Canuck57 wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:48:28 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:43:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

The bush admin deliberately let bin laden get away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk_IL...layer_embedded


snerk
I think Bin Laden is really pretty insignificant in the grand scheme
of things but if we didn't have him around we would invent another
bogie man to give us an excuse to look.
I always believed we did kill OBL in Tora Bora and we just let the
legend live on unchallenged for that reason.


We're going to smoke him out... perhaps he meant via wacky tobacci...

Dead or alive.

Obama Bin Laden, ooops, sorry, Osama Bin Laden will die an old man of
natural causes. Far too many make far too much money not to catch him.

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far better
policy than occupation. THe west hasn't got the politicial guts to win
this war for many of the same reasons as Vietnam.



Sorry, scheisskopf, you cannot win these wars by "bombing the targets."
Of course, you can't win these wars with occupation, either.

This is a new age...we're not fighting centralized, industrial,
western-like powers in that part of the world. They were living as they
lived 500 years ago before we got there, and they'll be living that way
long after we leave.

In Afghani-like scenarios, the military is...obsolete.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.