(03-25-2011 03:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 02:27 PM)wild bill Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

RN missing the point as usual... Do you have *any* reason to think the rebels will rule their own country with more human rights let alone deal better with the US?

We helped the Taliban fight the soviets, how did that work out? Now the new Afgan government is already starting to prosecute religious minorities...

The US Needs to only help when success would seem to help with human rights issues and national interest.

We didn't help the Taliban, we helped the Mujahideen Rebels. Two seperate groups entirely.

The Pakistani ISI set up the Taliban after the Soviets left.

As I understand it, the CIA only had about 4 people in Pakistan that were at all involved with the Afghans. They would give money to the ISI who would distribute it to the Mujahadeen. The Saudis funded on par with the CIA, but their funding went to Arab jihadis. Post-Soviet departure, the ISI funded the Taliban who were more like who the Saudis funded, but were Afghani. The Mujahadeen included a number of factions that went on to oppose the Taliban.

The events and factions were somewhat complicated, but I think you're right that the US never funded fundamentalists per se ... either Taliban or al Qaeda. It's difficult to discern whether the same individuals the US funded later moved on to those groups. I think in at least 1-2 cases they did (and probably do now in both Iraq and Afghanistan), but I think the folks we funded were more likely to oppose the Taliban.

(03-25-2011 03:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 03:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 02:27 PM)wild bill Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

RN missing the point as usual... Do you have *any* reason to think the rebels will rule their own country with more human rights let alone deal better with the US?

We helped the Taliban fight the soviets, how did that work out? Now the new Afgan government is already starting to prosecute religious minorities...

The US Needs to only help when success would seem to help with human rights issues and national interest.

We didn't help the Taliban, we helped the Mujahideen Rebels. Two seperate groups entirely.

The Pakistani ISI set up the Taliban after the Soviets left.

As I understand it, the CIA only had about 4 people in Pakistan that were at all involved with the Afghans. They would give money to the ISI who would distribute it to the Mujahadeen. The Saudis funded on par with the CIA, but their funding went to Arab jihadis. Post-Soviet departure, the ISI funded the Taliban who were more like who the Saudis funded, but were Afghani. The Mujahadeen included a number of factions that went on to oppose the Taliban.

The events and factions were somewhat complicated, but I think you're right that the US never funded fundamentalists per se ... either Taliban or al Qaeda. It's difficult to discern whether the same individuals the US funded later moved on to those groups. I think in at least 1-2 cases they did (and probably do now in both Iraq and Afghanistan), but I think the folks we funded were more likely to oppose the Taliban.

You have it right, but the Taliban are ethnic Pashtuns. Since the ISI "kinda" chopped their financial support of the Taliban after 9/11, their primary financing has come from processing and shipping Heroin from Helmand Province to the rest of the world.

During the war in the 80's, a significant part of the CIA funding made its way to what was to later become the "Northern Alliance" (who were mostly Tajik) and Ahmad Massoud.

Tajiks and Pashtuns hate each other. Like the Tea Party vs. SEIU, but with automatic weapons.

Supposedly UBL paid the Taliban for his "safe haven" from 1996 until 2001. The amounts are in dispute, but guessestimates range from $20 million to $50 million per year.

Barack Obama to lawmakers: We won't kill Qadhafi

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/031...z1HekphWy6

Here comes the "Mission Creep"... now NATO will be running Close Air Support for the Rebels.

BRUSSELS – NATO's top decision-making body is likely to expand its air mission over Libya on Sunday to take over command of U.S.-led air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's military.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_o...to_libya_3

Quote:After nearly a week of deliberations, the North Atlantic Council agreed Friday that NATO should enforce a no-fly zone in keeping with a U.N. Security Council mandate.

Why does NATO have to pony up to back up a UN mandate instead of the UN backing up its own mandate? The UN once again proves its own worthlessness.

(03-25-2011 06:25 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Barack Obama to lawmakers: We won't kill Qadhafi

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/031...z1HekphWy6

I'm hoping the military treats current presidential orders as advisory and BHO as a slightly naive girl wanting to push the limits ... oops it slipped in.

(03-27-2011 10:01 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Here comes the "Mission Creep"... now NATO will be running Close Air Support for the Rebels.

BRUSSELS – NATO's top decision-making body is likely to expand its air mission over Libya on Sunday to take over command of U.S.-led air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's military.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_o...to_libya_3

I see that less as mission creep and more as the immediately apparent but unstated implications of an ill-conceived adventure.

(03-27-2011 10:50 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:After nearly a week of deliberations, the North Atlantic Council agreed Friday that NATO should enforce a no-fly zone in keeping with a U.N. Security Council mandate.

Why does NATO have to pony up to back up a UN mandate instead of the UN backing up its own mandate? The UN once again proves its own worthlessness.

Those are just accounting tricks. The money comes out of your pocket in either case.

(03-27-2011 11:39 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 06:25 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Barack Obama to lawmakers: We won't kill Qadhafi

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/031...z1HekphWy6

I'm hoping the military treats current presidential orders as advisory and BHO as a slightly naive girl wanting to push the limits ... oops it slipped in.

I'm guessing at this point there's "unofficial" guidance that certain "mistakes" will be overlooked--at least as long as the "mistake" cover is convincing.

(03-27-2011 11:39 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 06:25 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Barack Obama to lawmakers: We won't kill Qadhafi

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/031...z1HekphWy6

I'm hoping the military treats current presidential orders as advisory and BHO as a slightly naive girl wanting to push the limits ... oops it slipped in.

I'm guessing at this point there's "unofficial" guidance that certain "mistakes" will be overlooked--at least as long as the "mistake" cover is convincing.

I would hazard a further guess that the "plan" is for the Brits or French to make the "mistake.". If the Frogs start flying a bunch of missions over Tripoli, expect a "mistake."

(03-25-2011 12:33 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

Here, ya f'n idiot:


Rebel Commander in Libya Fought Against U.S. in Afghanistan


No, I do NOT think we should be helping some of those rebels.

Pajamas Media? Really Rebs?

(03-25-2011 12:44 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

I haven't been able to lurk/post much over the past few weeks, so I might've missed some previous threads.

But if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you are advocating the bombing of a country with an internal issue, one that poses no direct threat to America or American interests (at least not in the past 20+ years). And on the off-chance that maybe - maybe - its leader is still thinking about building a WMD someday.

Color me surprised, unless my sarcasm detector isn't functioning properly today.

I am for saving living breathing innocent human lives. If that includes bombing of intelligence and/or weapons systems with the help of(now or in the near future) UN/NATO, then yes I am ok with it. He probably should have at least informed the congress but it is really difficult to know all that went on to know why he didn't(assuming he didn't). THere are other places we could have and probably should have intervened but we are at the present and not the recent past.

(03-25-2011 12:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:44 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

I haven't been able to lurk/post much over the past few weeks, so I might've missed some previous threads.

But if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you are advocating the bombing of a country with an internal issue, one that poses no direct threat to America or American interests (at least not in the past 20+ years). And on the off-chance that maybe - maybe - its leader is still thinking about building a WMD someday.

Color me surprised, unless my sarcasm detector isn't functioning properly today.

Well, you see, it's different now. A Democrat is in the White House.

I disagree with your assessment. THe man in the White House is NOT a Democrat. He is a DINO.

(03-25-2011 02:16 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:44 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Get the hell out of there. Libya is no direct threat to America.

Really? They didn't have anything to do with the Lockerbie(sp?) airplane bombing? I am quite sure that killed some Americans. Wasn't he at one time(who knows, maybe even still trying) trying to get a nuclear weapon? I would say that this is as much or more of a direct threat than Iraq. Of course it really is about the oil so as in Iraq, these excuses are all just a smoke screen.

I haven't been able to lurk/post much over the past few weeks, so I might've missed some previous threads.

But if I'm reading this right, it sounds like you are advocating the bombing of a country with an internal issue, one that poses no direct threat to America or American interests (at least not in the past 20+ years). And on the off-chance that maybe - maybe - its leader is still thinking about building a WMD someday.

Color me surprised, unless my sarcasm detector isn't functioning properly today.

Well, you see, it's different now. A Democrat is in the White House.

Yes, but the same ole idiot is behind the keyboard (the one that posted at 12:35 pm Central time).

What is your point about the time I posted? I normally get home from work on M-F at about 12 AM so being on at 12:30 am on a weekend is not surprising since I am usually not tired at that time. If you are wondering why I am not out getting drunk, well, it is because I am not like you rednecks and I don't get drunk as much as I can. I hardly ever drink because it is such a waste of my time and money. Btw, I am NOT an idiot.

(03-25-2011 06:07 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 03:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 03:12 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 02:27 PM)wild bill Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  RN missing the point as usual... Do you have *any* reason to think the rebels will rule their own country with more human rights let alone deal better with the US?

We helped the Taliban fight the soviets, how did that work out? Now the new Afgan government is already starting to prosecute religious minorities...

The US Needs to only help when success would seem to help with human rights issues and national interest.

We didn't help the Taliban, we helped the Mujahideen Rebels. Two seperate groups entirely.

The Pakistani ISI set up the Taliban after the Soviets left.

As I understand it, the CIA only had about 4 people in Pakistan that were at all involved with the Afghans. They would give money to the ISI who would distribute it to the Mujahadeen. The Saudis funded on par with the CIA, but their funding went to Arab jihadis. Post-Soviet departure, the ISI funded the Taliban who were more like who the Saudis funded, but were Afghani. The Mujahadeen included a number of factions that went on to oppose the Taliban.

The events and factions were somewhat complicated, but I think you're right that the US never funded fundamentalists per se ... either Taliban or al Qaeda. It's difficult to discern whether the same individuals the US funded later moved on to those groups. I think in at least 1-2 cases they did (and probably do now in both Iraq and Afghanistan), but I think the folks we funded were more likely to oppose the Taliban.

You have it right, but the Taliban are ethnic Pashtuns. Since the ISI "kinda" chopped their financial support of the Taliban after 9/11, their primary financing has come from processing and shipping Heroin from Helmand Province to the rest of the world.

During the war in the 80's, a significant part of the CIA funding made its way to what was to later become the "Northern Alliance" (who were mostly Tajik) and Ahmad Massoud.

Tajiks and Pashtuns hate each other. Like the Tea Party vs. SEIU, but with automatic weapons.

Supposedly UBL paid the Taliban for his "safe haven" from 1996 until 2001. The amounts are in dispute, but guessestimates range from $20 million to $50 million per year.

We are giving the Taliban a lot of our tax money right now. Not sure if it is more than the heroin though. We are paying them not to kill our supply convoys. I am not sure of the amount but I would not be a bit surprised if it exceeded what UBL was giving them(according to your numbers).

(03-27-2011 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I am for saving Muslim lives. I couldn't care less about American lives. Especially if they are Christian or Jew. If that includes bombing of intelligence and/or weapons systems with the help of(now or in the near future) UN/NATO, under a Democratic President, even if he doesn't get Congressional approval like Bush or builds anywhere near as big a coalition as Bush, then yes I am ok with it. He probably should have at least informed the congress but, being a hypocrite, I give him a pass . THere are other places we could have and probably should have intervened but we had a Republican leading us and there's no way in hell me and my ilk would ever remain silent and let that happen.

FIFY

(03-27-2011 01:34 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2011 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I am for saving Muslim lives. I couldn't care less about American lives. Especially if they are Christian or Jew. If that includes bombing of intelligence and/or weapons systems with the help of(now or in the near future) UN/NATO, under a Democratic President, even if he doesn't get Congressional approval like Bush or builds anywhere near as big a coalition as Bush, then yes I am ok with it. He probably should have at least informed the congress but, being a hypocrite, I give him a pass . THere are other places we could have and probably should have intervened but we had a Republican leading us and there's no way in hell me and my ilk would ever remain silent and let that happen.

FIFY

No Paula, I would be in favor of trying to save your life too(as much as it pains me to say it).

One thing I would like to mention. For some time I've been talking about building, as an alternative to the increasingly expensive supercarriers, something like the Russian Ulyanovsk, 60-80,000 tons with a ski-jump forward and waist cats, capable of operating about 30 F-18 types and 30 Harriers.

One reason I like that concept is interoperability with allies. Right now, if we had one of those, it could be operating French Rafales and Etendards and British/Italian Harriers, and we could be reducing our role. French have one carrier that's currently broken down (its usual state), RN has one "through-deck cruiser" (Illustrious) that I don't think is in the Med and that can operate only about 15-20 Harriers, and Italians have two small carriers (Cavour and Garibaldi) that carry between 20-25 Harriers combined.

We are in this because they want it done and they can't do it without us.

(03-27-2011 01:01 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 02:16 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Yes, but the same ole idiot is behind the keyboard (the one that posted at 12:35 pm Central time).

What is your point about the time I posted? I normally get home from work on M-F at about 12 AM so being on at 12:30 am on a weekend is not surprising since I am usually not tired at that time. If you are wondering why I am not out getting drunk, well, it is because I am not like you rednecks and I don't get drunk as much as I can. I hardly ever drink because it is such a waste of my time and money.

The mention of posting time was just to clarify who I was talking about.

(03-27-2011 01:01 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 02:16 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Yes, but the same ole idiot is behind the keyboard (the one that posted at 12:35 pm Central time).

Btw, I am NOT an idiot.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

(03-27-2011 01:01 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 02:16 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Yes, but the same ole idiot is behind the keyboard (the one that posted at 12:35 pm Central time).

What is your point about the time I posted? I normally get home from work on M-F at about 12 AM so being on at 12:30 am on a weekend is not surprising since I am usually not tired at that time. If you are wondering why I am not out getting drunk, well, it is because I am not like you rednecks and I don't get drunk as much as I can. I hardly ever drink because it is such a waste of my time and money.

The mention of posting time was just to clarify who I was talking about.

(03-27-2011 01:01 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 02:16 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Yes, but the same ole idiot is behind the keyboard (the one that posted at 12:35 pm Central time).

Btw, I am NOT an idiot.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

(03-27-2011 12:33 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:33 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 12:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-25-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not so sure we need to be helping some of these rebels.

Yes we know. They are all Muslim terrorists hell bent on killing us.

Here, ya f'n idiot:


Rebel Commander in Libya Fought Against U.S. in Afghanistan


No, I do NOT think we should be helping some of those rebels.

Pajamas Media? Really Rebs?

If you choose to remain f'n ignorant, that's on you.