Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:52 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
[snip]
I'm of the latter opinion. No troops, one small nuke on Tora Bora the
day Osama took credit. End of problem. Whether or not 9/11 was a
conspiracy, government involvement or solely bin Laden, none matter
when Osama took credit. At that point he signed his own death warrant.

Bush ****ed that up too, squandering world-wide sympathy, involving our
military into a ground war, giving moslems another cause to hate us,
squandering precious national resources and a death-spiral.
That would have been a threshold we would have deeply regretted
crossing,

I disagree, reasons below.

and in the worst possible region of the world in which to
cross it.

The best place to make such a stand.

The Neocons are just itching to begin deploying so-called tactical
nukes, maybe against Iran. I'm rather surprised they haven't yet. But,
in any case, as a technical matter, they would not have gotten the job
done in Tora Bora.

I said "nuke," singular. One medium sized nuke, 20 megaton for example,
would have vaporized the entire mountain and turned the region into a
sheet of glass. Not only would it have nailed bin laden, we knew he was
there at the time, and obliterated his command hq, but sent a signal to
those who only know raw force.

A 20 megaton nuke is larger than anything in our current inventory, and
many times larger than any EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapon) now available
or even planned. An airburst weapon would be useless against hardened
targets like caves and bunkers, unless they were very shallow and the
burst was very large pretty close. It's effectiveness against surface
targets would be somewhat limited by terrain. It would, however, kill
and sicken millions in places like Pakistan and China. The consequences
would be unacceptable, particularly just to try, and fail, to kill one man.

An EPW would require precise targeting data, and if we had such precise
and timely data, we wouldn't have needed a nuke. EPWs are precision
weapons for fixed targets like runways and underground command posts,
not mobile targets hiding in any number of caves or other places. Their
range of effect is quite limited.

"Vaporized" mountains are the stuff of pure fantasy.

Simultaneously we would have removed all our troops and bases from around
the world removing the reason Islam hates us.

Saudi Arabia would be a good start. They don't need us to defend them,
and our bases there don't help us defend their ability to ship oil to
us, either.

Moreover, world opinion would have shifted even more rapidly and
irrevocably against us, and the entire Islamic world, including those
who are kinda, sorta with us, would have risen as one in opposition.

Naah, on 9/12 we had world opinion with us. A few might have made public
statements decrying the use but world opinion would have been, "America
finally grew a set of balls, let's not **** with them!"

All
they had to have done was commit sufficient resources to Afghanistan in
the first place, and then employ them intelligently and in a timely
manner, and they'd most likely have bagged ObL.

"...Most likely have bagged obl..." Close isn't good enough. You don't
know the history of Afghanistan, it beat the entire British Empire and
Soviet Union. With our supply lines a ground war is insane.

You'd think invading two separate countries and overthrowing two
regimes, one of which had nothing to do with 9/11, would be sufficient
to make that point. I do know the history of the region rather well,
and you are conflating a single, limited operation into the larger,
continuing war there.

Instead, American
forces were used to push him towards the Pakistani border, and
unreliable indigenous forces were the only ones positioned to prevent
him from slipping across. Foolish. It struck me at the time that they
must not have really wanted to catch him.

Jeff

Osama outwitted the entire Bush administration. Those who believe a
ground war of attrition will ever win in Afghanistan don't understand
history.

Correct.


The idea is not to kill pawns but to kill the queen. Headless, an enemy
dies.

If you think the problem is limited to ObL and whoever his current
henchmen happen to be, then you need to seriously broaden your perspective.

Jeff

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:05:29 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:52 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
[snip]
I'm of the latter opinion. No troops, one small nuke on Tora Bora
the day Osama took credit. End of problem. Whether or not 9/11 was
a conspiracy, government involvement or solely bin Laden, none matter
when Osama took credit. At that point he signed his own death
warrant.

Bush ****ed that up too, squandering world-wide sympathy, involving
our military into a ground war, giving moslems another cause to hate
us, squandering precious national resources and a death-spiral.
That would have been a threshold we would have deeply regretted
crossing,

I disagree, reasons below.

and in the worst possible region of the world in which to cross it.

The best place to make such a stand.

The Neocons are just itching to begin deploying so-called tactical
nukes, maybe against Iran. I'm rather surprised they haven't yet.
But, in any case, as a technical matter, they would not have gotten
the job done in Tora Bora.

I said "nuke," singular. One medium sized nuke, 20 megaton for
example, would have vaporized the entire mountain and turned the region
into a sheet of glass. Not only would it have nailed bin laden, we
knew he was there at the time, and obliterated his command hq, but sent
a signal to those who only know raw force.

A 20 megaton nuke is larger than anything in our current inventory,

According to published reports. I know for a fact that we had much
bigger weapons than published in the '60's and see no reason that should
have changed one iota. In fact it's probable that weapons exist that the
President does not know of, like the neutron bomb. If they don't exist
then the components do and one can be hastily assembled.

and
many times larger than any EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapon) now available
or even planned. An airburst weapon would be useless against hardened
targets like caves and bunkers, unless they were very shallow and the
burst was very large pretty close. It's effectiveness against surface
targets would be somewhat limited by terrain. It would, however, kill
and sicken millions in places like Pakistan and China. The consequences
would be unacceptable, particularly just to try, and fail, to kill one
man.

Perfect. This is not a campaign to bag OBL, it is a message to the
entire world that our policy has changed. Both parties seem to like that
word, lets use it. We are "changing" from a colonial, interventionist,
nation to one that respects the sovereignty of others. **** with us and
we will eliminate your entire gene line.

An EPW would require precise targeting data, and if we had such precise
and timely data, we wouldn't have needed a nuke. EPWs are precision
weapons for fixed targets like runways and underground command posts,
not mobile targets hiding in any number of caves or other places. Their
range of effect is quite limited.

I don't want to penetrate a mountain, I want a very big post-it on the
forehead of every foreign leader.

"Vaporized" mountains are the stuff of pure fantasy.

See above.

Simultaneously we would have removed all our troops and bases from
around the world removing the reason Islam hates us.

Saudi Arabia would be a good start. They don't need us to defend them,
and our bases there don't help us defend their ability to ship oil to
us, either.

Only a bare start, I speak of a majority of our troops overseas.

Moreover, world opinion would have shifted even more rapidly and
irrevocably against us, and the entire Islamic world, including those
who are kinda, sorta with us, would have risen as one in opposition.

Naah, on 9/12 we had world opinion with us. A few might have made
public statements decrying the use but world opinion would have been,
"America finally grew a set of balls, let's not **** with them!"

All
they had to have done was commit sufficient resources to Afghanistan
in the first place, and then employ them intelligently and in a timely
manner, and they'd most likely have bagged ObL.

"...Most likely have bagged obl..." Close isn't good enough. You
don't know the history of Afghanistan, it beat the entire British
Empire and Soviet Union. With our supply lines a ground war is insane.

You'd think invading two separate countries and overthrowing two
regimes, one of which had nothing to do with 9/11, would be sufficient
to make that point. I do know the history of the region rather well,
and you are conflating a single, limited operation into the larger,
continuing war there.

Perhaps you misunderstand my reasoning. I am not sending a message to
the al qaeda barbarians but to the entire world. To achieve peace we
must cease causing strife for others. When we stop screwing with others
we can demand peace.

Instead, American
forces were used to push him towards the Pakistani border, and
unreliable indigenous forces were the only ones positioned to prevent
him from slipping across. Foolish. It struck me at the time that
they must not have really wanted to catch him.

Jeff

Osama outwitted the entire Bush administration. Those who believe a
ground war of attrition will ever win in Afghanistan don't understand
history.

Correct.

Except Obama has already stated that he's stepping up the war in
Afghanistan by an initial 20,000 troops.

The idea is not to kill pawns but to kill the queen. Headless, an
enemy dies.

If you think the problem is limited to ObL and whoever his current
henchmen happen to be, then you need to seriously broaden your
perspective.

Jeff

No one has inquired, and I've not detailed my preference, before so I'm
not surprised you misunderstood. This should dispel that cloud.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:05:29 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:52 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
[snip]
I'm of the latter opinion. No troops, one small nuke on Tora Bora
the day Osama took credit. End of problem. Whether or not 9/11 was
a conspiracy, government involvement or solely bin Laden, none matter
when Osama took credit. At that point he signed his own death
warrant.

Bush ****ed that up too, squandering world-wide sympathy, involving
our military into a ground war, giving moslems another cause to hate
us, squandering precious national resources and a death-spiral.
That would have been a threshold we would have deeply regretted
crossing,
I disagree, reasons below.

and in the worst possible region of the world in which to cross it.
The best place to make such a stand.

The Neocons are just itching to begin deploying so-called tactical
nukes, maybe against Iran. I'm rather surprised they haven't yet.
But, in any case, as a technical matter, they would not have gotten
the job done in Tora Bora.
I said "nuke," singular. One medium sized nuke, 20 megaton for
example, would have vaporized the entire mountain and turned the region
into a sheet of glass. Not only would it have nailed bin laden, we
knew he was there at the time, and obliterated his command hq, but sent
a signal to those who only know raw force.
A 20 megaton nuke is larger than anything in our current inventory,

According to published reports. I know for a fact that we had much
bigger weapons than published in the '60's and see no reason that should
have changed one iota. In fact it's probable that weapons exist that the
President does not know of, like the neutron bomb. If they don't exist
then the components do and one can be hastily assembled.

and
many times larger than any EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapon) now available
or even planned. An airburst weapon would be useless against hardened
targets like caves and bunkers, unless they were very shallow and the
burst was very large pretty close. It's effectiveness against surface
targets would be somewhat limited by terrain. It would, however, kill
and sicken millions in places like Pakistan and China. The consequences
would be unacceptable, particularly just to try, and fail, to kill one
man.

Perfect. This is not a campaign to bag OBL,

Your writing "No troops, one small nuke on Tora Bora the day Osama took
credit. End of problem. Whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy,
government involvement or solely bin Laden, none matter when Osama took
credit. At that point he signed his own death warrant" was what I was
responding to.

it is a message to the
entire world that our policy has changed. Both parties seem to like that
word, lets use it. We are "changing" from a colonial, interventionist,
nation to one that respects the sovereignty of others.

Causing massive amounts of radiological fallout spreading across the
borders of multiple nations is rather likely to be taken by them as
disrespectful of their sovereignty, if not an outright act of war.

**** with us and
we will eliminate your entire gene line.

Not really possible, although I think the occasional massively, brutally
disproportionate over-reaction to provocation is likely to have a
most salutary effect on the future calculations of one's enemies.

An EPW would require precise targeting data, and if we had such precise
and timely data, we wouldn't have needed a nuke. EPWs are precision
weapons for fixed targets like runways and underground command posts,
not mobile targets hiding in any number of caves or other places. Their
range of effect is quite limited.

I don't want to penetrate a mountain, I want a very big post-it on the
forehead of every foreign leader.

"Vaporized" mountains are the stuff of pure fantasy.

See above.

See above. Your words; not mine.

Simultaneously we would have removed all our troops and bases from
around the world removing the reason Islam hates us.
Saudi Arabia would be a good start. They don't need us to defend them,
and our bases there don't help us defend their ability to ship oil to
us, either.

Only a bare start, I speak of a majority of our troops overseas.

Moreover, world opinion would have shifted even more rapidly and
irrevocably against us, and the entire Islamic world, including those
who are kinda, sorta with us, would have risen as one in opposition.
Naah, on 9/12 we had world opinion with us. A few might have made
public statements decrying the use but world opinion would have been,
"America finally grew a set of balls, let's not **** with them!"

All
they had to have done was commit sufficient resources to Afghanistan
in the first place, and then employ them intelligently and in a timely
manner, and they'd most likely have bagged ObL.
"...Most likely have bagged obl..." Close isn't good enough. You
don't know the history of Afghanistan, it beat the entire British
Empire and Soviet Union. With our supply lines a ground war is insane.
You'd think invading two separate countries and overthrowing two
regimes, one of which had nothing to do with 9/11, would be sufficient
to make that point. I do know the history of the region rather well,
and you are conflating a single, limited operation into the larger,
continuing war there.

Perhaps you misunderstand my reasoning. I am not sending a message to
the al qaeda barbarians but to the entire world. To achieve peace we
must cease causing strife for others. When we stop screwing with others
we can demand peace.

A multi-national, post-nuclear radiological disaster isn't "screwing
with others"?

Instead, American
forces were used to push him towards the Pakistani border, and
unreliable indigenous forces were the only ones positioned to prevent
him from slipping across. Foolish. It struck me at the time that
they must not have really wanted to catch him.

Jeff
Osama outwitted the entire Bush administration. Those who believe a
ground war of attrition will ever win in Afghanistan don't understand
history.
Correct.

Except Obama has already stated that he's stepping up the war in
Afghanistan by an initial 20,000 troops.

In for a penny, in for a pound . . .

The idea is not to kill pawns but to kill the queen. Headless, an
enemy dies.
If you think the problem is limited to ObL and whoever his current
henchmen happen to be, then you need to seriously broaden your
perspective.

Jeff

No one has inquired, and I've not detailed my preference,

See above.

Jeff

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:55:56 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:05:29 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:52 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
[snip]
I'm of the latter opinion. No troops, one small nuke on Tora Bora
the day Osama took credit. End of problem. Whether or not 9/11
was a conspiracy, government involvement or solely bin Laden, none
matter when Osama took credit. At that point he signed his own
death warrant.

Bush ****ed that up too, squandering world-wide sympathy, involving
our military into a ground war, giving moslems another cause to
hate us, squandering precious national resources and a
death-spiral.
That would have been a threshold we would have deeply regretted
crossing,
I disagree, reasons below.

and in the worst possible region of the world in which to cross it.
The best place to make such a stand.

The Neocons are just itching to begin deploying so-called tactical
nukes, maybe against Iran. I'm rather surprised they haven't yet.
But, in any case, as a technical matter, they would not have gotten
the job done in Tora Bora.
I said "nuke," singular. One medium sized nuke, 20 megaton for
example, would have vaporized the entire mountain and turned the
region into a sheet of glass. Not only would it have nailed bin
laden, we knew he was there at the time, and obliterated his command
hq, but sent a signal to those who only know raw force.
A 20 megaton nuke is larger than anything in our current inventory,

According to published reports. I know for a fact that we had much
bigger weapons than published in the '60's and see no reason that
should have changed one iota. In fact it's probable that weapons exist
that the President does not know of, like the neutron bomb. If they
don't exist then the components do and one can be hastily assembled.

and
many times larger than any EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapon) now
available or even planned. An airburst weapon would be useless
against hardened targets like caves and bunkers, unless they were very
shallow and the burst was very large pretty close. It's effectiveness
against surface targets would be somewhat limited by terrain. It
would, however, kill and sicken millions in places like Pakistan and
China. The consequences would be unacceptable, particularly just to
try, and fail, to kill one man.

Perfect. This is not a campaign to bag OBL,

Your writing "No troops, one small nuke on Tora Bora the day Osama took
credit. End of problem. Whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy,
government involvement or solely bin Laden, none matter when Osama took
credit. At that point he signed his own death warrant" was what I was
responding to.

Yes, both are true and I the confusion is probably my fault.

it is a message to the
entire world that our policy has changed. Both parties seem to like
that word, lets use it. We are "changing" from a colonial,
interventionist, nation to one that respects the sovereignty of others.

Causing massive amounts of radiological fallout spreading across the
borders of multiple nations is rather likely to be taken by them as
disrespectful of their sovereignty, if not an outright act of war.

Pakistan deserves it for harboring al qaeda.

**** with us and
we will eliminate your entire gene line.

Not really possible, although I think the occasional massively, brutally
disproportionate over-reaction to provocation is likely to have a
most salutary effect on the future calculations of one's enemies.

Which is the point.

An EPW would require precise targeting data, and if we had such
precise and timely data, we wouldn't have needed a nuke. EPWs are
precision weapons for fixed targets like runways and underground
command posts, not mobile targets hiding in any number of caves or
other places. Their range of effect is quite limited.

I don't want to penetrate a mountain, I want a very big post-it on the
forehead of every foreign leader.

"Vaporized" mountains are the stuff of pure fantasy.

See above.

See above. Your words; not mine.

Simultaneously we would have removed all our troops and bases from
around the world removing the reason Islam hates us.
Saudi Arabia would be a good start. They don't need us to defend
them, and our bases there don't help us defend their ability to ship
oil to us, either.

Only a bare start, I speak of a majority of our troops overseas.

Moreover, world opinion would have shifted even more rapidly and
irrevocably against us, and the entire Islamic world, including
those who are kinda, sorta with us, would have risen as one in
opposition.
Naah, on 9/12 we had world opinion with us. A few might have made
public statements decrying the use but world opinion would have been,
"America finally grew a set of balls, let's not **** with them!"

All
they had to have done was commit sufficient resources to Afghanistan
in the first place, and then employ them intelligently and in a
timely manner, and they'd most likely have bagged ObL.
"...Most likely have bagged obl..." Close isn't good enough. You
don't know the history of Afghanistan, it beat the entire British
Empire and Soviet Union. With our supply lines a ground war is
insane.
You'd think invading two separate countries and overthrowing two
regimes, one of which had nothing to do with 9/11, would be sufficient
to make that point. I do know the history of the region rather well,
and you are conflating a single, limited operation into the larger,
continuing war there.

Perhaps you misunderstand my reasoning. I am not sending a message to
the al qaeda barbarians but to the entire world. To achieve peace we
must cease causing strife for others. When we stop screwing with
others we can demand peace.

A multi-national, post-nuclear radiological disaster isn't "screwing
with others"?

Perhaps they'll rein in their outlaw neighbors.

Instead, American
forces were used to push him towards the Pakistani border, and
unreliable indigenous forces were the only ones positioned to
prevent him from slipping across. Foolish. It struck me at the
time that they must not have really wanted to catch him.

Jeff
Osama outwitted the entire Bush administration. Those who believe a
ground war of attrition will ever win in Afghanistan don't understand
history.
Correct.

Except Obama has already stated that he's stepping up the war in
Afghanistan by an initial 20,000 troops.

In for a penny, in for a pound . . .

The idea is not to kill pawns but to kill the queen. Headless, an
enemy dies.
If you think the problem is limited to ObL and whoever his current
henchmen happen to be, then you need to seriously broaden your
perspective.

Jeff

No one has inquired, and I've not detailed my preference,

See above.

Jeff


--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 06 Jan 2009 05:55:30 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

it is a message to the
entire world that our policy has changed. Both parties seem to like
that word, lets use it. We are "changing" from a colonial,
interventionist, nation to one that respects the sovereignty of others.

Causing massive amounts of radiological fallout spreading across the
borders of multiple nations is rather likely to be taken by them as
disrespectful of their sovereignty, if not an outright act of war.

Pakistan deserves it for harboring al qaeda.

Many things are beyond the control of some (or all) governments.
The government is not always the problem.
Very annoyed people might be.

Get theologins to disable superstitions & don't try so hard
to force the sale of McRibs on every street corner.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:55:56 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

**** with us and
we will eliminate your entire gene line.

Not really possible, although I think the occasional massively, brutally
disproportionate over-reaction to provocation is likely to have a
most salutary effect on the future calculations of one's enemies.

Works well for Israel, eh?
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:55:56 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

**** with us and
we will eliminate your entire gene line.
Not really possible, although I think the occasional massively, brutally
disproportionate over-reaction to provocation is likely to have a
most salutary effect on the future calculations of one's enemies.

Works well for Israel, eh?


Actually, I think the Israelis have been restrained. If we had a country
on our border doing what the Hamas boys are doing, we'd nuke that country.

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:05:29 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:52 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
[snip]
I'm of the latter opinion. No troops, one small nuke on Tora Bora
the day Osama took credit. End of problem. Whether or not 9/11 was
a conspiracy, government involvement or solely bin Laden, none matter
when Osama took credit. At that point he signed his own death
warrant.

Bush ****ed that up too, squandering world-wide sympathy, involving
our military into a ground war, giving moslems another cause to hate
us, squandering precious national resources and a death-spiral.
That would have been a threshold we would have deeply regretted
crossing,
I disagree, reasons below.

and in the worst possible region of the world in which to cross it.
The best place to make such a stand.

The Neocons are just itching to begin deploying so-called tactical
nukes, maybe against Iran. I'm rather surprised they haven't yet.
But, in any case, as a technical matter, they would not have gotten
the job done in Tora Bora.
I said "nuke," singular. One medium sized nuke, 20 megaton for
example, would have vaporized the entire mountain and turned the region
into a sheet of glass. Not only would it have nailed bin laden, we
knew he was there at the time, and obliterated his command hq, but sent
a signal to those who only know raw force.
A 20 megaton nuke is larger than anything in our current inventory,

According to published reports. I know for a fact that we had much
bigger weapons than published in the '60's and see no reason that should
have changed one iota. In fact it's probable that weapons exist that the
President does not know of, like the neutron bomb. If they don't exist
then the components do and one can be hastily assembled.

and
many times larger than any EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapon) now available
or even planned. An airburst weapon would be useless against hardened
targets like caves and bunkers, unless they were very shallow and the
burst was very large pretty close. It's effectiveness against surface
targets would be somewhat limited by terrain. It would, however, kill
and sicken millions in places like Pakistan and China. The consequences
would be unacceptable, particularly just to try, and fail, to kill one
man.

Perfect. This is not a campaign to bag OBL, it is a message to the
entire world that our policy has changed. Both parties seem to like that
word, lets use it. We are "changing" from a colonial, interventionist,
nation to one that respects the sovereignty of others. **** with us and
we will eliminate your entire gene line.

An EPW would require precise targeting data, and if we had such precise
and timely data, we wouldn't have needed a nuke. EPWs are precision
weapons for fixed targets like runways and underground command posts,
not mobile targets hiding in any number of caves or other places. Their
range of effect is quite limited.

I don't want to penetrate a mountain, I want a very big post-it on the
forehead of every foreign leader.

"Vaporized" mountains are the stuff of pure fantasy.

See above.

Simultaneously we would have removed all our troops and bases from
around the world removing the reason Islam hates us.
Saudi Arabia would be a good start. They don't need us to defend them,
and our bases there don't help us defend their ability to ship oil to
us, either.

Only a bare start, I speak of a majority of our troops overseas.

Moreover, world opinion would have shifted even more rapidly and
irrevocably against us, and the entire Islamic world, including those
who are kinda, sorta with us, would have risen as one in opposition.
Naah, on 9/12 we had world opinion with us. A few might have made
public statements decrying the use but world opinion would have been,
"America finally grew a set of balls, let's not **** with them!"

All
they had to have done was commit sufficient resources to Afghanistan
in the first place, and then employ them intelligently and in a timely
manner, and they'd most likely have bagged ObL.
"...Most likely have bagged obl..." Close isn't good enough. You
don't know the history of Afghanistan, it beat the entire British
Empire and Soviet Union. With our supply lines a ground war is insane.
You'd think invading two separate countries and overthrowing two
regimes, one of which had nothing to do with 9/11, would be sufficient
to make that point. I do know the history of the region rather well,
and you are conflating a single, limited operation into the larger,
continuing war there.

Perhaps you misunderstand my reasoning. I am not sending a message to
the al qaeda barbarians but to the entire world. To achieve peace we
must cease causing strife for others. When we stop screwing with others
we can demand peace.

Instead, American
forces were used to push him towards the Pakistani border, and
unreliable indigenous forces were the only ones positioned to prevent
him from slipping across. Foolish. It struck me at the time that
they must not have really wanted to catch him.

Jeff
Osama outwitted the entire Bush administration. Those who believe a
ground war of attrition will ever win in Afghanistan don't understand
history.
Correct.

Except Obama has already stated that he's stepping up the war in
Afghanistan by an initial 20,000 troops.

The idea is not to kill pawns but to kill the queen. Headless, an
enemy dies.
If you think the problem is limited to ObL and whoever his current
henchmen happen to be, then you need to seriously broaden your
perspective.

Jeff

No one has inquired, and I've not detailed my preference, before so I'm
not surprised you misunderstood. This should dispel that cloud.


Now I know you are crazy. And totally unconcerned with anyone's
rights... I guess I can discount all that high fallootin' talk about
rights and such you've been spouting lately.

Dan

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:05:29 -0600, Jeff Mc wrote:

Simultaneously we would have removed all our troops and bases from around
the world removing the reason Islam hates us.

Saudi Arabia would be a good start. They don't need us to defend them,
and our bases there don't help us defend their ability to ship oil to
us, either.

The Saudis long ago tossed the US out.
--
Cliff