The United States needs to take the fight to al-Qaida. But reports about how al-Qaida is rebuilding with a new, younger leadership show how difficult it is to put the terrorist organization out of operation.
According to the New York Times: The new leaders "tend to be in their mid-30s and have years of battlefield experience fighting in places like Afghanistan and Chechnya. They are more diverse than the earlier group of leaders." And experts expect the fighting in Iraq to produce more future leaders.
"To say that al-Qaida was out of business simply because they have not attacked in the U.S. is whistling past the graveyard," said Michael Scheuer, a former head of the bin Laden tracking unit at the CIA. "Al-Qaida is still humming along, and with a new generation of leaders."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
109 Comments
And since we fulfilled their wildest dreams by bogging down our military in an unwinnable quagmire in Iraq–just like they did to the Russians in Afghanistan–no wonder they’re having so much success.
We should have crushed Al Qaeda like a bug.
Instead, Mr. Bush tried to steal Iraq’s oil and got his hand stuck in the cookie jar.
CapnAmerica,
How should we have crushed them like a bug, what should we have done?
How did Bush try to steal the Iraqi’s oil?
If anything, it is because we are too PC and everytime we accidently shoot some womans dog we are ostracized by the media and liberals for killing Iraqi’s.
We are not “bogged down” either. I don’t even think you know what you are talking about.
So far the only thing the democrats have offered us is retreat.
So where are your parties plans for success?
Quiting doesn’t count.
This whole “terrorism” crap can be defused by simply stopping Bush from murdering Arabs.
Of couse plans are being made by Arabs to defend themselves in Iraq and perhaps Iran as Bush and Israel have openly said that they plan to keep attacking Iraq and soon Iran.”
The Arab League has offered a peace plan to Israel which would stop attacks from Israel but neither Bush nor Israel wants peace.
Here’s why:
“Bush’s Armageddon Obsession, Revisitedby MICHAEL ORTIZ HILL
“We are lived by forces we scarcely understand,” wrote W.H. Auden. What forces live us now as America again torques toward war?
George W. Bush is certainly the plaything of such forces as the geopolitics of oil but it seems that he is susceptible to other even darker archetypal concerns. Let me be blunt. The man is delusional and the shape of his delusion is specifically apocalyptic in belief and intent. That Bush would attack so many vital systems on so many fronts from foreign policy to the environment may seem confusing from the point of view of realpolitik but becomes transparent in terms of the apocalyptic worldview to which he subscribes. All systems are supposed to go down so the Messiah can come and Bush, seemingly, has taken on the role of the one who brings this to pass.
The Reverend Billy Graham taught Bush to live in anticipation of the Second Coming but it was his friendship with Dr. Tony Evans that shaped Bush’s political understanding of how to deport himself in an apocalyptic era. Dr. Evans, the pastor of a large Dallas church and a founder of the Promise Keepers movement taught Bush about “how the world should be seen from a divine viewpoint,” according to Dr. Martin Hawkins, Evans assistant pastor.
S.R. Shearer of Antipas Ministries writes, “Most of the leaders of the Promise Keepers embrace a doctrine of ‘end time’ (eschatology), known as ‘dominionim.’ Dominionism pictures the seizure of earthly (temporal) power by the ‘people of God’ as the only means through which the world can be rescued…. It is the eschatology that Bush has imbibed; an eschatology through which he has gradually (and easily) come to see himself as an agent of God who has been called by him to ‘restore the earth to God’s control’, a ‘chosen vessel’, so to speak, to bring in the Restoration of All Thingss.” Shearer calls this delusion, “Messianic leadership”– that is to say usurping the role usually ascribed to the Messiah.
In Bush at War Bob Woodward writes, “Most presidents have high hopes. Some have grandiose visions of what they will achieve, and he was firmly in that camp.”
“To answer these attacks and rid the world of evil,” says Bush. And again, “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation.” Grandiose visions. Woodward comments, “The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of Gods Master Plan.”
In dominionism we can see the theological source of Bush’s monomania. Not to be distracted by the fact that he lost the popular election by a half a million votes, that the Joint Chief of Staff at the Pentagon were so concerned about his plans to invade Iraq that they leaked their unanimous objection, that he has systematically alienated much of the world, that roughly seventy percent of Americans remain unconvinced of the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and the same percentage object to war if there will be significant American casualties–none of this is in the least relevant. He believes his mandate toward action is from God.
As humans we live within stories. Some stories, like apocalypse are thousands of years old. The scriptured text that informs Bush understanding of and enactment of the End of Days (Revelations 19) depicts Christ returning as the Heavenly Avenger. Revelations is the only New Testament book that justifies violence of any kind, and this it takes to the limit: Christ himself the agent of mass murder.
“I saw heaven open and there before me was a white horse who is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war…He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and his name is the word of God…Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the Nations. And I saw an angel standing in the sun who cried in a low voice to all the birds flying in midair–come gather together for the great supper of God, so you may eat the flesh of kings, generals and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great.”
Such is “the glory of the coming of the Lord.” Truth, carnage, and the ecstasy of vultures. In a ruined world the Messiah slays the antichrist and creates “a new heaven and a new earth.” The dead are judged, the Christians saved and the rest damned to eternal torment. The New Jerusalem is established and the Lord rules it “with an iron scepter.”
It is not inconceivable that Bush is literally and determinedly drawn, consciously and unconsciously, toward the enactment of such a scenario, as he believes, for God’s sake. Indeed the stark relentlessness of his policy in the Middle East suggests as much.
It dishonors the profundity of the Christian tradition if one doesn’t note that Revelations has always been a rogue text. Because of its association with the Montanist heresy (which like contemporary fundamentalists took it to be literal rather than allegorical) it was with great reluctance that it was made scripture three centuries after the death of Christ. Traditionally attributed to St. John, most Biblical scholars now recognize its literary style and its theology has little in common with John’s gospel or his epistles and was likely written after his death. Martin Luther found the vindictive God of Revelations incompatible with the gospels and relegated it to the appendix of his German translation of the New Testament instead of the body of scripture. All the Protestant reformers except Calvin regarded apocalyptic millenialism to be heresy.
But Revelations is also a rogue text because it is unmoored from its origins, which are far from Christian. It is a late variant on a story that was pervasive in the ancient world: the defeat of the wild and the uncivilized by a superior order upon which a New World would be established. Two thousand years before Revelations depicted Christ slaying the antichrist and laying out the New Jerusalem, Marduk slayed Tiamat and founded Babylon.
This pagan myth recycled as a suspiciously unchristian Biblical test found new credence in the 19th century when John Darby virtually revived the Montanist heresy of investing it with a passionate literalism. Given to visions (he saw the British as one of the ten tribes of Israel) Darby left the priesthood of the Church of Ireland and preached Revelations as both prophecy and imminent history. In this he inaugurated a lineage in which Bush’s mentors, the Reverend Billy Graham and Dr. Tony Evans are recent heirs. Revelations is much beloved by Muslim fundamentalists and like their Christian compatriots they also thrill to redemption through apocalypse. Jewish fundamentalists of course do not believe in Revelations but have nonetheless made common cause with the Christian Right. “It’s a very tragic situation in which Christian fundamentalists, certain groups of them that focus on Armageddon and the Rapture and the role of a war between Muslims and Jews in bringing about the Second Coming, are involved in a folie a deux with extremist Jews,” said Ian Lustick, the author of For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition (and yes it is a single tradition) is being led by its fringe into the abyss and the rest of us with it.
The world has been readied for the fire but the critical element is the Bush Administration. Never in the history of Christendom has there been a moment when this rogue element has carried anything like the credibility and political power that it carries now.
We should have crushed them like a bug at Tora Bora for starters. Instead, we outsourced it to Afghan war-lords.
We should be putting troops in Pakistan right now. We should be building infrastructure in Afghanistan right now so that it sees the advantages of modernism.
As far as Iraq goes, it was unwinnable before it started. Cheney and Powell said as much in ‘91. That’s why they didn’t take Saddam out then. That’s why H. W. Bush didn’t support the uprisings against Saddam Hussein then either.
The only option is to withdraw and let the Iraqis sort it out on their own.
Which is what is going to happen if we leave or stay anyway . . .
Mr. Friedmann,
What Arabs were we murdering when 911 happened? How about the embassies in Africa? Were they off on a Arab Killing spree?
CapnAmerica,
When we went to war with Iraq in the early 90’s it was to remove Saddam from Kuwait.
Those were the terms agreed upon by the United Nations and those who supported us.
We could have easily crushed Saddam then as we did now.
Providing stability in an environment where you have terrorists attacking us, attacking others to ensue violence, secretarian violence, and Iran instigating violence makes things difficult.
It is not easy. Everything that could go wrong pretty much did go wrong.
Of course, when you have a bunch of liberals constantly attacking every move you make and politicaizing the war it only serves to embolden our enemies.
Of course, you wouldn’t know anything about that.
At the time of the African embassy bombings, we had US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia–the land of the “two holies” as wahhabis like Bin Laden call it.
This blasphemy (to them) was unendurable.
At the same time we finally quietly withdrew the US troops–as a direct result of the 9-11 terrorism (so the terrorists did indeed “win” in meeting their goals)–the invasion of Iraq took place.
You can steal the oil without having our military sitting on top of it. But it’s a lot easier with the military, isn’t it.
So Capn,
What oil have we stolen?
Where is the huge oil interest in the Middle East that the US owns?
You do know that major Oil companies lease the oil don’t you? And as a lease one is subject to variance in prices.
So, where exactly are these conspirators in the US that own all of this Arab oil?
Inquiring minds want to know.
“Of course, when you have a bunch of liberals constantly attacking every move you make and politicaizing the war it only serves to embolden our enemies.”
I’d give that one a rest, Nathan.
I don’t think that the suicide bombers have their TV’s tuned to CNN.
This FUBAR was entirely the making of the right-wing. One could only wish that the party of personal responsibility would take responsibility for it.
Nathan – for the pre-Iraq period in Afghanistan Bush enjoyed support from across the political spectrum. It was only after the Iraq invasion that began to erode. Even then, things didn’t start to fall apart until after MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
The Bushies told us Iraq would be easy; they also gave a number of bogus reasons for it. According to Rumsfield it would be “months not years”; later he told us there were only a few “dead-enders” “in their last throes” to deal with.
What happened? Why did everything go wrong?
Hehe, Republican.
If you can’t see how controlling the oil supplies in Iraq benefits huge multinational oil companies which have bought and sold this administration, then it’s far beyond my power to convince you of it.
You might look at the gas pumps however. When Bush took office, gas was 1.50. Now it’s about 2.75.
That’s close to double even when adjusted for inflation.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm
Oil companies are making more profit during the Bush years than any company has ever made in the history of American capitalism.
Republican
Prior to 9/11 we had financed the Israelis to bulldozed 418 Palestinian Villages, bulldozed 17.000 Palestinian Homes, Farms, both in Palestine and Lebanon { several incursions into Lebanon }, but you obviously prefer not to consider anything except Israeli propaganda.
I’m not saying that you’re not entitled to do that, but what you believe flies in the face of facts.
Ben,
You are a reasonable man. I have met you. So lets talk about this with reason.
In the invasion of Iraq there were several different stages.
First: We had to invade and destroy the standing Iraqi army and remove Saddam from power.
Second: We needed to provide security for a transistioning goverenment.
Third: We needed to help the transitioning government form and continue to aid them in their security.
So, when you keep throwing that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign around in your obnoxious liberal way of insinuating that the mission is not accomplished it only shows that you have no understanding of what has taken place.
We accomplished the mission of defeating the Iraqi Army. Thus, on an Aircraft Carrier returning home victorious in it’s mission of defeating an entire army, they hung a sign saying MISSION ACCIMPLISHED.
As with any war, it is ever changing and things can and do go wrong.
That doesn’t mean you give up and go home.
If we had the same mentality that the democrats are showing today back in WWI and WWII we would be speaking German.
It is a sad joke to sit here and listen to liberals talk about our defeat in Iraq and inability to win when we have lost around 4,000 troops in total to not only defeat an entire standing army, but fight a very difficult insrgency for several years.
What you look at as defeat and loss, I see as quite an amazing accomplishment.
It was predicted that we would loose upwards of 10,000 troops on the invasion of Iraq alone. Yet here we stand barely around 4,000 in total for the past several years.
Why were they wrong, why didn’t we loose 10,000?
WHY WHY WHY! I demand to know!
This attitude is the epitomy of arm chair generals of the worst kind.
Are we talking about a Holy war or an Oily war?
Oh Mr. Friedmann,
You speak of the Israelis when I was talking about the US. Exactly how many Americans were on those bulldozers? Hmmm? A tad confused are we?
Mr. Huie,
Show me where the Commander in Chief said it was going to be easy. I do believe he sets the policy when it comes to certain things.
CapnAmerica,
Show me where the US has controlled the Iraqi oil interest and what it costs to produce.
Show me how Oil Companies who lease oil from OPEC control the price per barrel.
You do know what you are talking about or do you?
Let’s see some hard figures here.
Republican
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Mar 11, 2007 (AP)— Oil services giant Halliburton Co. will soon shift its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Mideast financial powerhouse of Dubai, chief executive Dave Lesar announced Sunday.
“Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston,” spokeswoman Cathy Mann said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. “The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE.”
CapnAmerica,
you fail to understand the difference between cause and effect.
You are listing an effect to a cause without showing any link.
Since Hilary has taken office as Senator gas Prices have never been so high.
So I blame it on her!
Please show us something of substance man.
Capn and Ben HuieAs much as you would like to present your case to RepubliKKKan and Nathan they can’t hear you. They have women, gays, and minorities to isolate and vilify. They are loyal to the “right wing” agenda.GUNSGODGREEDThey cannot understand the concept of responsibility, accountablity, acceptance, or tolerance. Unless there is a dem in the white house. Then they are all for it.
Oil Companies do not control the price of oil. Oil is traded on the open market and upward spiral of the price reflects the anticipation of all-out war in the Middle East caused by Israel and the US.
Two questions for Nathan?
How many years do we have to occupy Iraq, how much money do we have to spend, and how many Americans do we have to lose before we can say, “enough”?
Is there any limit to it all or do we just stay there as long as there’s an “insurgancy?”
Also, given that a vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave, why doesn’t the will of the Iraqi majority get to decide this important matter? Why does Nathan’s opinion matter more than the democratic will of Iraqis?
Iraq isn’t selling much oil.
The supply is therefore limited.
Making the remaining supply that much more valuable.
Not that hard to understand really, but you have to turn off Rush . . .
Because Capn…..we have not drained all the money and support for this war out of the American people. Halliburton and the rest of those that have something to gain still have the keys to the U.S. Treasury and its not empty yet. The “regime” in Washington will drag this war out until the new president takes office. Then its their problem and they will have to deal with the repercussions. This “regime” has not made a good decision yet. Don’t expect them to now.
Given the new Bush Admininstration “strategy” of trying to divide the Islamic world along Sunni / Shia lines, and to ally ourselves with the Sunnis, it’s a little ironic–in a tragic, bumbling sort of a way–that al Qaeda now figures for us as a kind of strategic partner.
Guess that’s why, in effect, we’ve paid so much to “train” the operatives (by allowing the war in Afghanistan to drag on for so long) now running the show. To put it mildly, we’ve schlonged the whole thing up pretty effectively.
Al Qaeda is viral; our attempts to combat it have actually spread it, because the use of conventional tools on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere (to say nothing of matters in the West Bank and Gaza) have encouraged its growth. Good going, Cheney Administration!
For an excellent take on this “strategy” and how great the whole Iraq War thing has been for Iran, I’ve included a piece from the War Nerd, Gary Brecher:
**********************************
“Iran is the problem with the whole Iraqi adventure. It’s like nobody who planned this war even thought about Iran, even noticed there’s that big scary country just to the east of the place we’re going to go invade and Mall-of-Americanize. So far, Iran has been the big winner in this war, and they haven’t fired a shot or lost a man. Pretty incredible. Makes me dizzy to think of it, makes me wonder if Cheney isn’t actually a mole parachuted into Wyoming a while back by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Must’ve taken months of electrolysis, but hey, those Iranian fanatics were willing to charge into minefields in the Iran-Iraq War; stands to reason one of them could put up with getting his back-hairs zapped and even having to live with that smartass Mrs. Cheney and their dyke daughter. It’s the only thing that makes sense: Cheney has “Product of Iran” all over his DNA.
Because we’ve been doing the Persian Empire’s dirty work for it from the moment we took out Saddam. What is it with these supposedly patriotic types always sucking up to Iran? In the late 80s it was Ollie North bringing them cakes, Bibles, and Hawk AA missiles on behalf of Ronald Reagan; now it’s Bush and Cheney actually going to war to destroy the Persians’ one local rival and leave Tehran in total control of the Persian Gulf. And now, by way of fixing the mess, we’re going to make Iranian dominance permanent by splitting up every other state in the Middle East.
See, that’s the beauty of Cheney’s new plan: it doesn’t stop at Iraq. The idea is to divide up every state in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia gets split into a Shia state on the Persian Gulf (where all the oil is), a “Sacred State” with Mecca and Medina, and someplace that ought to be called The Republic of Leftover Sand, with Riyadh and not much else. Lebanon turns into teeny, ethnically pure neighborhood states for Christians, Sunni, Shia and maybe Mormons. Yep, turns out all that Lebanese unity was a danger to the region, we’ve gotta go in there and break the place up a little more.
The really great thing about the plan is that it rewards America’s long-term allies by totally destroying their borders. Turkey, the one country that stuck with us through all sorts of idiotic mistakes, gets rewarded for loyalty by having the eastern third of the Anatolian Peninsula lopped off and handed over to an independent Kurdistan. If you’re a Turkish military planner, you must be jumping for joy over that one.
You may be wondering at this point, is Cheney insane? Well yeah, he is, but there’s a kind of idiot’s logic behind his insanity. You know how they talk about “a method in his madness”? And you know how every time somebody says that about anyone you know, you actually think to yourself, “yeah fine, but method or no method, he’s still crazy and an idiot”? It’s like that.
Y’see, our leaders have finally figured out that there’s this Sunni/Shia split in Islam. I mean that literally: they’ve just figured out that there IS a split. Bush didn’t even know about it, according to some Iraqi exiles who talked to him before the invasion. Well, all it took to get the Administration’s attention focused like a laser beam on the Sunni/Shia family feud was a mere three years of chaos, half a million mangled Iraqi bodies, and two zillion IEDs. Minds like steel traps, these guys. Or lead fishing weights anyway – soft and heavy.
Even now, I don’t think most people see why the Shia/Sunni split should matter to anybody. It’s like, OK, they have a fight over the Caliphate way back when – so what? Can’t they all get along, like the man said?”
http://www.exile.ru/2007-March-06/war_nerd.html
May I suggest all of you take a deep breath and see how prices of gasoline actually works.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm
Republican – Bush’s agent (Rumsfield) said the stabalization would be easy. Others said it would take many more troops – they were sacked.
Nathan – somebody should have planned for the occupation BEFORE the invasion.
CapnAmerica,
I figure we will be in Iraq for at least another year or two with the same level of involvement.
Probably another couple of years of direct support.
Then a few more years of diplomatic and logistical support with a military presence only for regional stability.
I don’t know to what you are refering to when you say a vast majority of Iraqi’s want us to leave.
Do they want us to leave today, tomorrow, next week, or as quickly as possible/when the job is done?
Either way, we are serving a role in regional stability for them wheter they want us there or not.
You confuse democratic rule and pure democracy. Pure democracy is chaos. Every time something is not supported by a majority doesn’t make it wrong.
Ben,
Again, you show your lack of ability to reason.
I am not trying to make this personal, but do you honestly think that no one in the entire pentagon or military planned for an occupation?
Your statement that: “somebody should have planned for the occupation BEFORE the invasion” is pure political BS.
Republican
The US furnished the bulldozers { from Caterpillar Corp. } and the Israelis furnished the drivers. The Arabs have held both the US and Israel as being responsible for those war-crimes.
Most Palestinians were crushed while still in their houses.
Oh, I got you now Mr. Friedmann, I wasn’t understanding your logic.
So let me see if I have this straight. Nissan sells trucks in the Middle East. A holy warrior for the Jihad blows up a cafe with teenagers in it. The parents of the slain teenagers should then blame Japan for selling the Nissan trucks.
Phew! I thought I was missing something there! ;)
“do you honestly think that no one in the entire pentagon or military planned for an occupation?”
No one who was in a position to influence Bush.
anyone think we sould just turn the country to glass and then see how many terrorist attacks there are the war on terror wasnt a mistake it was just executed badly and the new leaders of al-qaida are just going to to learn from our mistakes.
I would love to rightsider, but it brings up a whole new problem of what the rest of the world, including our allies, think of us…
rightsider – sure we could do that. But wouldn’t it just show the lie of our claim that we invaded their country to liberate them?
Republican
The “Nissan Truck” example is somewhat silly, taking too many leaps of logic.
But the US condemns countries for financing so-called “terrorism” and what better example of financing terrorism is the US giving Israel all of the tools and military hardware it takes to murder Palestinians. Over 1 million Olive trees have been bulldozed under, thus destroying the Palestinian economy, forcing them to live in the squalor of refugee camps.
Again, what does the bulldozing have to do with the US other than the fact that the bulldozer might be made in the US?
There was no leap of logic, I could have easily fooled you and said it was GMC 1.5 ton trucks driving over the top of Palestinians and you would have agreed with me. That is, until I plugged in Nissan for GMC and Palestinians for Israelis.
You don’t get up that early.
I went to bed at 2 and got up at 6 :)
Nice to see you’re trying.
Republican:
Just a head’s up, since you may not have been with us long enough to have read Ed before.
Ed is what he is – a racist anti-semite. Don’t bother. He’s one you don’t want to feed. Just scroll on by.
That must be an example of the civility gmc has been whining about. That must be his way of discussion the issue and not trashing the poster.
I wonder if that also fits his definition of self righteous asshole.
self:
Read Ed’s posts over the last two years or so, and tell me I’m wrong. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
I’m a lot of things, but I’m not an idiot. I suspect neither are you. Read for yourself.
I thought you wanted polite discussion of the issues. Instead you trashed Ed. But of course, we are all capable of self delusion regarding civility, as your posts so stated.
Pot, meet kettle.
GMC70
You’ve worn-out the “racist anti-Semite” thing by slinging it around to try to put a good face on bad things.
Zionism is not the Jewish Religion, and trying to pawn it off as such, is doing a great disservice to a lot of good Jews.
Ya gonna yap, self, or are you gonna read the history and decide for yourself? He’s not alone in that respect, though our other conspicuous racist is broader in his hatred.
Read up on the writings of our friend Ed. Go ahead; I dare ya.
Then tell me, with a straight face, I’m wrong.
All I see is that GMC made it personal with Ed instead of talking about the issues. Something he just detests in others, but he doesnt mind doing it himself. No wonder his words ring so hollow.
Self,
There is a big difference in making the observation that someone is racist and an anti-semite and let say… you calling them a “self righteous asshole”
Nathan, that is what GMC called the boycotters in his opus of hate.
self, you’re missing the point. Am I wrong? Read for yourself.
If I were making such a statement as a gratuitous shot, without basis, or just as a generally demeaning label, I’d agree. But READ FOR YOURSELF.
Then we’ll talk.
Why bother GMC, we are talking to a nic whom someone is hiding behind.
I have been posting for a few months and usually just scroll over Ed because his posts are so long and illogical. Today I actually read them. Can any one man carry around that much hatred without exploding?
Israel has never bulldozed homes with Palestians inside. The arabs have been offered large postions of the best parts of Israel. They declined. They want the entire country.
Ed your drivel is beyond reproach and not worthy of reading. GMC you are entirely right in your description of Ed, and self(whoever he is) is just an agitator who can’t contribute to the discussion so will throw in his/her insane jabs to stir the pot. Maybe Ed and self should meet up on another topic and see what they can contribute there. Is there one on ‘Words have meanings?
I will give Bush credit for keeping the battles from our shores. The war isn’t going as I would like to see it go but that doesn’t mean it is going badly.
We are fighting an enemy who didn’t declare war before invading us, they have no home ground, they don’t dress in uniforms so they can be recognized and yet we have contained them with less than 4,000 casualties. Each one of these lifes was given to win freedom from the terrorists who would take over our country given the chance.
Nathan writes, “I figure we will be in Iraq for at least another year or two with the same level of involvement.
Probably another couple of years of direct support.”
So . . . minimum of three, maximum of five more years. In addition to the four years that we’ve already been there, that makes a minimum of seven and a maximum of 12 years in Iraq.
Do you think a majority of Americans would have supported this war if they had known that it would take that long to meet our objectives . . . whatever those objectives are at this point.
“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”
Sec’ry of Defense, Dick Cheney, 1991
Hear him say it in his own words at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGIe1gPaTXY
” . . . had we gone on to Baghdad, I don’t believe the French would have gone and I’m quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone, the coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
And, oh by the way, I think we’d still be there, we’d be like a dinosaur in a tar pit, we could not have gotten out and we’d still be the occupying power and we’d be paying one hundred percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.
Thirdly, . . . there’s a strategic consideration. Saddam Hussein portrayed that war from the very beginning as “This is not a war against Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. This is the Western colonial lackey friends of Israel coming in to destroy the only nation that dare stand up to Israel, that is Iraq”.
Had we proceeded to go on into Iraq and take all of Iraq, I think that you would have millions of people in that part of the world who would say Saddam was right, that that was the objective.
Instead we went in, we did what the United Nations mandate asked us to do and we left and we didn’t ask for anything. We didn’t leave permanent military forces over there, we didn’t demand territory, we didn’t demand bases, and the Arabs became convinced that the West was willing to deal with them evenhandedly . . .
So the bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, is that sure, emotionally I would have loved to have gone to Baghdad and grabbed Saddam Hussein, but this was not an emotional decision, it was a strategic decision, and strategically we were smart enough to win the war and win the peace.
General Norman Swarzkopf discussing the First Gulf War
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/schwarzkopf/7.html
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_POLL?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
March 19,2007
The poll – the third in Iraq since early 2004 by ABC News and media partners – draws a stark portrait of an increasingly pessimistic population under great emotional stress. Among the findings of this survey for ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV:
-The number of Iraqis who say their own life is going well has dipped from 71 percent in November 2005 to 39 percent now.
-About three-fourths of Iraqis report feelings of anger, depression and difficulty concentrating.
-More than half of Iraqis have curtailed activities like going out of their homes, going to markets or other crowded places and traveling through police checkpoints.
-Only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S. and coalition troops, and 86 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be a victim of violence.
-Slightly more than half of Iraqis – 51 percent – now say that violence against U.S. forces is acceptable – up from 17 percent who felt that way in early 2004. More than nine in 10 Sunni Arabs in Iraq now feel this way.
-While 63 percent said they felt very safe in their neighborhoods in late 2005, only 26 percent feel that way now.
. . . . .
Fewer than half in the country, 42 percent, said that life in Iraq now is better than it was under Saddam Hussein, the late dictator accused of murdering tens of thousands during a brutal regime.
Iraqis pessimism about safety spills over into their views of most aspects of life – the economy, basic needs like power and clean water, even the risks of sending their children to school.
About four in five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops . . .
******
And Nathan says “democracy is chaos.”
Gee, it’d be nice if we could try it sometime.
Because the alternative to democracy looks a helluva lot like chaos to me . . .
KSgrm–
You probably wouldn’t hear it on Fox, but one of those Israeli bulldozers actually mowed right over an American peace activist in a blaze orange vest standing in front of a Palestinian house.
Her name was Rachel Corrie, 23 year old American from Olympia, Washington, killed by Zionist terrorists on March 16, 2003.
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/031603_photo_story.htm
CapnAmerica,
Direct Democracy is chaos. It is a rather simple concept. I understand that you probably know this, but felt more inclined to turn it into some type of snide remark. Bravo.
Anyhow, going back to history, like I already acknowledged, we were only given a mandate in the first Gulf War to remove Saddam from Kuwait.
So, taking that in context, of course support would have left if we continued, of course it would have been a very long drawn out conflict figuring that we were not originally planning on invading Iraq.
Your ability to take things completely out of context amazes me, not because of your ability to do so, but because of the apparent lack of any ability to realize that what you are doing is quite disinginuous.
Perhaps you already knew that.
ksgrm,That is a fairy tail you tell yourself so you can sleep at nite. Tell me just how many times we have been attacked by this enemy on this shore. Give me dates. You can credit Clinton for all the years he was prez. That we did not get attacked the years we were not attacked. We did not go to Iraq to fight terrorist just ask blogger republican, we went there to liberate the Iraqi people and in doing so we let OBL run off to Pakistan never to thought of again. But if someone is against the war in Iraq they are asked if they remember that day. How can you remember that day and not think of OBL. I guess you would have to be a republican.
CapnAmerica,
Are you talking about the peace activist who purposefully placed herself in the path of a Bulldozer with very limited visability?
The Israel Bulldozer driver didn’t go out of his way to kill her.
Context… Context…Context…
I am begining to wonder if you are either purposfully trying to decieve people here or are too lazy to study the whole truth.
“I am begining to wonder if you are either purposfully trying to decieve people here or are too lazy to study the whole truth.”
Left leaning and left winger AMERICANS who support the Al Qaida, palestinians, and every other AMerican Hating country are traitors, plain and simple. They have undermined our national security with a BS hatred of Pres. Bush. That is all it is.
The Dems simply “hate Bush” and are willing to trade the security of the nation, and national defense in order to lie and spout anti-American propaganda to try to regain the WHite House. The Country doesn’t matter, nor do “We the People” to them, thy just want the power.
It is a good thing many of you “America haters” do not have anything to do with protecting this country. Aren’t you the same guys that want open borders and let everybody in as well, to get more votes for your Democratic Party?
Tyler, there is help out there for those with your problem. All you have to do is open your eyes and take a generous dose of reality and the condition will start to clear up, I promise.
My husband spent almost 8 yrs in the military “protecting” your country during the Vietnam war. He also believes that this war was a huge mistake and that Bush is the worst president ever.Life ain’t always so black and white, sweetie.
“I don’t believe in mission creep,” he continued. “Had we gone into Baghdad — we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours — and then what?
“Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world?
“Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we’re going to show our macho?” he asked. “We’re going into Baghdad. We’re going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.”
Former President George Bush took the opportunity at the “8th Annual Reunion of Our Victory in the Desert” Feb. 28 to explain his reason for stopping Operation Desert Storm after 100 hours
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=4930
I guess sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree.
Well Cap I would think a sane person seeing a bulldozer coming her way would move even if she had an orange vest on. She was there for one reason and that was to stop the Isralies from doing something at the time it was legal to do.
So if a bus hits me because I was in my lane first and refused to move – who’s wrong me or the bus. Maybe a better question is who is dead me or the bus driver. I don’t condone violence but when American go and put themselves in harms way in a foreign country then they have to recognize the risk.
Repuke your argument falls short. Not only have we not been attacked on our own soil but no military barracks have been bombed, no embassies were blown up, no millitary carriers were hit – do you get the drift. We finally hit back and the terrorists had to stand back and take a different approach. They have moved into Iraq to fight us and I firmly believe if we crawl out on our bellies they will be so enboldened as to follow us home. Just my humble opinion as you have stated yours.
Let take a look at prospective, of all though that are seen as enemies of the U.S. occupation. How many are Al-Qaeda and how many are a true insurgency made up of different sects and nationalizes groups made up of true Iraqis? And since recently it has came out that several Sunni tribal leaders are now saying that they see Al-Qaeda as foreign invaders the same that they see the U.S. as being. And are now engaging them in fire fights and making attempts to drive Al-Qaeda from Iraq.
If the majority of those that the U.S. Military is engaging are insurgences and not Truly Al-Qaeda. Are we not then fighting the very people that we are there to free? Yes there is a real possibility of a civil war between Sunni and Shiite. That is why the Bi-partisan commission should be listen to and the country for now be divided into three regions with the oil revues split equally. (BTW that is the plan that the Democrats are saying they would followed) The most peaceful of all Iraq is the Kurdish part, in part because the Kurd have already set up a antonymous region for themselves and are enforcing restriction on entering their areas.This shows that such a plan might work well, given that the U.S. would support and aid in the setting up of these regions. The fact is that all groups already have their own armies, better to allow them to use them as a security force then to fight each other. Right now we are trying to force all the warring parties to be together as one country. How much luck would anyone had if during our own civil war, we had been forced to live as one?
ksgrm,You said he has keep them off our shores.We could not or maybe you think they would fight in Afghanistan. You are sure that they are not planning attacks for us here. To busy fighting in Iraq.huh.Sleep tight.Maybe your right and maybe your not.Time will tell. But we are attacked and there is a link back OBL would you agree GW F up.
“of all though” should have been “of all those”
sorry
Cap the woman who wrote these emails is a real hero. She gave up a law practice to help the Iraqi people. It would take to much time to tell her entire story. You can google Fern Holland, Oklahoma, and find it.
“The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is the title given the US/British government here. I love the Iraqis. The story you read is in my neighborhood. Yes, the hate the terrorists. The terrorists target us and the Iraqis don’t like that…and they end up killing Iraqis. Two rockets landed in our yard. Shook the building and broke some windows. Huge explosions. First for me. This was a few nights ago. 3a.m. All is in perspective. The whistle, the boom — I jumped from my bed and cleared 2 coffee tables before the 2nd one landed. My bed’s next to a window and that’s what went through my mind….
I love the work and if I die, know that I’m doing precisely what I want to be doing — working to organize and educate human rights activists and women’s groups — human rights and democracy education for independents who are motivated and capable of leading this country. They’ll have to implement and protect democracy when we’re gone. Hope they’re strong enough by then. We’re doing all we can with the brief time we’ve got left. It’s a terrible race. Wish us luck. Wish the Iraqis luck.”
http://fernholland.newsok.com/?fern_emails
My son went through 12 grades of school with her in Miami, Oklahoma. She didn’t make it back. She didn’t stand infront of any bulldozers she just gave her all to help a people who couldn’t help themselves. She said what would be necessary when we pull out. We can’t leave them without the means to help themselves. She went in before the military to help the women and children. A peace corp worker who thought of others before herself.
When we first went in I think we all hoped that it would be over quickly but when it didn’t work out that way were we supposed to pick up our toys and go home?
Sometimes it’s hard to do the right thing.
But IF we are….ect
GMC, I have read almost all of Ed’s posts since coming here. I have more taken him as being anti Israel and not anti-Jewish.
Israel is not totally at fault in every case. But just of late some of what they have done is wrong and it is right to call them on it. The same as it is right to call others for their own wrong doings.
ksgrm – you have a point, sort of. Since the terrorists who attacked the US had their roots in SAUDI ARABIA; how has out invasion/occupation of Iraq effected that? The answer might just be that we have so ingratiated ourselves with them by taking out their mortal enemie that they are rewarding us by leaving us alone. In effect, perhaps we have bought them off by attacking their enemy.
More likely they are simply sitting back watching us in amusement. They have NOT “moved into Iraq to fight us”; our primary opposition there is home-grown. No, they are enjoying the spectacle of seeing the US bogged down – FIGHTING THEIR ENEMIES!
And they are biding their time as they become stronger. We have done them a tremendous favor.
If I didn’t know better I would even suspect that alQuada was behind the bad intelligence we acted on in Iraq.
Writer you are right in some respects. What I find is that few people want to recognize that the world after 911 isn’t like the world we had before. We have always had political battles and will continue to do so. I’m not saying who is right and who is wrong. We have to look at the world we live in. Enemies could be your next door neighbor. We have to remain committed to meeting them where they are. I have heard many say we created terrorists by going into Iraq. If this is true who bombed the towers? Who blew up the USS Cole? I could go on but my point is they were always there but we gave them a signal that we were weak. They took advantage of it. I don’t support our position on Saudi but at this point we aren’t in their cross hairs, maybe for the reason you stated.
We as a country, have to be strong. We can’t deal from a position of weakness. I’m not sure of exactly what we should do but I don’t think withdrawing is the answer.
Repuke,
Let me see… no terrorist attacks during the clinton years?
World Trade Center bombing in 1993
Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia killing 19 American Serviceman in 1996.
US Embassies attacked in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
USS Cole attacked in Yemen in 2000.
Only months after Bush was elected , terrorists struck the World Trade Center again on 9/11.
Get a clue repuke.
For those of you that can’t remember:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE
When GWB took office, we were at war with Saddam. HE took office during a truce in that war. Saddam had violated 17 UN resolutions.
Democrats had access to the same intelligence that GWB had to make decisions to go to war. The resolution to use force in Iraq was overwhelmingly supported by the democrats.
What has changed? The democrats are willing to sacrifice victory in Iraq to defeat republicans at the poles. They will trade national security for the ability to keep their sorry butts in office!
Hank
Writerdog,
Once again, the US was part of a UN Mandated coalition to remove Saddam from Kuwait, nothing more.
The war was heavily financed by Saudi Arabia who only agreed to the removal of Saddam from Kuwait.
Constantly using quotes from those who were part of the Gulf War as to why they didn’t invade as comparison to Operation Iraqi Freedom is patently absurd.
Okay, Nathan sees no contradiction between Cheney saying that occupying Iraq in 1991 would be “a quagmire,” and the quagmire that Cheney helped create by doing what he said we shouldn’t do in ‘91.
It’s just a matter of “context.”
Fine. You stick with that and see how it works out for your side.
The rest of us believe that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and assuming that you’re going to get a different result.
And the American voters are on our side. Big time.
******
As for Rachel Corrie, yes of course she THREW herself under the bulldozer.
Who are you going to believe? The photographic proof on the website or the right-wing spin machine?
That’s the problem with the left, they think America is two sides.
Our side…
Really Capn?
Hank Price writes, “What has changed? The democrats are willing to sacrifice victory in Iraq to defeat republicans at the poles. They will trade national security for the ability to keep their sorry butts in office!”
Pure Rush propaganda. This is the vicious slander that he spews day after long day, and the hate-mongers can’t get enough of it.
Uh, Hank? The Republicans invaded Iraq in March of 2003. They had almost two years to before the election of November ‘04 to show the US majority that they had done the right thing.
The American people were still with them in ‘04.
Then March 2005 came and went, then March 2006, then March 2007.
And what do we see, Iraq gets WORSE every year, not better.
The Democrats have nothing to do with the failed policies of the Bush administration. We hoped for swift victory and a safe return of the troops. Nothing would make this Democrat happier than a slam-dunk win and an end to hostilities.
But wishing does not make it so.
To claim that patriotic Americans like myself cheer American deaths and relish the waste of war because we hate Bush and love political power is the lowest, slimiest, filthiest, most scurrilous attack that can ever be imagined.
Thank God, Americans aren’t buying it any more.
It’s kind of sad really. To see the cocksure swaggering right-wing dragging themselves down to the level of a wild-eyed wild-haired village idiot . . .
Sorry, Republican . . . did you write something?
I don’t read every post. I just scan.
It’s okay Capn, if you were subjected to your own posts, you’d scan as well.
Because it is true, the left loves political power above all else. They will even eat their own.
Americans are waking up again when they see what happens with Democrats in charge of Congress. More pork, more rancor and useless investigations that is wasting valuable legislative time and resources.
Everyone realizes the Democrats are just marching in place and America realizes they are accomplishing absolutely nothing but flapping their lips as much as they can on National TV.
Another do-nothing pork barrel, rancor-driven Democratic Congress, nothing has changed.
Dear Capn,
“And what do we see, Iraq gets WORSE every year, not better.”
I’m not sure that is true. It’s sad that Iraq is not as we hoped, but the evidence is that it’s a lot better than the media and the democrats would have you believe.
“To claim that patriotic Americans like myself cheer American deaths and relish the waste of war because we hate Bush and love political power is the lowest, slimiest, filthiest, most scurrilous attack that can ever be imagined.”
I’m sorry Capn, I don’t remember saying any of that.
I don’t think you are unpatriotic, I think you are a victim of irrational hate for Bush and a coordinated, relentless propaganda campaign ran by the democrats and the media.
I suspect that you aren’t very well read and haven’t read very many books on the war from either view point.
I’m sorry that you can’t have a rational discussion on a mater that is so important to our nation’s security. I’m sorry that you can’t seem to form an original thought in this matter and have to resort ot childish ad hominum attacks.
I still love ya, you’re making the conservatives look good!
Hank
Oops the boy has been on the downstairs computer!
Hank
Scanning . . . couldn’t catch all that.
BTW, what pResident increased spending faster than any other President since WWII? Faster even than Johnson’s Great Society programs and the Vietnam War spending? Increasing “pork barrel” etc. etc. so much that the national debt is approaching a historical post-WWII high?
If you said “Commander Cod-Piece,” you’d be right.
WWII didn’t have interstate highways, TV’s, Computers, Microwaves, jet aircraft, nuclear power stations, so on and so on…
The largest GDP ever I think you forgot and it is growing.
It was a nice try, now if you can’t just convince all those Capitalists from making so much in profit eh Capn? :)
Okay, Hank. I’m glad that you don’t think Dems WANT America to lose in Iraq . . . except that’s what you said.
You said that Dems will “trade national security” for political power. National security means protecting American lives.
So you’re saying that Dems want Americans to die if that means they get power.
Please show me where I made a mistake in reading comprehension.
Besides, even if it’s not what you meant, it is what Rush Limbaugh means when he spews for three hours a day.
And lastly, there was no ad homenim attack there at all. Ad homenim is when one attacks the person not the argument.
I didn’t attack the person of any writer.
“so much that the national debt is approaching a historical post-WWII high?”
Hey Capn, you might do a GOOGLE search or something, tell me when the national debt wasn’t at a ‘historical high’ at the end of each day. How many years do you think it has been since we didn’t wake up with a higher national debt than the day before?
Just more left-wing propaganda to feed the hate of the dumbest amongst us.
You’re making us look smarter and smarter!
Hank
Republican–
Of course it’s the largest GDP and growing.
The GDP grows every year. If it doesn’t, it’s called a recession.
The point is that the national debt is growing FASTER than the GDP, and that’s why it’s at a historical high as a percentage of GDP.
Don’t make me google this for the thousandth time . . .
Oh, sh*t, here we go again . . .
One thousand and ONE–
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Read it and weep, Republicans.
“Just more left-wing propaganda to feed the hate of the dumbest amongst us.”
Okay, Hank, now that is a very good example of an ad homenim attack.
Thanks for the clear illustration.
No, an ad hominem attack would have used your name, not a generality. :)
Who holds the largest percentage of the National Debt?
Rep isn’t the Chinese or the Japanese as someone on this blog said a while. Over 80% of the debt is owned by American citizens. A little over 19% is held by outside interests if I remember correctly.
Yes ma’am, you win the cookie! :)
What this points out to me is the faith we still have in the strength of the economy and why the GDP numbers are so important in this argument.
“No, an ad hominem attack would have used your name, not a generality. :)”
A distinction without a difference. :-)
ksgrm:
Ma’am, are you working? I suspect you must not be.
Ah Steven Douglas is back, with out the vest. :)
And, aren’t you up late for a grandmother. My own mother, who is also a grandmother, was in bed long ago.
“Ah Steven Douglas is back, with out the vest. :)”
Huh? Golfnutz?
Very sad very sad, the acid breathing has begun.
what is a golfnutz?
“Acid breathing” HA! – talking with Acid heads would be more illuminating than talking with the likes of you, GolfNutz.
??I think someone is confused. Anyways, time to do some hot tub. :)
“what is a golfnutz?”
Too funny. I won’t play any more. Good night. Good luck with your alpha blogger position. Read Jane Gooddall – it might help you, a little, at least.
Republican writes: “The largest GDP ever I think you forgot and it is growing.
It was a nice try, now if you can’t just convince all those Capitalists from making so much in profit eh Capn? :)”
Hank writes: “Hey Capn, you might do a GOOGLE search or something, tell me when the national debt wasn’t at a ‘historical high’ at the end of each day. How many years do you think it has been since we didn’t wake up with a higher national debt than the day before?”
Okay, I DID a google search and I posted the link.
This shows exactly what I said–the United States has a historically high national debt AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP (which takes into account the growth of the GDP) since WWII.
What Hank and Republican should now say, if they were being honest in the debate, is “you were right, Capn, and we were wrong.”
“Constantly using quotes from those who were part of the Gulf War as to why they didn’t invade as comparison to Operation Iraqi Freedom is patently absurd.”
Nathan actually I was helping you out in a way. You reference G.H. and the reasoning in 91.That is a exact quote of the reason he gave, but also since you brought it up. The similarities between what is the conditions we are facing in Iraq since the invasion and part of what President G.H. Bush gave as the reasons he did not go into Baghdad are undeniable.
KSgrm you are right in the sense that at times it has been our lack of showing strength that caused certain things to occur. Don’t get me wrong begrudgingly at time and cheerfully at others I am a Reagan-nite (God rest his soul). But it was in part his failure to take real action when the barracks in Beirut was attack by a suicide truck bomber that embolden Bin Laden. But at the time President Reagan and many other in his administration did not realize the full extent of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden’s power in it. BTW it is one of only a few of the terrorists attacks that Bin Laden did not have a major role in. But he noted that the U.S. could be struck in a serious way and not react to it.
I have to respectfully disagree with that, WriterD.
The Russian invasion of Afghanistan didn’t stop terrorism against it–it encouraged it.
The continued atrocities on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict don’t cow the other side into submission–they spur the other side to escalate the killing.
It wasn’t Reagan’s “lack of response” that infuriated Lebanese nationals into attacking American troops. It was putting the troops there to begin with.
And why were the troops there to begin with?
To prop up a Christian led government that had lost an election to Muslims about twenty years earlier.
The US and other western countries didn’t want a Muslim gov’t running Lebanon even though they are the majority and they won the election fair and square.
So we had to keep sending troops in to “stablize” our illegitmate and unelected puppet government.
Gee, you think that had anything to do with fueling Muslim rage against the West?
Nah . . . they hate us for our freedoms.
Everybody knows that . . .
Capt the statement that Bin Laden was embolden by the barracks bombing was his words. At the time Reagan did not know who to blame as such did nothing in the form of a retaliation for the bombing.Unlike with Libya who took responsibility for the Pan-Am bombing over Scotland. Terrorist groups were not a country and so he was lost. He could not bomb a country that we were there to support no matter what the reason for us being there.
Bin Laden noticed the helplessness of the U.S. in such a situation and decided to use it to his advantage.Al-Qaeda being in Afghanistan and the Talban which was the government there refusing though it may have been something like “you have to the count of two…One,two!” to surrender Bin Laden. Gave justification for the action to be taken there.