Hillary Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

When the first one does finally go off it will no doubt be in Washington D.C. and many Innocent people will be killed along with those in the Obama administration and Government.

I hope a contingency has been worked out to have someone in charge after such an attack.

I don't quite understand the use of the term terrorists in the story because I thought these were going to be "man-caused" disasters according to Homeland Secretary Janet baby.

Well with the lackadaisical attitude Obama has about terrorists and how he bows to those who support them in the middle east it's only a matter of tiime before Hillary will be proved right.

I wonder if the terrorists will make sure Obama is out of town when they set one off. They wouldn't want to hurt him.

Is Obama sympathetic to them or just pathetic?

From The Times April 12, 2010

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7094876.ece
Terrorists including al-Qaeda pose a serious threat to world security as they attempt to obtain atomic weapons material, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, declared on the eve of a global summit in Washington to prevent a nuclear terror attack.

President Obama will call on the leaders of 47 nations today — the biggest gathering of heads of state by a US leader since the founding of the UN in 1945 — to introduce tougher safeguards to prevent nuclear material ending up in the hands of terrorists. As far back as 1998, Osama bin Laden stated that it was his Islamic duty to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction.

During the two-day Nuclear Security Summit, Mr Obama will try to convince representatives, including David Miliband. who is standing in for Gordon Brown, that the dangers of loosely guarded atomic material are so grave that a global agreement is needed to stop al-Qaeda going nuclear.

Click to expand...

Can we have a link to the article that has your paranoia in fine form?

Doesn't everyone fear a nuclear attack? Why is breaking news?

Would like to "enlighen" us as to which specifically are those attitudes of POTUS Obama that are " lackadaisical " in "attitude " " about terrorists " ?

Must be the attitude about going after then in Afghanistan after Bussh II and Chicken HAWK Chenney abandoned the pursuit of OBAMA AND THE TRRORISTS.

Until the last month Obama has been the great appeaser to the Islamic Cuit Nations and he is only now faking and interest in Afghanistan because he is in trouble politically he for his Socialist agenda. Obama will seem to be a centrist ubtil after the Nov. elections.

Onec the elections have past Obama will either see it's futile to continue his lying about his positions and start for once doing the right things or pull pot all the stops and try to force his Socialist/Marxist policies on us because he will know he's a one term loser and there's no more reason to hide the truth with more massive lies.

Councilman said:

Until the last month Obama has been the great appeaser to the Islamic Cuit Nations and he is only now faking and interest in Afghanistan because he is in trouble politically he for his Socialist agenda. Obama will seem to be a centrist ubtil after the Nov. elections.

Onec the elections have past Obama will either see it's futile to continue his lying about his positions and start for once doing the right things or pull pot all the stops and try to force his Socialist/Marxist policies on us because he will know he's a one term loser and there's no more reason to hide the truth with more massive lies.

Click to expand...

LOL, yes because socialism and marxism are completely the same and dont have disagreements in philosophy.

On a serious note: Obama is bringing nuclear NPT to the front line of foreign policy. Clinton makes a statement that she fears Al Qaeda might be able to get one, and we have people in this thread talking the doomsday talk

Councilman said:

Well with the lackadaisical attitude Obama has about terrorists and how he bows to those who support them in the middle east it's only a matter of tiime before Hillary will be proved right.

I wonder if the terrorists will make sure Obama is out of town when they set one off. They wouldn't want to hurt him.

Is Obama sympathetic to them or just pathetic?

Click to expand...

Which ones would that be? Surely not the Taliban after the 30,000 troop increase and the continuation of every Bush policy in the Middle East? Show me an example of this craziness.

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.

Councilman said:

Until the last month Obama has been the great appeaser to the Islamic Cuit Nations and he is only now faking and interest in Afghanistan because he is in trouble politically he for his Socialist agenda. Obama will seem to be a centrist ubtil after the Nov. elections.

Onec the elections have past Obama will either see it's futile to continue his lying about his positions and start for once doing the right things or pull pot all the stops and try to force his Socialist/Marxist policies on us because he will know he's a one term loser and there's no more reason to hide the truth with more massive lies.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have had this good a laugh in weeks. Thanks, that was an incredible parody.

PonyBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

PonyBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I recommend reading general McChrystal's report to Obama. You will learn where those rules of engagement came from. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_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.

Click to expand...

Wiseone said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Redress said:

I recommend reading general McChrystal's report to Obama. You will learn where those rules of engagement came from. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_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

Click to expand...

Ya might wanna read McChrystals background before doin anything.

PonyBoy said:

Ya might wanna read McChrystals background before doin anything.

Click to expand...

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.

PonyBoy said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

PonyBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Arch Enemy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wiseone said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

PonyBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes they do. I was one, I know.

The ROEs are necessary because there are more goals in Afghanistan than just destroying men. Again, feel free to read McChrystal's report, he spends some time on that.

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

Click to expand...

You are aware that Afghanistan is not Iraq, correct?

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Defense_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf

As Obama removes our combat brigades from Iraq, he will send at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent.

Click to expand...

He has significantly exceeded that amount that he promised to send and that he campaigned on.

PonyBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

You can't occupy a country with bombs nor always know to drop them in terrain like Afghanistan.

But otherwise I totally agree. I'm not sure what you mean by "those Afghans" I'm assuming you mean the Taliban but in many cases the Karzi government too certainly. The corruption is terrible right now but I'm honestly not too confident on any solution to that problem, perhaps in hindsight we pushed self-governance way too fast but thats hindsight. I think the best we can do now is continue to make Afghanistan better and give more and more people faith and an interest in their government, and hopefully democracy will win through and fix it, or at least make it an "acceptable level" of corruption.

But "hope" is hardly a strategy, diplomatic action and some "harder soft power" needs to be applied to the Afghan government.

Redress said:

Yes they do. I was one, I know.

The ROEs are necessary because there are more goals in Afghanistan than just destroying men. Again, feel free to read McChrystal's report, he spends some time on that.



You are aware that Afghanistan is not Iraq, correct?

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Defense_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf



He has significantly exceeded that amount that he promised to send and that he campaigned on.

Click to expand...

This is the war game we're playing right now, and it appears it wont be changing until reelection time.

We are going to sacrifice at least another 2,000 troops for the sake of "winning hearts and minds" in Afghanistan. Why are we fighting this war half halfheartedly when Obama and the Pentagon both knows this strategy will never work? We're sacrificing soldiers for hearts and minds and a reelection in 2012. This is disturbingly obvious. You're a smart woman, and i know you can see this as well.

Wiseone said:

You can't occupy a country with bombs nor always know to drop them in terrain like Afghanistan.

But otherwise I totally agree. I'm not sure what you mean by "those Afghans" I'm assuming you mean the Taliban but in many cases the Karzi government too certainly. The corruption is terrible right now but I'm honestly not too confident on any solution to that problem, perhaps in hindsight we pushed self-governance way too fast but thats hindsight. I think the best we can do now is continue to make Afghanistan better and give more and more people faith and an interest in their government, and hopefully democracy will win through and fix it, or at least make it an "acceptable level" of corruption.

But "hope" is hardly a strategy, diplomatic action and some "harder soft power" needs to be applied to the Afghan government.

Click to expand...

I can honestly say that I'm not even sure what our original goal was in Afghanistan in the first place...

PonyBoy said:

This is the war game we're playing right now, and it appears it wont be changing until reelection time.

We are going to sacrifice at least another 2,000 troops for the sake of "winning hearts and minds" in Afghanistan. Why are we fighting this war half halfheartedly when Obama and the Pentagon both knows this strategy will never work? We're sacrificing soldiers for hearts and minds and a reelection in 2012. This is disturbingly obvious. You're a smart woman, and i know you can see this as well.

Click to expand...

Not to be cynical but it is a troop's job to place his life on the line for the mission and operate with the constraints of that mission. If winning hearts and minds is what it takes to win the war, then its a step along the way and worthy of troop's lives.

Also again we aren't fighting this war halfheartedly, 2009 and 2010 have seen the largest amounts of troops since 2001 and the most offensive operations since the fall of the Taliban. Regardless of whether you agree with the strategy we are fighting this war harder than ever. And regardless of whether you think its for "other reasons" we are fighting this war harder than ever.

What is your alternative strategy?