Bin Ladin NOT dead

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Feb. 12 2002,10:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it is in a war zone.<span id='postcolor'>

Since when did Congress declare war on Afghanistan?

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have no trouble with that.. its the the whole "the US fucked up" shit that bothers me.. this is an international alliance (NATO)..  yet when something goes wrong everyone acts as if the US was the only person there and was the only mil that screwed up..<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, nonsense. NATO *is* the US military with a few half-assed attempts by the British and Europeans to cosy up to America in the hope of getting some scraps thrown their way afterwards.. and even they are now starting to back away after Bush's threat to invade practically anywhere in the world that takes his fancy at any time: the whole NATO organisation was only created as an excuse to pull America into a war in Europe without consulting the American people first, and never served any other purpose.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Feb. 12 2002,15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have no trouble with that.. its the the whole "the US fucked up" shit that bothers me.. this is an international alliance (NATO)..  yet when something goes wrong everyone acts as if the US was the only person there and was the only mil that screwed up..<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, nonsense. NATO *is* the US military with a few half-assed attempts by the British and Europeans to cosy up to America in the hope of getting some scraps thrown their way afterwards.. and even they are now starting to back away after Bush's threat to invade practically anywhere in the world that takes his fancy at any time: the whole NATO organisation was only created as an excuse to pull America into a war in Europe without consulting the American people first, and never served any other purpose.<span id='postcolor'>

NATO was created to counter the Soviet juggernaught.

If the Soviets had attacked any NATO country you wouldn't HAVE to ask the American people, they all would have been in the war (at that time).

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,11:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok,  here is gorboz.. where the 3 people were "blown up" according to the villagers.

http://maps.fallingrain.com/perl....0&y=360

and here is Zhawar.. where NATO hit the group of men..

http://maps.fallingrain.com/perl....0&y=360

based on the scale relief map, the two are between 90 and 110 miles apart...

so either the villagers walked that far to get the bodies within a few hours.(as they say they did).. or they are different people.

like I said.. the people that died in gorboz and the people NATO hit are probably not the same.

how would these villagers know if something that hit these people was US? i tcould be a mine, a mortar fired from someone, lots of things.  just because the 2 events happened at near the same time doesent mean they are the same event..

the whole reason they farmers would carry a gun (if they were farmers) would be from protection.. like I said... that places is dangerous.. and I dont mean from the US.

They would take the metal by camelback on a five-hour trek up steep mountain trails, avoiding Pakistani security forces, and into the Pakistani town of Miram Shah

Miram Shah is pretty much due east from just over the border gorboz is around 50 miles from the afghanistan/pakistan border..  khawar is AT LEAST 1.75times  that (from the part of pakistan miram shah is that is)...  traveling by camel or on foot would be impossable to do in just 5 hourse from the zhawar area.. but not as far fetched from the goroz area.. further indication that the men that NATO hit were not the 3 men the villagers are talking about who would take scrap medal to pakistan..

the more you look at it the more it seems 2 different events have been taken as 1.

some people on this board should take note of Longinius and I having this discussion.  THIS is how you have a civilized argument.<span id='postcolor'>

Let us not forget also what the US attacked was a "convoy" of off road vehicles.

Farmers in Afghanistan are a pretty poor lot, and would not have the means to take, upkeep, and run a vehicle. A gun yes. An SUV no.

If the US had attacked a convoy of mules maybe, but not SUVs.

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ Feb. 12 2002,14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why? I like that picture.<span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't talking to you.

[Damage Inc 0]

OK then but I still like the picture

[Wobble 1]

Let us not forget also what the US attacked was a "convoy" of off road vehicles

oh really? I though the folks were walking.. were they in vehicles??  if so then it would be impossable for them to be farmers.. seeing as how in the same article it said they made their money by carrying scrap metal on mules to pakistan and selling it just to feed the family..

"sorry honny, no dinner today, the rover needs premium"

Oh, nonsense. NATO *is* the US military with a few half-assed attempts by the British and Europeans to cosy up to America in the hope of getting some scraps thrown their way afterwards.. and even they are now starting to back away after Bush's threat to invade practically anywhere in the world that takes his fancy at any time: the whole NATO organisation was only created as an excuse to pull America into a war in Europe without consulting the American people first, and never served any other purpose.

Well the US actually makes up 1/4 the total cash, vehicles and manpower of nato.. the rest is divided up between the other 15 nations that are part of it.. GB contributes the next highest amount.. then Japan of all people I think..

still thats only 1/4.. in desert storm the brits had quite a few tanks.. I cant remember the number exactly.. it wanst anywhere near as many as the US commited but there were quite a few..

the US is a giant part of NATO.. but it does not control it.. many places the US goes and places it fights it would probably just aswell leave alone.. but as part of NATO it has to go.. Somalia is a prime example.. UN requested escorts for the food convoys and the US was the only country nearby with the needed stuff (men, material) to do it in any acceptable amount of time.. so they HAD to go.

[SpaceAlex 0]

Wobble, your avantar picture. Is that you when you were a baby? Just asking.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpaceAlex @ Feb. 12 2002,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wobble, your avantar picture. Is that you when you were a baby? Just asking.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah I gotta know....

I think your avatar is my favorite...hehe...cracks me up...

[Wobble 1]

hell no that isnt me!! I dunno who that crack baby is or who he belongs to.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 12 2002,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the Soviets had attacked any NATO country you wouldn't HAVE to ask the American people, they all would have been in the war (at that time).<span id='postcolor'>

That is precisely my point. Had the USSR attacked Europe without NATO, they would have steam-rollered over the wimpy European armies, while the Americans watched and decided whether to start WWIII.. and probably decided to let the commies have Europe instead. NATO was created purely and simply so that the Europeans could offload their defence costs onto America and allow the US government to justify entering a war without consulting their people (or, at least, Congress) first.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Feb. 12 2002,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the Soviets had attacked any NATO country you wouldn't HAVE to ask the American people, they all would have been in the war (at that time).<span id='postcolor'>

That is precisely my point. Had the USSR attacked Europe without NATO, they would have steam-rollered over the wimpy European armies, while the Americans watched and decided whether to start WWIII.. and probably decided to let the commies have Europe instead. NATO was created purely and simply so that the Europeans could offload their defence costs onto America and allow the US government to justify entering a war without consulting their people (or, at least, Congress) first.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with the Congress part, but I would have to say that with no NATO the US wouldn't have just let the Soviets steamroll through Europe (being committed at the time to checking communist expansion at the time), though with no bases or forces there it would have been REALLY hard to stop them...

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the US actually makes up 1/4 the total cash, vehicles and manpower of nato.. the rest is divided up between the other 15 nations that are part of it..<span id='postcolor'>

And US military spending is larger than all the other cheap-ass NATO nations combined (several times larger, AFAIR). You can claim all you want that America has only a single voice amongst numerous NATO nations, but in the real world what America says, they do, because America has most of the troops and weapons. No NATO operation goes ahead without America agreeing to it, and no NATO operation that America wants fails to go ahead because America doesn't need any contribution from the other nations, except for political spin.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">still thats only 1/4.. in desert storm the brits had quite a few tanks.. I cant remember the number exactly.. it wanst anywhere near as many as the US commited but there were quite a few..<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, they make a cheap-ass contribution hoping that to get a pat on the back. However, in any case, the Gulf Non-War was nominally a UN operation (i.e. a US operation which the UN chose to claim as their own for their own reasons), not NATO.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US is a giant part of NATO.. but it does not control it.. many places the US goes and places it fights it would probably just aswell leave alone.. but as part of NATO it has to go.. Somalia is a prime example.. UN requested escorts for the food convoys and the US was the only country nearby with the needed stuff (men, material) to do it in any acceptable amount of time.. so they HAD to go.<span id='postcolor'>

And how is a UN aid operation anything to do with NATO!?!??! Do you even know what NATO was chartered to do? It was created purely and solely to ensure a joint response to any attack on a member nation (i.e. to pull America into a war in Germany without congressional approval, since there was no other possibility of war elsewhere), and unless you're claiming that Somalia is a member of NATO then that is quite clearly well outside that mandate.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 12 2002,17:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with the Congress part, but I would have to say that with no NATO the US wouldn't have just let the Soviets steamroll through Europe (being committed at the time to checking communist expansion at the time), though with no bases or forces there it would have been REALLY hard to stop them...<span id='postcolor'>

Right. If you'd gone to the US people and said, "Ok, we have a choice: we can let the commies keep those wimps in Europe who chose not to defend themselves, or we can start WWIII and get nuked to hell, which do you want?", how many do you think would have chosen to get nuked?

There's a big difference between political rhetoric and reality: American politicians may have claimed to be "committed to checking communist expansion", but no Congress would have voted for WWIII if it had been given that choice. This is the only reason why NATO was created, to pull America into a nuclear war in Europe which the people and their elected representatives would not have supported (due to the fact that most of them would get killed if they did).

[Wobble 1]

the UN requested that NATO help, NATO agreed and seeing as how the US had the stuff needed there at the time it was its duty to go.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the UN requested that NATO help, NATO agreed and seeing as how the US had the stuff needed there at the time it was its duty to go.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you seriously suggesting that the US government didn't want to send troops to Somalia but Britain, Germany and the other cheap-ass nations forced it to, even though they themselves didn't help in the slightest and they had no authority to tell any NATO nations to send troops to non-NATO countries?

America sent troops to Somalia because America wanted to send them; NATO is irrelevant.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Feb. 11 2002,18:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it is in a war zone.<span id='postcolor'>

Since when did Congress declare war on Afghanistan?<span id='postcolor'>

Let me rephrase that then. It is in a place populated by various factions withgrater or lesser degrees of trigger-happiness, not to mention littered with booby-traps and mines of differing levels of lethality.

Happy?

[Wobble 1]

when planes are flying over dropping bombs, people are shooting, soldiers are running around.. its a war zone weather you call it one or not.. and deciding to move into the house of the people which several world superpowers is trying to kill is flat out stupid.

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And US military spending is larger than all the other cheap-ass NATO nations combined (several times larger, AFAIR). You can claim all you want that America has only a single voice amongst numerous NATO nations, but in the real world what America says, they do, because America has most of the troops and weapons<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you seriously suggesting that the US government didn't want to send troops to Somalia but Britain, Germany and the other cheap-ass nations forced it to, even though they themselves didn't help in the slightest and they had no authority to tell any NATO nations to send troops to non-NATO countries?<span id='postcolor'>

This is the kind of comments that feeds the US-bashing there's been so much off lately.

Stop it, it makes you look stupid.

[Akira 0]

US troops were there seperate from the UN troops (ie Pakistani troops) because the goals were different. UN was to get food to the people, the US (or NATOs...whichever) was the misguided goal (thanks to the nasty women chaser Clinton) of trying to stop the civil war.

Neither worked out real well....

[PLRSniper 3]

So my good Camerade BIN LADEN"It's not dead ?"... I think he is dead as a fried chicken baby.... but he's back ?