Flashback

michaelr · 07-19-2008, 12:30 PM

U.S. OK’d plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11

Quote:

WASHINGTON - After years of delay caused by inadequate intelligence, the U.S. government decided just one day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that it would try to overthrow the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan if a diplomatic push to expel Osama bin Laden from the country failed, the independent panel investigating the attacks reported Tuesday.

What more can one say??

Bourne · 07-19-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelr

U.S. OK’d plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11

What more can one say??

I'd like to play devil's advocate.

How would Ron Paul have handled the situation any differently had he been President during the Clinton and Bush terms prior to 911.

michaelr · 07-19-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bourne

I'd like to play devil's advocate.

How would Ron Paul have handled the situation any differently had he been President during the Clinton and Bush terms prior to 911.

It depends I guess how you look at it, but if it were AQ, he would have bombed the shit out of them and left.

Bourne · 07-19-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelr

It depends I guess how you look at it, but if it were AQ, he would have bombed the shit out of them and left.

That's a strange statement from someone who does not advocate proactive bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and the invasion of Iraq without a declaration of war. Would Paul be acting alone or would he seek the consent of Congress? Given his lackluster track record would Congress accord Paul any credibility?

Bombed them with what? Paul advocates withdrawing all US forces to the CONUS, literally on the other side of the world.

But let's speak about intelligence. Paul has advocated curtailing federal law enfrcement and intelligence services. Where would he have gotten his intelligence?

metheron · 07-19-2008, 01:21 PM

Good questions Bourne, it really makes you think. Unfortunately, nobody here knows the answer to them.

michaelr · 07-19-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bourne

That's a strange statement from someone who does not advocate proactive bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and the invasion of Iraq without a declaration of war. Would Paul be acting alone or would he seek the consent of Congress? Given his lackluster track record would Congress accord Paul any credibility?

I appreciate you questions.. Iran does not pose a threat to us. I am sure that he would seek approval from congress. He does believe in self preservation.

Quote:

Bombed them with what? Paul advocates withdrawing all US forces to the CONUS, literally on the other side of the world.

B-52's or what ever.

Quote:

But let's speak about intelligence. Paul has advocated curtailing federal law enfrcement and intelligence services. Where would he have gotten his intelligence?

Downsize it would be more accurate. Now that said, Bush supposedly did have an intelligence report. What did he do??

Bourne · 07-19-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelr

I appreciate you questions.. Iran does not pose a threat to us. I am sure that he would seek approval from congress. He does believe in self preservation.

So if Bush sought and obtained approval from Congress to pre-emptively strike Iran you would concur?

Then there's Paul's credibility. He votes no to virtually everything and he hasn't successfully gotten any legislation passed in 20+ years. Why would Congress accord him any credibility?

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelr

B-52's or what ever.

A B-52 hasn't the range to fly nearly around the world without refueling. Since Paul withdrew all of our forward forces to the CONUS, where is a B-52 going to refuel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelr

Downsize it would be more accurate. Now that said, Bush supposedly did have an intelligence report. What did he do??

Downsize an already flawed intelligence service? Especially when a terrorist threat has been identified? Does that make sense?

michaelr · 07-19-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bourne

So if Bush sought and obtained approval from Congress to pre-emptively strike Iran you would concur?

Only if there is an imminent danger for this country, else wise no.

Quote:

A B-52 hasn't the range to fly nearly around the world without refueling. Since Paul withdrew all of our forward forces to the CONUS, where is a B-52 going to refuel.

Use a B-1 then, refuel mid air. We launched bombers to Serbia from here.

Quote:

Downsize an already flawed intelligence service? Especially when a terrorist threat has been identified? Does that make sense?

Your not going to like this answer. Read about able danger.....

Bourne · 07-19-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelr

Only if there is an imminent danger for this country, else wise no.

What about imminent danger to our allies? We have treaty obligations and stand alone allies that we support. Or do we abandon our responsibilities to our allies as Paul suggests and let them fend for themselves?

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelr

Use a B-1 then, refuel mid air. We launched bombers to Serbia from here.

Refuel mid air from where? Don't forget, Ron Paul has pulled all US forces back to the CONUS. We have no airbases, maintenance facilities or supply depots anywhere outside the CONUS. Where does an armed B-1 land if it experiences maintence issues? What about rescue capabilities in place in the area?

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelr

Your not going to like this answer. Read about able danger.....

That's very interesting but the question remains, do you reduce intelligence assets as Paul advocates just when the need for such assests is greatest.

Bourne · 07-19-2008, 06:10 PM

This is an interesting discussion Michael so I'm hoping for a response.

I'm not trying to put you or anyone else on the spot but I'm interested in what Ron Paul would have done had he been in the White House during the Clinto and Bush terms.