BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:32:06 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:38:29 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:39:56 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:31:39 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:27:11 -0500, wrote:

He lies by omission. Do you really know our level of participation in
the Pakistani incursions?

So, you believe that all facts should be exposed to the general
public, even if it's not in their best interest?

That is the Wikileaks question isn't it?
(or the Pentagon Papers)

Yes, it's an open question. I think some things need to be kept away
from the public I suppose. I'm not a spy or military expert. Are you?

No but I try to pay attention.
I do notice, when it is a Republican you want full disclosure but when
it is a Democrat you say we should have secrets.

Really? Where did I say that? If you can't show me where I've said
that, then you should probably stop making up nonsense about what I
said or didn't.

How about when
Bush/Cheney manipulated facts to suit them? Was that ok?

Having nothing to do with what we were talking about.
and no it wasn't OK

It has to do with facts or non-facts being released to the public.

See above.

So, what are you for? Total disclosure, total non-disclosure, or just
when you feel like it?

We are not going to know about it until a Delta team is captured and
put on trial in Islamabad for a war crime or when they shoot down one
of our drones after it bombs a village.

And you would prefer drones? Make up your mind.

They are about equal, although the Delta team is more surgical and has
a better chance of success that a guy in North Dakota looking at a TV
screen

Wow... is there anything an expert like you doesn't know?

You don't have to be Tom Clancy to figure out drones, operated on a TV
screen a half a world away are not as good as a guy standing on the
ground to assess a target.

I guess you haven't read much about how they're controlled and
directed then. Read up.

I was like you in 1968. I thought we really needed to stop the commie
menace in SE Asia.
You have the same thing going on with OBL.

Except that the military doesn't view him as the #1 threat any more
and have said so publicly. Try again.

Then what is our excuse for being in Afghanistan again?

From Bush it was to get OBL. The other objective was to prevent the
Taliban from allowing his kind to exist there. The real objective was
probably the Great Game ala Haliburton, since Bush/Cheney didn't
really give a crap about Americans or their safety. If they had, they
would have stuck to Afg. instead of going into Iraq.

To what end? We have been in Afghanistan for a decade and there is no
change that will last a week after we leave.

To having the troops available to accomplish the mission. To not
starting another war we didn't need.

All of this about it not lasting a week or whatever from you, the
international expert.

Do you know he is not even the guy we want the most right now?
It is Anwar Al-Awlaki and he is 1500 miles from Afghanistan in a place
where we have zero military presence.

Yes. I know this. Your point? Should we execute him or bring him home
for trial?

If we could shoot him in the head it would be great but these guys are
pretty good at not getting got.

So, forget Due Process, just kill him? Sounds like you're advocating
throwing out some of those precious principles.

It is the Obama policy, one I agree with. These are enemy combatants,
not shop lifters.I have no problem finding them and shooting them. I
draw the line at "just thinking" you saw one on TV and killing
everyone in a 150 foot radius with Hellfire missiles.

He's a US citizen, unless he's renounced his citizenship. If the
former, he deserves a fair trial. If the latter, he's a terrorist and
should be dealt with.