- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 72,233
- Reaction score
- 44,007
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Bill Clinton: "I could have killed" Osama bin Laden.
Why is Clinton speaking out now?
Why is Clinton speaking out now?
Why is Clinton speaking out now?
Actually sending tanks into a compound and dumping flammable gas caused the inferno. The video and investigation also very clearly showed that FBI agents fire at each other during their breach. However...let's talk about 'concern'. If you were 'concerned' would you arrest the individual when he was out jogging by himself as he did daily as a matter of routine, or would you lay seige to a compound full of women and children?
Concern...it's very relative, isn't it? You will excuse barbecuing 80 women and children to catch a guy accused of a bunch of things but find it distasteful to launch an attack on a guy known to cause thousands of deaths.
Killing or imprisoning their leaders doesn't discourage this organization, just increases popular sympathy, which gives them a wider pool to recruit from, more access to resources, and expands their operating fields and martial capability.
In some respects Al-Qaeda is stronger post-9/11 thanks to American efforts to destroy them on the ground. However, our ability to neutralize terrorist attacks has gotten better.
Which is the correct way to fight terrorists: take the teeth out of their ability to terrorize.
Dishonest hyperbole is more at home at places like The Daily Kos.
We had weapons tech back then that could have easily taken out Bin Laden without leveling a entire village.
He's not. He said that the day before 9/11.
That attack framed Bush's presidency. As he told the author of a book in his interest while he was yet governor of Texas. To be a great president, you must be a war time president..................my father got it wrong in Iraq, if I get the chance to go in, I'll go all the way to Baghdad and take Saddam out.......!
I am shocked you dont actually believe that. After all...Bush...LOL Just like the Govt. set the charges that blew up the World Trade Center, right?
He's not. He said that the day before 9/11.
So leaving Alqeada alone before 911 was more successful? Drone attacks deny the terrorist American targets. It was our 200,000 "targets" in Iraq that drove the biggest increase in recruits in Alqeada history.
You cant destroy the enemy with drones alone.
I am shocked you dont actually believe that. After all...Bush...
Facts are what they are. Now...about that 'concern'. Do you arrest the guy when he is jogging alone, or do you broadcast your arrest, lay siege, and end up killing 80 women and children? Cuz...the Clinton JD...they did that second one.
You can't destroy terrorists PERIOD, there are new ones born every minute. But you an disrupt their chain of command and give them no place to hide with drones. Drones are ideally suited to combat the type of warfare that terrorists have adopted.
Well, he sure came through on that one. His dad was only allowed to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait, he couldn't go get him in Baghdad. GW made sure that he got rid of him, and his rancid sons. Good riddance.
Here is a photo of Kandahar:
View attachment 67170511
Does anyone honestly think he would have to destroy the whole city if he knew where OBL was?
How many people that defend Clintons decision to not risk hurting civilians also defend Obama's decision to use drones to take out possible terror targets?
Bush also "got rid of" 5000 Americans and maimed 20,000 in his personal quest. Do you say the same for them?
Whoa! I didn't hear about that! How did he kill all those people? A nuke?
What is the kill rate of targets to civilians even using drones?The picture shows a very densely populated city. I can understand why former Pres. Clinton was concerned about collateral damage. However, Kandahar is much too big to have been destroyed by a conventional missile strike. He'd have had to nuke the place Okinawa/Hiroshima-style to take out the entire city. That part of his statement I'd say was quite a bit far-fetched, but the rest I think warranted valid concern.
You're trying to use widespread damage such as that illustrated in the above picture to make your point concerning the use of drone strikes. I don't think the two can be equated on the same destructive scale, i.e., high-yield warhead -vs- laser-guided missile designed for surgical strikes. However, from the standpoint of possibly killing innocent civilians, that does concern me. Nonetheless, I've continued to weigh my support for the authorization of drone strikes to destroy our enemies -vs- the potential lose of life to American/allied combat troops on the battlefield. In so doing, my conscious is usually very clear...most of the time.
*Sidenote: And then there's the cost associated with placing combat troops in theater -vs- "send in the drones". I don't think there's any question which is cheaper.
Actually the feds were there to arrest Koresh. If they had arrested him alone, unarmed, while out jogging, it all would have gone much more smoothly, dont you think? Cuz...80 women and children on US soil...is that 'cautious'?Hmm. the Feds had warrants to search the compound. They were looking for stockpiles of weapons including the murder weapons, do you think Koresh was carrying them while he jogged? What DO you like about the rule of law? It appears that you don't want any part of it.
Obama has killed 2400 civilians, half of which are women and children and you celebrate that.Bush also "got rid of" 5000 Americans and maimed 20,000 in his personal quest. Do you say the same for them?
That maniac Koresh set that fire himself. He also shot and killed Federal officers.
Hmmmm... while that first part is true, that second part doesn't seem to differentiate him from bin Laden as much as you think.
Bet he's not bragging about that right now?
I don't think any of these Presidents mean to make mistakes, and there's no way of anticipating how crazy these terrorists are going to be.
Spreading democracy is really a catch phrase for expanding capitalism, and it's not a cure all for every nation.