wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:56:33 -0400, Jim wrote:

JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into Bama's
lap just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office and even
to this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is still
under investigation.

It is reasonable to question a war he said he would stop on January
20.
What are our objectives in Afghanistan? Why are we there?
There is about as much linkage to 911 as there was with Iraq, another
stupid war Obama said he would stop.
Obama just seems to be Bush with a better tan.


Huh? He never said he would end the war in Afghanistan on 1/20. There's
straight-line linkage to 9/11, as you know. Should we let the Taliban regain
control, then invite bin laden back in, just when Pakistan is finally
getting down to business with him?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:14:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It is reasonable to question a war he said he would stop on January
20.
What are our objectives in Afghanistan? Why are we there?
There is about as much linkage to 911 as there was with Iraq, another
stupid war Obama said he would stop.
Obama just seems to be Bush with a better tan.


Huh? He never said he would end the war in Afghanistan on 1/20. There's
straight-line linkage to 9/11, as you know. Should we let the Taliban
regain
control, then invite bin laden back in, just when Pakistan is finally
getting down to business with him?

The 911 crew was virtually all Saudi, as is OBL. The Taliban has never
been linked to 911. Just exactly where is the link?

Besides that they were harboring Al Qaeda none at all. Besides that the crew
was trained and directed by bin Ladin none at all.

We are making more potential terrorists every day than we have
actually killed in the whole sordid invasion/occupation. The Afghanis
are saying we are worse than the Soviets.

Some are, some aren't. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need to continue
it any longer than absolutely necessary, and I'm very concerned about the
apparent fraudulent election that just happened. But, we need to be very
cautious about leaving without getting the current gov't more able to deal
with the Taliban. This is what's going on right now in Iraq. The jury is
still out, but it's at least possible that the Maliki gov't can deal with
the insurgents.

Our incursion is actually destabilizing Pakistan, the real fear we
should have.

We don't do it very much, and Pakistan seems to be doing a good job
themselves.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:50:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


The 911 crew was virtually all Saudi, as is OBL. The Taliban has never
been linked to 911. Just exactly where is the link?

Besides that they were harboring Al Qaeda none at all. Besides that the
crew
was trained and directed by bin Ladin none at all.

We are making more potential terrorists every day than we have
actually killed in the whole sordid invasion/occupation. The Afghanis
are saying we are worse than the Soviets.

Some are, some aren't. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need to
continue
it any longer than absolutely necessary, and I'm very concerned about the
apparent fraudulent election that just happened. But, we need to be very
cautious about leaving without getting the current gov't more able to deal
with the Taliban. This is what's going on right now in Iraq. The jury is
still out, but it's at least possible that the Maliki gov't can deal with
the insurgents.

Our incursion is actually destabilizing Pakistan, the real fear we
should have.

We don't do it very much, and Pakistan seems to be doing a good job
themselves.

We have no reason to believe the Taliban had anything to do with Al
Qaeda until we drove them together. As far as we know the 911 attack
was actually planned in Europe. There were plenty of sightings of the
hijackers around western Europe. They seemed to come in via Canada.
I am still not sure where the Afghanistan connection was and our
wholesale killing of civilians sure isn't helping us fight terrorism.
It just creates more terrorists.


It seems pretty clear to me there was a strong connection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban...sama_bin_Laden

I'm not sure where they entered from or where the specific attack was
planned... Germany I recall...

We're not killing civilians wholesale, and in fact we're trying to avoid
killing them at all. Gosh that doesn't sound particuarly great does it?
Anyway, it certainly been a change of policy to minimize the deaths. More
than one is unacceptable, but I'm not sure how we can avoid it completely.
I'm not a military expert.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:20:09 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


It seems pretty clear to me there was a strong connection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban...sama_bin_Laden

What seems to be forgotten over the years, the Taliban offered up bin
Laden several times. There were strings attached, and I can't blame Bush
for not accepting the offers, but, with hindsight, perhaps, there was
enough of an opening that with diplomacy, we could have avoided this
war. The Taliban, at the time, wasn't the enemy. Bin Laden was, and
still is.