Which candidate do you think Osama would vote for?

[wade]

:huh:

Foiled by their own inability to place them correctly before they were actually caught?

Foiled by their own incompetence!

Foiled because they were caught well before they could place the explosives. Why is it that when intel and counter-terrorist units succeed in a Democrats term it's incompetance of the terrorists, but when the terrorists succeed in the term of a Republican you then blame the previous administration?

9-11 was the fault and responsibility of the Bush Admininstration. If it had happened in the first two, or even three months of the Bush Administration, it might be legit to point at the Clinton Admininstration. But it happened more than 6 months into Bush's term - and during that 6 months Bush had spent something like 43% of his time on vacation!

And so how is Bush key to this delusion?

I didn't say he was. However, Bush has done the things that OBL was hoping he would, and this is key to OBL's desires.

Who knows? I just don't agree he would vote for the man who seems to have killed him, scattered his organization, cut off his funds, and accelerated Western ideas among the Arab nations.

So explain why OBL is voting Bush, if he's

A: Supposed to be dead.

B: Bush may have killed him or at least kept him from living.

It's a hypothetical question, so his possibly being dead is not an issue.

As for Bush having killed him, I believe he was already dying before Bush ever took office. Look at a photo history of OBL and it is clear to see he looks sick in the later photos and it came on pretty fast. I suspect he suffered from some kind of liver ailment.

As for having "scattered his (OBL's) organization", well that is what we are being told. But the evidence is that Al-Queda is still well organized, and now many times larger than it was prior to this war on terrorism. Where it used to number in the hundreds, it now numbers in the thousands, perhaps even more than 10 thousand. As for funding - again we really don't know what their funding levels are, but they appear to have enough to conduct operations.

 

[dmp]

I know all about Stingers; used to be on a Stinger team when I was a young pup. .

They had stingers back then???

::::

<- 5 years as 16/14S (STINGER/AVENGER)

While it is possible under certain circumstances to engage a ground target with a Stinger, the chances of effectively engaging same are so low as to be useless. I am not saying the introduction of Stingers into that theater of war had no impact, it did. It was not the ONLY factor however.

I contend indroducing the system to the losing side single-handedly made the difference.

 

[dmp]

As for Bush having killed him, I believe he was already dying before Bush ever took office.

LOL! that's hillarious... "So what IF Bush killed him, he was going to die eventually anyway!!"

wow...

 

[CSM]

First for Wade: the bomb went off (see my post earlier in this thread; a few killed and over 1000 wounded; 30 foot crater) so it wasn't "foiled" in my opinion.

Second for =d=: Yes they had Stingers back then. We had to wind a rubber band to shoot em though. I am going to do a bit of research to consolidate my position that the Stingers alone were not responsible for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and get back to you. Dont have time right now.

 

[5stringJeff]

Radar isn't a weapons system.

It was used as a defense mechanism... may not be a weapons system in the strictest definition of the word, but it certainly did change the tide of WWII.

And without Radar, your stingers would be worthless...

 

[CSM]

It was used as a defense mechanism... may not be a weapons system in the strictest definition of the word, but it certainly did change the tide of WWII.

And without Radar, your stingers would be worthless...

Actually, Stingers were originally heat seekers....different technology altogether.

 

[dmp]

And without Radar, your stingers would be worthless...

Actually, Stingers were originally heat seekers....different technology altogether.

Owned!


New stingers are IR + UV

 

[5stringJeff]

Fine... (stupid ADA people...)

My original point from post #65 still stands.

 

[CSM]

Fine... (stupid ADA people...)

My original point from post #65 still stands.

HEY did we call you stupid just because you didn't know what a Stinger is???? NO WE DIDN"T; we just thought it! (just kidding)

I agree with your original point, by the way (see my previous post in this thread about systems of systems)

 

[5stringJeff]

HEY did we call you stupid just because you didn't know what a Stinger is???? NO WE DIDN"T; we just thought it! (just kidding)

I agree with your original point, by the way (see my previous post in this thread about systems of systems)

Thanks!

Just kidding about the ADA comment. I was an Ordnance officer myself. Just a little inter-branch humor there!

 

[dmp]

Fine... (stupid ADA people...)

My original point from post #65 still stands.

Alcoholics Defending America..


but your point, while valid, does not meet the definition of what was asked/stated:

"Name another weapon system/weapon that, when introduced, changed the entire tide of a war"

I wasn't calling for 'Name a 'technology'...


Who loves you?

 

[5stringJeff]

Who loves you?

Hey, look what I found in my pocket! :finger:

 

[dmp]

Hey, look what I found in my pocket! :finger:

I laughed out loud.


Nice!

 

[CSM]

Alcoholics Defending America..


but your point, while valid, does not meet the definition of what was asked/stated:

"Name another weapon system/weapon that, when introduced, changed the entire tide of a war"

I wasn't calling for 'Name a 'technology'...


Who loves you?

Still say the longbow in the hands of English archers...

 

[CSM]

Thanks!

Just kidding about the ADA comment. I was an Ordnance officer myself. Just a little inter-branch humor there!

YOU WERE AN OFFICER???? Well that just explains everything!

 

[dmp]

Still say the longbow in the hands of English archers...

Was that the weapon, or a change in doctrine?

 

[CSM]

Was that the weapon, or a change in doctrine?

Aw cmon now. The longbow was a weapon; brought over from England to fight the French. Kicked some serious French butt in a war which had gone on for some time and was heading for a draw after many many years. Kind of put and end to the armored knight ruling the battlefield too.

 

[wade]

It was used as a defense mechanism... may not be a weapons system in the strictest definition of the word, but it certainly did change the tide of WWII.

And without Radar, your stingers would be worthless...

Radar is a weapons system. Even in WWII radar aimed guns, and thus radar is a weapons system.

 

[dmp]

Aw cmon now. The longbow was a weapon; brought over from England to fight the French. Kicked some serious French butt in a war which had gone on for some time and was heading for a draw after many many years. Kind of put and end to the armored knight ruling the battlefield too.

I know it was a weapon; I'm asking was the 'weapon' brought over while the english were losing; the English didn't have the weapon. Then, did the use of that weapon change the tide. My doctrine question was asking 'did the english already HAVE the longbow, however, just changed the way they employed the weapon on the battlefield?'

 

[dmp]

Radar is a weapons system. Even in WWII radar aimed guns, and thus radar is a weapons system.

Not even close.