al-Qaida number 2 killed

[PLC1]

I see no problem with ensuring that we have the capability to protect our interests around the world.



It has drawn fire because the administration was unable to make any case at all as to why it was in our national interest to participate in Libya. They even admitted that we had no interest there.

In Iraq, I think the Bush Administration made an initial case for why our interests were at stake in Iraq, but it was based on bad intelligence.



I'm not sure we got involved in Vietnam to "force other nations to do our bidding."



I don't see what our percentage of population of the world has to do with anything....we need the ability to protect our interests at all times, and have a military capable of completing the missions we assign it...regardless of all other factors.

Yes, we need the ability to protect our interests, and to secure our borders, and to keep ourselves safe in a dangerous world. What we don't need is the ability to use military force against whatever nation we see as a problem, for whatever reason. We went into Vietnam to "fight Communism" and "win the hearts and minds of the people". When we lost that one, Communism didn't take over SE Asia after all, and Vietnam became a trading partner. We went into Iraq because it was seen as a threat to us, which was bogus. The PNAC agenda is what it is, and it is being discredited to the benefit of our nation and the rest of the world.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, we need the ability to protect our interests, and to secure our borders, and to keep ourselves safe in a dangerous world. What we don't need is the ability to use military force against whatever nation we see as a problem, for whatever reason. We went into Vietnam to "fight Communism" and "win the hearts and minds of the people". When we lost that one, Communism didn't take over SE Asia after all, and Vietnam became a trading partner.

Take a look at a map of the countries around Vietnam, and tell me which of them flourished with democracy around the time of Vietnam? In fact, Laos, Cambodia, fell to Communism, and Thailand had to deal with a huge communist threat all the way until the 1990s.

It is like saying "Since Germany became a trading partner, there was no reason to fight WWII." Well..no, that makes no sense.

We went into Iraq because it was seen as a threat to us, which was bogus. The PNAC agenda is what it is, and it is being discredited to the benefit of our nation and the rest of the world.

A rouge state that funded terrorists, used chemical weapons, had a nuclear program (off and on, but was farther along than we thought we found out), that threatened its neighbors, and attacked our pilots patroling the no-fly zone is a "bogus" threat? What makes a "real" threat?

The PNAC agenda is hardly discredited...people simply misrepresent their positions, and then discredit that..which was never the PNAC position to begin with..

 

[PLC1]

Take a look at a map of the countries around Vietnam, and tell me which of them flourished with democracy around the time of Vietnam? In fact, Laos, Cambodia, fell to Communism, and Thailand had to deal with a huge communist threat all the way until the 1990s.

None of those nations were Communist except for Cambodia. Which nation went into Cambodia and rooted out Pol Pot and his Khymer Rouge? It wasn't the US, no, we recognized his government as legitimate.

It is like saying "Since Germany became a trading partner, there was no reason to fight WWII." Well..no, that makes no sense.

It wouldn't if Germany hadn't been taken over by the Nazis.

A rouge state that funded terrorists, used chemical weapons, had a nuclear program (off and on, but was farther along than we thought we found out), that threatened its neighbors, and attacked our pilots patroling the no-fly zone is a "bogus" threat? What makes a "real" threat?

How about a nation that actually supported Al Qaeda? There was no Al Qaeda Iraq until after the invasion.

Or, maybe one that actually still possessed WMD, and might really have given them to the terrorists? One that has an active program to develop nuclear weapons, or that already possesses them?

Like, oh, I don't know, Iran? Pakistan?

The PNAC agenda is hardly discredited...people simply misrepresent their positions, and then discredit that..which was never the PNAC position to begin with..

Their position has been made pretty clear on their own website, it seems to me.

 

[BigRob]

None of those nations were Communist except for Cambodia. Which nation went into Cambodia and rooted out Pol Pot and his Khymer Rouge? It wasn't the US, no, we recognized his government as legitimate.

....This is simply not true. Laos was not communist? That is news to them I am sure seeing as how in June of this year their government was still Communist. They became Communist in 1975 (same year Saigon fell) As I said, Thailand faced a whole host of problems from the Communists (you might read up on it).

And it was the UN that regarded the government of Pol Pot as legitimate, and given the political situation at the time, that is not that surprising.

It wouldn't if Germany hadn't been taken over by the Nazis.

Well, they were.

How about a nation that actually supported Al Qaeda? There was no Al Qaeda Iraq until after the invasion.

Is our threat matrix determined solely on the "threat from Al Qaeda" these days?

Or, maybe one that actually still possessed WMD, and might really have given them to the terrorists? One that has an active program to develop nuclear weapons, or that already possesses them?

Iraq was thought to be all of those things at the time...no amount of hindsight is going to change that.

Like, oh, I don't know, Iran? Pakistan?

So you would support invading Iran or Pakistan?

Their position has been made pretty clear on their own website, it seems to me.

Indeed it has...which is why I am baffled as to why you seem to keep misrepresenting it...Nothing about their statements indicate we need to run around invading everyone because we can.

 

[PLC1]

....This is simply not true. Laos was not communist? That is news to them I am sure seeing as how in June of this year their government was still Communist. They became Communist in 1975 (same year Saigon fell) As I said, Thailand faced a whole host of problems from the Communists (you might read up on it).

They may have called themselves that. The only real Communist dictatorship was Pol Pot's Cambodia. It was the "Communist" government of Ho Chi Minh that took out Pol Pot.

And it was the UN that regarded the government of Pol Pot as legitimate, and given the political situation at the time, that is not that surprising.

No, not too surprising. What is surprising, if Ho Chi Minh had been a Communist in reality, is that his country invaded Cambodia. Weren't they supposed to have been allies?

Is our threat matrix determined solely on the "threat from Al Qaeda" these days?

It was Al Qaeda that attacked the US. It was not Iraq.

Iraq was thought to be all of those things at the time...no amount of hindsight is going to change that.

That's the way the war was sold. Who do you think was the salesman if it wasn't the PNAC?

So you would support invading Iran or Pakistan?

Not any more than I supported invading Iraq.

Indeed it has...which is why I am baffled as to why you seem to keep misrepresenting it...Nothing about their statements indicate we need to run around invading everyone because we can.

not because we can, but because we don't agree with their politics.

 

[BigRob]

They may have called themselves that. The only real Communist dictatorship was Pol Pot's Cambodia. It was the "Communist" government of Ho Chi Minh that took out Pol Pot.

They were all "communist" in some form or another...

No, not too surprising. What is surprising, if Ho Chi Minh had been a Communist in reality, is that his country invaded Cambodia. Weren't they supposed to have been allies?

No, simply because you share a basic ideology doesn't make you automatic allies. There is far more at play than that. That is akin to the simplistic view (in my mind) that Sunni's all throughout the Middle East will be allies, regardless of external factors etc.

It was Al Qaeda that attacked the US. It was not Iraq.

No one is disputing that...the question was whether or not Iraq was a threat. All the information at the time said yes.

That's the way the war was sold. Who do you think was the salesman if it wasn't the PNAC?

Unless you are asserting that the PNAC corrupted not only US intelligence, but UN weapons inspectors, and foreign intelligence agencies and somehow got them to arrive all at the same conclusion, then I don't quite see how you are blaming PNAC for this.

Not any more than I supported invading Iraq.

So is military action only acceptable post attack?

not because we can, but because we don't agree with their politics.

There are plenty of nations today and throughout history that we are close with and yet do not agree with their politics.

Nor has PNAC ever advocated for regime change because we don't like someone's "politics."

 

[PLC1]

They were all "communist" in some form or another...

which was a threat to us... how?

No, simply because you share a basic ideology doesn't make you automatic allies. There is far more at play than that. That is akin to the simplistic view (in my mind) that Sunni's all throughout the Middle East will be allies, regardless of external factors etc.

Agreed. Their ideology was not the same. We were still fighting the "cold war", and had placed everyone who called themselves "Communist" in the same category - enemy. They weren't all the same. The Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh were more like the founding fathers after having fought off the British than they were like the Soviet Union.

No one is disputing that...the question was whether or not Iraq was a threat. All the information at the time said yes.



Unless you are asserting that the PNAC corrupted not only US intelligence, but UN weapons inspectors, and foreign intelligence agencies and somehow got them to arrive all at the same conclusion, then I don't quite see how you are blaming PNAC for this.

They wanted the war. Whether they manipulated the intelligence or not, I don't know. The fact is, the intelligence was flawed, and the war should never have been. That may sound like being a Monday morning quarterback, but I've said all along that the invasion was not called for, not necessary, should never have been.

So is military action only acceptable post attack?

or in the face of a clear and present danger.

There are plenty of nations today and throughout history that we are close with and yet do not agree with their politics.

True, and that alliance lasts until they are no longer useful. We were once friends with Saddam Hussain, for example.

Nor has PNAC ever advocated for regime change because we don't like someone's "politics."

That would seem to me to be the motive behind Iraq. It most certainlhy was the motive behind the invasion of Vietnam, but then, that was before the PNAC, so we can't blame that one on them.

 

[BigRob]

which was a threat to us... how?

Well, through the lens of the Cold War, you can see more of the logic...but that doesn't automatically make them a threat, I can agree...

Agreed. Their ideology was not the same. We were still fighting the "cold war", and had placed everyone who called themselves "Communist" in the same category - enemy. They weren't all the same. The Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh were more like the founding fathers after having fought off the British than they were like the Soviet Union.

True.

They wanted the war. Whether they manipulated the intelligence or not, I don't know. The fact is, the intelligence was flawed, and the war should never have been. That may sound like being a Monday morning quarterback, but I've said all along that the invasion was not called for, not necessary, should never have been.

That is a major accusation to say that they manipulated the intelligence, especially when no investigation to date has agreed with that assessment.

or in the face of a clear and present danger.

Which the intel (flawed yes, but they didn't know) said they were.

True, and that alliance lasts until they are no longer useful. We were once friends with Saddam Hussain, for example.

I wouldn't say we were friends, we had aligned interests for a small moment...which of course is all I think matters..aligned interests.

That would seem to me to be the motive behind Iraq. It most certainlhy was the motive behind the invasion of Vietnam, but then, that was before the PNAC, so we can't blame that one on them.

We cannot examine the past through the lens of today, it offers nothing.

 

[PLC1]

Well, through the lens of the Cold War, you can see more of the logic...but that doesn't automatically make them a threat, I can agree...



True.



That is a major accusation to say that they manipulated the intelligence, especially when no investigation to date has agreed with that assessment.



Which the intel (flawed yes, but they didn't know) said they were.



I wouldn't say we were friends, we had aligned interests for a small moment...which of course is all I think matters..aligned interests.



We cannot examine the past through the lens of today, it offers nothing.

No, but perhaps we could learn from the mistakes of today so as not to repeat them in the future.

 

[steveox]

Count 2 more killed

US officials: US attack in Yemen kills al-Awlaki

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a devastating double-blow to al-Qaida's most dangerous franchise, U.S. counterterrorism forces killed two American citizens who played key roles in inspiring attacks against the U.S., U.S. and Yemeni officials said Friday.

U.S-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who edited the slick Jihadi Internet magazine, were killed in an air strike on their convoy in Yemen by a joint CIA-U.S. military operation, according to counterterrorism officials. Al-Awlaki was targeted in the killing, but Khan apparently was not targeted directly.

After three weeks of tracking the targets, U.S. armed drones and fighter jets shadowed the al-Qaida convoy before armed drones launched their lethal strike early Friday. The strike killed four operatives in all, officials said. All U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-us-attack-yemen-kills-al-awlaki-130835684.html

US strike kills Charlotte native tied to al-Qaida

WASHINGTON -- Al-Qaida suffered a double blow as U.S. airstrikes killed two American citizens who played key roles in inspiring attacks against the U.S. early Friday.

Channel 9 has learned that Charlotte native Samir Khan was killed in that airstrike in Yemen.

About a year ago, Channel 9 reported that Khan is credited with starting an online al-Qaida magazine called “Inspire.”

It is believed that Kahn published and wrote for the magazine, which had articles on how to make a bomb and how to fire AK-47 assault rifles.
U.S. intelligence officials have said that Khan was not directly responsible for targeting Americans.

But the other al-Qaida leader that was killed has been linked to terror plots. Anwar Al-Awlaki was considered the most dangerous terrorist and perhaps even more immediate threat to the U.S. than Osama bin Laden was.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/29349802/detail.html

Obama has killed more terrorist then George W Bush. It just proves Democrats can fight back if they really want to. Just like Jimmy Carter was weak on IRAN. Anfd Bill Clinton didnt go after Al Queda, But went after Milovich instead.

 

[PLC1]

Count 2 more killed

US officials: US attack in Yemen kills al-Awlaki

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a devastating double-blow to al-Qaida's most dangerous franchise, U.S. counterterrorism forces killed two American citizens who played key roles in inspiring attacks against the U.S., U.S. and Yemeni officials said Friday.

U.S-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who edited the slick Jihadi Internet magazine, were killed in an air strike on their convoy in Yemen by a joint CIA-U.S. military operation, according to counterterrorism officials. Al-Awlaki was targeted in the killing, but Khan apparently was not targeted directly.

After three weeks of tracking the targets, U.S. armed drones and fighter jets shadowed the al-Qaida convoy before armed drones launched their lethal strike early Friday. The strike killed four operatives in all, officials said. All U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-us-attack-yemen-kills-al-awlaki-130835684.html

US strike kills Charlotte native tied to al-Qaida

WASHINGTON -- Al-Qaida suffered a double blow as U.S. airstrikes killed two American citizens who played key roles in inspiring attacks against the U.S. early Friday.

Channel 9 has learned that Charlotte native Samir Khan was killed in that airstrike in Yemen.

About a year ago, Channel 9 reported that Khan is credited with starting an online al-Qaida magazine called “Inspire.”

It is believed that Kahn published and wrote for the magazine, which had articles on how to make a bomb and how to fire AK-47 assault rifles.
U.S. intelligence officials have said that Khan was not directly responsible for targeting Americans.

But the other al-Qaida leader that was killed has been linked to terror plots. Anwar Al-Awlaki was considered the most dangerous terrorist and perhaps even more immediate threat to the U.S. than Osama bin Laden was.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/29349802/detail.html

Obama has killed more terrorist then George W Bush. It just proves Democrats can fight back if they really want to. Just like Jimmy Carter was weak on IRAN. Anfd Bill Clinton didnt go after Al Queda, But went after Milovich instead.

More good news.

The cockroaches skitter out, they skitter back to their hidey holes, the bug bomb goes off, and presto, fewer cockroaches.

Now, to make sure we don't breed more.

 

[steveox]

But what if theres Another attack in American soil? Will Obama get the blame?

 

[PLC1]

But what if theres Another attack in American soil? Will Obama get the blame?

Of course. If Obama farts, he gets the blame. The buck stops there, like it or not.

Does he get the credit for having stopped the model airplane attacks?