Bob Woodwards new book

I love the Israeli approach.............they hit us, we bomb the living shit out of them, into complete submission if necessary.
I laughed my ass off in the summer of 2007 when Beirut got bombed back to the stone age.

This is going to be the future of course...............you hold the state responsible to keep the nuts in line...........or hell comes to your doorstep and tough the fcukk shit on you.

i like how you ignore gaza and lebanon.....
 
Woodward quotes Petraeus as saying, "You have to recognize also that I don't think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. It's a little bit like Iraq, actually. . . . Yes, there has been enormous progress in Iraq. But there are still horrific attacks in Iraq, and you have to stay vigilant. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives."

war without end

This from Sept 12, 2001

The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now — with somebody — and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.

Hunter S. Thompson on 9/11 Totally Gonzo

:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
 
Nor will invading two countries. This is a war of ideas, and the presence of non-Muslims on the battlefield has diverted a lot of attention away from our internal struggle against heresy and toward the more immediate problem of foreign militaries occupying Muslim lands.

If those countries would stop allowing terrorists to train within their borders, we would have to invade them. But they did, so we invade. Don't like it? Easy answer - don't harbor terrorists. I thought we'd made that real clear.

what terrorists did iraq harbor?
abu nidal
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: blu
If those countries would stop allowing terrorists to train within their borders, we would have to invade them. But they did, so we invade. Don't like it? Easy answer - don't harbor terrorists. I thought we'd made that real clear.
Justify it to yourself in whatever way you need to, CG. By all accounts, the Karzai regime is extremely corrupt and ineffective. No amount of bolstering from NATO is likely to change that after a decade of failure. Over 1,000 US soldiers and 300 billion dollars have been spent on a campaign that has failed to...
  • Kill Usama bin Ladin, the leader of the group that perpetrated the terrorist attacks;
  • Kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the "brains" of al-Qa'idah;
  • Kill Mullah Omar, the leader of the group that you hold guilty by association;
  • Establish an effective government or military.

Three-hundred billion dollars. And many have been brainwashed to think that this money couldn't have been put to better use. That's a lot of money you spent "teaching a lesson" to the Taliban, a group that had no ambitions outside of Afghanistan's borders. Of course, that's less than half of what you've spent on an even more pointless conflict!

the key part that most people don't get. they were even willing to hand bin laden over!
 
On the bright side, with Obama in charge, any terrorist group who chooses to attack us can rest assured that we will shake our fists and use really, really harsh language at them.

In spite of two pointless wars and occupations, that's all you've managed to do to Usama bin Ladin so far, so why complain?

It was really not ever about 9-11. Osama is likely dead and unimportant in any event. What is important to the U.S., however, is control of central asia and projecting it's power so that any emerging superstate, namely China, would think twice about challenging the United States in Central Asia. So in fact from a standpoint of foreign policy the Iraq war was a complete and utter success in that context.

really? because the iraq war was a collosal fuckup that gave a number of other countries (iran, russia, and so on) the balls to openly defy us knowing that we wouldn't be able to do much about it
 

Forum List

Back
Top