we are trying to negotiate with the Taliban now...and, now they will not negotiate with us because they are so close to achieving what they have been trying to achieve for the past twenty years in Afghanistan (complete hegemony over Afghanistan). So, we are legitimizing the Taliban now and getting nothing in return for it; we could have legitimized them eleven years ago and maybe avoided a long drawn out war.



You are right; we did nothing (to include failing to negotiate).



It might be the only negotiating tactic "these people" understand; we do not know though, because we have not tried it.
Click to expand...

Yes we have, and it doesn't work.
 
#129
#129
The Taliban was willing to hand over bin Laden in September and October 2001. We chose not to negotiate with the Taliban. What makes you think an agreement would not be enforced? Wouldn't you rather give someone the opportunity first and then if they break the agreement resort to force? War should be a last resort, not a first resort

Is that a fact? What was the price to hand him over?
 
#130
#130
7thgroupvolfan said:
The Taliban was willing to hand over bin Laden in September and October 2001. We chose not to negotiate with the Taliban. What makes you think an agreement would not be enforced? Wouldn't you rather give someone the opportunity first and then if they break the agreement resort to force? War should be a last resort, not a first resort

Is that a fact? What was the price to hand him over?
Click to expand...

It is a fact; the condition was that he be handed over to an independent, third-party nation and tried in an international court. The U.S. rejected the offer. Might the Taliban been bluffing? Of course. But, what would the harm have been in playing that out?

The Taliban wanted to remain in power in Afghanistan and were willing, to some degree, to scapegoat bin Laden to keep U.S. forces from invading.
 
#131
#131
The real question in this thread should be "Why the hell are we still in afghanistan?"

Not about drone strikes or civilian casulties. People die in war, that's what war is all about.

Trying to get everyone home alive and still accomplish the mission is always the goal.
 
#132
#132
therealUT said:
It is a fact; the condition was that he be handed over to an independent, third-party nation and tried in an international court. The U.S. rejected the offer. Might the Taliban been bluffing? Of course. But, what would the harm have been in playing that out?

The Taliban wanted to remain in power in Afghanistan and were willing, to some degree, to scapegoat bin Laden to keep U.S. forces from invading.
Click to expand...

Leaving the TB in power was never going to happen regardless of any negotiation that may or may not have taken place for bl.
 
#133
#133
7thgroupvolfan said:
The real question in this thread should be "Why the hell are we still in afghanistan?"
Click to expand...

I could not agree more.

7thgroupvolfan said:
Not about drone strikes or civilian casulties. People die in war, that's what war is all about.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is true and it is very likely that it is completely unavoidable. Hell, Clauswitz very explicitly stated that trying to regulate and/or modify war is futile; might as well punch as hard as you can from the very first blow. I do think that had we approached both Iraq and Afghanistan with the strategy of total warfare (as opposed to limited counterinsurgency, nation-building crap), we would have saved both a lot of money and a lot of lives (our own and theirs).

7thgroupvolfan said:
Trying to get everyone home alive and still accomplish the mission is always the goal.
Click to expand...

I really think that the strategic mission in Afghanistan cannot be accomplished.
 
#138
#138
g8terh8ter_eric said:
We've tried that, and it cost us lives on our own soil.
Click to expand...

Really? When?

If you are referring to Pearl, we were certainly not taking a non-interventionist role toward either theater. In Europe, we were shipping military goods and equipment to Britain, as well as signing the lend-lease deal and the bases for battleships deal. In the Pacific, we placed embargoes against Japan, between 1939 and 1941, that led to an 80% reduction in their fuel imports; thus crippling their industry.

While an embargo (as opposed to a blockade) is not technically an act of war, it certainly is intervention (just not military intervention).
 
#139
#139
utvolpj said:
you're claiming we weren't intervening in ME affairs and that caused 9/11?
Click to expand...

No, it was a response that we should not intervene in a massive war over there. Those people are nuts, and will try to bring us into a fight over there. Oh wait....
 
#140
#140
utvolpj said:
you're claiming we weren't intervening in ME affairs and that caused 9/11?
Click to expand...

We could set back and do nothing and they still would do everything to try and kill Americans.

They hate you, me, freak, this board and everything we stand for because the way we live isn't the way they live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#141
#141
therealUT said:
Really? When?

If you are referring to Pearl, we were certainly not taking a non-interventionist role toward either theater. In Europe, we were shipping military goods and equipment to Britain, as well as signing the lend-lease deal and the bases for battleships deal. In the Pacific, we placed embargoes against Japan, between 1939 and 1941, that led to an 80% reduction in their fuel imports; thus crippling their industry.

While an embargo (as opposed to a blockade) is not technically an act of war, it certainly is intervention (just not military intervention).
Click to expand...

Non-intervention = not fighting or providing supplies.

You may not be fighting, but if your supplying someone else's enemy, your contributing to the possible outcome of the war, which is intervening non-violently.
 
#142
#142
g8terh8ter_eric said:
No, it was a response that we should not intervene in a massive war over there. Those people are nuts, and will try to bring us into a fight over there. Oh wait....
Click to expand...

not sure how this relates to my previous comment, or even makes much sense, but ok

if we didn't have our hands in everybody's business in the ME do you think 9/11 still happens?
 
#143
#143
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Non-intervention = not fighting or providing supplies.

You may not be fighting, but if your supplying someone else's enemy, your contributing to the possible outcome of the war, which is intervening non-violently.
Click to expand...

Right, which is exactly why I said that we were intervening in both Europe and the Pacific prior to the attack on Pearl.
 
#144
#144
We are infidels. The mission of the true believer is to kill all infidels no matter how many centuries it takes.
 
#146
#146
utvolpj said:
not sure how this relates to my previous comment, or even makes much sense, but ok

if we didn't have our hands in everybody's business in the ME do you think 9/11 still happens?
Click to expand...

If we did not use the Mujaheddin in a proxy war against the Soviets, does 9/11 happen?

If we did not orchestrate the military coup to remove Zulfikar Bhutto, the democratically-elected, pro-equality, pro-education, pro-progress President, from power in Pakistan, does 9/11 happen?

If we did not spend a decade arming and equipping Saddam Hussein as he fought against Iran, does 9/11 happen?

If we did not then turn around and go to war against Iraq simply for taking over Kuwait (why the hell do we care about Kuwait) and then break our promise to the citizens of Iraq to help them overthrow Saddam, does 9/11 happen?

One may argue that these individuals hate us and want to kill us and, therefore, we must intervene; but, it is hard to argue that our previous interventions have not given them some justification for hating us.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top