Osama's whereabouts known, says 9/11 commisioner

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.sbsun.com/Stories

/0,1413,208%7E12588%7E2484135,00.html?search=filter

We don't have enough available troops to go in after

him, because they are busy fighting in Iraq. Good thing we have our priorities straight!

[Friendly1]

http://ww

w.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,208%7E12588%7E2484135,00.html?search=filter

We don't have enough available

troops to go in after him, because they are busy fighting in Iraq. Good thing we have our priorities straight!

Nothing comes up for me on that page. I am surprised, though, that people feel we should be

throwing more reserve MP and fuel transport companies into a theater that consists mostly of mountains. We never

sent many troops into Afghanistan in the first place because most of our troops are not trained or equiped to fight

in that kind of terrain, and getting the tanks and other heavy equipment there would be horrendously expensive.



Osama could crawl away while our guys landed the M-1s, reconditioned them, and fueled up for an uphill jaunt

through winding canyons.

[Friendly1]

Nothing comes

up for me on that page.

Okay, after I posted that, the page finished formatting (you have GOT to love bad

web page designers -- at least they are making money in this economy which has so hammered the tech industry).



Since we're not at war with Pakistan, I would also add that it makes no sense to invade an ally nation.

[DrSmellThis]

This is the guy that attacked

our capitol, and our biggest city, killing thousands of us innocent civilians! Right? He's planning with his

associates all over the world to do it again. This is the guy we're at war with. And you are suggesting we

shouldn't go after him because we're not trained? Or because he might get away? Or because we don't have enough

troops (maybe it's the cold, sad reality, but why do you think we are stretched thin?) Or because Pakistan is a

friend? First of all, do you really think Pakistan proper would prevent us from going in there to their rebel,

outlaw lands to get him if we pressed the issue? It seems we've known where he was for some time, too.

It

suprises me that there are people who don't hold Bush responsible for not going after Osama Bin Laden, and for not

making it a priority over Iraq. The consequences are that now we know exactly where he is and have no troops to get

him. Is this not a mistake on our part?

[a.k.a.]

That sneaky Osama. How dare he hide

in a country that has no oil reserves.

[Mtnjim]

Think the'll finally go in and get

him on say oh! November first??
Nah, that would be too obvious!

[a.k.a.]

This is the guy

that attacked our capitol, and our biggest city, killing thousands of us innocent civilians! Right? He's planning

with his associates all over the world to do it again. This is the guy we're at war with.

Not

to mention that Musharraf became “President” by overthrowing the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan in a military

coup. And the US didn’t recognize his authority until Bush needed a military base from which to launch attacks on

Afghanistan— in fact we had him under sanctions, for threatening to nuke India.
Also the Taliban were

trained by Pakistani military. Taliban schools (where poor and orphaned boys are brainwashed into become holy

warriors) operated, and may still operate, out of Pakistan. Many officers are more loyal to Osama than to Musharraf.

Osama is considered a holy man by many of the locals. Al Qaeda literature is prevalent. And, unlike Iraq, Pakistan

DOES have nuclear weapons.

Irony isn’t dead. It’s just been transformed into foreign policy.

[Friendly1]

This is the

guy that attacked our capitol, and our biggest city, killing thousands of us innocent civilians! Right? He's

planning with his associates all over the world to do it again. This is the guy we're at war with. And you are

suggesting we shouldn't go after him because we're not trained?

That isn't what I suggested at all, but

now you point it out, it WOULD be better to use the right tools for the job rather than the wrong ones.

No, all

I was pointing out (with my first post) was that it makes no sense to throw all our troops at Osama Bin Laden.

Unlike Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden didn't countrol hundreds of thousands of troops or an entire nation (even his

son-in-law, Mullah whatshisname, who ran the Taliban, didn't run all of Afghanistan, since the Northern Alliance

still controlled portions of the country).

We were able to conquer Afghanistan for the Afghans with about 30,000

of our troops and 15,000 of their troops.

If all nations were as poor and defenseless as Afghanistan was, we

could have invaded a dozen nations by now.

Instead, we took on a country which was belligerent to the last,

well-armed (if poorly trained and led), and now we are responsible for what happens in that country.

Being

responsible for Iraq means we cannot invade any other equally well defended nations until we get out of Iraq (for

lack of resources to do so).

And we don't need to be invading Pakistan. We can only send troops there if we

have been invited to do so.

Bush had the authority of the United Nations Security Council resolutions which

repeatedly threatened Iraq with severe consequences if he didn't comply with U.N. sanctions and inspections.

He

didn't comply. So, while not everyone agreed that the resolutions were clear on what should be done, everyone

agrees those resolutions were still in force.

There are no U.N. resolutions concerning Pakistan and Osama Bin

Laden with which I am familiar. So, to whom can we justify an invasion of Pakistan, if not even to ourselves?

First of all, do you really think Pakistan proper would prevent us from going in there to their rebel,

outlaw lands to get him if we pressed the issue? It seems we've known where he was for some time, too.

Yes, the news media have made it clear that Bin Laden was using Pakistan as a resource for a couple of years.

This is not some recently resolved mystery.

But I DO believe that, if we were to invade Pakistan, we would

indeed find ourselves facing the Pakistani Army. And maybe we could beat them, maybe not. There are about

1,000,000 soldiers in Pakistan, and they have a nuclear capability.

The last time we went up against anyone with

1,000,000 soldiers (Saddam Hussein, 1991) , we went in with 100+ nations on our side.

It suprises me that

there are people who don't hold Bush responsible for not going after Osama Bin Laden, and for not making it a

priority over Iraq.

It surprises me that there are people who so quickly dismiss the fact that Bush has

not only been pursuing Bin Laden with almost single-minded intensity since 9-11-2001, as well as the fact that Bush

was heavily criticized for making the "War on Terrorism" sound like the "War on Bin Laden", but that they are also

so quick to insist we throw all international procedure aside and just invade any nation we suspect of being used as

an unwilling refuge by Bin Laden.

India and Pakistan came close to escalating their border tensions to a

full-scale war not so long ago because Pakistan had committed a substantial portion of its resources to helping

defeat the Taliban (a very unpopular move for Musharraf even with his own military, because the Taliban had been,

until 9-11, his client).

Given that our unwavering pursuit of Bin Laden brought that region close to the brink

of a nuclear war, I would say that Bush's restraint and prudence -- not to mention his respect for the sovereignty

of Pakistan -- is highly commendable.

The consequences of acting rashly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq could

be far-reaching. In fact, the rash (and, in my opinion, stupid) actions in Iraq (after we toppled Saddam) HAVE had

far-reaching consequences.

Bush deserves high marks for taking Saddam out of the picture (Saddam was funding

terrorist activities across the region -- and those terrorist activities have had a tremendously negative impact on

U.S. foreign policy and stature in the region for more than 30 years).

Bush deserves low marks for failing to

understand what would happen in Iraq after he shut down the entire Iraqi government.

No matter what Bin Laden

does from this point forward, if we don't clean up the mess we made in Iraq, then we will be no better than him. A

lot of people are dying over there because of us. We need to bring the Iraqi government to a point where it can

stand up for itself and help defeat the terrorists who have flooded the country.

Remember, the one good thing

about the Iraq war is that Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants who are no longer welcome in other

nations.

Almost all the rats are scrambling to cram themselves into one cage.

That gives us the advantage.

We are still hurting them more than they hurt us. They're just hurting the Iraqis more than anyone else is being

hurt.

[Friendly1]

Not to mention

that Musharraf became “President” by overthrowing the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan in a military coup. And the

US didn’t recognize his authority until Bush needed a military base from which to launch attacks on Afghanistan— in

fact we had him under sanctions, for threatening to nuke India.

Yes, and Bush was heavily criticized for

accepting Musharraf's aid -- but then, Bush was only concerned with bringing down Al Qaida and the Taliban. He

partially succeeded, thanks in large part to Musharraf, who has also had the foresight to seek peace with India,

rather than war.

Maybe Musharraf is just another bad guy waiting for a chance to take over the world, but he is

only the latest in a long line of non-George Washingtons with whom our leaders have been willing to deal in order to

pursue American interests.

Irony has been a part of foreign policy since before the first Romans were suckled by

wolves.

[deepblue]

How much money is he worth if

he can be found?

[DrSmellThis]

At least 25 million.