Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

  1. #11
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    It is highly unlikely that al-Qa'ida will be able to obtain nuclear materials. You just can't carry it in your pocket. Not to mention that al-Qa'ida has no friends in any state that has access to nuclear materials.

    Since the beginning of the American-Taliban war in 2001, the striking capability of al-Qa'ida took a nose dive. Before they were capable of attacking to seemingly impenetrable consulates in Africa, they were able to operate freely in America, and they were able to attack the USS Cole all among other things.

    The next terrorist attack will not be a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Nigeria, Yemen, or even the United Kingdom or Jamaica, but they will be 100% American. Most experts agree with this notion.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  2. #12
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:34 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,274
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    Obama crazines- To purposely deploy additional troops on the ground floor of the Afghan mountains for reelection purposes. To send the US troops through the meat grinder with ridiculously added new rules of engagement in the same Soviet defeated environment.

    We need to either fight to win or pack it up and go the f' home.
    I recommend reading general McChrystal's report to Obama. You will learn where those rules of engagement came from. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...ted_092109.pdf

    For some reason I am not able to copy from the document, but go to page 22 to start. Further reading, and that I can copy paste from: New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal | NowPublic News Coverage

    The new rules, issued by General McChrystal (ISAF Commander) will prevent troops from shooting at theTaliban, if there is a risk of civilian casualties. The tactical directive highlights that this is the case even if it means to allow the enemy to escape.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #13
    Advisor PonyBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    06-24-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    587

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    O is that why? Because last I heard it was everyone in the top military brass saying we had lost the initiative in Afghanistan and needed the extra troops to regain it. And last I checked we had done that with offensives in Marjah and another coming this June in Kandahar. And last I checked the new ROEs were put in place by GEN McCrystal not Obama, and last I checked they were working.

    Senate Session - C-SPAN Video Library

    McChrystal's plan for Afghanistan war remains largely intact - washingtonpost.com

    Now I'm assuming you have some sort of evidence for your claim that Obama is doing this entirely for re-election purposes? Please fill me in on whatever source you have other than your own ass.

    So much for supporting the troops I guess, I'm assuming you would say that you do support them, but think how much would a troop feel supported if you told him the whole reason he was there was to get Obama re-elected? Sounds suspiciously like the whole "Bush only went into Iraq for support/oil/money/whatever" theories I'm sure you hate so much.
    Look, I have family on the front line Infantry in Afghan. Did you read the bottom of my post? "We need to either fight to win or pack it up and go the f' home" This is the general opinion amongst the US Infantry soldiers who are the ones that actually do the dying. Ever notice when an embedded reporter ask soldiers how the war is going it's usually a rear echelon personal? We cant win Afghanistan on the ground floor of those mountains. We need to scale way back on troops and deploy solid intel.

    Obama's pull out date is set right before the 2012 reelection. And why would he piddle around with a Afghan war when everyone knows it's not winnable under his strategy?

    And as far as McCrystal goes i cant believe this f' head even has a job. McChrystal is the one that tried to cover up the Pat Tilman death.(and got busted red handed)

    ROE "is working"? Are you being sarcastic?
    Last edited by PonyBoy; 04-12-10 at 01:21 AM.
    'In Hoc Signo Vinces'

  4. #14
    Advisor PonyBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    06-24-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    587

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I recommend reading general McChrystal's report to Obama. You will learn where those rules of engagement came from. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...ted_092109.pdf

    For some reason I am not able to copy from the document, but go to page 22 to start. Further reading, and that I can copy paste from: New Rules of Engagement issued to NATO Forces by Gen McChrystal | NowPublic News Coverage
    Ya might wanna read McChrystals background before doin anything.
    'In Hoc Signo Vinces'

  5. #15
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:34 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,274
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    Ya might wanna read McChrystals background before doin anything.
    I have. He has been remarkable successful during the course of his career. The Tilman thing has nothing to do with how well he can lead the forces in Afghanistan.

    You also need to know that the soldiers on the ground have too narrow a focus to effectively judge how well the war is going. They are not in a position to step back and see the overall strategic situation. Further, troops bitch, it is what they do.

    Whether McChrystral's strategy will work or not, no one knows for sure. But Afghanistan is very much being fought to win.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    Look, I have family on the front line Infantry in Afghan. Did you read the bottom of my post? "We need to either fight to win or pack it up and go the f' home" This is the general opinion amongst the US Infantry soldiers who are the ones that actually do the dying. Ever notice when an embedded reporter ask soldiers how the war is going it's usually a rear echelon personal? We cant win Afghanistan on the ground floor of those mountains. We need to scale way back on troops and deploy solid intel.

    Obama's pull out date is set right before the 2012 reelection. And why would he piddle around with a Afghan war when everyone knows it's not winnable under his strategy?

    And as far as McCrystal goes i cant believe this f' head even has a job. McChrystal is the one that tried to cover up the Pat Tilman death.(and got busted red handed)

    ROE "is working"? Are you being sarcastic?
    I agree the pullout date that was set a few months ago is ridiculous, there is no strategy that can win the war in that short amount of time and our strategy certainly won't. Personally I don't think that date will see the last troops out or the beginning of their withdraw, and the Obama Administration hasn't said a pep about that date in a long time either. But ya if they really plan to stick to that date I wouldn't think any reasonable person making that choice is looking towards victory as an outcome.

    However I believe the strategy focusing on the cities and major population centers is sound, Afghan is too big and too rugged of a country to totally occupy 100%. Occupation and fighting insurgencies is entirely about winning the hearts and minds of the people, part of that is the extreme regard for civilian life even at times at the cost or greater risk to our own troops. Our war-aim is to deny a place of safety to the Taliban and more importantly groups like AQ where they could plan and prepare for attacks against the US, however the truly dangerous ones cannot be bargained with and therefore must be killed. Since we do not plan on staying in Afghanistan forever, we need the natives to be strong enough and like democracy enough, or at least some other form of gov't and organization which doesn't allow the Taliban or like minded groups to take over. This way when they are strong enough, we can leave, leaving them their sovereignty and ensuring our security knowing the Afghans are keeping them at bay.

    By focusing on the major population centers we are building and securing the kind of country and gov't which will not allow these radicals to have shelter or take over. Either through force or by providing freedom and opportunity for many of these young men their radical movement will be made ineffective. The major population centers hold the majority of the citizenry and if they are united under an effective gov't and system they can stand against the radicals and do things like go into the mountains where we simply to do not have the troop numbers to do both. Plus by holding these cities we deny them major logistics hubs, forcing them to operate in the mountains where the terrain, even poorer infrastructure, and lack of population make it harder to operate. For example without controlling the lower lands and cities, getting food just became that much harder, as well as moving military supplies by pack or mule instead of road.

    Now this strategy is fairly new but it has seen success, especially in Marjah where many news stories report that Afghan are glad the Americans have arrived but are worried about lending their support for fear that they will leave like in the past when we would chase the Taliban all over Afghanistan. When these people and people elsewhere believe and know we and the ANA are there to stay they will support us and Afghanis have never enjoyed the Taliban.

    BBC News - First steps for stability in Marjah?

    I think the new strategy is worth continuing, to give it enough time to fully be tested and the results measured, and has a reasonable chance at success. At the very least its true that our past strategies have not been successful, and where in many ways what you are advocating for.

    Anyway thats my opinion

  7. #17
    Advisor PonyBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    06-24-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    587

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I have. He has been remarkable successful during the course of his career. The Tilman thing has nothing to do with how well he can lead the forces in Afghanistan.

    You also need to know that the soldiers on the ground have too narrow a focus to effectively judge how well the war is going. They are not in a position to step back and see the overall strategic situation. Further, troops bitch, it is what they do.

    Whether McChrystral's strategy will work or not, no one knows for sure. But Afghanistan is very much being fought to win.
    Troops bitch huh? Redress, You should probably thoroughly inform yourself on the 10 year long Afghan/Soviet war before you form an opinion. These ROE's are laughable. I also can tell you're very pro Obama and anything he does wrong you're going to make it sound "right". You guys are really reaching on Obamas success....which is microscopic.

    Remember Obamas last words before he got elected don't ya?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obamas Campaign Promise
    'In Hoc Signo Vinces'

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    Troops bitch huh? Redress, You should probably thoroughly inform yourself on the 10 year long Afghan/Soviet war before you form an opinion. These ROE's are laughable. I also can tell you're very pro Obama and anything he does wrong you're going to make it sound "right". You guys are really reaching on Obamas success....which is microscopic.
    Speaking of the Soviet-Afghan war, the Soviets employed a "total kill" strategy and it never helped them, they spent all their time chasing insurgents and never though twice about the people.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    It is highly unlikely that al-Qa'ida will be able to obtain nuclear materials. You just can't carry it in your pocket. Not to mention that al-Qa'ida has no friends in any state that has access to nuclear materials.

    Since the beginning of the American-Taliban war in 2001, the striking capability of al-Qa'ida took a nose dive. Before they were capable of attacking to seemingly impenetrable consulates in Africa, they were able to operate freely in America, and they were able to attack the USS Cole all among other things.

    The next terrorist attack will not be a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Nigeria, Yemen, or even the United Kingdom or Jamaica, but they will be 100% American. Most experts agree with this notion.

    Sorry for totally taking this topic off topic, but you actually can carry a dangerous amount of nuclear material in a very small container. And many states, such as Russia, do not have total accountability for their nuclear weapons. It is theoretically possible that one of these missing devices could end up in the hands of a terrorist, which is why Obama has been so keen on nuclear weapons. We need to get an accurate and 100% count of these weapons, which is impossible but should be goal and to do that we need to work with their owns, ie the Russians.

  10. #20
    Advisor PonyBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    06-24-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    587

    Re: Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Speaking of the Soviet-Afghan war, the Soviets employed a "total kill" strategy and it never helped them, they spent all their time chasing insurgents and never though twice about the people.
    Exactly.

    But then again, the Soviets didn't have the more advanced arsenal of bombs we have today.

    Those Aghans have no interest in cooperating with the US. They're just telling us what we wanna hear. Look at the "democratic Afghan government" we built and put in power. The corruption is so bad and rotten to the core that they're fearing it might have lost us the war already.

    America has been taken for a ride.
    'In Hoc Signo Vinces'

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •