I hope everybody realizes that that's pretty much what we're trying to do. They're //kinda// hard to find. They're not in the book.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Use the middle east's yellow pages. Duh. I believe theyre live in 2389 Cave lane

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So noticed my grammar mistake and fuck me.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How... How did you manage to mess up that badly?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Got my thoughts mixed up on the bus

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We're fighting the whole "army" of Al Qaeda and The Taliban. I'm saying we should just use small teams of special forces to take out key individuals in their operations.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because their army isn't attempting to protect their leaders. It makes perfect sense. And why don't our enemies just use a small team to attack our president? He's easier to find, they have his address. They wouldn't be captured, held prisoner, and possibly executed or anything.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We took out Osama with one team of SEALs, obviously they aren't the best at protecting their leaders. And they don't attack the president because they aren't organized or skilled enough to pull that off. In Somalia, Delta Force and the Rangers killed over 1,000 militia. We lost 19 men. Obviously our special forces are more than capable of looking after themselves while carrying out dangerous missions.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We took out one building of people and a helicopter crashed during the raid. Not to mention that 25 members of SEAL team six were killed in a helicopter when it was shot down. Granted, none of them are believed to be the same involved in the Osama raid but they were on that unit none the less. The team has likely been benched because they were overexposed after that. American soldiers, no matter what the opponent, rank, or unit are not invincible.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly, they had one building full of guys with machine guns to guard their most valuable member. No SEALs died during the raid, proving that they are capable of carrying out missions like that safely and effectively. You said the problem was overexposure. Exactly! We should carry out these missions secretly, no reporting on it or saying who was responsible. If they must put it on the news, they could at least leave it at "Osama Bin Laden was killed by American forces today." That wouldn't jeopardize the operatives and it would still get the news out.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, overexposure just caused them to have to sit out meaning they aren't in the fight anymore. And one building still isn't an entire army. And safely? A helicopter crashed. The only reason nobody died was luck.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know one building isn't an army, that's exactly my point. You sarcastically said they aren't trying to protect their leaders, and my response is pointing out that obviously they aren't very good at that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They hid him from our entire army for 10 years...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I thought you meant protecting as in surrounding with armed guards, not hiding.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The structure of Al Quaeda at least, wouldn't mean that that would help. A new leader would step up within no time.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

True, but killing leader after leader still sounds like a better idea than what we've been trying. After over a decade, we're basically in the same spot.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah honestly I don't know what the best thing to do would be. I'm not very politically or strategically in tune, but it seems like the only reasonable thing based on the fact that we're in the same spot is to simply say 'fuck it' and put our resources towards other goals.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The problem is that we don't often know who the leaders are, and when we do, we don't know where they are. Whenever we know where one is, special forces go and get them. However, it's not common that we find one and the people that know where they are, the Afghans, kinda hate us. So our troops are on the ground, trying to make good with the Afghan people and help them so that they'll help us.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That all makes good sense, but I think a nation with virtually unlimited resources can track down just about anyone. We have the time and we have the money, technology, and personell. Maybe I'm wrong and I don't understand the situation, but that's my inclination.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You should run for president! How did we not think of this?! Let's go kill Osama bin Laden!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But... he's dead D;

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I heard this is (obviously) rather hard to do Part of the problem (I heard) is that it's not exactly one group, with one leader But there are many different groups, all with their own leaders and sub-leaders etc and they all work apart from each other, at least to some extent

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wouldn't that make them hate us more?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Don't you think if it were that simple, our military would have done it? People like you make up this country and that scares me. How stupid can you get?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Tell me why it's not that simple and why I'm so ridiculously stupid for suggesting it. Israel can do it, why can't we?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The group would still exist if we killed their leader and a new leader would step forth. I don't think we should put our efforts toward killing but toward making peaceful amends by compromising instead of the US being like "we want this. We won't compromise, we'll take nothing less than what we want and you get pretty much nothing out of it."

by Anonymous 11 years ago