Winning the War on Terror

[jdsooner]

ISLAMABAD – The capture of the Afghan Taliban's No. 2 commander by a joint CIA and Pakistani team dealt a fresh blow to insurgents under heavy U.S. attack and raised hopes that Pakistani security forces are ready to deny Afghan militant leaders a safe haven.

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar's arrest in the Pakistani port city of Karachi may also push other insurgent leaders thought to be sheltering on this side of the border toward talks with the Afghan government — a development increasingly seen as key to ending the eight-year war.

Guess Obama isn't weak on this issue after all, contrary to what Hannity and the Republicans claim.

[SicEmBaylor]

How does one win a war against a tactic? And a fairly successful tactic at that.

Declaring war on terror is as asinine and stupid as declaring war against gunpowder or a concept like "flanking" your opponent.

But, yes, the administration definitely deserves some credit here.

[jdsooner]

Well, at least one terrorist is out of commission.

[Collier11]

what has Obama done to strengthen our national security, this guy was captured by people on the ground that were already there. Im not talking sh*t, im asking if you have an actual answer to my question?

[rainiersooner]

what has Obama done to strengthen our national security, this guy was captured by people on the ground that were already there. Im not talking sh*t, im asking if you have an actual answer to my question?

About the same thing any politician does: take credit for success, blame someone else for failure! Ha!!!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well, to be fair, the people WEREN'T already there. This is part of Obama's initiative to recommit to Afghanistan and he's been the leader on going into Pakistan. Props to him for doing that. One thing this guy is NOT is weak on foreign policy.

[jdsooner]

1. He has yet to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
2. He has put more emphasis on Afghanistan, where we were losing.
3. He has killed terrorists in Pakistan with drone missles.
4. He is working with Pakistan to capture terrorists.
5. They can't hide in Afghanistan and now they can't hide in Pakistan. We finally have foreign policy that makes sense. Maybe we can catch Osama bin Laden next. Would'nt that be sweet? Obama beats Osama!!

[yankee]

3. He has killed terrorists in Pakistan with drone missles.


that's mighty impressive of our president, to say the least. super politician/super warrior.

[jdsooner]

Well, maybe he's not as great a warrior as Dick Cheney and George Bush, but at least he is willilng to take criticism for using the drones. Why not give credit where credit is due?

[Collier11]

all of your answers were fantasy answers except for 1

[jdsooner]

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan — Afghans who had been under the rule of the Taliban for years in Marjah are starting to offer help to U.S. and Afghan troops, pointing out the locations of buried roadside bombs as fighting continues in the town.
"Most of the people know where they are already," said Lt. Col. Jeff Rule, a Marine operations officer. "We've seen people come to the Marines and the (Afghan security forces) and tell them where IEDs are," he said, referring to improvised explosive devices.

Rule suggested the development is a sign that the residents of this jihadist stronghold are feeling more secure that Afghan and coalition forces will remain to prevent the Taliban from returning.

Fantasy?

[jdsooner]

Two suspected U.S. drone missile strikes killed at least 12 people Wednesday in an area of Pakistan's volatile northwest teeming with militants suspected in a recent suicide attack that killed seven CIA employees in Afghanistan, intelligence officials said.

U.S. officials rarely discuss the missile strikes, and although Pakistan's government publicly condemns them as violations of its sovereignty, many analysts believe the two countries have a secret deal allowing them.

Fantasy?

[Collier11]

you dont get it

[jdsooner]

what has Obama done to strengthen our national security, this guy was captured by people on the ground that were already there. Im not talking sh*t, im asking if you have an actual answer to my question?

I get it. You don't want to know hear anything positive about this administration. Your mind is already made up.

[Collier11]

Actually go back and read any thread about Obama that ive ever posted in, I have always said that despite the fact that I didnt vote for him I will support him because he is my POTUS. My general opinion when it comes to this topic is that of the things he has "done" they were out of necessity and not some idea of his own, some of the things you listed he had no hand in.

He has also done some very idiotic things regarding our security such as attempting to close terrorist prisons and putting terrorists on public trial

[Harry Beanbag]

1. He has yet to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Ho-hum.
2. He has put more emphasis on Afghanistan, where we were losing. He can afford to since the surge stabilized Iraq.
3. He has killed terrorists in Pakistan with drone missles. So did Bush.
4. He is working with Pakistan to capture terrorists. So did Bush.


.

[Crucifax Autumn]

All but number 4 and 5 are fairly legit. But I seriously don't think pakistan gives a **** and they've NEVER been our ally no matter how much this and the last administration play pattycake and eat mudpies with them. 5 is just speculation and not anything that can really be counted until it happens. 3 isn't that big a change other than that we are actually acknowledging that we are doing it. The further emphasis is fully legit and he said so repeatedly during his campaign.

[LosAngelesSooner]

such as attempting to close terrorist prisonsWhich he SHOULD do because a) it's against our ideals and b) it was a PR nightmare which gave our enemies ammunition against us
and putting terrorists on public trialWhich Bush also did. And which is according to our nation's founding principles, our ideals and what we stand for.

[LosAngelesSooner]

.

Say "Ho-Hum" to all the soldiers who died needlessly in Iraq, smarty pants.

[OU_Sooners75]

Which he SHOULD do because a) it's against our ideals and b) it was a PR nightmare which gave our enemies ammunition against us Which Bush also did. And which is according to our nation's founding principles, our ideals and what we stand for.

Where exactly does it state in the US Constitution that we allow foreigners the right to due process? Where does it state in the US Constitution that setting up POW or enemy combatant camps/prisons is against our ideals?

I'm sorry, but I feel better knowing that potential terrorists are not out running a muck trying to kill another 3000+ American Men, Women, and Children that did absolutely nothing to them!

Yeah, but hey...lets afford them the same rights as you and I, even though they are not American Citizens.

Anyone that thinks that is the way to go can kiss my fat white a$$!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Yep. YOU'RE the ideal we all hold dear to, you overly simplistic fat white guy... :rolleyes:

[OU_Sooners75]

Yep. YOU'RE the ideal we all hold dear to, you overly simplistic fat white guy... :rolleyes:

Still waiting for you to point out where in the US Constitution it states that foreigners are granted rights under the said constitution. Or that it is against our founding ideals to set up POW/enemy combatant camps to hold prisoners of foreign wars.

I have a feeling that I will be waiting for a long time since you love blowing smoke out your *** when it comes to arguing or debating conservatives/republicans on very real issues. So i will say this:

They are given rights under the Geneva Convention since they are being held as enemy combatants or POWs. It is not against the Geneva Convention to set up those camps.

Those held as enemy combatants do not have any of the rights that you and I are granted under the US Constitution.

Only a tree hugging, whale saving, rainbow loving idiot would think they are afforded those rights.

And please do not think I am a republican or a conservative...I am a registered democrat, just not a freaking far left liberal like yourself.

[MrJimBeam]

One thing this guy is NOT is weak on foreign policy.

How do you figure? What would you rate as President Obama's greatest foreign policy accomplishment?

[sooner n houston]

Strict rules slowing offensive, troops say

From the BOSTON GLOBE!!!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/02/16/strict_war_rules_slow_afghan_offensive_troops_say/

He is trying to make another Vietnam! This make me fighting mad. When are we gonna learn? Either win the war or get the hell out!!!

[XingTheRubicon]

Yep. YOU'RE the ideal we all hold dear to, you overly simplistic fat white guy... :rolleyes:

heh

[Frozen Sooner]

Where exactly does it state in the US Constitution that we allow foreigners the right to due process?

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note the wording: person, NOT citizen. This is a right afforded to persons, which includes foreigners.

[Okla-homey]

1. He has yet to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Because he is a p*ssy;)
2. He has put more emphasis on Afghanistan, where we were losing. Iraq was won by the previous administration, now we have more resources and assets to use up there, administered and commanded by DoD holdovers from the previous administration
3. He has killed terrorists in Pakistan with drone missles. Nothing new with that. Been doing that since January 2002
4. He is working with Pakistan to capture terrorists. Again, nothing new. Just continued policies of previous administration
5. They can't hide in Afghanistan and now they can't hide in Pakistan. We finally have foreign policy that makes sense. Maybe we can catch Osama bin Laden next. Would'nt that be sweet? Obama beats Osama!! We don't really want to "catch" Osama.

What else you got?

[Okla-homey]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note the wording: person, NOT citizen. This is a right afforded to persons, which includes foreigners.

Apples and Oranges. As you well know, we have generally always handled belligerants with whom we are engaged in armed conflict differently. Declared "war" or not. Heck, even the Nuremberg defendants were tried by a "tribunal" and not afforded all rights afforded to garden-variety criminal defendants under the Constitution.

[C&CDean]

We captured #2. Goody.

What's really cracking me up here is all the usual flamers from left field are all hawkish today - where back when Bush kicked a little *** they were all "get out of the ME and focus on the only really important issue - the economy..."

You guys are major "MEH." Pick something and stick with it. Hell, a bunch of you who are crowing brack's giant victory here would be lambasting Bush for the same thing - especially if the economy was as bad as it is now. Hypocritical ****wads.

[StoopTroup]

Easy to bash the guy that was hired to clean up the mess.

I also don't see a lot of folks stepping up to the plate for him either.

Politics as usual just as he stated during his run for office.

You all are right and jdsooner is trying to paint a little positive. It is a little bit of good. Not what's needed though. If pubs and dems can't work together until they posture the next elections....we ought to vote out everyone who have even held a public office IMO.

America has problems and politics hasn't done a damn thing but make a lot of folks at the top really wealthy. Our Country is looking for Leadership...our POTUS knows this but it looks like more folks are worried about the Status Quo than continuing to show why this Country will always continue to be the greatest Country on Earth. We had ideals once that got folks to always take things to the next level no matter how hard it got. That has changed IMO. Bureaucrats, CEOs, Board of Directors all need to be flushed from the system and replaced with people who want to earn their keep.

[rainiersooner]

Where exactly does it state in the US Constitution that we allow foreigners the right to due process? Where does it state in the US Constitution that setting up POW or enemy combatant camps/prisons is against our ideals?

I don't want to volunteer to kiss your big fat white a$$, but in response to your question, I will volunteer that it has been my understanding that the great revolution in political thinking that America spawned was that the core rights upon which our country was founded are inalienable to all men, and were not just an accoutrement of citizenship.

[Breadburner]

Does the mean he has to return that nobel peace prize......:confused: :confused:

[C&CDean]

I don't want to volunteer to kiss your big fat white a$$, but in response to your question, I will volunteer that it has been my understanding that the great revolution in political thinking that America spawned was that the core rights upon which our country was founded are inalienable to all men, and were not just an accoutrement of citizenship.

Right. All the way up until Achmed cuts off your sister's head and ****s her neck hole in the name of allah.

The exact lettering of the constitution, and whose rights it protects becomes a little blurry in combat. It becomes completely black to me after one of these POS blows people up or tries to.

[StoopTroup]

I know the folks who spout that our Constitution is being trampled on are right....however it seems like that it's become more and more convenient to overlook it when you have someone in power that you like or posture towards.

Our elected representatives have continued to re-write and amend things in order to stay elected instead of do what is right and it's been going on for to long IMO.

I believe we are headed towards a point in time where Americans will have to stand up and pull together to right this ship. Tea-party folks are one of the signs that both parties continue to downplay and try to buy off....but I think you'll continue to see more and more of them as time goes by. It will become increasing difficult to avoid dealing with how the Average American feels about what is wrong. Our POTUS ran on Hope and Change and it got him elected. Now...he may not have been the guy to bring Hope or Change....but the politicians better start paying attention because down the road....owning a pick-up truck and being an ex-porn star isn't gonna cut it to get elected.

[C&CDean]

Look at Greg being all serious and stuff. Heh.

[StoopTroup]

Look at Greg being all serious and stuff. Heh.

Must be the coffee....lol

[rainiersooner]

owning a pick-up truck and being an ex-porn star isn't gonna cut it to get elected.

I thought Italy had the ex-porn star as a member of parliament...we've got an ex porn star!? Awesome!!! :D

[Harry Beanbag]

Say "Ho-Hum" to all the soldiers who died needlessly in Iraq, smarty pants.

Please. This is so 2006 of you. :rolleyes:

[rainiersooner]

Right. All the way up until Achmed cuts off your sister's head and ****s her neck hole in the name of allah.

The exact lettering of the constitution, and whose rights it protects becomes a little blurry in combat. It becomes completely black to me after one of these POS blows people up or tries to.

I hear you but that's not a matter of citizenship though - that's all I'm saying. That's an argument that certain constitutional rights can be suspended in war time or national emergency.

[JohnnyMack]

The only sensible foreign policy for the Middle East is to leave the Middle East.

Fighting a war on terror is ****ing retarded. What we should have done was drop a tactical nuclear strike on top of Tora Bora and said, if you ever do anything like Sept. 11th again, we'll drop three of these on your head.

[XingTheRubicon]

Johnny Mack Truman


I like it.

[Okla-homey]

I will volunteer that it has been my understanding that the great revolution in political thinking that America spawned was that the core rights upon which our country was founded are inalienable to all men, and were not just an accoutrement of citizenship.

except for slaves and "Indians [who were] not taxed." just saying.;)

[StoopTroup]

The only sensible foreign policy for the Middle East is to leave the Middle East.

Fighting a war on terror is ****ing retarded. What we should have done was drop a tactical nuclear strike on top of Tora Bora and said, if you ever do anything like Sept. 11th again, we'll drop three of these on your head.

Coulda woulda shoulda....

[Okla-homey]

I hear you but that's not a matter of citizenship though - that's all I'm saying. That's an argument that certain constitutional rights can be suspended in war time or national emergency.

Like "the Great Writ," habeas corpus? Just as the Second Greatest American, Abraham Lincoln, did to help put down the unlawful 1861-1865 rebellion.

[rainiersooner]

Like "the Great Writ," habeas corpus? Just as the Second Greatest American, Abraham Lincoln, did to help put down the unlawful 1861-1865 rebellion.

Since I left private practice, I try to avoid latin phrases when plain English will do, but you are correct counselor.

[jdsooner]

If we had not gone into Iraq, which had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, then we could have given attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan and dealt with the real terrorists. Invading Iraq was an unnecessary mistake. I did not support it. No WMDs were never found, so it did nothing to make us more secure.

The Bush administration committed so many resources to Iraq that it appeared that we might lose in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama did not continue the Bush policy. He increased our presence in Afghanistan and has been more aggressive in Pakistan. Drone missle attacks have increased dramatically under Obama and he has been criticized for this. From South East Asia News:


Even as Pakistan continues to strongly object US drone strikes in the tribal region along the Afghan border, the CIA operated missile hits have actually doubled in the past two months, which clearly highlights President Obama's policy of taking on the extremists with more force.

According to The Washington Post, Obama has directed the CIA to enhance the intensity of the drone attacks in the ungoverned tribal region in order to kill the top Al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders and dismantle the terror network in the region.

"There have been more such strikes in the first year of Obama's administration than in the last three years under President George Bush," the newspaper quoted a military official, who keeps a track of the attacks, as saying.

It would be nice if some of you would offer some evidence of your arguments instead of the same lame claims that have little basis in fact.

[C&CDean]

Fact: You whined like a bitch about the economy when Bush was in.

Fact: You whined about GWB kicking-*** and taking names. Now you're blowing Oblama for the same thing. Hypocrite.

Fact: You are a pointy-headed birkenstocker.

[Breadburner]

Fact: You whined like a bitch about the economy when Bush was in.

Fact: You whined about GWB kicking-*** and taking names. Now you're blowing Oblama for the same thing. Hypocrite.

Fact: You are a pointy-headed birkenstocker.

In an out of control Prius no doubt......

[jdsooner]

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and attacking the real bad guys. Bush announced mission accomplished and fiinally realized that he wasn't kicking *** and that more troops were needed in an unnecessary war. I don't own a birkenstock and I don't know what the Bush economy has to do with the war on terror. I find it funny that you guys can't admit that Obama is kicking some terrorist *** right now.


MARJAH, Afghanistan – Military commanders raised the Afghan flag in the bullet-ridden main market of the Taliban's southern stronghold of Marjah on Wednesday as firefights continued to break out elsewhere in the town between holed-up militants and U.S. and Afghan troops.

About 15,000 NATO and Afghan troops are taking part in the offensive around Marjah, a town of about 80,000 people that was the largest population center in southern Helmand province under Taliban control. NATO hopes to rush in aid and public services as soon as the town is secured to try to win the loyalty of the population.

[jdsooner]

And the accelerator in my 98 Lexus hasn't stuck yet.

[C&CDean]

You don't get it, do you? I'm happy terrorists are being captured. I'd be happier if they were meeting allah right about now. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that you are a hypocritical partisan hack boy.

[jdsooner]

You know, when you begin to attack the person rather than the argument, it means that your *** has been kicked in the argument. Thanks for the confirmation.

[C&CDean]

Yeah, I know when I'm licked all over.

I'll type it slow: I'm glad some bad guy got arrested. I am not glad that you're blowing Obama for doing something that you crucified Bush for.

Get it? It's not about "winning an argument." It's about showing your ***.

[jdsooner]

And you should know about that. You talked about Bush kicking ***, but you can't say the same about Obama? Why not? If it's his economy now, isn't this his war?


The offensive in Marjah — about 380 miles (610 kilometers) southwest of Kabul — is the biggest assault since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and a major test of a retooled NATO strategy to focus on protecting civilians, rather than killing insurgents.

Helmand Gov. Gulab Mangal About 40 insurgents have been killed since the offensive began Saturday. Four NATO service members have been killed, and one Afghan soldier.

This is the biggest assault since 2001. That means that the policy has changed. I support the drone missle attacks and I support the offensive. I support killing terrorists in the field, but I do not support torturing terrorists in captivity. Does that confuse you? Does that mean that you can't just put a lable on me and discount what I think and say?

[jdsooner]

And the Iranians don't like Obama either, which means we're doing something right.


TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran's supreme leader accused the United States on Wednesday of war-mongering and of turning the Gulf into an "arms depot," hitting back at U.S. accusations that the Islamic state was moving toward a military dictatorship.

Last month, U.S. officials said the United States had expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf -- a waterway crucial for global oil supplies -- to counter what it sees as Iran's growing missile threat.

And yes, I agree with the expansion of the missile defense system in response to Iran.

[Collier11]

I hear you but that's not a matter of citizenship though - that's all I'm saying. That's an argument that certain constitutional rights can be suspended in war time or national emergency.

Terrorists are not the same as foreign nationals, they do not have rights...

[rainiersooner]

Terrorists are not the same as foreign nationals, they do not have rights...

Because they are classified as enemy combatants...thereby (so the argument goes) removing them from constitutional protections and depending on who you believe, protections otherwise afforded by the Geneva convention. But to circle back to my original question - are not the rights upon which the constitution is based inalienable rights that no government, constitution, treaty, or law should be allowed to take away? Isn't the entire point that these rights are so fundamental that they should not be subject to the discretion of governments and governmental actors?

[Harry Beanbag]

And the Iranians don't like Obama either, which means we're doing something right.



Surely, even you can see the irony and hypocrisy in this statement.

[Collier11]

doubt it

[MrJimBeam]

The Bush administration committed so many resources to Iraq that it appeared that we might lose in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama did not continue the Bush policy. He increased our presence in Afghanistan and has been more aggressive in Pakistan. Drone missle attacks have increased dramatically under Obama and he has been criticized for this.

In WWII the US decided to put most of our resources to fighting and defeating Hitler. After Germany was defeated the US the put all our resources to beating the japs. Prez Bush felt winning the war in Iraq was priority and devoted most of our resources there. Having apparently won the war in Iraq now our resources can be dedicated to Afghanistan. Victory in Afghanistan is assured by victory in Iraq.

[jdsooner]

Surely, even you can see the irony and hypocrisy in this statement.

If Iran is protesting because the United States is putting pressure on them, then our foreign policy is doing what it needs to do. I do not see any irony or hypocrisy. The US is seeking sanctions against Iran, as we should.


The comments by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were the latest sign of growing tensions between Tehran and Washington, which are embroiled in a long-running and escalating row over Iranian nuclear work the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.

The United States is leading a push for the U.N. Security Council to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran, which says its nuclear program is solely to generate electricity so it can export more of its oil and gas.

[StoopTroup]

With the cyber attack we're under....things just went south.

[JohnnyMack]

In WWII the US decided to put most of our resources to fighting and defeating Hitler. After Germany was defeated the US the put all our resources to beating the japs. Prez Bush felt winning the war in Iraq was priority and devoted most of our resources there. Having apparently won the war in Iraq now our resources can be dedicated to Afghanistan. Victory in Afghanistan is assured by victory in Iraq.

sX161ulHrSA

[C&CDean]

If Iran is protesting because the United States is putting pressure on them, then our foreign policy is doing what it needs to do. I do not see any irony or hypocrisy. The US is seeking sanctions against Iran, as we should.

Judas H Priest with an Ayatollah's dick in his mouth, you are pathetically obtuse.

You are praising Obama for the same things you criticized Bush for. Simple. As. That. That = hypocrisy. How ****ing simple-minded are you?

We're all happy bad guys are going down. Praising your boy while bashing the other is hypocritical as hell. Admit it. Or just keep being concrete-slab like.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I'd have more respect for Obama if he would have stuck with his primary campaign message of ending all the wars. Islamic extremism is an intractable problem, much like the war on drugs.

Let's get out of the ME and let Israel deal with them. Israel has no problem lighting them all up like Christmas trees. And maybe for the first time in a long time Europe can pay for their own damn defense.

[Frozen Sooner]

Like "the Great Writ," habeas corpus? Just as the Second Greatest American, Abraham Lincoln, did to help put down the unlawful 1861-1865 rebellion.

Habeas corpus is not a right but a privilege.

[jdsooner]

Judas H Priest with an Ayatollah's dick in his mouth, you are pathetically obtuse.

You are praising Obama for the same things you criticized Bush for. Simple. As. That. That = hypocrisy. How ****ing simple-minded are you?

We're all happy bad guys are going down. Praising your boy while bashing the other is hypocritical as hell. Admit it. Or just keep being concrete-slab like.

For the LAST time, I did not criticize the invasion of Afghanistan under Bush. One of the reasons I voted for Obama was for a change in foreign policy. I agreed with Obama that we had neglected the war in Afghanistan and were in danger of losing because we had been consumed by Iraq. I applaud Obama because we are finally putting our resources where they are most needed, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are making progress there for the first time in a long time.

And I will remind you that this post is not a criticism of Bush. My point is that Obama is being effective in fighting terrorism, plain and simple. I think that the capture of the Taliban's number 2 leader in Pakistan and a successful offensive in Afghanistan should be received with praise for OUR president and OUR military. Why don't you man-up and give credit where credit is due?

[jdsooner]

I'd have more respect for Obama if he would have stuck with his primary campaign message of ending all the wars. Islamic extremism is an intractable problem, much like the war on drugs.

Let's get out of the ME and let Israel deal with them. Israel has no problem lighting them all up like Christmas trees. And maybe for the first time in a long time Europe can pay for their own damn defense.

Dude, the guys we are fighting attacked us on 9/11. If we leave them alone, they will attack us again.

[Frozen Sooner]

Apples and Oranges. As you well know, we have generally always handled belligerants with whom we are engaged in armed conflict differently. Declared "war" or not. Heck, even the Nuremberg defendants were tried by a "tribunal" and not afforded all rights afforded to garden-variety criminal defendants under the Constitution.

Non-responsive and irrelevant. The question was where the Constitution says due process is afforded to foreigners.

[Collier11]

For the LAST time, I did not criticize the invasion of Afghanistan under Bush. One of the reasons I voted for Obama was for a change in foreign policy. I agreed with Obama that we had neglected the war in Afghanistan and were in danger of losing because we had been consumed by Iraq. I applaud Obama because we are finally putting our resources where they are most needed, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are making progress there for the first time in a long time.

And I will remind you that this post is not a criticism of Bush. My point is that Obama is being effective in fighting terrorism, plain and simple. I think that the capture of the Taliban's number 2 leader in Pakistan and a successful offensive in Afghanistan should be received with praise for OUR president and OUR military. Why don't you man-up and give credit where credit is due?

and whether you want to admit it or not, and whether he was lied to or not (which we know now that he was) the evidence that was given to GW plainly showed a link and that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Dude, the guys we are fighting attacked us on 9/11. If we leave them alone, they will attack us again.

The problem is that the war's unwinnable. They're like little cockroaches. You kill one and a dozen come out of the wall. They've stated that they want to bleed us and our economy like they did the Soviet Union. And there's some arguement to be made that that strategy is working. Maybe they are working in tandem with Wall Street.

[C&CDean]

Not only are you obtuse, you're blind to. I guess you missed where I said I'm happy we captured this guy. Yay your guy. Rah obamah. Go team go. Go fight win. Everywhere we go, people wanna know, who we are, so we tell them "we are Obama mighty mighty obama..." blah blah blah. There, I gave your boy credit. Now how about you man up and admit that you're a ****ing wishy-washy liberal partisan hypocritical hack. Fair enough?

[jdsooner]

Boomer Sooner! I admit that I have a different perspective than you. Thank God! And thank God that we don't have to see things the same in this great land we call the United States of America.

[Collier11]

if by different then you mean all over the place then yea

[C&CDean]

Boomer Sooner! I admit that I am a hypocritical flaming lib. Thank God!

Thank you.

[jdsooner]

Thank you.

Okay, I'll admit it, I am more liberal than you. To me, being more liberal means being more objective and honest. It means not being threatened when someone does not think like me. Now the truth, as I see it, is that people like to use labels when they can't tolerate a different point of view.
The truth, as I see it, is that labels shouldn't matter in America because we don't have to agree. We are stronger and wiser when we consider different points of view.

Finally, let me assert that you, sir, are the hypocrite. You wave the red, white, and blue and give lip service to liberty and freedom, but you can't stand for someone to disagree with you. Your only answer to me is to attack me on a personal level and try to make me into something I am not. Why don't you present some facts? Why don't you prove to me that Bush was tougher on terrorism than Obama, if that is what you believe? Is it because you can't or because you are too lazy to take the time? It is much easier to name call than it is to think!


It seems that all you can do is put labels on those who threaten you and tag them with profane names. That is sad. As I said, when you resort to personal attacks and calling people names, you lose the argument.

If you want to argue with adults, then argue like an adult.

[Collier11]

To me, being more liberal means being more objective and honest. It means not being threatened when someone does not think like me. Now the truth, as I see it, is that people like to use labels when they can't tolerate a different point of view.

It seems that all you can do is put labels on those who threaten you and tag them with profane names.


So...liberals dont label yet you just labeled yourself as being more objective and honest and Dean as a hypocrite and said that he needed to act like an adult...you are arguing in circles my friend

You arent even being honest with yourself, you seem quite confused

And another thing, being labeled a hypocrite, wishy washy, etc... isnt a label in the terms that you are using the word, its an observation.

[C&CDean]

Okay, I'll admit it, I am more liberal than you. To me, being more liberal means being more objective and honest. It means not being threatened when someone does not think like me. Now the truth, as I see it, is that people like to use labels when they can't tolerate a different point of view.
The truth, as I see it, is that labels shouldn't matter in America because we don't have to agree. We are stronger and wiser when we consider different points of view.

Finally, let me assert that you, sir, are the hypocrite. You wave the red, white, and blue and give lip service to liberty and freedom, but you can't stand for someone to disagree with you. Your only answer to me is to attack me on a personal level and try to make me into something I am not. Why don't you present some facts? Why don't you prove to me that Bush was tougher on terrorism than Obama, if that is what you believe? Is it because you can't or because you are too lazy to take the time? It is much easier to name call than it is to think!


It seems that all you can do is put labels on those who threaten you and tag them with profane names. That is sad. As I said, when you resort to personal attacks and calling people names, you lose the argument.

If you want to argue with adults, then argue like an adult.

-sigh-

You don't threaten me. You haven't presented anything but praise for your boy obama. You love obama. I think he's a putzwad, and I pointed out how dishonest you are by praising him while railing on Bush. Not that big of a deal to me, but I guess it's huge to you. Whatever.

You think cutting and pasting some article = "presenting facts." I think it's tired - and certainly does not equate to "thinking." We've got tons of fringies around here who do it every day and say the same thing. Meh.

Yes, I believe Bush was tougher on terrorism than obama for a couple reasons. In addition to fighting terrorism, he had to deal with your liberal media doing everything they could to hamstring him. obama doesn't really have the ball & chain Bush had. He pwns the media and they love it.

Finally, you confuse objectivity and honesty with being traits of a liberal. You are more close-minded than I ever thought about being. I mean you are so blinded by your partisanship you can't even see what you're doing here can you? You have proven my point (simply that you are a liberal hack) ad nauseum. No personal animosity, but it does give me insight as to why your spek is all burnt orange. Just so you know, we've got a lot of *******s on this board. Only the extreme *******s (or whorns) manage to live in the orange. Food for thought.

[GKeeper316]

How does one win a war against a tactic? And a fairly successful tactic at that.

Declaring war on terror is as asinine and stupid as declaring war against gunpowder or a concept like "flanking" your opponent.

But, yes, the administration definitely deserves some credit here.

agreed... its like when hippies decide to have a concert to promote global warming awarness. i just want to ask em how much awareness they've raised.

it isnt quantifiable. its an abstract idea. you cant fight an idea with military action. therefore we will be at war with "terror" forever.

and even the republicans support what the president is doing in afghanistan. he just feels the same as the majority of americans in that we had no business at all going into iraq.

[C&CDean]

iraq/iran/afghanistan/pakistan/whoeverthe****stan. They're all the same. Saying "no business in Iraq but righteous in Afghanistan" is ignorant. They all want us dead. They all hate us. They all do everything they can to bring us down. There is not a bit of difference between the muslim countries.

[XingTheRubicon]

iraq/iran/afghanistan/pakistan/whoeverthe****stan. They're all the same. Saying "no business in Iraq but righteous in Afghanistan" is ignorant. They all want us dead. They all hate us. They all do everything they can to bring us down. There is not a bit of difference between the muslim countries.

I think this one's my favorite.

[Okla-homey]

Non-responsive and irrelevant. The question was where the Constitution says due process is afforded to foreigners.

No, in the above context, you were clearly trying to boot-strap the IV, V and VI Amendment as to ALL foreigners.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Lawyerbuuuuuuuurn!

[GKeeper316]

iraq/iran/afghanistan/pakistan/whoeverthe****stan. They're all the same. Saying "no business in Iraq but righteous in Afghanistan" is ignorant. They all want us dead. They all hate us. They all do everything they can to bring us down. There is not a bit of difference between the muslim countries.

i want the university of texas to be blown up. until i do something to make it happen i havnt done anything wrong.

i want white supremacists to die. till i kill some, i havnt done anything wrong.

just because someone hates you, doesnt mean you get to kill them.

iraq never did a damn thing to the united states.

[Collier11]

If someone makes legitimate threats to you and yours you have every right to defend yourself. In this case as I stated earlier, GW trusted those around him and those around him showed him data that was supposed to be reliable which said Iraq had WMDs and wanted to use them against us.

Now as the facts came out we realize that Cheney and others were lying to GW and the info was less than reliable but that is the initial reason we went in. And remember, initially the Iraqi people loved us for liberating then, it was only when the war was initially mismanaged that the love turned to hate

[swardboy]

Jeez Loueez....ANY president following Bush would have ramped up in Afghanistan as we wind down in Iraq. Where's the genius in that? I'm amazed how libs get all hawkish about Afghanistan.

But I still think no lib would of had the guts to go in in the first place...just leave Afghanistan to the Afghani's...and JM is right on with the Tora Bora nuke solution :)

[swardboy]

Jeez Loueez....ANY president following Bush would have ramped up in Afghanistan as we wind down in Iraq. Where's the genius in that? I'm amazed how libs get all hawkish about Afghanistan.

But I still think no lib would of had the guts to go in in the first place...just leave Afghanistan to the Afghani's...and JM is right on with the Tora Bora nuke solution :)

[Frozen Sooner]

No, in the above context, you were clearly trying to boot-strap the IV, V and VI Amendment as to ALL foreigners.

Everyone's a strict constructionist until it says something they don't like.

Bootstrap nothing. What word is used Homey? Is it citizens? Is it people unless we don't really like them? Is it people unless they've maybe done something we don't like? Oh, wait, the simple and plain word used is person.

You want to bring in Nuremburg? What national government with whom we are at war do these people fight for? Heck, at least the Nuremburg accused got some sort of trial and weren't simply being held indefinitely. A military tribunal, so far as I know, satisfies due process.

You want to call them prisoners of war? Great. When can we declare hostilities over? Obviously not now, but when? Or do we want the government to have the power to detain foreign nationals at whim for life because we suspect they were engaged in radical behavior? Do we conduct a prisoner exchange with Terror at some point?

What do we do with these guys? Particularly, what do we do with the ones who may actually have a legit gripe that they're being held wrongly? Too bad for being brown?

[jdsooner]

-sigh-

You don't threaten me. You haven't presented anything but praise for your boy obama. You love obama. I think he's a putzwad, and I pointed out how dishonest you are by praising him while railing on Bush. Not that big of a deal to me, but I guess it's huge to you. Whatever.

You think cutting and pasting some article = "presenting facts." I think it's tired - and certainly does not equate to "thinking." We've got tons of fringies around here who do it every day and say the same thing. Meh.

Yes, I believe Bush was tougher on terrorism than obama for a couple reasons. In addition to fighting terrorism, he had to deal with your liberal media doing everything they could to hamstring him. obama doesn't really have the ball & chain Bush had. He pwns the media and they love it.

Finally, you confuse objectivity and honesty with being traits of a liberal. You are more close-minded than I ever thought about being. I mean you are so blinded by your partisanship you can't even see what you're doing here can you? You have proven my point (simply that you are a liberal hack) ad nauseum. No personal animosity, but it does give me insight as to why your spek is all burnt orange. Just so you know, we've got a lot of *******s on this board. Only the extreme *******s (or whorns) manage to live in the orange. Food for thought.

So, now I am deficient because of the color of my spek? What does that prove, except that you dish out negative spek to people like me that disagree with you? If I didn't threaten you, why did you have to do that? If I don't threaten you, then why do you have to use profanity and try to label me as some undesirable person? The fact is by resorting to such childish methods you only demonstrate that you cannot hold your own in an intellectual argument.

[Collier11]

^ pwn3d crying

[yermom]

Everyone's a strict constructionist until it says something they don't like.

Bootstrap nothing. What word is used Homey? Is it citizens? Is it people unless we don't really like them? Is it people unless they've maybe done something we don't like? Oh, wait, the simple and plain word used is person.

You want to bring in Nuremburg? What national government with whom we are at war do these people fight for? Heck, at least the Nuremburg accused got some sort of trial and weren't simply being held indefinitely. A military tribunal, so far as I know, satisfies due process.

You want to call them prisoners of war? Great. When can we declare hostilities over? Obviously not now, but when? Or do we want the government to have the power to detain foreign nationals at whim for life because we suspect they were engaged in radical behavior? Do we conduct a prisoner exchange with Terror at some point?

What do we do with these guys? Particularly, what do we do with the ones who may actually have a legit gripe that they're being held wrongly? Too bad for being brown?

but they killed 3000 innocent men women and children. i don't care if they were just driving a taxi in Afghanistan at the time

[jdsooner]

^ pwn3d crying

No crying man, I just wanted to point out that it is silly to say that my spek proves anything about me. It only proves that dean runs people down who disagree with him. What are you, his little toadie?

[Collier11]

Nah, just enjoying the show.

[jdsooner]

Besides, you cried enough about poor GW being fooled about weapons of mass destruction. I agree that Cheney led him around by the nose and encouraged him to make some dumb decisions. Iraq has been a total waste of time, money, and blood, from start to finish (which hasn't happened yet)

By the way, was it Cheney's idea for him to do the mission accomplished fiasco?

[Collier11]

Your definition of crying is quite incorrect, I gave you facts in response to your statements regarding why we even went to Iraq. I never said anything about Poor GW, I do think GW did a hell of a lot better job than he will ever get credit for but I also think he f**ked up a bunch. Im not some partisan hack, I just call it like I see it

I tried to discuss our differences on this topic and you were too worried about trying to battle Dean, therefore I gave up the discussion and am just enjoying the thrashing

Regarding Iraq turning into a fiasco before we did the troop surge and the ill advised Mission Accomplished, Donald Rumsfeld is a good name to look at. Listen, GW was the prez so ultimately he bares the responsibility, im not saying he doesnt

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Was it Cheney's idea for the past Iraqi regime to violate EVERY benchmark establishing the UN backed ceasefire agreement, totaling 19 resolutions in all that the very body that formed the ceasefire agreement didn't have the balls to enforce?

You know, that CEASEFIRE agreement?

The one Billy Blowjob didn't have the balls to enforce or even try to garner support for enforcement short of lobbing a few tomahawk missiles at a few aspirin plants, which were, by the way, mistaken for WMD facilities by the very intelligencia that provided the scads of reports that the major NATO powers saw as legitimate and violating the CEASEFIRE agreement?

No one is arguing that the whole WMD angle ended up being a clusterf*ck, even with the volumes of existing ordnance found from the Iran-Iraq war that went entirely undeclared to UN inspectors that were denied access as provided in the CEASEFIRE agreement established over 19 resolutions that were part and parcel violated.

BUSH IS DE DEBBIL!

[LosAngelesSooner]

I was gonna comment, but Froze has this one easily in hand.

[Collier11]

I was gonna comment, but Froze has this one easily in hand.

Someone needs attention

[jdsooner]

Your definition of crying is quite incorrect, I gave you facts in response to your statements regarding why we even went to Iraq. I never said anything about Poor GW, I do think GW did a hell of a lot better job than he will ever get credit for but I also think he f**ked up a bunch. Im not some partisan hack, I just call it like I see it

I tried to discuss our differences on this topic and you were too worried about trying to battle Dean, therefore I gave up the discussion and am just enjoying the thrashing

Regarding Iraq turning into a fiasco before we did the troop surge and the ill advised Mission Accomplished, Donald Rumsfeld is a good name to look at. Listen, GW was the prez so ultimately he bares the responsibility, im not saying he doesnt

I'm glad you enjoyed watching me thrash dean. Of course, I am sure that you and dean know so little about intellectual debate that you are both under the illusion that he thrashed me. What a joke!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Someone needs attention:rolleyes:

Well, if THAT was the case, I'd pick out a few of the more idiotic posts in this thread and ridicule the **** out of them, wouldn't I? Or I'd post in more political threads and get people all riled up. Stuff like that.

Stuff like I haven't been doing in about a year or more.

But, sure...yeah...I guess I "need attention."

Maybe I should go use the search feature and bump about a dozen old threads to the first page even though they are totally irrelevant to any of the conversations going on right now. That kind of desperate attention ploy ALWAYS seems to work. :cool:

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You ain't got hair one on your sack if you don't, stud.

C'mon. Bump those threads, you rebel. Live on the edge! :P

[Collier11]

You are sounding more and more like LAS, take an obvious defeat and declare victory

and again, you just whine instead of actually talking about the topic at hand which I made an attempt to talk about, again

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://jesus.spydro.be/weblog/wp-content/arguing.jpg

[Collier11]

Stuff like I haven't been doing in about a year or more.

Surely you dont believe this ^ a year, really K? LOL

But, sure...yeah...I guess I "need attention."

Maybe I should go use the search feature and bump about a dozen old threads to the first page even though they are totally irrelevant to any of the conversations going on right now. That kind of desperate attention ploy ALWAYS seems to work. :cool:

So let me get this straight, on a message board you only talk about a few topics at once, never to bring in anything different? Why would I bring up an old thread that has to do with a current thread as opposed to just posting in the new thread?

I noted in several of the threads that I bumped that I was up late and bored and found the threads and thought they were entertaining, weak sauce K. You are trying too hard

[Collier11]

http://jesus.spydro.be/weblog/wp-content/arguing.jpg

if we didnt have guys like LAS and JD to argue with we would be kicking our dogs, they just let us take out some frustration :D

[jdsooner]

The topic at hand is not making excuses for the past failures of Bush. History will judge him. That said, I would remind you that he still bears (not bares) responsibiility for failing to anticipate the disaster that took place on 9/11. This day of infamy happened on his watch and nothing can change that or excuse it.

The thread that I started points to recent success in Pakistan and Afghanistan which is a result of the policies of the Obama administration. It puzzles me that people on this board seem threatened by the possiblity that Obama might be stronger than Bush in the area of national security.

[Harry Beanbag]

You are ignorantly insane.

[Collier11]

The topic at hand is not making excuses for the past failures of Bush.

Didnt make any excuses, in fact if you read my last two posts I did just the opposite

History will judge him. That said, I would remind you that he still bears (not bares) responsibiility <--- OK dude, if you are going to try and act like a smart azz and point out incorrectly spelled words, be sure to spell check your own post first

for failing to anticipate the disaster that took place on 9/11. This day of infamy happened on his watch and nothing can change that or excuse it.

No one in America saw that coming, sure it happened on his watch and you can always say that we shoulda seen it coming, I guess we shoulda seen Pearl Harbor coming as well?

The thread that I started points to recent success in Pakistan and Afghanistan which is a result of the policies of the Obama administration. It puzzles me that people on this board seem threatened by the possiblity < again, that word must be tough that Obama might be stronger than Bush in the area of national security.



Trust me, I dont care if it is Obama, GW, or Hulk Hogan, if we are strong on National Security I am happy. My only point is that I dont feel he Obama has had as much to do with the things on your list as you seem to think

[jdsooner]

You are ignorantly insane.

Oh yeah, and if something like 9/11 happens on Obama's watch, what will you have to say?? Folks went over the top with the underwear bomber and he didn't kill a soul.

However, I will admit that some of the criticism regarding the underwear bomber was deserved. The Obama administration needs to learn from this and take steps to insure that we can act quickly and efficiently when we are given such a clear warning regarding a terrorist act.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The topic at hand is not making excuses for the past failures of Bush. History will judge him. That said, I would remind you that he still bears (not bares) responsibiility for failing to anticipate the disaster that took place on 9/11. This day of infamy happened on his watch and nothing can change that or excuse it.

Okay, I was gonna give you the benefit of the doubt until this. Gonna actually give your argument some credit and attention until you typed this tripe and hit submit.

Wow. That took a 20 year veteran extinguishing the flames of sense with the biggest high flow ******-nozzle a single man can expect to operate.

[Crucifax Autumn]

You are ignorantly insane.

Is that better or worse than insanely ignorant?

[jdsooner]

To Bush's credit, it didn't happen twice. And, God forbid, if it happens on Obama's watch, then he will bear the responsibility for failing to keep us safe. National security is the major responsibility of the POTUS.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

And your stance on the WTC Bombing and USS Cole attacks?

[Harry Beanbag]

Is that better or worse than insanely ignorant?

I don't think my description is as bad as your's, but it is more fitting because he obviously has no idea how insane he really is. :)

[olevetonahill]

To Bush's credit, it didn't happen twice. And, God forbid, if it happens on Obama's watch, then he will bear the responsibility for failing to keep us safe. National security is the major reponsibility of the POTUS.


Boy even after having it pointed out to ya , ya still **** it up :D

[jdsooner]

It would seem that a military response should have been made to the USS Cole attack and that both the Clinton and Bush administrations bear responsibility for that.

I think that the original attempt on the WTC should have made us more aware and prepared for 9/11. There is some evidence that the Clinton administration tried to communicate that to the Bush administration, but Clinton could have done more.

[Collier11]

Like take Bin Laden when he was offered instead of trying to push him off on another country

[jdsooner]

I really hope we get his ***.

[Collier11]

Itd be nice, dont know that it will change much though

[jdsooner]

Yeah, but it would be intensely satisfying.

[Harry Beanbag]

I think he's dead and has been for many years.

[LosAngelesSooner]

So let me get this straight, on a message board you only talk about a few topics at once, never to bring in anything different? Why would I bring up an old thread that has to do with a current thread as opposed to just posting in the new thread?

I noted in several of the threads that I bumped that I was up late and bored and found the threads and thought they were entertaining, weak sauce K. You are trying too hard
LORD, Sister Sensitive! Find your sense of humor. I was just teasin' ya. Sheesh...

[jdsooner]

Well, call me ignorantly insane ;) but I think bin Laden lives.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You are sounding more and more like LAS, take an obvious defeat and declare victory
Heh...this one made me chuckle. ;)

I love how the cries of those I've smacked down still echo in here...months and months since I last took my foot off their necks. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Speaking of the Underwear Bomber...who is more to blame for the failures that allowed him to get on the plane? Obama who had 1 year to fix all the problems or Bush who had 7 years of bragging about how he already HAD fixed all the problems?

I mean...if the Neo-Cons and Bushies can blame Clinton for 9/11...

[Collier11]

I love how the cries of those I've smacked down still echo in here...months and months since I last took my foot off their necks. :D

LAS, you can always make me laugh, I can count on ya for that friend...well, that and yet another declared victory :eek:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Why should I declare a victory in this thread? a) I'm not even in the fight and b) Froze already pwn3d everyone in this thread. The title is his.

[Collier11]

I was unaware that Homey represents everyone else in this thread since that is the only person that Froze has been speaking with, and about completely different issues than alot of us

[OU_Sooners75]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note the wording: person, NOT citizen. This is a right afforded to persons, which includes foreigners.


What exactly does this part mean? Enemy Combatants....Doesnt that term exempt them from this amendment?

maybe I am wrong...but the U.S. Constitution is for those within the US, is it not?

I can admit that I may have been wrong on the word Citizen and person...but this amendment states it well I think.

[OU_Sooners75]

The only sensible foreign policy for the Middle East is to leave the Middle East.

Fighting a war on terror is ****ing retarded. What we should have done was drop a tactical nuclear strike on top of Tora Bora and said, if you ever do anything like Sept. 11th again, we'll drop three of these on your head.


Sounds sensible...but if we just pack up and leave totally, WW3 will ensue.

There is no way in hell that the US will leave Israel to fend for themselves against the radicals of the Arab world.

[C&CDean]

Sometimes the best way to win an argument is to be quiet and let your opponent wrap the rope around his neck and leap. Heh.

And FWIW jd, I didn't neg you. Lots of others have though. Yes, it's just silly message board neg, but it does speak volumes.

[StoopTroup]

Sometimes it even becomes a novel like War and Peace. Ask Lid. :D

[JohnnyMack]

Sometimes it even becomes a novel like War and Peace. Ask Lid. :D

Yeah Dean's the one who keeps ****ing that up. He just likes to play god with Lid.

[C&CDean]

You shore got a purdy mouf.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Whorin' Piece is a great book.

[jdsooner]

More good news--someone somewhere is doing something right. We might win this war.


KABUL – Pakistani authorities, aided by U.S. intelligence, have apprehended more Afghan Taliban chiefs following the capture of the movement's No. 2 figure — arrests that together represent the biggest blow to the insurgents since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

The arrests of more than a dozen Taliban leaders, including known associates of Osama bin Laden, came as militants fought to keep a grip on their southern stronghold of Marjah. Hundreds of militants were holding out against a six-day-old assault by 15,000 U.S., NATO and Afghan troops.

Nine Taliban militants linked to al-Qaida were nabbed in three raids late Wednesday and early Thursday near the port city of Karachi, Pakistani intelligence officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't supposed to release the information

[jdsooner]

Sometimes the best way to win an argument is to be quiet and let your opponent wrap the rope around his neck and leap. Heh.

And FWIW jd, I didn't neg you. Lots of others have though. Yes, it's just silly message board neg, but it does speak volumes.

No win for you. No way. The only way you win an argument is if I'm dead and I'm not even sure you could do it then.

[C&CDean]

Yeah boy, that's funny right there. Whatever gets you through the night jd. You proved my only point in this thread multiple times by your own damn self. Good jorb.

And don't let me forget the obligatory "you go Obama, you go girl. You're kicking them ragheads' asses sho' nuff'" Meh.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/julius-carry-aka-shonuff.jpg

SHO'NUFF

[NormanPride]

Dude, wtf is up with his pinky...

[SoonerAtKU]

Coke nail, man. Come on.