posted on September 26, 2001 08:47:03 AM new
Or does anyone wonder what are we waiting for?
Bush tells the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, give the U.S. access to the terror camps and close them or face his fate.
The Taliban is playing games claiming they can't find him and here we are doing nothing. I just heard on the radio that Bush is backing off the possibility of attack. What about bombing the terrorist training camps? Is it me or does it look like we're sitting on our hands?
I think I'm just too angry to think rationally now. Several friends are still lost in the rubble, I am unemployed because of this and I feel like nothing is being done in retailiation. I'm not a war monger. I think I'm too emotionally involved to think clearly.
posted on September 26, 2001 08:57:27 AM new
In my opinion they should have planned for an eventual invasion of Afghanistan to 'get' Osama bin Laden. He didn't exactly first pop up two weeks ago. All kinds of military plans should have been written up long ago. It doesn't seem like it was.
However, you have to realize that an invasion or military action can't take place overnight. You've got to mobilize troops and equipment into the area. We had no presence in the region. You have to have bases to be stationed at, where you can wage war from. You have to have knowledge of your enemy, how they fight etc. You have to have knowledge of the terrain. There are so many things that they have to know and so many things that they have to plan. You can't just launch effective retaliatory military strikes on any region of the world as a reflexive action.
Very, very sorry about your losses. A friend is gone too. This is affecting all of us.
posted on September 26, 2001 08:58:03 AM new
Yes, I agree. Bush Jr. had 90% approval a few days ago, but if he doesn't accomplish something that figure will slide. Bush Sr. had 89% approval during his "Gulf War" but still lost the 1992 election. Interestingly, Saddam still rules Iraq.
posted on September 26, 2001 09:00:10 AM new
Any "training camps" are vacant. Hell, from the reports it sound like there's not more than twelve people left in Kabul. Anything of substantial strategic value was turned into rubble by the Soviets in the '80s. They haven't bombed any targets because there aren't any targets.
This is one of the things which Rumsfeld and Powell have been trying to point out when talking about this not being like any other war. There are no airfields to bomb, no radar sites to take out, no army bases to destroy.
Actually, I think it speaks well of the decision makers that we haven't seen a volley of cruise missiles or a bombing run. It would look spectacular, but accomplish nothing aside from mollifying a desire for vengence without actually avenging.
My condolences for all and each of your losses.
[ edited by gaffan on Sep 26, 2001 09:11 AM ]
posted on September 26, 2001 09:21:32 AM newIf it turns out that our future safety is in the hands of those who might possibly have averted the horror of September 11 by behaving more cautiously, then we owe it to history to establish the true record. But we can be certain that no one presently in charge in Washington will want to do that.
What pap. And a perfect illustration of what James terms "victim mentality". The loose shoestring over which the US continually trips is Pakistan. Does anyone doubt that the airstrike Clinton ordered that missed Bin Laden by minutes was "leaked" by the Pakistanis?
Pakistan is our Achilles tendon. They talk out of both sides of their mouths, and I hope to God that the powers to be know enough not to trust them.
posted on September 26, 2001 10:05:13 AM new
What's so important about a coalition that he's giving away the barn to buy support? Now he want's to give military assistance to Iran and Syria in order to sway them into support of this coalition? WTF? Iran and Syria?
There's got to be a bunch of stuff going on that no one wil have access to until the expiration of the national security exclusions to the freedom of information act.
posted on September 26, 2001 10:11:48 AM new
Whoa! I agree. Weird s**t. I also heard on the news last night that the Bush Administration had offered to "legitmize" the Taliban and give "aid" if it turned over Bin Laden. WTF? The Taliban has been working hand in hand with the SAME terrorists who just killed 6000+ American civilians. REALLY weird sh*t going on.
posted on September 26, 2001 10:24:15 AM new
Is anyone other than the Middle East Newsline carrying this story? They may be wonderful, but I've never heard of them.
posted on September 26, 2001 10:51:33 AM new
Little chance Iran will support a U.S. military coalition.
Reuters 9-26-01
"Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reacted angrily Wednesday to U.S. accusations that Iran sponsored terrorism"
"We do not believe America is sincere enough to lead an international move against terrorism. America has its hands deep in blood for all the crimes committed by the Zionist regime,'' he added, referring to Israel."
"You can't pick your favorite terrorist," Powell told Reuters Monday in Washington. "If you (Iran) want to be part of this small coalition then you have to change some of the patterns of the past supporting terrorism."
posted on September 26, 2001 02:46:24 PM new
What are we waiting for hmmm.
Well if you ask me , What we are waiting for is already happening.
We were so blind with anger so to speak the last few weeks all anyone hoped for was bombs brusting all over afgan.
Problem is its not all that simple as the government has been saying from the start.
Right now we are like a farmer with a fox's eatting up our chickens, unless you fix the broken fences and screens and door on the hen house Just going out hunting fox wont fix the problem in fact while were out hunting the fox's they will be back at the farm for lunch..
We have many billions of dollars in damages if not a trillion or more and loss, were looking at billions if not more to wage war on terrorism And the economy is falling apart with thousands of people loseing there jobs daily.
If to many are out of work how is it you supose they will repair the fences and screens and other security issues and fight the battle .
We may see some missles fly in this war in the near future if things heat up more, but frist side of this battle is intelligents and this country has spent the last 20 or more years cutting it spending and gear way down so this to has to be rebuilt as well.
This country spent the last 20 or so years doing away with the very thing it will need to fight this battle..
posted on September 26, 2001 02:48:23 PM new
Boy, I dunno. The way that release was written...no sources, and a quote from Leahy in which it was unclear what he was referencing, doesn't inspire my confidence.
We'll know its accuracy soon enough, anyway, since according to the story, "The waiver must be obtained through congressional legislation." Hard to keep that a secret.
posted on September 26, 2001 03:07:23 PM new
I wouldn't put too much salt in any of those "news" reports.
Some of the sleeper terrorists were in the U.S. and other countries LONG BEFORE any of the "leaked" information was given to the enemy. Some were in place while Bush Sr. was in office. Others were in training.
The fundementalist Islamic network has pledged death to America no matter what we do or don't do. They want us wiped off the face of the earth.
Their intentions are crystal clear. The question is- Will we follow the evidence wherever it leads and do what is necessary ?
posted on September 26, 2001 03:12:39 PM new
Snowy...
My husband thinks they're playing good cop - bad cop. He has more faith in politicians than I do...and he's fairly cynical. I can't imagine one of them losing public face for ANY cause, sorry to say.
posted on September 26, 2001 04:14:28 PM new
Toke asked:
"Is anyone other than the Middle East Newsline carrying this story?"
The story posted at Middle East Newsline makes reference to the Washington Post. Searching the Washington Post site with the word "Leahy" finds the likely source easily enough:
posted on September 26, 2001 04:54:45 PM new
donny,
If I read that proposal correctly wouldn't it increase the power of the executive branch, and allow the president to give financial and military assistance to virtually any country in the world that is experiencing any civil uprising, even totalitarian regimes like China?
posted on September 26, 2001 04:54:46 PM new
See uaru, you probably don't know because your favorites don't say so that the administration has actively interfered with some news agency's access to first hand releases and the like. Some journalists have even been forcibly removed from the room during at least one Ari conference. Word gets around fast and every one of the news businesses depends for it's livelihood and existence on it's ability to have N-E-W news, as it differs from second hand news. That interference with the rights of the press effectively shuts up the major outfits because they have more to lose than smaller ones do. There was one story, in bad taste for sure, about an exploit of one of the daughters that so incensed the bushes upon it's release that that publisher will likely never again be allowed to have any information directly from the horse's mouth. As it finally shook out at least two other reporting activities have been kept out of the news loop ever since then.
I'm sure that all of this is far beyond your trusting experience. Nevertheless, it is going on. The administration would have full control of all news if it could. It's very protective for them to have that.
posted on September 26, 2001 05:02:59 PM new
There's a story somewhere from a small N. Carolina town which says that people have been disapearing. The residents of the town aren't sure but they think that the vanished belong to our very secretive Delta Force which has it's home in nearby Ft. Bragg.
Those guys are probably rooting around Bin Laden's tunnel network in Afganistan right now hoping for a chance to kill him.
posted on September 26, 2001 05:27:14 PM new
I heard about the delta force leaveing Ft. Bragg on CNN saturday, Only thing they weren't saying is where they were being sent in the middle east.. http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
Email [email protected]
posted on September 26, 2001 06:38:31 PM new
krs & dman3-Sorry, but I have to jump in on this one...it wasn't Delta Force that you heard about on CNN. It was the Special Forces, Green Berets. If Delta Forces have been sent, (and they probably have), you would never hear about it on CNN! Delta Force is super secret...civilian looking, no uniforms, no military haircuts.
posted on September 26, 2001 07:55:48 PM new
"donny,
If I read that proposal correctly wouldn't it increase the power of the executive branch, and allow the president to give financial and military assistance to virtually any country in the world that is experiencing any civil uprising, even totalitarian regimes like China?"
Yup, it sure looks that way. And for 5 years. Will the next move be to extend Bush's appointment another year and a half? Would we be surprised?
As I mentioned at the end of the Brits/Bin Laden thread, Ari Fleischer, in today's press conference, referred to "Chechnyan terrorists." Just the other week, these same guys were "Chechnyan freedom fighters." When White House reporter Helen Thomas asked him when they had turned from "freedom fighters" to "terrorists," Fleischer told her they'd always been terrorists... Not hardly! But you can see what's happening...
But, should this waiver concern us? Maybe not because, as the Washington Post reminds us, Congress barring a president from doing something doesn't mean all that much sometimes:
"One exception came during the Reagan administration, when the House barred U.S. funding for the Nicaraguan contras. Subsequent congressional investigation of the Iran-contra scandal determined that the administration had covertly supplied the assistance anyway, leading to a number of the human rights and other restrictions that Bush now wants the power to waive."
We've spent years building up a house of cards, and it's all falling apart. Look at Pakistan - As a condition of coming in, Pakistan demanded that both Israel and India be kept out. But when we lifted the sanctions against Pakistan, we also lifted the sanctions against India that had resulted from both countries' nuclear weapons tests. We've always been closer to India, especially since Pakistan's democratically elected leader, Bhutto, was overthrown by the military leadership we're dealing with now.
India's been going nuts since day one of this. They don't like Pakistan, no matter who's in charge. From the beginning, they've been warning us not to trust Pakistan (and Kissinger said the same thing).. and they're probably right. Now that the restrictions are off, Pakistan is saying they won't support any military action that's aimed at removing the Taliban, a government Pakistan installed.
India's been offering intelligence and other assistance, publically, since the beginning. Maybe we're going to take them up on it, privately if not publically, because I read in the Times of India that Colin Powell has assured India that the U.S. shares India's concerns about terrorism in Kashmir and will help to wipe out that scourge after we take care of our immediate problem. Of course, the dispute in Kashmir is between Pakistan and India. In India, it's "terrorism." In Pakistan, it's probably "freedom fighters."
I don't see how in the world we can hold all this together, we're promising everything to everybody.
posted on September 26, 2001 08:09:52 PM new
What happens when the US catches one of their "allies" like Syria supporting a terrorist group? If they act against one of them what effect will that have on the grand coalition?
Will they have to ignore minor problems to keep the whole? I see a grand unraveling happening real easy.
posted on September 26, 2001 08:20:49 PM new
This is not CNN, it's NYT, and not the report that dman refers to. I did not say that I saw that any Delta Force people did anything, I said that the people of this town were noticing disapearances that THEY felt may be Delta Force.
The MENL would do well to study the craft in the WP article. Much more betterer.