| Jul 4 @ 5:41 PM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!!
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
...The left is more than responsible for the energy shortages of today by fighting any nuclear, any further off shore drilling for oil, any new refineries, etc., After six years of a rubber-stamping Republican-led Congress under Shrub, that argument is pretty pallid. They could have voted in any damned programs they wanted, including drilling in ANWR.
Again, if all the freakin' financial resources had been poured into research for alternative energy sources instead of being dead-set on chasing the last reserves of nonrenewable resources when it was well and truly recognized they were finite and nonrenewable and that was going to be a problem, if we had truly looked ahead and said "Even nuclear will run out, we need to find something that won't," we would have been at least 30 years closer to a solution. And in light of that, we should abandon all or utilization programs or searches for nonrenewable energy in favor of finding sustainable renewable energy sources, so that we don't turn around and run into the same damn wall in another 25 or 50 years. The key here is not to look to nuclear as "the next oil," but to move past even that. Wasting time and energy on nuclear power plants that can probably be made obsolete within a generation of when they are built (if research directives are properly accorded) is foolishness when financial resources are as limited as they are. It should ALL be directed to energy independence by utilization of renewable resources. And I don't care if in the spirit of "every little bit helps" that means a bicycle-sized generator on every water faucet in the country. We have GOT to recognize the futility of building an infrastructure around nonrenewable fuels.
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 4 @ 7:10 PM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!! |
|
SensualGemini
Posts: 3,514
|
Knight: And again, you reveal complete and utter ignorance of the realities of the situation. You fail to substantiate your assertion that the US Special Forces troops pulled out for redeployment were replaced by Special Forces units from other UN countries, and even if they were, it doesn't change the fact that they were pulled out to the detriment of the mission objective in order to pursue this administration's Middle East agenda. They were not withdrawn for any other reason, and any additional troops from any other country should have been to support the overall UN mission of finding and eradicating the leaders of Al Queda.
...What was their mission Knight?
...The confusion "appears" to be that there are actually two "missions" going on in Afghanistan, with different "people" for different parts of a mission.
You don't expect to see a world renowned chef washing dishes, as it is a waste of talent.
...The first, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in October, 2001, included 18,000 American troops and 2,000 "other" troops, and is neither NATO, nor a UN endeavor, but by US and "friends," including Afghans, to remove the Taliban from power and destroy as many Al-Qaeda as possible, as they are worldwide, including right here on US soil. While in the process, also capture Osama Bin Laden, who may very well be dead.
Note: JSOH and other SF forces were in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc., way before OEF's mission began and made public. Their job is specific and not to be misconstrued with clean up..
...The second, which runs parallel with OEF, is the NATO operation International Security Assistance Force, which began in 2002 to stabilize Afghanistan and is comprised of some 47,000 troops of which about 17,000 are US troops, bringing the total to around 35,000 in 2002.
...Once the majority of targets were identified and destroyed, yes, many of the SF troops were redeployed to Iraq and elsewhere by their forte' of expertise, which is not "clean up" duty.
...Specifically, one particular entity answers only to the President and Secretary of Defense, whereas Rumsfeld did screw up on more than one occasion; alright, he was a major fcuk up across the board and why he is no longer the Secretary of Defense.
The Iraq War started in March of 2003.
...Different missions require different types of troops, while the initial OEF used SF forces to identify ground targets for Ariel destruction. A certain dependency was committed to the fickle Afghan Northern Alliance, with limited results.
...Meantime, DynaCorp, Blackwater, USPI and several other US, as well as dozens of other foreign security contractors, comprise and contribute as many personnel as the actual military does; much the same in Iraq. A good percentage of these "security" members are ex SF from all over the world, including support entities such as logistics, munitions, pilots, etc.
...There is a decision to be made in Afghanistan, the same as in Columbia and elsewhere, of whether to destroy the drug trade or not, as this is where the Taliban is obtaining their funding, but also a huge part of their national economy. I would also expect same provides a good chunk of under the radar funding for the CIA and their operations and why this is allowed to continue.
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 7:52 PM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!!
|
|
SensualGemini
Posts: 3,514
|
Knight: They could have voted in any damned programs they wanted, including drilling in ANWR.
...There is probably some truth in that, although besides Bush and a hand full, it was political suicide for the rest to do so because of who? .... uhm, the left, the far left groups.
Knight: We have GOT to recognize the futility of building an infrastructure around nonrenewable fuels.
...Meantime, while what is available now is diminished as being used for that next generation or two, "the lights are going out in Georgia."
...The rest of the world has no problem with the Liberal agenda, as China says it will take all of the oil from close to our shores and half the world says they will use up whatever is required for nuclear energy, while we sit on our ass and spin windmills and solar panels that have trouble operating a transistor radio on a consistent basis, after spending $10,000 for such a concept.
...If we take your stance, we will be screwed until this "alternative energy source" suddenly appears or is created. There are 7 billion people in this world and it is not just the 300 million or so in the US that are searching; so it is not as simplistic as the US liberal mindset construes it to be.
...I don't agree that nuclear is non-sustainable past the next generation. Meantime, much of Europe is and has been using same, while for the past 35 years, the liberals have tied our hands and forced the increased dependency of foreign oil.
...It has been expressed on more than one instance here in the threads, that the Liberal is more educated, more intelligent and with this BS, why have they not come up with this viable alternative energy?
...The Liberal is not the resolve for energy, as they have never brought one, not one endorsed concept to the table that resembles anything more than a Band-Aid fix, while they even litigate against what they have endorsed as killing birds, too much noise, etc.
...They are not the resolve with their piss and a wish pipe dreams, but rather they are the problem, while they still consume the limited resources they are against, or do nothing to help provide; hypocrites.
.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 7:57 PM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!! |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
NO From the quoted link above at the top of this very page of this thread. Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent our presence there, or just plain stupid?
Nope. There were only three dozen US Special Forces at Tora Bora. As for the rest of Afghanistan, yes, there were one hundred fifty however, sending them to Tora Bora after AQ escaped is pretty meaningless don't you think yet this is what your entire argument is hinged on. - the removal of one hundred ten US Special Forces personnel. This is what you find detestable about the entire war on Terror is that it took one hundred and ten Special Forces from Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq.
Geesh.
NOWrong. Operation Anaconda was in March 2002.
You are right. I thank you for correcting me nightowl. 
NOAnd again, you reveal complete and utter ignorance of the realities of the situation. You fail to substantiate your assertion that the US Special Forces troops pulled out for redeployment were replaced by Special Forces units from other UN countries,
Sorry, here is more;
Wrong. France was there.
The elite troops have been deployed in southeastern Afghanistan since July 2003 to help bolster the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban and the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, combing the Afghan border with Pakistan as part of the Enduring Freedom operation.
So was Norway
The Norwegian Government has decided to extend the Norwegian Special Forces contribution to Afghanistan with another three months, leaving the Norwegians there until September.(2003)
Australia was there too
A contingent of 190 Australian special forces, supported by a 110-member helicopter detachment, has suffered a steady flow of casualties since September year, with 11 wounded — a rate of one a month.
As was Lithuania
38 troops of the Lithuanian Special Forces have arrived at the Baghram military base in Afghanistan and started pre-mission training.
This is already the third unit of the Lithuanian Special Forces that will take part in the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The mission is scheduled to last six months. Lithuanian troops will carry out tasks related to special intelligence, patrolling and special force operations related tasks.
Hell, even the Germans had Special forces there
German Special Forces Admit Encounter With Kurnaz
The German military has admitted that members of its Special Commando Forces met Murat Kurnaz, a Muslim with German residency, while he was in US custody in Afghanistan.
Denmark Special Forces to Afghanistan
NOand even if they were, it doesn't change the fact that they were pulled out to the detriment of the mission objective in order to pursue this administration's Middle East agenda. They were not withdrawn for any other reason, and any additional troops from any other country should have been to support the overall UN mission of finding and eradicating the leaders of Al Queda.
So, because 110 of your Special Forces personel were transferred to Iraq and replaced with hundreds of other Special forces from other countries as well as tripling the size of the ground force you had in place at the outset, you believe that Afghanistan was abandoned and that is the reason why Iraq never should have been invaded. Am I correct or am I also missing something else?
it is strange that your entire anti war philosophy has been finally narrowed down to the transfer (and subsequent replacement by more than triple the personnel that were transferred) or 110 Special forces people. Wow. 
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 9:19 PM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!!
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
it is strange that your entire anti war philosophy has been finally narrowed down to the transfer (and subsequent replacement by more than triple the personnel that were transferred) or 110 Special forces people. Wow. My antiwar stance has nothing to do with the transfer of 110 Special Forces troops. Obviously (again, oh SOOOO f*ckin' obviously) you can't read or understand anything I write. THIS PARTICULAR part of this conversation started when you erroneously said that they DID NOT pull the Special Forces out of Afghanistan and re-deploy them to Iraq, and then apparently claimed that whether we did or not made little difference. Correcting you on that point, and pointing out that it was even claimed by people in the administration that it was the wrong thing to do, is only one brick in the wall of objections I have to the conflict in Iraq. You really, really need to learn to read what I say and not filter it through your misunderstandings and try to reword it. You wind up looking like a jackass every time. Meanwhile, I have repeatedly insisted that whether or not any countries did send additional special forces to the region has no bearing on whether or not we should have withdrawn ours. So, I don't really give a rat's ass how many other countries sent SF forces there. It was still a mistake for us to pull ours out. I disagree with SG's assessment that the job was done enough for them to be replaced by troops with other generalized mobility and capability profiles. While "the majority" of the job may have been done, it wasn't DONE. It's like the fire department telling the homeowner, "You can get the rest of that with a hose. See ya!"
SG.. I didn't say that nuclear energy was nonsustainable past the next generation. I said that in 25-50 years, if we follow the course some have recommended of switching to nuclear power over much of the world, we'll be in the same damn mess we are in at this moment regarding oil. There will be fighting and arguing over where the remaining reserves are, there will be geometrically increasing demands on those reserves, and in the end it will still be nonrenewable. I also said that if we blindly pursue nuclear energy as a primary option to fossil fuels, there is a chance that there are others out there who will be working on renewable energy alternatives, and by the time we have licensed, built, shut down for refueling and brought all those new nuclear reactors back online, those with the foresight to invest their energies in finding alternatives will have left us technologically in the dust and our nuclear plants will be obsolete. If that does happen, it will forestall the "chasing after the final reserves" scenario we are currently engaged in over fossil fuels from happening to nuclear materials, but either scenario leaves whoever is taking those steps in the lead and poised to be the next world power, rather than us. If nothing else, we should have learned by now that chasing after the reserves of nonrenewable fossil fuels is a foolish course. We should not embark on the same course in relation to any other nonrenewable resource.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 10:08 PM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!! |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
NO THIS PARTICULAR part of this conversation started when you erroneously said that they DID NOT pull the Special Forces out of Afghanistan and re-deploy them to Iraq,
Oh, I see what you are on about. Here, i'll replay with explanation in bold for you
SNG We had the troops to take Bora Bora (special forces and the alpine troops). This quote was a shortened version of the rest of SNG's comment which was "Then we pulled them out to invade Iraq. And any Al Qaeda leaders who were still contained were allowed a reprieve. And what have they done in the meantime? They've rebuilt, regrouped, and are again a danger. Woot, good job, neo-cons!" I was understandably mistaken as surely his entire opposition to the war could not be simply because a hundred SF were pulled out of Iraq and yet he concentrated on Tora Bora where more than likely none were pulled out so, thought he was talking about troops that wer nowhere near Tora Bora at the time. In effect he is saying that the whole entire War on Terror is a failure because thirty seven SF troops were pulled out of Tora Bora after Al Qaeda had escaped. A somewhat idiotic view of what actually happened as he seemed to be under the impression that there were literally thousands of troops encircling the cave complex.[/B] It was a military failure SNG, not a political one. SNG
Then we pulled them out to invade Iraq. They were not pulled out though. There were less US troops in Afghanistan then than there is now. I was referring to overall troops however, it also applies to Special Forces as well as they are in Afghanistan in greater numbers now than they were during the invasion as well, in far greater numbers than the three dozen or so that were at Tora Bora. Hence, to say that pulling a hundred SF troops out of afghanistan is a reason for any failure is ludicrous considering that they were replaced with at least three to five times the number by other countries
NOMeanwhile, I have repeatedly insisted that whether or not any countries did send additional special forces to the region has no bearing on whether or not we should have withdrawn ours.
It seemed to when you were trying to win arguments by inferring that Canada had done nothing in Iraq and I explained that we had. Here again is an illustration of actions that other countries that could not engage in Iraq for political reasons did so anyhow freeing up US troops by taking part in Afghanistan.
NOWhile "the majority" of the job may have been done, it wasn't DONE. It's like the fire department telling the homeowner, "You can get the rest of that with a hose. See ya!"
No, it's like a city fire department going to a multi alarm fire then when under control, they get a call for another fire and send part of their trucks and men to the new fire while keeping the other fire departments and part of their own to ensure it is all remaining under control.
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 10:48 PM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!!
|
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,081
|
Yeah it was "Dumbya"Bush's fault we lost Osama! If you don't believe me then maybe you will believe this man....another war hero heard from
always room for one more....right
The truth always hurts some! But, let the truth shine through those dark clouds!
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5 @ 12:23 AM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!! |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Article McCain blames Bush for Osama's escape
After reading the article, nowhere in it is McCain bashing or knocking Bush. He only says that he wouldn't have passed up some of the opportunities 'like Tora Bora.'
Left, the CHRC link was excellent! Thanks.
leftYeah it was "Dumbya"Bush's fault we lost Osama! If you don't believe me then maybe you will believe this man...
The second link is excellent once again. Very informative however, it too does not blame Bush rather the buck stops at Franks who fails to allocate air and ground support to the Topra Bora region. his excuse - he didn't believe OBL was there.
I have yet to find any material that would lead me to believe that Bush was personally leading this battle or, was calling the shots on the ground in some way, shape or form. Even know nothing leaders like Saddam or Hitler never did that, preferring to call strategic long shots from home instead of micro managing individual battles from afar. I mean, that's the most powerful army in the world has the most qualified generals to carry out strategy and such and, they did, not Bush.
This point is driven home over and over again in the CRHC link by the CIA officer Gary Berntsen as he tells us of the frustration he had trying to take advantage of a tactical gold mine he had discovered. He blames Franks and Hence, this lost opportunity is the fault of the commander on the ground, not a politician in Washington. This sentiment is echoed by another article on the site which states "Franks, responsible for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, failed to assign enough troops to the hunt for Osama bin Laden, enabling him to escape (see Late October-Early December 2001"
So just wondering why Bush is blamed for this to the extent where it is said he actually 'let OBL get away' when in fact, he is guilty it seems of only having a commander who did not take advantage of a tactical situation.
|
| |
|
| Jul 5 @ 1:05 AM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!!
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
I have yet to find any material that would lead me to believe that Bush was personally leading this battle or, was calling the shots on the ground in some way, shape or form. From Leftie's first linked article:
Crumpton, who led the CIA's Afghan campaign in 2001, was in constant contact with Franks. Just weeks before bin Laden escaped, he strongly urged the general to move Marines to the cave complex in Tora Bora, complaining the "the back door was open" for escape into nearby Pakistan. Franks balked, however.
Crumpton then turned to the commander-in-chief and tried a more direct appeal.
"We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," he told Bush.
Cheney also attended the meeting, according to Ron Suskind, author of the "One Percent Doctrine."
But Crumpton's pleas fell on deaf ears. No troops were redeployed to the area. This wasn't the failure of an underling, this failure was at the very top, by leaders who were in the very beginnings of what has turned into an object lesson about how to best squander resources.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 5 @ 1:37 AM |
You have GOT to see this!!!!! |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
NO This wasn't the failure of an underling, this failure was at the very top, by leaders who were in the very beginnings of what has turned into an object lesson about how to best squander resources.
Agreed that it was a failure at the top then.Now wondering, Bush, seeming surprised, pressed him for more information. "How bad off are these Afghani forces, really? Are they up to the job?"
"Definitely not, Mr. President," Crumpton said. "Definitely not."
Why did Bush not do as Crumpton asked or, who advised him different as he seemed to be taking in the information from Crumpton rather than glibly say the 'things are under control Chief, bugger off.'
|
| |
|
|
|
|