Final VINDICATION for those who OPPOSED the Invasions & Occupations.

[bvar22]

There is a small group of DUers who consistently OPPOSED the following in response to 9-11,
without regard to who was in the White House or which political party was in control of Congress:

*The Military Invasion and Hostile Occupation of Afghanistan,

*The Military Invasion and Hostile Occupation of Iraq,

*All increases in Military Spending associated with the above,

*The Patriot Act and all other abrogations of the Constitution,

*All "surges" and military escalations in the above countries.

From the start,
there was a small group who consistently opposed the WAR & Hostile Occupation of Afghanistan on the grounds that
it was NOT the best way to GET Bin Laden, or a handful of International Criminals called AlQeada.
Afghanistan was NOT a Just War, or an effective use of our Blood & Treasure.

From the start,
there was a handful here who consistently maintained that the proper response to 9-11 was International Law Enforcement combined with small, elite Special Forces units. (The Isreali Approach)

The events of yesterday confirm that those who held the above opinions were indeed correct.

[Modern_Matthew]

1. Well said, brother. We can do well with a smaller, high tech/specialized military force. nt

[HankyDubs]

55. I disagree

I don't have a problem with soldiers or bases (as long as they are on US soil). There is an argument that these persons are trained and have specialized skills. It's also a blue collar job.

The problem is the high tech. We don't need all this billion dollar equipment. We can't afford to keep the MIC alive with this high tech/specialized crap.

[rfranklin]

91. We don't need to spend as much as the rest of world on the military...

High tech or otherwise.

[RZM]

129. Isn't that what Rumsfeld wanted to do? n/t

[Honeycombe8]

145. Yes, as I recall. He wanted a smaller, tighter military, not recognizing that boots

on the ground (as they say) are still necessary, esp when fighting guerillas.

Boots on the ground....like the Seals & other Special Ops. And the troops.

[RZM]

148. If I remember correctly, his plan hit a brick wall when the military said 'no way' n/t

[Honeycombe8]

151. Someone said "no way," but I don't remember who. Geez, who'd of thought I'd forget so soon?

It wasn't that long ago, but so much has happened, it seems like a long, long time ago.

Makes sense that it was the military who objected to that.

I must say that I tended to agree. I thought at the time that Rummy was just taken with gadgetry and trying to make war cleaner than it is, and fought at a distance, which it can't be all the time.

[jmowreader]

131. I somewhat disagree...

Things like shooting Bin Laden call for small, elite forces--witness the British, French and Germans, all of whom solved their terrorist problem with small, secretive units.

We couldn't have done Hurricane Andrew relief with a small, elite force--what was called for there was a bunch of grunts and all the generators, tentage, dump trucks, Bobcats and forklifts the Corps of Engineers could come up with.

[RainDog]

2. yep

but I knew, when the Twin Towers were hit, that our nation would formulate a military response.

I didn't know the same gang of thieves would trump up an invasion of Iraq.

I don't want those people back in power again.

[defendandprotect]

99. IF 9/11 had indeed been "terrorism," it still would have been inane to attack an

entire country because allegedly someone living in that country had allegedly

something to do with 9/11!

That would be like attacking all of Mississippi because there are KKK members living there!

Additionally, we had already used and manipulated not only the Taliban and Al Qaeda but had

subject Afghanistan to war, at our own pleasure. (See comments by Brzezinski below re

our creating the Taliban/Al Qaeda -- and US going into Afghanistan 6 months before the

Russians came in. And, US seeking "to bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes of giving

them a Vietnam-type experience."


Here -- Brzezinski tells us what we were actually doing in Afhanistan in funding the

Taliban/Al Qaeda --

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_interview_shor...

AND --

And though it may be simply a side issue -- these wars can only also be seen as an attack

on Islam/Muslims -- and the US once again pulled a religious tool out of its toy box to

create that new "crusade" -- (In that regard, see the additional information about US creating,

writing, printing -- and shipping into the Middle East -- the notorious religious texts we

heard so much about on TV.)


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.htm

[RainDog]

112. I'm aware of those issues

however, I'm also aware of the reality that an attack as symbolically devastating to this country as 9-11 would provoke a military response.

people on this forum can talk calmly about what they see as part of events without actually supporting those events.

to recognize that this is the way that such events would go does not mean I support them or not - I just acknowledge that the attack achieved the response it desired.

The reality is that OBL and jihadists prior to him as well saw no conflict in provoking such a response, knowing the civilian deaths this would cause - that's part of their strategy, too, and has been since the 1970s, at the least.

And I followed the entire lead up to the invasion of Iraq with horror - to see the manipulation and lies and, in fact, I even sent the one and only email I've ever sent to the White House to say I thought it would be a war crime to invade Iraq. I didn't have any great love for Saddam, but I thought the strategy was stupid - and corrupt - and I was right - as were lots of others who had no power to stop what happened, no matter what we did.

My reaction to the death of Saddam was revulsion. Even tho I had no love for him at all. My reaction to the death of Osama is relief. I want to stop the frame of the "war on terror" and stop fear-mongering as politics. Not that I think that will happen - it's too powerful of a tool for power brokers to use to manipulate a population - but we need another narrative - the world has changed in the last decade and the Bush-Cheney neo-con view is as outmoded as using catapults to storm the fortress.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

3. i would imagine it was a large group that felt that way. it is the democratic way

of dealing with these things. it is what the repugs sneered at and said would not work. lookie, dems right, rpugs wrong

again

[G_j]

4. +1000

[Avalux]

5. Yes. A traditional military "shock and awe" response was never appropriate....

and was used as an excuse to line the pockets of corps and cohorts. Terrorist organizations are not armies, their leaders are not generals and the response needs to be unconventional to be effective. As we've seen with Osama's death.

[Enthusiast]

81. You are correct.

No 'nation state' attacked us on 9/11. How can we justify invading an entire nation when that nation did not advocate 9/11? The Bush Administration would tell us that Afghanistan was harboring terrorists. Was Afghanistan harboring terrorists any more than Pakistan, any more than Saudi Arabia? I don't think so.

[themadstork]

94. Amen!

[pacalo]

6. Accidentally unrec'd -- sorry!

[ecstatic]

7. While I'm not for the wars either, I don't think the wars were only about getting Bin Laden

That was like a side mission.

[nc4bo]

20. Same here, #43 proved it

by going after Saddam, WMD that have never been found, invading Iraq on lies, ignoring Afghanistan when (correct me if I'm wrong) intelligence knew exactly where he was. Saddam wasn't a nice man but he wasn't mind 9/11.

He was looking for an excuse to get in there, when there was none, he created one and look at where it got us and so many others. Hey, and still no oil!!

Hope to end the wars came during the 2008 campaign season, hope left just as quickly.

There's a special place waiting for #43 & Co., he's earned his place there. They all have.

I hope (there goes that word again) #44 does the right thing and gets us the hell out of where we don't belong.

[calimary]

41. Still no oil indeed. Remember when wolfowitz assured us Iraq's oil would pay for the war.

Wouldn't set us back at all.

What a bastard!

[Pacifist Patriot]

74. I remember snorting coffee through my nose when I first heard it.

[calimary]

141. He was just so cock sure. All those "it's gonna be a cakewalk" assholes, and he

was first among equals.

Bastard!!!!!!

[cui bono]

115. They weren't. They were about oil. He was the excuse. n/t

[ThomCat]

124. Right. The real reason for the wars was getting control of the region

for oil. That has been well documented. Afghanistan was about getting rights for putting in an oil pipeline across Afghanistan to the sea. There was also the intent to search for minerals and possibly oil within Afghanistan. Surprise, surprise, they found profitable mineral deposits. Iraq was about getting control of the oil fields.

[Bold Lib]

8. k and r

[coalition_unwilling]

9. But, but, but . . . how will all the colornels and generals and REMFS

get their tickets punched?

[mountainlion55]

43. REMFS

Does that mean rear echelon mofo's:smoke:

[coalition_unwilling]

50. Yup. Sorry, I can only see my 20 most recent posts and the

proverbial fur has been flying last night and tonight.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Indeed!

K&R

[Harmony Blue]

11. May I add that

for all the flack John Kerry received, that he was right?

[aquart]

12. Good god, was anyone FOR those idiotic invasions?

I couldn't believe when moron Bush elevated bin Ladin to a head of state by declaring 9/11 was an act of war. Talk about making that creep feel more self-important than he already did.

You hunt vermin with exterminators, not armies.

[Hannah Bell]

19. yes, they were.

[bvar22]

22. Oh Yes.

In fact, many (in my memory the majority) supported the "Just War" invasion of Afghanistan.

There was a vocal contingent that cheered the Invasion of Iraq to "Take Out Saddam."

[sad sally]

46. Yet the US is still in both Countries with the Administration's and Pentagon's

warning that we can't leave - maybe draw down a couple of hundred troops - but a US military presence needs to be there - occupying the many military bases we've built. And there's a lot of nation building still needed, plus we need to be closer to the real enemies - Iran, Syria, Yemen, maybe even Pakistan.

[harun]

69. Oil Companies, nuff said.

[Enthusiast]

82. Good post.......nt

[reggie the dog]

84. 911 was an act of war

just not state sponsored war.

Hitting the Pentagon, in my opinion, makes it clearly an act of war.

Hitting the world trade center (in theory symbolic of the economic hegemony the pentagon protects) can also be seen as an act of war.

the heads of the military and financial might were attacked.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reggie the dog]

125. I am with you all the way

I just think that osama recruited true believers on his end to hit the usa and that he was helped by some neocons in making it all more spectacular.

I have never been convinced that a plane actually hit the pentagon and the video relased was not conclusive.

The towers did need to have asbestos removed for a cost of 7 billion from what i have read.

I just think that osama was one of the organizers and that what they did was an act of war by targeting the pentagon and the wtc. if you were in osamas shoes and recruting you would talk shit about the world trade center and how it runs the world, with the help of the us military, to make the wealthy more wealthy and doesnt give a damn about human rights.


the plane that went down in pennsylvania was reported by a father and son eyewitnesses in their field, both of whom were combat veterans, and they said the plane was shot down by a war plane.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reggie the dog]

134. i get it now

he got some true believers on his end to fight the ussr before too, and accepted to work with elements of our cia.

[defendandprotect]

137. ... for money --- keep that in mind - !!

and we were funding the Taliban/Al Qaeda right up to 9/11 --

and who knows ... maybe even after?

[reggie the dog]

138. funding them for being so good

at being anti heroin, but once we stopped funding them, they began to produce heroin and hash to fight against us. hell the hash in france used to be mostly from morocco when i moved here in 2003, now all we can find is afghan, sharif region, stamped in gold in english and written super quality.

[defendandprotect]

143. More like ....

US is involved in drug running -- they protect the operations, as well, of course --

This has been true at least as far back as Vietnam -- Golden Triangle --

In Afghanistan, Taliban was anti-heroin and they were REDUCING the production --

therefore, it looks more like we were concerned about getting back into Afghanistan

to INCREASE the production -- which did happen -- production reached new peaks AFTER

US invaded!!

Purportedly, the elites wouldn't and couldn't pass up profits from drugs -- especially

when you consider that those profits would have gone to strengthening their enemies!

[bertman]

106. aquart, the polling was 70% IN FAVOR of invading Iraq. I'm sure the number

was higher for Afghanistan.

Then, in the 2006 election the polling was 70% IN FAVOR OF PULLING OUT OF IRAQ.

[BobbyBoring]

111. Could you post a limk to that poll?

All I remember is millions of people around the world protesting before the start.

[bertman]

144. Bobby, I'm referring to Amerikans, not furriners.. No, I can't post

a link. That was back in '01 and '03 and I didn't bookmark anything for that.

I remember how disgusted I was as I read and listened to news about the high poll numbers for the invasions. One poll that I do remember was the AOL members poll that they did on a regular basis. I remember that because I was checking my emails and posting my opinion on the various polls they took. Other than that, I can't tell you.

[cui bono]

116. You sure that wasn't just Faux viewers? Also those answers were based on lies told to them. n/t

[defendandprotect]

133. ... we also still have many supporting TORTURE/Wiretapping/Patriot Act ....

and we can presume that's also partly based on lies told to them --

but people have to start thinking for themselves -- and challenging government --

They need their BS meters turned up waaaaay higher!!

[mike_c]

13. absolutely!

eom

[crickets]

14. K&R

[Bucky]

15. If we took "the Israeli approach" we'd've planted settler neighborhoods in ToraBora by now

And then we'd run bulldozers over the protesters trying to protect the existing homes.

To be fair, Israel does a lot of things right, like their airport security.

[reggie the dog]

85. we could learn some from Israel

Israel could learn some from us.

what they do in palestine is at the root of how much of the "terrorism" going on now? our alliance, not with israel the country, but with the likud party run israel has brought how much hatred or terrorism onto us. as israels largest ally i think the usa should put a shitload of pressure on their ruling party to have the same citizenship rights and same social service funding for all people in the israel palestine nation.

[defendandprotect]

101. +1000% -- and more!!

[dkf]

16. I thought the Afghanistan mission would be more like this...

Go in, get him and be done with it. I never wanted some nation building operation.

That being said I hope those who you are saying are vindicated arent the ones outraged that we killed the guy instead of being able to take him in (impossible!).

[JoePhilly]

17. Iraq was STUPID, and does not belong anywhere in that list.

The Iraq invasion, and the associated surge, had NOTHING to do with today.

Iraq was a GIANT F**King distraction, that we still struggle to clean up. Did not help in ANY manner. Pulled critical resources from where they needed to be.

Obama changed the focus BACK to where it should have been all along.

[Cherchez la Femme]

47. So the military got bin Laden?

[Kolesar]

71. The fucked-uppedness of Iraq was why it worked for the bush party

It was controversial and divided the country, hence bush could accuse the war's opponents of backstabbing the military.

[leftstreet]

18. K&R

[L0oniX]

21. Confirmed member of the "small group" here.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Fuckin A, Bubba!

This how is the only how. A giant force and nation building was always nutzoid.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. I agree with most everything

I supported our initial intervention in Afghanistan, at least until Bush botched it up and then ignored it for latter part of his first term and the entire second term. Clearing out the training camps and denying AQ/Taliban sanctuary was and is still a worthy goal. As we have discovered, however, our real quarry was actually in Pakistan.

I did not like the PATRIOT ACT, the mass hysteria over terrorism promoted by Bushco and the corporate media, as well as the "red scare" mentality that Buscho fostered and used as political leverage against people opposed to the Bush Republican agenda.

I did not like the use/existence of Gitmo, the idea of "enhanced interrogations" (aka torture), and the concept of indefinite detentions. Capturing (or killing when necessary) terrorists is one thing but they should've never been tortured and should've been tried like all other terrorist suspects before them (which occurred several times in the past without any adverse effects)

I NEVER supported and was vocally opposed to the Iraq invasion and occupation and we've known for a considerable amount of time that Iraq didn't have any WMDs, never tried to give these non-existent WMDs to AQ/Bin Laden/Taliban, and, most importantly, Iraq wasn't harboring Bin Laden or giving sanctuary to any terrorist suspects connected to 9/11. It was a blunder of epic proportions and one that will leave a black stain on our nations for years and decades to come. +/-4000 Americans and countless Iraqi men, women, and children died for nothing other than the removal of a tinpot dictator and his minions.

[calimary]

42. Agree with all this, but I remember being very uncertain about going into Afghanistan.

I heard the bombing had begun and I thought - "Yikes! What can of worms have we just opened up?"

[coalition_unwilling]

52. In allying ourselves with the Northern Alliance, we repeated the

pattern of Vietnam, i.e., taking (the wrong) side in another country's civil war. And, predictably, we're now bogged down in a Vietnam-like quagmire in Afghanistan.

Plus ca change . . . (as is often said in a certain country in old Europe)

[reggie the dog]

126. plus ça change, plus ça reste la même

belgium i think ;)

[coalition_unwilling]

136. In France, it was 'Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.' Translated

roughly: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

[reggie the dog]

139. i have heard both here in france

maybe its a regional thing, what part of france were you in? i am down on the riviera so there are retired people with all sorts of regional accents down here.

[coalition_unwilling]

147. Burgundy (Beaune and Dijon) and Paris. I assumed your

version was a Belgian dialectical variant. By the way, I appreciate greatly your posts in defense of due process of law.

[reggie the dog]

150. thanks

at least i am not the only person on here taking about due process

[Pacifist Patriot]

73. You sound like me.

[reggie the dog]

89. Taliban and alquieda were not allied in 2001

until the usa began to attack the taliban. the taliban were our allies, and received a large sum of money from us to fight against heroin and hash. just a few days prior to 911 the us gave the taliban more money because they did so well to stamp out drugs production knowing that they also used this money to fight against their enemy, the northern alliance. when John Walker Lindh joined the Taliban they were our ally, he went to fight against the northern alliance, yet he was protrayed on the media as an enemy of the state. Then after 911 the usa suddenly turned on the taliban and supported the northern alliance, both of which were neither attacking neither being attacked by any organization called al quieda .

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Indeed that should have been the approach from word go

they were close to doing this at Tora Bora, but they didn't want to do the final pounce either.

[bvar22]

29. Tora Bora was part of a large scale military operation...

..that included many thousands of troops and carpet bombing with B-52s.
It can in no way be considered a small scale Law Enforcement decapitation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. And the order to stand down came... from SECDEF

[reggie the dog]

123. W's family and friends did lots of business

with the bin laden family, the obama's...not so much so

[WillyT]

26. K & R !!!

:kick:

[SlimJimmy]

27. So it's okay to take unilateral action as long as the "Special Forces" do it?

[blondeatlast]

28. This will come as a shock to many, but I never supported any of the military actions.

Ever. What culminated last night is exactly how this all should happen.

I'll shock you all again: I DO support assassination in the most extreme of circumstances. Although I think this was a fair fight, had it been a targeted assassination, I wouldn't have lost a moment's sleep over it.

[patrice]

30. Present. I agree with Lawrence Wright & John Kerry on this.

[Odin2005]

32. Exactly. K&R

[indepat]

33. Proud to have unwaveringly been among that small group from the git-go, as my numerous posts

unalterably and consistently have attested. :patriot:

[tavalon]

34. I was one of the ridiculed 10 percenters

[grahamhgreen]

35. Kick!

[Stinky The Clown]

36. We'll never be able to tell now who that 10% really were, will we?

[Dawson Leery]

37. Based upon what we were told

the Afghanistan mission was going to be a tactical mission to remove terrorist cells, not a long term occupation.

[eridani]

40. Indeed--even Kucinich and all but one of the Progressive Caucus believed that

Only Rep. Lee was smart enough not to.

[VWolf]

103. Exactly.

And I was one of the ones gullible enough to believe it. Never again.

[Owl]

38. K&R

[Puregonzo1188]

39. That's not quite the Israeli approach...I agree with you though.

[tekisui]

44. KNR.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigwillq]

48. K and R (nt)

[whatchamacallit]

49. It's all been bullshit from the get. (nt)

[Wednesdays]

51. *Raising hand* I was one of the ten-percenters

Never for a moment was sucked into the mania, thought the whole country was turning insane...it was like I was witnessing a bad rendition of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

I always thought that if Bin Laden was responsible, then he's a criminal, and the correct response would be to go in with a small but well-armed SWAT team, and arrest the dude.

[coalition_unwilling]

57. Oh, silly Wednesdays, concern for due process of law is so

20th Century, so quaint and obsolete.

I started protesting as soon as we started officially bombing Afghanistan (maybe oct-nov of 2001). Didn't look back to catch my breath until Nov 4, 2008.

[krabigirl]

60. Same here. It was surreal. Still is.

[WildEyedLiberal]

53. Yup - we should've been doing this FROM THE START

International intelligence gathering and law enforcement with Special Ops missions and raids to target specific HVTs like OBL. It kind of proves that the wars were never about actually cutting the head off the beast, though, doesn't it?

[Lucian]

54. +1

[kaffy4x4]

56. Isn't this what we expected to happen after 9/11

AND THE VERY REASON WE APPOSED EVERYTHING ON YOUR LIST?

[JDPriestly]

58. The Navy Seals who went in and the CIA that got the information

on OBL needed the large military backup, cover and intelligence help in order to succeed. That is my opinion. The Seals did not go in without a lot of cover. They probably would not have succeeded if we did not have a large number of people in the area. For one thing, they would have been unable to fly in had we not flown lots of other helicopters in similar ways into Pakistan for other missions. They would have been noticed and shot down. Further, they had to have a lot of equipment behind them that we don't see -- listening devices, people following the driver who supposedly led them to OBL.

I don't think this would have worked had we only had a small presence in the area.

[Turborama]

63. The SEALs flew from Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan to Tarbela Ghazi Airbase in northwest Pakistan

I don't think the Taliban would have allowed that, to be honest.


They contained more than 100 elite commandos who had been training intensively for days at their airbase, Bagram in Afghanistan, using a detailed mock-up of Bin Laden’s hideaway constructed by the CIA. After dummy runs on April 7 and April 13, they flew to the Tarbela Ghazi airbase in north-west Pakistan, which the CIA has permission to use.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382860/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Abbottabad-raid-ended-10-years-defiance-Obama-watched.html


From Ghazi Air Base in Pakistan, the modified MH-60 helicopters made their way to the garrison suburb of Abbottabad, about 70 miles from the center of Islamabad. Aboard were Navy SEALs, flown across the border from Afghanistan, along with tactical signals, intelligence collectors, and navigators using highly classified hyperspectral imagers.
http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/the-secret-team-that-killed-bin-laden-20110502

[Kolesar]

70. President Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden with missiles 13 years ago

Up until 9 11, the American public would not have accepted using ground forces to get OBL. The repubs tried to politicize the missile strike as it was. They tied it to their perverted interest in Lewinski's sex life.

[Pacifist Patriot]

75. Yet just yesterday on Facebook...

a Repuke had the gall to say that Clinton was so far up Lewinski's skirts he couldn't be bothered to go after OBL.

[Autumn]

109. I saw posted here on DU , yesterday, that Clinton

had never done anything to get OBL. And the post remained.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

117. The Repuke never heard of Multitasking?

:wtf:

[Pacifist Patriot]

142. They have trouble imagining something they can't manage themselves.

[krabigirl]

59. Yep.

[avaistheone1]

61. You are 100% correct.

Thank you.

:kick:

[horsehead]

62. Good point

Was thinking about this earlier today. Not much else to say.

[democrank]

64. Once again, K & R

[cantbeserious]

65. Yes - The Bush II Approach Was Overkill And Always About The Oil In Iraq

BL was nothing but an excuse for the excuse himself.

[nonperson]

66. I consistently opposed those responses from the start

And I agree with you 100%.

Might I add I consistently supported the approach that proved successful.

I must also add that I consistently and continue to this day to demand that the war criminals in our midst be brought to justice as well.

New York Times headline today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/us/03wanted.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23

Famous List of the Infamous, Now in Need of an Update

By ERICA GOODE
Published: May 2, 2011

"A red banner declaring “Deceased” was splashed across Osama bin Laden’s photograph on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 10 Most Wanted list on Monday, ending his 10-year sojourn among America’s most sought-after public enemies.

Bin Laden has been on the list since October 2001, sharing the limelight with an assortment of murder, kidnap and rape suspects, as well as the occasional white-collar fugitive like Semion Mogilevich, accused of defrauding thousands of investors of $150 million between 1993 and 1998. Bin Laden also appears on the F.B.I.’s Most Wanted Terrorists list.

“The mastermind of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, that killed thousands of innocent men, women and children has been killed,” the bureau noted in a statement on its Web site. It was unclear what would happen to the $27 million in rewards — up to $25 million from the State Department and an additional $2 million from the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association — that were offered for information leading to his capture.

Bin Laden’s death leaves an opening on the fugitives list, but Paul Bresson, a spokesman for the F.B.I., said a replacement might not be named for some time."

I suggest we begin with George W. Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney and move on to the many others who perpetrated their own years long 9/11 on the nation of Iraq and continue to illegally occupy that nation to this day.

[dotymed]

67. As opposed to reagan/bush philosophy...

"shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out.....

[myrna minx]

68. I was one of the 10 percenters. Thanks bvar22. K&R n/t

[barbtries]

72. i am among that number

though i wasn't at DU until i think 2003 or 2004. but i'm sure this is no surprise: it doesn't warm my heart to know i was right all along. it hurts. too many dead :cry:

[Hissyspit]

88. Same here.

[suffragette]

140. Same here as well.

[Pacifist Patriot]

76. Pretty much.

[Javaman]

77. What you said. :)

sorry, I hit the unrec by accident. :(

[Hubert Flottz]

78. I blame the SCOTUS

Al Gore wouldn't have had the problems Bush had, IMHO. Our country might still be the real USA.

[NuttyFluffers]

79. Absolutely. Int'l Law Enforcement is the way to go.

Or, to quote one of my favorite video games (which in turn quotes an adage from Imperial China): You don't need a sledgehammer to kill a fly. (or: Don't use a hatchet to knock a fly off a face)

[Enthusiast]

80. But Bush wouldn't have been able

to strut around and act tough. And how could he have gained the status as a 'war president'? We had to have the cowboy shit for the dummies. You know, even if it cost trillions of Dollars.

[reggie the dog]

83. great post, i was a part of that group from the time i signed up here

for years i argued that sending in an "a team" was the way to get bin laden.

[PVnRT]

86. K&R

[gaijinlaw]

87. Don't forget...

vindication for those who opposed torture.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4836784

[Hissyspit]

90. Marcy Wheeler: The Osama Bin Laden Trail Shows Waterboarding Didn't Work

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1022745&mesg_id=1022745

[Exilednight]

92. Agreed, but no one listened to us then and no one will listen to us in the future. n/t

[defendandprotect]

102. Exactly -- that's the point -- and the battle continues here to get DU'ers to

move their BS meters up -- waaaaaay higher!!

I'm amazed at how often we see involved in conversations of how much the

corporate-press lies to the public -- 24/7 -- yet when it comes to something

like 9/11 or war, they presume that they don't lie???

:rofl:

[WatsonT]

93. If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan

do you think Osama would have been hanging out in pakistan, where we are able to freely operate? Or would he be hanging with the Taliban, where we are not able to operate?

I give full respect to our special forces, but they are not invincible or all-seeing. Looking for Osama bin laden in an allied nation with the support of theirs and our military is different than trying to root him out of some hostile nation.

[mod mom]

95. Exactly! rec'd

[CrispyQ]

96. I was surprised to find how few people felt the way I did.

I lost a friend over my comments on the Afghanistan invasion. I said that I thought bombing people who live in 12th century conditions was immoral. I asked, why our superior intelligence community couldn't provide good enough info so we could take out OBL surgically. I'll never forget the look on her face - it was as though she was looking at a monster. She said she was stunned that I would express such anti-American sentiment & what about the 3,000 9/11 victims, etc, etc. It was very chilly between us for a few weeks & then we simply stopped talking to each other. She went pretty right wing after that. A total Bush supporter.


"Afghanistan was NOT a Just War, or an effective use of our Blood & Treasure."

[robinlynne]

97. a small group????? It ought to be the vast majority of DUers at least!

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChiciB1]

98. As Usual... For Me "bvar22" I Agree AND Stand With You! If I Were Going

to be "moderate" about this I would say "to each his own" but for me heavy-handed WAR does far too much damage to not only the military, but oh so many civilian causalities!

We have KILLED too many over many, many years in the name of "patriotism" disguised by WARS, BOMBS and CHEMICALS, all the while pushing an agenda that at many times only made more enemies.

FEAR & RESPECT to me simply aren't the same things. I felt when I was young and still lived at home with my parents that I always "respected" them more when they didn't use "force or fear" to teach me the lessons I needed to learn to become an adult.

I was raised as an Army Brat until I left home at 18, but I was VERY fortunate to have had parents who weren't of a mind that so many military parents were. They taught me that there were times when discipline was needed, but with it also came the understanding that it was done to make ME stop and think about the "bad behavior" I was exhibiting. But it all came with a large dose of LOVE, and with it an explanation. Yes, discipline is needed, but "beatings" were out of the question!!

Therefore, I learned at my father's knee that I am a LIBERAL with a lot of LOVE for my own and others.

JMHO!

[Autumn]

105. K/R

Indeed the truth.

[jwirr]

107. If they had used this method in the beginning so many in all those

countries would still be alive. But to rethugs the only answer to any problem is war. Now let us hope we can get out of the ME sometime soon at least as a military force fighting the people of these countries. I assume we will continue to guard the oil lines.

[Dawgs]

108. It was a lot more that a "small group".

:hi:

[yurbud]

110. yep--but the occupation wasn't about bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the Taliban

if it was really about al Qaeda, we would have grabbed or killed those in the Saudi and Pakistani gov't who supported al Qaeda, or given our evidence of their involvement to the Hague and got them sentenced for war crimes.

When you are attacked by your allies and pretend like someone else did it, it makes some of us wonder if the attack wasn't a pro wrestling move.

[kestrel91316]

113. To the extent that I have at times gotten caught up in the pro-invasion boosterism,

I have to admit being on the wrong side. I still think kicking the Taliban's ass was a noble cause, but I don't like what the whole "war" in Afghanistan has turned into.

[cui bono]

114. Yup. I still believe this whole War on Terra was a way to get us to give up our privacy

and make us live in constant fear and let the "ones who know best" handle it. We should just sit home, scared, and let them handle it.

Ugh.

[Plucketeer]

118. Absolutely!

Our methods to get Osama and company were/are akin to using a lumbering bulldozer to try and run down a rat. :crazy:

[Kurovski]

119. Kick.

I was "nice" to Bush for two weeks, but then i heard the old cry "We need tax cuts now!" and Bush didn'nt contradict them. I knew by then that we had been had.

The law enforcement way worked for Clinton, and it works for the rest of the world that dealt with terrorism for a number of decades before 9/11.

--Previously rec'd.

[amb123]

120. Absolutely! Terrorists are Criminals, not Soldiers.

They must be stopped like criminals, not treated with respect under the Geneva Convention like soldiers.

That's also why terrorists must be tried in civilian courts like criminals. Criminals don't deserve the honor of being tried by military tribunals like soldiers.

[spooked911]

121. IMO the elites wanted a long period of war and more terrorism

these actions were the best way to accomplish that, as was the original act of 9/11

[Eyerish]

122. K&R

[KoKo]

127. K&R! Was wondering where everyone had gone.. Thanks for the post "bvar22".

I remembered it as more than a handful, though.

[Jackpine Radical]

128. I don't think we were that small a group.

Hell, even among my non-DU associates, there was a pretty healthy bunch of antiwar sentiment from the beginning.

[bvar22]

135. I remember a lot of animosity and division over Afghanistan.

The Military Incursion ("Operation Enduring Freedom") in Afghanistan was called a Just WAR and supported by many here,
It also had the support of much of the Democratic Party.
IIRC, those who called for International Law Enforcement ONLY were a distinct minority,
but I'm getting old and have trouble remembering what I did yesterday,
so I could be wrong.
I don't believe the DU archives for those years are available,
but it would be interesting to look at them during that time. (Oct. 2001)


The Iraq War Resolution, essentially giving Bush Free Hand to do whatever he wanted in Iraq,
was signed by most of the Big Name Dems, and had their supporters on DU,
but has far less overall support.

[Honeycombe8]

146. We didn't really "invade" and take hostile occupation of Afghanistan.

That really is a mischaracterization.

We ousted the Taliban from their positions of power, there, since it was being run by Al Qaeda and wouldn't give up the AQ membership. We did that with full cooperation and assistance and permission of the non-Taliban parts of Afghanistan. Afghans are in control of their country, actually, and have held elections (suspect thought they are).

The Talibans were not killed off, unless they engaged in war with our troops. They can't all be killed off, anyway, since they live in little tribes scattered over broad territories in hard to traverse lands.

The whole point was not to invade and take control of Afghanistan. The point was to root out the terrorist camps (that's where lots of the terrorists, incl. the ones who hijacked the planes in the U.S., were trained), and take their ability to train terrorists away, and see to it that they didn't regain control of the country. All because that was the root of the 9/11 attacks.

It was a very different cause than the Iraq War. And the Iraq War was also a distraction from teh main war, which should've been Afghanistan. If they had focused on Afghanistan from the start, it's possible they would've caught OBL before he moved to Pakistan and lined up his sources of help in Pakistan.

[librechik]

149. I so agree n/t