"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:44:48 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
snip to save space
Umm... it would be for our benefit.

Not sure what you mean by fixable. We can't allow bin laden and his
group
to
run free either in Afganistan or Pakistan. Especially in the case of
Pakistan, they have nukes. There is certainly a proven risk to our
security
for those two countries... unlike Iraq which was a war of choice.


What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in
Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair
which, I agree may be impossible.

He planned the 9/11 attacks from there. The borders are porous, so it's
easy
to import/export the jihadists. And, he needs to pay for what he did.

So? do you propose closing the borders of Afghanistan? Eliminating the
largest source of foreign funds - the narcotics business?

Not possible. We can't do that with our borders. I'm proposing that those
who planned the attack and who actively supported the attack are eliminated.
Instead of following the doctrine of ignoring the narco business in
Afganistan, we should be attempting to eliminate it by supporting the local
economy for other items.



The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall
back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you
have any evidence that they might be.

Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants"
and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out
of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the
terrorists.

I sure does. You're advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.

My point is who are innocent? The people who are willing to die flying
airplanes into buildings? Or the family and friends that support them?
The people that donate money to the cause? the people that "overlook"
their fanatically actions? the religious teachers that preach support
for them?

My point is that tolerating bin laden and supporting the radicals are two
different things. The kids and a large percentage of the adults are
innocent. We need a scalpel not a howitzer.

If the guys that fly airplanes are baddies why not a little emphasis
on the Saudis? After all that is where they came from and the people
who provide much of the money to support their activities.

Your point? I suppose you're going to advocate attacking Saudi Arabia? Why
not just work on our energy policy and cut down on the oil we import from
them.


But, to return to the innocent people, do you really believe that the
terrorists aren't supported by the locals? That someone who supports
their aims isn't cooking the bread that they eat, selling them their
pickup trucks, their shirts and pants? Trucking the arms and supplies
through the mountains?

See previous.

Are you really so naive that you believe that you can somehow separate
out the relatively few actual shooters from the people that finance
and support them?

See previous.

If the women are happy, in fact eager to carve the wounded or
captured, into kabobs, and have no doubts about it, they are, how can
you argue that they are innocent?

Come on. That's not much of an argument.

The pitiful part is that you don't learn from history. You went into
Vietnam for as nebulous a reason as the "Weapons of Mass Destruction",
and you attempted to wage war against "combatants", you lost, but you
didn't learn. Next you embarked on an exercise in Africa and that
didn't turn out well. Then came Iraq I and you did a pretty creditable
job, except your objectives were not well thought out so you stopped
short of what should have been your objective. Then Iraq II and look
at the mess that has been made of that. Now comes Afghanistan and yet
again you are undertaking a task that is probably impossible to
complete. Or do you really think that the "movement" will die with Ben
Ladan? Or will he simply become another martyr to the cause?

I don't?? Where do you get that? Don't blame me for the previous 8 years. I
didn't vote for Bu****.

I applaud your objectives but I really wonder at your ignorance in
undertaking a task that England, the greatest empire the world had
known, tried twice and failed. the Russians, with their much shorter
lines of supply, tried it and failed. Not you are going to try it -
halfway round the world with all the logistics problems that entails,
in an area where the religion and history teaches the people to resist
"invaders" and while your nation is embroiled in the largest economic
disaster in the history of the world.

No you don't. You don't seem genuine in your applause. The alternative is to
DO NOTHING.... exactly what Bu**** did (or didn't do).

The mind boggles.

Yes. Mine does when I contemplate the narrowness of what you've stated.

Not sure what your advocating, since it makes no sense.

Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the
local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their
time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing
away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a
non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway.

No idea what this has to do with the current situation...

I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is
to shoot 'em.

First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden
was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better.


How do you plan on "finding him"? you don't even know whether he is in
Afghanistan or not. He may even be living in the Bronx. If the US
government can't locate all the millions of "illegal immigrants" how
can they ever locate one guy in a cave, somewhere?

We know exactly where he is, along with the Pakistanis and many western
reporters.

Feel free to have the last word. I'm done.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com