nfb: This may get your blood boiling

[Joe 1320]

This story just adds to the frustration. I think a few statements in here need to be addressed:

NEW YORK - The director of the CIA says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States' respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief.

In an interview with Time for the magazine's June 27 issue, Porter Goss was asked about the progress of the hunt for bin Laden.

"When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play," Goss said. "We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways."

Asked whether that meant he knew where bin Laden is, Goss responded: "I have an excellent idea where he is. What's the next question?"

Goss did not say where he thinks bin Laden is, nor did he specify what country or countries he was referring to when he spoke of foreign sanctuaries. But American officials have long said they believed bin Laden was hiding in rugged mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border.


Personally speaking, we need to evaluate our relations with these "other" countries. Either you are with us, or you are against us. There is no grey area...... if there indeed is a grey area, therin lies the entire political problem. Having other countries stonewall and hide fugitives should send the world a clear message of what other nation's true intentions really are.

Normally I don't comment on religion or politics....... this issue has me pretty steamed and it's about time other folks started expressing what we have all been holding in.

[Steel2686]

I agree with you 100%, Joe. Either give up this animal, or be considered his ally. I'm getting awful sick of this. It's got to be Syria. There were several reports of sightings in that country when we first went into Afghanistan, but nothing surfaced as Syria "assured" us he was not within their borders.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

It's a complicated situation and it's not going to get any better as long as the Muslim world hangs on to the bitter hatred of anyone who is not Muslims. Sure they will fight among themselves but when an outside comes in they band together.

The worst part of it all is how other countries, fueled by the media, have sided although not publicly but certainly in their actions to the Muslim side and a lot is due to the high Muslim population in their own country and their desire to be re-elected. It the most disgusting showing of political pandering I have ever seen.

The loss of morals around the world for what is right and what is wrong makes me sick. Other countries are willing to let their morals slide in favor of their jealousy of the United States. You'll never get them to admit or even see that though.

Can someone explain how someone can defend a man like Saddam a person who have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people? Hitler killed millions of Jews and he was worshiped by Germans. He was a devil to everyone else. Saddam killed hundreds of thousand of Iraqi people and he is worshipped by all of these people who are killing innocent people every day in Iraq. The people like Kofi Anan, Jacque Shirak (spelling -5) of France, Putan of Russia, and many others were dealing with Saddam to line their pocket with millions of dollars while the US, Australia, and Great Britain are over there trying to stop him from killing thousand more Iraqis and the rest of the world bashes America. Sometimes watered down doesn’t work and here is one time. WTF is up with that. And the media bought into hook line and sinker and still comes out bashing America every day. Those people who are fighting the US are so ignorant and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

For a moment just imagine how much better the world would be if every country stood together to get rid of bad people like Saddam, Bin Ladden, Kim Juan, and many more African warlords. But it's not going to happen as long as the political thugs keep getting their pockets lined with money.

[N20LT4Bird]

The problem is that if we go in and take him forcefully like we did Saddam, then every bleeding heart liberal has got a sob story about how we trampled on another country's rights.

I agree with you 100%, Joe.....If it were up to me we sould send the harboring country a message that if they do not give up Bin Laden within a certain short time frame, we would be going in and using whatever force necessary to retrieve him. Unfortunately, a large portion of the people in this country do not agree....there-in lies the problem.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

... Unfortunately, a large portion of the people in this country do not agree....there-in lies the problem.

United we stand, Divided we fall.

We have 2 choices get him or not to get him.

1. We go get him and we make other countries mad at us for not honoring their border (Like Mexican do to ours now). Half the US bashes Bush for the same thing. But we have no more planes flown into buildings

2. We don't go get him. Heck at that point just pull out all of the troops from all over the world. Bin Laden rebuilds all of his training camp and we get more planes flown into buildings killing thousand more innocent American lives. It could even be some one on this board who gets killed. Iraq finishes building a nuclear bomb. They sell it to Alquada because they hate any non Muslim person too. How hard would it be to get it across the Border. Yea we know the answer to that. They explode it in any US city and kill hundreds of thousands. Yea lets pick #2 like the liberals. Makes sense to me.

[DeWynter]

If it were up to me we sould send the harboring country a message that if they do not give up Bin Laden within a certain short time frame, we would be going in and using whatever force necessary to retrieve him. Unfortunately, a large portion of the people in this country do not agree....there-in lies the problem.

And a portion of the rest of the world's countries might not agree. Seeing as countries like to stay in control of things inside their own borders, and with a great many countries having a high Muslim population, and with their track record of becoming militant, many countries would be less than thrilled to have a small war in their own back yard. I cant say if my neighbor was harboring a criminal that I would want the army to come and blow sh!t up next door to me either. I’m not saying that harboring a criminal is cool, just that if you have a large number of people who want to protect him, then you get a fight. Many counties don’t want to start wars between the government and extremists. The media can usually put any spin on a situation they want so they can turn a great number of people against the government in a short time. But if you close down the media, you get looked at as tyrannical. Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

[97LT1Z28]

I agree -- it's very complicated!

However, we're The United States of America.

We should go get him and if any other country has anything to say about it, our response should be "Yeah, we did get him -- do you want some of this??"

I mean, look at France. When they completely abandoned us (after our forefathers saved their butts in WWII) we should have suddenly lost our taste for french wine and other things we import from them. Just my 2 euros.

[DeWynter]

I agree -- it's very complicated!

So true!

"Yeah, we did get him -- do you want some of this??"

I have a hard time thinking other countries are going to like a stance like this. Its to reminiscent of other regimes that have had enough with the world. Heck why not take over Europe...

[Jeff_in_Atl]

So true!

I have a hard time thinking other countries are going to like a stance like this. Its to reminiscent of other regimes that have had enough with the world. Heck why not take over Europe...

Because Europe didn't attack us.

[Z Ya Later]

I agree -- it's very complicated!

However, we're The United States of America.

We should go get him and if any other country has anything to say about it, our response should be "Yeah, we did get him -- do you want some of this??"

I mean, look at France. When they completely abandoned us (after our forefathers saved their butts in WWII) we should have suddenly lost our taste for french wine and other things we import from them. Just my 2 euros.

Just as a reminder, France saved us also and helped us to found our country.

With that said, I say go after him with mixed feelings. Lets look at this as homeowners hypothetically. Say he's hiding in someone's house, someone who's friendly with him. Now, say the police start searching every house for him. Me personally, I would have no problem helping out, as long as no damage comes to my property and my rights are not trampled on. Heck, if I knew he was next door, that would be the first thing out of my mouth. Problem is, he's going to hide in a house that's friendly toward him. Since they are friendly toward him, they're not going to give him up willingly. As such, the police would be trampling on their rights. Thus, the question arises...which is more important, their rights or people's safety?

There are 2 things that everyone values, regardless of race, creed, religion or background: Freedom and Security. Everyone wants to be able to do what they want and they want to feel safe wherever they go. However, people more often ask for more security, wanting to feel safe all the time. However, what ends up happening is that, with more security, your freedom begins to suffer. You can't go out at night because curfue's are in effect to keep you safe. You can't walk your loved one or child to the gate for their flight because security has been tightened to ensure terrorists do not hijack another flight.

Do I feel the current measures are bad and need to be disbanded? No. I would prefer a little discomfort at security in the airport to flying into a building. But, security does not yield freedom.

However, when we are free to protect ourselves and help out our man and woman, we have a security that nobody else can enforce. We have the security that we are protected by each other, that no matter what happens there will be someone there to help us. Will every other country help us after we help or have helped them? No. They are free to do as they please, as are we. Should we help those that will not help us? Yes and no. Sometimes people come around, sometimes they don't. Should we get him? Yes. But, we will suffer for it, and that's something eveyone must willing to realize and take. But, freedom yields security...freedom to get the S.O.B. yields safety for the others...for now.

Just my thoughts.

[DeWynter]

Because Europe didn't attack us.

Sorry I was kind of alluding to things past in historyand Regimes, now reading it again I see it didn’t make sense the way it did in my head. War only breeds more war, while it is an effective way of keeping the world population down, NONE of us can truly understand the horrors and atrocities of the second world war, Id hate for there to be another. My Grandfather remembers it quite well, as he was living in the Netherlands and being hunted by the Germans for skipping out on working for them. He said while he had some interesting times, he would rather have been working and chasing women than dodging bullets.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Just as a reminder, France saved us also and helped us to found our country.

Yea I was going to say that too. However that doesn't excuse them for their actions now. Somewhere between 1812 and 1912 France became a bunch of weenies. I don't know what happened to cause it.

With that said, I say go after him with mixed feelings. Lets look at this as homeowners hypothetically. Say he's hiding in someone's house, someone who's friendly with him. Now, say the police start searching every house for him. Me personally, I would have no problem helping out, as long as no damage comes to my property and my rights are not trampled on. Heck, if I knew he was next door, that would be the first thing out of my mouth. Problem is, he's going to hide in a house that's friendly toward him. Since they are friendly toward him, they're not going to give him up willingly. As such, the police would be trampling on their rights. Thus, the question arises...which is more important, their rights or people's safety?

Harboring a criminal in the US is a felony as such you give up your rights to your freedom. That's the point to all of these other countries harboring a felon like Osama.

...But, freedom yields security....

Isn't that backwards? Security yields freedom.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Sorry I was kind of alluding to things past in historyand Regimes, now reading it again I see it didn’t make sense the way it did in my head. War only breeds more war, while it is an effective way of keeping the world population down, NONE of us can truly understand the horrors and atrocities of the second world war, Id hate for there to be another. My Grandfather remembers it quite well, as he was living in the Netherlands and being hunted by the Germans for skipping out on working for them. He said while he had some interesting times, he would rather have been working and chasing women than dodging bullets.

Say what? "War only breeds more war," So there is no end in sight and the people on this planet have no control over whether there is another war or not.

You know no one wants a war. But there are times when people must stand up to a brutal dictator or someone trying to hurt them be able to live free and not in fear of their life.

[Z Ya Later]

Yea I was going to say that too. However that doesn't excuse them for their actions now. Somewhere between 1812 and 1912 France became a bunch of weenies. I don't know what happened to cause it.

Hence the reason I don't like France lol

Harboring a criminal in the US is a felony as such you give up your rights to your freedom. That's the point to all of these other countries harboring a felon like Osama.

Just using that as an example, nothing more

Isn't that backwards? Security yields freedom.

In some situations, I agree. But, from my personal experiences, I have seen freedom yield security more often than not. Which would you fight harder for, your freedom or your security? If you have your freedom, do not have your security in the fact that you can defend yourself, your family and your freedoms? Just thoughts from my vantage point.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Joe, you know how to open up a hornets nest.