- This topic has 88 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM #753458October 30, 2012 at 6:02 PM #753484
patb
Participant1) Believe nothing of what Fox reports.
2) this isn’t a military operation, this is a security operation gone bad.
3) The military didn’t do any better when a bunch of mercs were getting hung from bridges in the sunni triangle.
October 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM #753500ucodegen
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=ucodegen]Inaccurate. He allowed some of the Afghanis to be included in surrounding Tora Bora. These Afghanis got ‘bought off’. If you also remember, they were pounding Tora Bora from the air. If you know anything about Switzerland, you will know why you just don’t waltz into Tora Bora to get Bin Laden. The tunnels are constructed to create a large killing zone around Tora Bora.[/quote]
1 – In no way do I believe that the military/special forces do not prepare for such a situation as taking Bin Laden out in Tora Bora with ground assault. certainly 2 months after 9/11 there was no higher priority in front of our military than take out Bin Laden. At least that’s what I think![/quote]I know for a fact that they do train for that.. I also know for a fact that the death toll from an entrenched, dug in opponent who knows where all the tunnels are, is obscenely high. This is also why Hitler avoided Switzerland.
[quote=enron_by_the_sea]2 – I believe that even with preparation, there was substantial risk involved in such an operation on ground.[/quote]”Risk is not the right word here. It was with certainty that there would be a large number of casualties on our side. This was an area that no UAV, F15, F16, M1A2, Bradley etc could fight in. Think high altitude, narrow canyons.. almost Swiss Alps in structure (with much fewer trees). Bin Laden was in the tunnels within Tora Bora. You could also consider it almost like Bin Laden’s Cheyenne mountain – though not as nice inside and not quite as deep or armored.
[quote=enron_by_the_sea]4 – I also believe that another option presented was to let Afghans/northern alliance to largely attempt to take out Bin Laden on the ground and that this option was selected by them…[/quote]Actually, the plan was to encircle and starve them out. The problem is that we allowed (so that we would be inclusive and not seen as a conquering army) the Northern Alliance to participate in walling off Tora Bora. Bin Laden walked out of Tora Bora on the section that part of the Northern Alliance had closed off.October 30, 2012 at 10:46 PM #753501Participant[quote=livinincali]Of course Obama will probably try to shove Hilary under the bus if that happens.[/quote]I think that is already being considered/is in the works..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57532916/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-takes-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/October 30, 2012 at 11:12 PM #753503Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Do you disagree with such a characterization? If yes, then educate me![/quote]Check one of the quotes from your own reference:
Asked how tough it would be to attack such a position on a scale of one to ten, Fury tells Pelley, “In my experience it’s a ten.”
That is why I give the Switzerland reference. The Swiss alps are honeycombed. With the echos, you would not know who was shooting at you. If silencers are used, even worse. The kill ratio would not be something like 1 of ours to 10 of theirs. It would be more like 10 of ours to 1 of theirs. It goes to the core of tactics. With some situations, a full-on assault is not very productive.
NOTE: As to why I state ‘starve out’, realize that Bin Laden had approached almost messianic stature amongst many of the uneducated and poor Muslims in that area. What would have been the secondary effect if the US was responsible for his death? With the Northern Alliance along with the Delta Force, it would have been possible to say.. “he did it” pointing to a member of the Northern Alliance. Remember how worked up they get over Koran Burning or some stupid video. Not much happened later because it was a situation of him being out-of-sight for a very extended period. I still feel that Obama’s very publicly taking credit for Bin Laden’s death is ill advised.
October 31, 2012 at 12:48 AM #753507paramount
Participant[quote=blake]It’s amazing how little press coverage on this.[/quote]
That’s what sandy was for….
October 31, 2012 at 10:41 AM #753535enron_by_the_sea
ParticipantSo when its Bush/GOP we should assume that they get benefit of doubt about something that happens in the heat of the moment on foreign soil and trust their judgement.
But when its Obama/Dems running the show we should constantly question them about what happened in the heat of the moment on a foreign soil and always assume that there is a scandal happening in the background unless otherwise proven beyond a shred of doubt?
October 31, 2012 at 11:14 AM #753538SD Realtor
ParticipantSo obviously you find nothing peculiar about this entire incident enron?
You seem to indicate that the American public should not question what we have been told. That all the correct decisions were made and we should all accept this without question?
October 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM #753540Participant[quote=SD Realtor]So obviously you find nothing peculiar about this entire incident enron?
You seem to indicate that the American public should not question what we have been told. That all the correct decisions were made and we should all accept this without question?[/quote]
American public should be questioning both sides.
Both sides are naive on matters of foreign policy and interventions. Currently one side is close to war-mongering!
October 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM #753541ParticipantFeel free to answer the question directly. This subject is a rescue mission of American citizens.
While my personal opinion is that I would have like to seen an attempt at a military rescue operation or even a diversion during the attack, it is only that, an opinion. If the call was made by the White House, or a given general of Central Command to do or not do something, it would be nice to know who made that final call.
I think I am more troubled by the way things are coming out after the fact.
it is quite easy to look back and find huge mistakes, corruption and blunders with any administration. That does not excuse the current one. Also I am not referencing any other foreign policy decisions by this administration. I may not agree with them and whether they were blunders or not would also only be my opinion.
Please try not to confuse wanting to understand what happened as well as the subsequent lack of clarification with war mongering if you can.
October 31, 2012 at 12:44 PM #753545Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Feel free to answer the question directly. This subject is a rescue mission of American citizens.
While my personal opinion is that I would have like to seen an attempt at a military rescue operation or even a diversion during the attack, it is only that, an opinion. If the call was made by the White House, or a given general of Central Command to do or not do something, it would be nice to know who made that final call.
I think I am more troubled by the way things are coming out after the fact.
it is quite easy to look back and find huge mistakes, corruption and blunders with any administration. That does not excuse the current one. Also I am not referencing any other foreign policy decisions by this administration. I may not agree with them and whether they were blunders or not would also only be my opinion.
Please try not to confuse wanting to understand what happened as well as the subsequent lack of clarification with war mongering if you can.[/quote]
There should be an investigation and I assume there will be in the coming days. If not, I am sure Fox News will make sure it happens.
The difference between me and Fox News is that I do not speculate that there was a mistake, blunders or cover-up until the facts of the case are clear. I give benefit of doubt to administration, just as others gave benefit of doubt to Bush administration in the previous case that I brought up even till today. If one doesn’t do that then I must conclude that they are not objective.
Is Fox News is kidding that this is just about what happened in Libya? No, it always was about the election that will happen next week. As long as it is about the election, everything about foreign policy of Mitt Romney and his advisers (who were basically Bushies) is a fair game in this discussion.
Now SDR you answer directly if (1) are you only interested in getting facts of Libya out or (2) You are trying to say that Romney should be elected because somehow Obama was a failure as illustrated by Libya
If your direct answer (if you choose to give it) is (1) then you can certainly wait some more time and truth will be out anyway. You are entitled to your opinion till then but that will be just an opinion – not reality. I will respectfully disagree because I can not form opinion on this matter in advance of facts.
If your answer is (2) then my bringing up any issue related to foreign policy is fair game in this discussion.
P.S: The only reason Bush even came in this discussion is because you said that media was harsh on Bush and I pointed out how friendly media was to Bush in such cases (at least in the immediate aftermath).
October 31, 2012 at 12:48 PM #753547ParticipantThat answer is easy. I am interested in getting the facts out on Libya. My vote will not be for either Romney or Obama nor am I registered with either party but in the past have been registered with each party.
While I disagree with many of the moves made by Obama (both on domestic matters and foreign policy) when they are made in the light of day then that is that. I don’t agree with them but am not suspicious of them. Do I feel that Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure? Potentially yes I do. However, I cannot say it will be better or worse then a Romney foreign policy. There is no sample to compare against and I do not fly to the conclusion that Romney will have as poor as a record as Bush did. If Romney does get elected and has a few years to sample and compare against Obama then I will give my thoughts.
In reality one of the two candidates will win and I will be disappointed with both of them. I don’t give the benefit of doubt to any administration, Obama’s or Bush. While you think I may support Bush, you are wrong. His policies were an unmitigated disaster especially with regards to Iraq. My perception of how the press treated Bush is different then yours. While you dug up 3 examples of the media cowtowing to Bush, I found many many other exceptions to that behavior (Dan Rathers story) (especially over the last few years of his tenure) but didn’t find it relevant to this post as it would have diverted the point of the post. Again we have differing opinions on the media treatment of each administration.
Admittedly FOX is a very easy target and indeed they have an agenda stemming from the owner. I simply view them as a counterweight to other media outlets which I feel are a bit more liberal. I take it all with large grains of salt. However it does appear that FOX is driving harder at reporting on the Benghazi sequence of events or at least they are reporting more on it. I understand that they are doing so simply to push the agenda they have. Parsing speculation from facts is the hard part with FOX however there are facts mixed in (at least with this particular story).
Like you said, it will come out (hopefully) in the near future. I wonder however if it would have all come out if FOX did not uncover what they had uncovered.
(Sorry for diverting my original post) hopefully I answered your questions and yes I did bring up the media treatment of Bush.
October 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM #753548ParticipantThanks and sorry for any hard feelings that I may have caused. 🙂
October 31, 2012 at 1:05 PM #753549livinincali
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
The difference between me and Fox News is that I do not speculate that there was a mistake, blunders or cover-up until the facts of the case are clear. I give benefit of doubt to administration, just as others gave benefit of doubt to Bush administration in the previous case that I brought up even till today. If one doesn’t do that then I must conclude that they are not objective.
[/quote]The administration lost the benefit of the doubt when their cover up story was proven as false. It’s pretty clear that this was a coordinated terrorist attack at this point, while the administration attempted to paint it as a protest out of control. Once your cover up story is proven to be false you’ve lost your credibility. Now the burden of proof is on your side. It’s not a left/right thing to me, it’s a credibility problem.
October 31, 2012 at 1:10 PM #753553ParticipantNo hard feelings at all. We are good to go. Debating with you and SK is always good and challenging. While our opinions differ you guys keep to the facts.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.