Yes and No. I was answering Camel's statement that said if Clinton had hunted down Al Qaida after WTC '93 then we might not be in this shape.

 

My response was that while we have "killed or capture" many Osama and the network of Al Qaida lives and quite frankly I don't see us any closer to Osama's capture now than when Clinton was in office.

 

I just don't think it's as easy as our current hindsight to believe that if Clinton had bombed, invaded and "hunted down" these guys 9/11 might have been prevented. I'm no Clinton fan but I will just have to disagree with that mind set.

 

Do you believe that the Clinton response to a terrorist attack on our soil was responsible and fullfilled the duties of his office?

a. I think the UN should be thrown out of the US, so, I kinda blew this one off.

 

b. If he had used them against us, I'd have no problem erasing Iraq from all the maps.

 

c. I know lots of people who trash talk. I'd still wait until they act upon those threats.

 

d. Iraq attacked Kuwait, and we spanked them. We probably didn't do enough at the time, but that goes back to my a. answer.

 

I think when a country is preparing to harm you, you take precautions and prepare yourself to retaliate 10-100 fold. And you let your enemies know that if they take a swing at you, they'll never get up off the floor. Reagan did that with Libya. Clinton made it known that you can sucker punch us anytime you want. W showed the Taliban that they made a bad decision. I think the Afghanistan retaliation was probably enough for Sadaam. Sadaam was a cruel evil man, not a stupid one.

 

As far as Japan goes, without getting windy, we did too little all through the 30's to contain Japan. Sure we allowed our pilots to join the AVG, but it was too little. We would have been better off allying with China and other Asian countries. But since we didn't, we should have made more of an effort to prepare for war. I don't know how we do that without attacking Japan early in 1941. Even when we guessed at an attack on American soil, we didn't know where it was headed: Alaska or Hawaii? Worst yet, is the suggestion that the administration knew more than it said about a Japanese invasion and its desire to keep it quiet in order to give us a political reason to declare war. If thats true, that may be the most treasonous decision of all.

 

Thank you for stating much of what I feel in a better way than I can.

 

One point to LN's statement about the Kurds and gas. I hear this a lot from people and see where this point is coming from. They say, "Hussein proved he would use them on his own people." But that is not entirely true. He used them on Iraqi's but they were Kurds. Kurds were not Hussen's people. We still tend to hold to geographic lines and borders as definition of "our people." The Middle East cares more about (for lack of a better descriptions), Tribes and Factions of race. I doubt that Hussein considered the Kurds as anymore "his people" than Hitler did a Jewish settlement. That's not diminishing the atrocity but realize that while he would gas the Kurds, that does not mean he would gas anybody, let alone his "own people."

Iraq attacked Kuwait, and we spanked them. We probably didn't do enough at the time

Isn't the reason we didn't overthrow Saddam then the fact that President George H.W. Bush didn't want to get our military "bogged down" in Iraq for a period of several years?

 

Sounds like his Pentagon and intelligence people had a lot of foresight ...

As far as Japan goes, without getting windy, we did too little all through the 30's to contain Japan. Sure we allowed our pilots to join the AVG, but it was too little. We would have been better off allying with China and other Asian countries. But since we didn't, we should have made more of an effort to prepare for war. I don't know how we do that without attacking Japan early in 1941.

Let's please drop the Iraq War comparisons to Pearl Harbor and World War II ... they are nothing alike.

 

Japan attacked us. Iraq didn't ... plain and simple.

Do you believe that the Clinton response to a terrorist attack on our soil was responsible and fullfilled the duties of his office?

 

I'd have to do some digging but I believe that they arrested the perpetrators and those who carried out the attack (at least the ones they could get their hands on). In 1993 I'm not sure we understood how advanced and far flung the Al Qaida network was. I think it was more in the middle 90's when we began to see that.

 

So in answer to your question, at the time yes.

I'd have to do some digging but I believe that they arrested the perpetrators and those who carried out the attack (at least the ones they could get their hands on). In 1993 I'm not sure we understood how advanced and far flung the Al Qaida network was. I think it was more in the middle 90's when we began to see that.

 

So in answer to your question, at the time yes.

 

Isn't there some ledendary story of Oliver North warning of Osama bin Laden in the 80's?

 

Interesting to note that there may be a BIG difference in not understanding how advanced Al Qauida was and not attributing any importance to an understanding of how advanced it was.

Isn't there some ledendary story of Oliver North warning of Osama bin Laden in the 80's?

No ... that was one of those e-mail fabrications. North warned of Abu Nidal, not Osama bin Laden?

I'd have to do some digging but I believe that they arrested the perpetrators and those who carried out the attack (at least the ones they could get their hands on). In 1993 I'm not sure we understood how advanced and far flung the Al Qaida network was. I think it was more in the middle 90's when we began to see that.

 

So in answer to your question, at the time yes.

 

My concern with the response is that we did not believe the threat until it slapped us in the face. Osama Bin Laden was refered to during Congressional hearings as early as the 80's by Oliver North as the most dangerous man in the world. I feel as though a plot that planted a bomb in the basement of the WTC with barely not enought explosive to bring the building down should have been warning sign enough. Instead, their group was looked at as being inept by those responsible for nuetralizing the threat.

My concern with the response is that we did not believe the threat until it slapped us in the face. Osama Bin Laden was refered to during Congressional hearings as early as the 80's by Oliver North as the most dangerous man in the world.

Ah, now we see where you're getting your information ...

 

Next time, check something credible.

OIiver Twisted

Isn't the reason we didn't overthrow Saddam then the fact that President George H.W. Bush didn't want to get our military "bogged down" in Iraq for a period of several years?

 

Sounds like his Pentagon and intelligence people had a lot of foresight ...

Let's please drop the Iraq War comparisons to Pearl Harbor and World War II ... they are nothing alike.

 

Japan attacked us. Iraq didn't ... plain and simple.

Dude, can I call you Dude? I was against the invasion. Go attack someone else!

 

When I say we didn't go far enough in Iraq the first time, I don't necessarily mean deposing Sadaam. I mean equal and greater destruction than the Iraqis did to Kuwait. Destroy every oil field in the country. Destroy all of their infrastructure. Give them something to do besides build WMDs or even rebuild their military. And take away their revenue source for military adventures and terrorism.

 

The whole reason Japan came up was LN's comparison in what we didn't do before December 1941 to my assertion that we should not invade unless we or a friend is attacked. I think that is a reasonable point that LN made and is valid to this whole argument.

Ah, now we see where you're getting your information ...

 

Next time, check something credible.

 

Whoa westsider. I have personally seen an interview where North told the story out of his own mouth. He also said he feared for his life and his families life because they were personally threatened by Bin Laden.

Whoa westsider. I have personally seen an interview where North told the story out of his own mouth. He also said he feared for his life and his families life because they were personally threatened by Bin Laden.

See the above link ...

Whoa westsider. I have personally seen an interview where North told the story out of his own mouth. He also said he feared for his life and his families life because they were personally threatened by Bin Laden.

 

Are you certain? Because here is the fact:

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

 

He mentioned Abu Nidal, NOT Osama.

Are you certain? Because here is the fact:

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

 

He mentioned Abu Nidal, NOT Osama.

 

I suppose that I am wrong, but I was sure that I had seen an interview, and not read about it on an internet sight. But, when your wrong, your wrong.

I suppose that I am wrong, but I was sure that I had seen an interview, and not read about it on an internet sight. But, when your wrong, your wrong.

 

You weren't the original person who started the email were you?:sssh::lol: