I am going to say something many will not like.

[WingDinger]

We should NOT have invaded Afghanistan. The offer to have Bin Laden handed over to Saudi's for trial under Saudi law was far preferable to the invasion, fighting Taliban, killing civilians, having to invade Iraq to look badass and risk seals. The offer of trial of Bin Laden would have saved all that good will towards America. Advanced any oil pipeline deal and speed along arab discontent sooner than now. Buffered if not eliminated our financial woes. Saved American morals and traditions. And finally, given us the truth.

Barring that, we could have done just what we finally did, with the same outcome, if not for the wimp charges of liberal police actions.

Eat shit Repubs, you screwed us every which way.

[blondeatlast]

1. No argument here. nt

[PonyJon]

74. Absofrigginlootley

You're right, John Kerry was right B4 we went to war when he was against it but then voted for it as so many of our representatives did. Don't forget the flag waving and displays of "macho patriotism" were rampant. We're still the same country as you saw the night B4 last with all the "macho patriots" in the streets for Bin Laden's death. Kids are still being brain washed with this "greatest nation on earth" BS and enlisting for these assinine wars. The "people" love it...USA USA USA USA USA USA USA...

http://dumprepublicans.blogspot.com/

[Newest Reality]

2. True,

but the Spice must flow and the poppies must grow, as well.

[Vincardog]

"And finally, given us the truth" BINGO a trial and the truth are exactly why this could not happen

[Solomon]

25. The truth is we didn't have the evidence that they demanded.

Even to this day the FBI most wanted posted on Bin Laden does not list 9-11 as one of his crimes.

The taliban offered to turn him over if we presented evidence. Our response was carpet bombing. Just imagine how that went over in the Arab world.

[Jazzgirl]

34. Solomon, that has been the most frustrating thing

about reading all these articles. They repeat over and over and over the OBL was responsible for 9/11 but there was never any evidence he was behind it. I've seen some interesting comments that the guy who was his courier trained some of the hijackers but that's a first. OBL was no saint but I do recall he wasn't wanted for 9/11.

[Solomon]

55. And he never said he did it despite what people think.

A lot of people bought the fake Bin Laden tape that was put out. But I don't care that he didn't do 9-11. He did enough other stuff, the worst being the spiritual focal point, the "proof that God is on our side", if you will, to people who think it's okay to just blow up innocent citizens. That's nasty. He goaded them on. Ordered them all over the world to attack us all the time. That's enough for me.

[Hannah Bell]

64. americans think its ok to blow up innocent citizens too. so if osama didn't do 911, i don't know

why the us just killed him. supposedly.

americans are blowing up innocent citizens as we speak. far down the rabbit hole on this one.

[liberation]

100. But it is OK when we do it, because we're right and they're wrong

after all,clearly god is "on our side" which is why it is like totally different and stuff, duuuh....

[rasputin1952]

71. A trial does not guarantee truths are being told...

any trial would have been for show. While I am certainly in favor of capture and trial, in this case, they had two options, capture if they could, kill if there was the slightest resistance.

Conflicting reports about the mission at this early point, but I'm willing to bet there was some resistance, I would have resisted, why wouldn't bin-Laden?

[sibelian]

3. But that would have looked so WIMPY.

No-one would have taken America seriously. Lots of dead, unarmed people with no possibility of retaliation on their part who had nothing to do with it in the first place! That's how to look big and brave! Yeah!

[sufrommich]

4. The Saudi's refused to take Bin Ladin into their country for trial. nt

[WingDinger]

Not the way My history book read.

[sufrommich]

18. When did the Saudi's offer to bring Bin Ladin to trial? nt

[closeupready]

24. They didn't, as far as I recall. The Taliban were given like three days to hand him over,

and they refused.

[WingDinger]

28. WRONG, we insisted that they turn him over for AMERICAN justice.

They countered with offer to have him handed over to Saudi's for trial under SHARIA law. That was made out to be a call for found innocent and thumbing all their noses at us.

As in the BIBLE, you are commanded to offer hospitality to guests. So, they would not hand him over without assurance of his guilt. Just like the bible story of the travelers that stayed at a mans house. The villagers called out to hand over the visitors for to KNOW THEM. He offered his own daughters that were then raped to death, as they clawed the front door to be saved by daddy. Same deal.

[ProSense]

32. That's how it happened

according to these reports.

A NATION CHALLENGED: LAST CHANCE; Taliban Refuse Quick Decision Over bin Laden

Taliban maintains refusal to turn over bin Laden

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

New offer on Bin Laden

[closeupready]

35. Ok, right, thanks for the links.

nt

[ProSense]

38. They were playing games.

They always do. They had no intention of turning over bin Laden.

[WingDinger]

40. Who's THEY? We didn't?

[ProSense]

44. They, the Taliban.

Seriously, do you actually believe the Taliban were going to hand over bin Laden, as if he would just go along and walk into U.S. custody?

Really?

[freshwest]

61. Considering the Bush-Bin Laden family connections, IMHO, Bush didn't want him found.

He never intended to get him. His war was against anyone else he could get us to put our hands on while changing the USA into what the GOP wanted and rewarding his oil buddies. I know that's a terrible thing to say, but that's what I think.

Of course the conservative owners of the mainstream media, who consolidated and reduced diversity of opinion over the years, and more so during the Bush years, did not present these alternatives. Instead they ridiculed all UN and US government voices against the invasion of Iraq, cheered all that Bush did everywhere. They went viciously after anyone that asked them to wait a minute.

All in the midst of the most vitriolic rhetoric I've ever heard shoved daily into the homes of Americans through TV and on the go on hate radio. And promoting through Hollywood and television the lowest standards of behaviour and hatred in fictional pieces, too.

People got brainwashed from just trying to get information and make sense of 911, dealing with a failing economy, etc. Thanks for the links but it's too late. The corporate media failed us utterly.

[sabrina 1]

45. They didn't refuse, they asked for evidence. But now we know

that the US 'don't need no evidence'. We went to Afghanistan to build a pipeline, the Bush gang were not really interested in Bin Laden or the safety of the American people. That is pretty well established for a very long time. Only America seems to live in perpetual denial of the fact that we had a criminal government who lied, using the emotions of its people after 9/11 and fear, to get their wars, long planned, going.

[quinnox]

5. No, I disagree because there had to be a response

Afghanistan was something that the USA had to do because they were harboring terrorists, if the USA does no response to 9/11 then we look weak and possibly more terror attacks come our way.

[WingDinger]

11. We could have shot up the moon, oh, wait.

Putting every filthy terrorist on trial, and executing them, is all the response we would need. Seems to work for all our garden variety mass murderers.

[Vanje]

15. Pakistan harbored terrorists

Saudi Arabia harbored terrorists!
Not one 9/11 terrorist was from Afghanistaqn. Not one. They were all from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

[quinnox]

26. yes, but Al Qeuda was there

and they were being given safe haven by the Afghan government. The terrorists who did the dirty job and went on the planes were not from there, but the masterminds of the whole operation were in Afghanistan.

[eridani]

59. Al Qaeda was in dozens of countries all over the world n/t

[RZM]

99. Slight correction

None were from Pakistan. 15 were Saudi, 2 from UAE, 1 from Lebanon, and 1 from Egypt.

[FiveGoodMen]

16. We had to kill our soldiers, kill their civilians and tank our economy to avoid looking weak?

GO. TO. HELL!

[quinnox]

27. No, the masterminds of 9/11 were there in Afghanistan

Do you think we should have left them alone after they attacked the USA?

[FiveGoodMen]

46. No. But I think we should have left their country alone.

(Or do you think every government in the world has the right to attack us if they find out we've got bad people living within our borders?)

[BzaDem]

50. Unlike Afghanistan, we aren't going out of our way to allow terrorists to live and train in the US.

Not sure why you think we should have "left them alone" when they were knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily providing safe harbor to the very terrorist group that attacked our country.

[quakerboy]

83. Actually we arguably did and do

The "militias" and hate groups we foster within our borders speak to that? The main difference is our home grown suicide terrorists generally attack domestically.

And thats without getting into corporate terrorism, which is harder to define, but arguably far more destructive to the world. And we sure as hell explicitly encourage that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. No, the masterminds of 9/11 were in Pakistan. Time to start bombing Pakistan

didn't you GTMemo? He's been in a villa in Pakistan for 6 years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. We could have taken out AQ without attacking Afghanistan.

Just as we, somewhat more recently, attacked AQ without attacking Pakistan.

We could have, with little difficulty, dropped a company of Rangers on bin Laden's camp while telling Kabul to keep the hell out of it, and NOBODY would have objected.

Just as the raid on Entebbe was not an attack by Israel on Uganda, a raid taking out bin Laden would not have necessarily been an attack on Afghanistan.

And that would have left a clear message not to harbor terrorists.

Now, the message is "the US hates Muslims."

Imagine your brother in law was living with you, paying rent, when he decided to rob a bank. Does that make you a bank robber? Does that mean the police are justified in raiding your house, shooting your wife and kids and dog, because they thought you were harboring him?

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, and there was no reason for a whole scale attack on Afghanistan.

[reggie the dog]

51. no, afghanistan had a civil war

our original allies, the taliban, were fighting the northern alliance. neither they nor the northern alliance were allied with bin laden who took advantage of the civil war to establish camps high in the hills and not be hassled because the other groups were busy fighting themselves already.

[Ikonoklast]

70. The Taliban were never our allies.

That faction came to power years after the war was over. This country never had any dealings with the Taliban.

People keep repeating that here as fact, when it is far from true.

The Northern Alliance was supported by this country.

[reggie the dog]

89. Pre 911 the USA supported the taliban

look it up on the net, pre 911 the usa gave lots of money to the taliban to fund their anti drug efforts and as they did very well at the time stamping out drug production they were also given weapons to use against the northern alliance. after 911 the usa (probably wanting to make money off of heroin) changed sides, stopped supporting the very effective anti drug taliban and started supporting the northern alliance, who produced drugs.

from right here on DU found at a google search http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3618895


bush gave taliban 43 million us dollars 4 months before 911

[WingDinger]

95. As the pipeline deal came together, the Talibam wanted a fair shake for Afghani's.

That would not be allowed. We turned on them. Then, to really piss us off, they bombed the statues.

[eridani]

58. Bullshit; Why didn't we invade Indonesia, Britain and Germany?

That's where the actual operational planning was carried out.

[OwnedByFerrets]

72. BullFuckingShit....republican talking points

[Politicalboi]

91. M.E. countries harbor terrorist, even we do, look at Bush/Cheney

And they may not even know it (Pakistan) LOL! Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? The 19 "terrorist" were supposed to be from there. The whole thing was a farce to steal our treasury, get a war, and deregulate everything. They saw how easy it was to steal an election, so why not.

[keepCAblue]

98. Been drinking too much Kool-Aid, me thinks. n/t

[emulatorloo]

6. Bushco had way to much investment in the whole project

They wanted Iraq so bad, this was just a convenient excuse for them.

None of this probably would have happened if Gore had been elected.

[Cleita]

7. Yes, we should have taken him when Mullah Omar

of the Taliban offered to turn him over to us, but *w wanted his wars in spite of the huge turnout of Americans protesting going to war. He ignored the will of the majority of the people and got us into these messes. Why aren't we arresting him and putting him on trial for lying us into war, which I believe is treason?

[RainDog]

8. yep n/t

[Vanje]

9. Hmmm. Hey un-reccr, WHY?

If you're so crazy about the righteousness of our war on the Afghan people, why did'nt you enlist?

Its not too late . You can go there now.

Go to Afghanistan. Win their hearts and minds.
DO IT!
Your talents are wasted here at DU.

[seabeyond]

10. wont disagree. democrats fought police investigation opposed to bushco war. war won. nt

[liberal N proud]

12. But wars are much more profitable than trials

the Bu$h Regime was relishing the opportunity to start an endless war to provide endless profits for the military industrial complex.

OBL was nothing more than an asset to the bu$h regime, used as needed to drive the agenda.

[MineralMan]

13. You're absolutely right, and Iraq is even less justifiable.

We screw up everything we do in the Middle East. We should have learned that lesson a long time ago and kept out of all that. Sadly Bush was President, so in we went. Getting out is hard. We'll do it, but it's really, really hard. We've changed things by our interference, so we're sort of responsible for leaving the places in some sort of order. Sucks.

[Kber]

14. I don't disagree

not at all.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

19. uh, hardly a novel sentiment despite your breathless op title

it's only been said here a few thousand times.

[seabeyond]

22. +1. lol nt

[WingDinger]

29. But, I got the true aiders and abbetters right, didn't I?

[krabigirl]

20. Agreed. We also shouldn't have gone to Libya, or Iraq. War is peace, I guess. Nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. I can't argue.

It was first huge mistake in what was to become a series of such. Now we, all Americans, and the people in Afghanistan and Iraq are paying the price for those mistakes.

[ProSense]

23. Congress should not

have declared war. Roll Call

Resolution PDF

Congress gave Bush the authorization, much different from the Iraq AUFM.

[Chris_Texas]

30. Not so much.

War in Afghanistan was reasonable and justified. Continuing war there is not.

[WingDinger]

31. Only if you consume the Repub narrative, and spin.

[sibelian]

36. ...............

Do you know what? I'm not even going to bother.

[WingDinger]

43. And that is exactly how much debate went into our responses.

[get the red out]

33. Well....

What's not to agree with there?

[johnson542]

37. No argument here

[brooklynite]

39. And the Taliban could be trusted on this promise because.....

[WingDinger]

41. Because we would bomb them further into the stone age?

We certainly trusted them a few months prior, as we negotiated the pipeline deal with them.

[BobbyBoring]

94. Bingo!

The pipe line deal went sour though. An Argentinian Company, Bridas Corp. came up with a better offer. The war had been in the planning stages WAY before 9/11. The one thing that could have prevented it was Bush friendly oil companies being granted rights to build the pipe line.

Afghanistan is just another war for big business interest, paid for with American blood and tax dollars and of course, the blood of whoever has what they want.

All the rest is just window dressing.

[liberation]

101. Because they were our allies during the 80s, maybe?

[bobbolink]

42. AGREED. So what. Its done. So it Iraq.

And those of us who AGREE with the NATO action in Libya are vilified.

So what. No longer is it possible to have an adult conversation with a disagreement of policy.

[notadmblnd]

47. Life is full of could-a should-a would-as

What is done is done and there is no going back. So wringing our hands, wailing and gnashing of teeth now will not change one damn thing.

[TwilightGardener]

48. Ten years in Afghanistan was quite the overreaction, and probably

what OBL was hoping for.

[roamer65]

49. We refused to learn from the Soviet experience.

Afghanistan is where empires go to die.

[femrap]

52. Yea, but then the Defense

Contractors wouldn't have made any $$$$$....and that is always the point. That's taught in War 101.

Next we'll attack Pakistan. It's all heading toward The New Crusades...WW3. How else do we get out of this Depression?

[tomp]

53. we shouldn't have invaded afghanistan because...

....we really don't know how 9/11 happened. FAR too many unanswered questions.

but most americans, including some otherwise intelligent ones, will believe any shit they're served by the military-industrial-gov't-media complex.

[eallen]

54. "Saudi law" is much like creationist biology or L Ron Hubbard psychology....

I think the Iraq War was a GOP idiocy sold on fabrication. But the Saudis are playing in a whole 'nother ballpark when it comes to delusional, ideological thinking. No offer is serious that takes "Saudi law" as anything other than nonsense and barbarism.

:hippie:

[WingDinger]

56. As I suspected, the details get fuzzy, and the repub narrative takes hold.

A firm minority, if not a majority, think other things than those actually happened, happened. We let our position erode, until we just remember Obama fixed it.

There was NO REASON for having to fix anything to the degree we did. And we argue with wingers about who really killed the devil. We wind up argueing on their terms. I felt we needed to fight that. And arm us with what REALLY happened.

[akbacchus_BC]

60. No country have the right to invade another country no matter what!

In as much as you think the repubs are to be blamed, how is President Obama not continuing Bushs' policies in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Please enlighten me!

[harun]

62. Correct.

[NewJeffCT]

63. John Kerry had the correct way to do it

intelligence/law enforcement, along with targeted special operations missions. They likely could have had bin Laden fairly quickly in 2001 or early 2002 if they had done that... and, it would have been much cheaper in terms of money and lives.

and, I believe they already had special ops teams on the ground in Afghanistan in 2000, but Bush recalled them when he became president. So, they were out for 8 months until 9/11 happened.

[BlueIris]

66. But Kerry windsurfed.

Therefore none of his insights into foreign policy should ever be taken seriously.

:sarcasm:

[NewJeffCT]

79. and, people wanted to have a beer with Bush

and not Kerry, even though Bush likely would not give 99% of Americans the time of day...

[H2O Man]

65. Okay. Shoot.

[davidthegnome]

67. I agree with you

Back when it began however, I'm not sure I would have. A trial under Sharia law? If the man was truly responsible for what happened here then he should have been turned over for American justice. Or we could have, perhaps, taken him out in the first place without launching a full scale invasion. I don't know, I am deeply suspicious of the Bush administration and particularly Cheney, in regards to 9/11. Too many unanswered questions, that I was not wise enough to ask prior to the war.

You're right, we shouldn't have, but we did and we have to live with the consequences now. I think we need to get the hell out - but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

[Pharaoh]

68. It was never about Bin Laden

He was just an excuse to invade the middle east. They needed a bogeyman, a new Pearl Harbor.

[valerief]

81. It's always about the $$$$. nt

[AdrianInOcala]

69. Under a rational, law-abiding administration

We wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, but the previous gang used 9/11 as an excuse for both. A SEAL team could have, at some point over the past 10 years, nailed OBL at far less cost in money and lives, than we have seen this way

[swilton]

73. Saudi Law or International Law

would have been preferable. The dominate and control the Middle East mentality is nothing more than a stylized version of Manifest Destiny.

We could have traded and negotiated with Native Americans as well...But it is more 'Amerikun' to dominate and subdue that which we don't understand and therefore we fear.

But the fear card is a fig leaf for control of resources. Unlike the American West which held the natural resources of land, gold, etc., the Middle East holds the greatest part of the petroleum and fossil fuel resources...Control of this is at stake and preventing the emerging economic power houses of India, China from getting at them. We cannot control these resources without military occupation.

[rbnyc]

75. You're right.

And this is why I was part of an anti-war group protesting invading Afghanistan at this time.

[johnroshan]

76. That approach wouldn't have satisfied the bloodlust which is so patently visible here in DU.

[ctsnowman]

77. I agree and while we are at it...

If an evil dictator is a problem let's kill him and not bomb a whole freakin country killing everyone else because it just isn't right to target a leader.

[JEB]

78. Bush administration

played right into Bin Laden's hand, pouring massive amounts of our national capital into the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Mira]

80. I could not agree with you more, and have from day one

War at this point should be obsolete in how to handle differences.

[LynneSin]

82. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda

*sigh*

[Zorra]

84. What's not to like? It's real...

[Marrah_G]

85. This should have been handled in a special ops type way all along

We never needed to be in the Middle East. Being in the Middle East created OBL and those like him.

[Cieran_WI]

86. Yeah, I'll say it. Osama died an INNOCENT man.

Even George W Bush knew the value of trying Saddam in a court of law, convicting him of his crimes, and THEN executing him. Sure, Bush advanced the doctrine of the Imperial Presidency along further than anyone in recent history, adding Torture, Warrantless Wiretapping and Pre-Emptive War (à la Hitler's excuse for invading Poland) & more to the powers of the Unitary Executive.

But now Extrajudicial Assassinations have been added to the list of powers and the American people have accepted it. We fucking had bin Laden, unarmed and posing no threat to the badasses from SEAL Team 6, and instead of capturing him they decide to use the opportunity to expand the Imperial Presidency once again. There's this little thing called INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. You won't like me for saying that, but it's true. Osama bin Laden died and INNOCENT MAN, thanks to Obama's orders to kill rather than capture.

Saddam Hussein was captured with a pistol AND an AK-47!! No troops were killed in his capture. And none would have been killed in Osama's capture either. They were smack dab in front of him, and unarmed and sickly man, and they failed to close the book on perhaps the greatest crime in American history - 9/11 - by capturing, trying, and convicting Osama in a court of law and THEN executing him.

So now under Obama we have Extrajudicial Assassinations and Undeclared War (Libya).

Bush at least got authorization for Iraq from Congress, although he failed to meet the requirements stipulated to make the authorization valid (A. proving Saddam had WMD's, B. Proving Iraq had ties to 9/11 planning, funding, or execution of). But at least Bush didn't just start bombing a country without even so much as fucking TELLING Congress. The Obama administration has now taken away from Congress the sole power to declare war.

That's two strikes against Obama now in my book. Yeah, I'm a hard Badger to please. I get pissed when Scott Walker runs roughshod over the law. And I get doubly pissed when the President of the United States of America does it.

PS: I'm pretty sure the SEALS have access to some fucking great, non-lethal weapons to subdue an unarmed old man with on kidney dialysis. Flash bangs, tear gas, tazer, etc. If they could afford to destroy a downed helicopter (worth millions of $$) during the mission, I'd think they could spring for some tear gas, don't you?

[Gregorian]

87. But think of the military jobs. Not to mention contractors.

Of course I agree completely with your post.

Oil control, keeping the Dinar from turning into something significant, getting a Homeland Security department past the Americans, a second term for appointing Supreme Court justices, Haliburton contracting jobs, more money for the military industrial complex...

That's a trifecta. Except that if one has any kind of extended vision, it's total and complete failure.

[bluestateboomer]

88. Right after 9/11

I told a colleague at work that going to war in Afghanistan was wrong, but she was convinced we had to go in and punish the bad guys. Everybody seemed to be jumping on the band wagon. It wasn't easy to be for logical peaceful solutions after the trauma. A real leader would have got the bad guys without sacrificing the lives and treasure of the country. But we didn't have one.

[G_j]

90. K&R!

[aquart]

92. Oh, you think that offer was real.

No, we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq but the Saudi offer is irrelevant. And a little amusing.

[WingDinger]

96. Would you renege on our war machine? You make it sound like the only recourse is small claims.

[guruoo]

93. The world was with us until we invaded Iraq. nt