* I haven't been to Afghansitan, but I've seen alot of videos, read articles, books, ect.*
Now, I know we've found severeal Taliban, al-Queade leaders.
Now since September 11th, 2001, 9 years of fighting, we've been searching for one man...
Osama Bin Laden He's been hiding in Afghanistan (Or Pakistan, we don't know...)
Ever since we invaded.
This guy thinks he's got balls.
____________________________________________
For past 8 years he's been revealing his "Tapes" stating that Quote (Bin Laden) "These Blessed Attacks on America" are to show us something about what we did in '91. (Persian Gulf War). If you want to know, I think we bombed Iraq.
In my stance, staying in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, until we find Bin Laden, and destroy the Taliban and al-Queada.
But that's my opinion.
______________________________________________
Recent study says he's still in Afghanistan...(Forgot the location)
hiding in one of those holes or tunnels.
Like Saddame Hussien, hidding in spider-hole.
Hopefully we'll him.
Because 9, ALMOST 10 years is long enough.
We better find him.
He he alive?
Will the War Rage On?
Will WE EVER FIND HIM? *I don't see how we can find Saddame Hussien is months, but can't find Bin Laden, even after 9 years.*
All I can say is he's good at Hide and Seek, but when he attacks America, he becomes hider, scared of America.
Posted: 24 Jul 2009 17:48
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 42
Join Date: Jun 2009
I've been thinking the same thing for years now. We found Saddam but we can't find this schmuck. With all our tech and all the advances we've made, we're still looking for Captain Caveman 9 years later.
Kinda makes you wonder about some things. Like the construction crews that go around town "fixing" things that don't really need it, while ignoring obvious problem areas, all the while never really making any significant progress just so they can always have more potential work and not lose their jobs.
It's the same with policing a lot of crime in this country. I believe if they really were honest about getting gang members and other violent criminals off the streets, they could actually do it. If they did though, a LOT of people would lose their jobs because there wouldn't be near as much to do. I know people in both lines of work and this is all basically true.
Politicians are the world's worst when it comes to stuff like that so it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out we could have had him a few times already.
I also think Pakistan is hurting a hell of a lot more than helping.
Posted: 24 Jul 2009 18:52
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 571
Join Date: Jul 2006
Gets you wondering yeah, have you seen the Zeitgiest movies on YouTube? Talk about getting you to think outside the box.
I would put a link to one of them but I figure if you want to see them you'll check them out as they are VERY controversal. The Sept 11th one and the Federal Reserves one may just change your outlook on our country. I am an America, so I believe in Americans, not big ruling governments.
Posted: 24 Jul 2009 21:01
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 42
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote: I am an America, so I believe in Americans, not big ruling governments.
Very well said. I couldn't agree more.
Posted: 24 Jul 2009 22:53 Last Edited By: Pole805
Registered User
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
Quote: I've been thinking the same thing for years now. We found Saddam but we can't find this schmuck. With all our tech and all the advances we've made, we're still looking for Captain Caveman 9 years later.
I cracked up when it came to Captain Caveman. He thinks he's so tough...anyone one of us could take him down.
Quote: I also think Pakistan is hurting a hell of a lot more than helping.
The Taliban are trained there, North- Western part.
Quote: I am an America, so I believe in Americans, not big ruling governments.
People say we LIKE killing, and how weak we are.
America could come in, take down your army, and come out. That Bin Laden is just a fake used by the Government.
America goes to war for the freedom of others. Not to kill, we've accepted thousands of differnet people around the globe.
We go to war, so that people can have the free rights. Not to steal oil.
Actually, finding Sadam was relativly easy for a couple resons.
1) once Sadam was out of power he had few allies left. The Bathists might still be around, but their loyalty to the individual was rapidly fading.
2) by the nature of the bathist regime he had to stick with the minority group (the Sunis) in the area where they had power.
By Contrast with Osama
He is allied with a group who are loyal to keeping him hidden, and see him as far more valuable then Sadam's former allies likely did.
Also, he is hiding in an area that is very difficult for outsiders to get into, and where he is protected by a majority skeptical of outsiders.
If Afgahnistan had been like Iraq, a largely cosmopolitan society with fluid borders and commuities, we likely would have found Osama by now, but the nature of Afgahny culture protects him in much the same way that the basis of Iraqi culture sold Sadam out.
The bottom line is, Osama is actually secondary to the mission in Afgahnistan.
It would be great to capture him in a law enforcement capacity but he was never the ruler or the law in Afgahnistan. It's sort of like taking out a drug lord, certainly it's helpful, but the larger system that supports the drug lord is the problem we need to solve.
In rebuilding afgahnistan, it is becoming a more fluid more culturally advanced society, and in that, we eventually will eventually achieve real victory.
Like all wars, it isn't actually won by guns, but with butter. Once people see a change in their lives for the better they toss of their old leaders like a dirty smock in favor of something better. Guns get us to a point where we can provide butter, but without butter the guns are a pointless exercise.
This was largely our problem in Vietnam, and likewise our problem in Afgahnistan in the 80's
We acomplished a military objective but did nothing to hold the population and convince them of a better way of life. We are doing that now in Afgahnistan and Iraq, and although its a longer slog, it is actually a much more practical way to solve the problem.
That what we did to beat facism, and what we'll have to do to stop caliphatism.
Posted: 27 Jul 2009 18:08 Last Edited By: Pole805
Registered User
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
Quote: The bottom line is, Osama is actually secondary to the mission in Afgahnistan.
It would be great to capture him in a law enforcement capacity but he was never the ruler or the law in Afgahnistan. It's sort of like taking out a drug lord, certainly it's helpful, but the larger system that supports the drug lord is the problem we need to solve.
Exactly, he's the king of caves.
And taking out a drug-lord, like you said, they'll be supporters, bound to make a new leader.
Quote: This was largely our problem in Vietnam, and likewise our problem in Afgahnistan in the 80's
I don't think we were in Afghanistan in the 80's, I'm pretty sure it was the Soviets wanting to take it over.
I don't think Osama was there, it was probaly the Taliban Vs the Soviets.
Vietnam, I think that war was probaly the biggest mistake in American history.
That was not out war. But the The Cold War rooted on, we had to give south Vietnam it's freedom. We lost that war, bigtime. It was the struggle between raising Captailaism and Communism around the globe.
Quote: We acomplished a military objective but did nothing to hold the population and convince them of a better way of life. We are doing that now in Afgahnistan and Iraq, and although its a longer slog, it is actually a much more practical way to solve the problem.
Taliban, and al-Quedian leaders have been sending tapes about Obama sending in more troops, they say that the Taliban are increasing, because the US are increasing. Also they are now sending in small gruops of the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan. Obama has bound to notice that. They used to send in 4 or five Taliban, now there sending 10-12 Taliban, or even suicide bombers.
That's the most dreadful part, if we don't find Osama soon, we'll be the ones loosing.
The Taliban are ruthless, realigous, die-hards willing to give anything. They been fighting a civil war since the 80's.
Along with Osama, the Taliban, and al-Queada have become a bigger problem from the start. I don't know whether or not to say "Pull Out" or "We stay there".
Posted: 27 Jul 2009 18:29
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
We were fighting Afghanistan by proxy providing weapons and traiing to the Afgahny fighters, much in the way we had originally aided the Vietnamese against the vietcong. Whent the Soviets left, so did we, which allowed the taliban to rise in the power vaccume. Because we didn't do the butter work, the guns we sent were eventually turned towards us (figurativly).
Vietnam was a similar in the fact that despite our repeated military vitories, without our support of the local population, without a clear eyed effort to win the hearts and minds of the people, and aid them in building a stable, representative government that wasn't corrupt from the floor up, our vicotries were irrelevant.
Vietnam was a mistake for the way it was handled. WWII would have been just as much a mistake if it had been handled similarly.
It is important for the U.S. to stand against tyranny, but it is equally if not more important for the U.S. to support the people after tryanny has been vanquished.
This was the lesson we understood after WWII, but had forgotten by Vietnam.
Posted: 28 Jul 2009 17:31 Last Edited By: Pole805
Registered User
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
Too many lives lost by the end of Vietnam, too many STILL MIA.
I'm not saying that Afghanistan was a mistake, we needed to be there, they attacked us.
Quote: Vietnam was a similar in the fact that despite our repeated military vitories, without our support of the local population, without a clear eyed effort to win the hearts and minds of the people, and aid them in building a stable, representative government that wasn't corrupt from the floor up, our vicotries were irrelevant.
Matches, I just rembered...
The Taliban have most of the Muslim population in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so with there support there willing to raise power with the support. Like us, but some people in aren't supporting the troops (Not us) because they think we don't belong there, they support al-Queada, the Taliban.
And somehow Vietnam didn't teach us anything. We still raged on.
Hopefully Obama will direct us in the right direction.
Quote: This was the lesson we understood after WWII, but had forgotten by Vietnam.
Like I said, Vietnam dropped our jaws, we thought: "Oh, we can get in, help South Vietnam and get out"
But after millions of lives lost, showing barely any progess, made us forget about Korea, WWII. We're shocked because we've never lost war this big. Because in WWII, WWI, and other wars, we had huge allies fighting on our side. But 21 years in jungle warfare showed us that not every war he have allies. WE had UK, US, SV, Austrialia, and others, but we forgot that the Soviet Union is a huge country or something. It has about 15 countries, in Vietnam, they had China, Vietcong, North Korea. Which is like 20 counries.
Now in Afghanistan we're trying destroy the Taliban, al-Queada, Osama. But with our troops increasing, and there stroops, let's only hope it doesn't end up like Vietnam.
Obama better have made the right decision.
