BoatBanter.com - George W. Bush's accomplishments

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - George W. Bush's accomplishments (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/118724-george-w-bushs-accomplishments.html)

George W. Bush's accomplishments

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:56:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

\

Nobody has been able to control those areas in the history of the
planet including the Brits, the Soviets and now the US spending $117
billion, How do you think Pakistan will do it?

Ok. Then, why did you make the argument that we should demand Pakistan
turn
him over? We're demanding that they step up their war in the area, and get
back more control.

I just said if we are occupying Afghanistan because some tribal leader
wouldn't turn over OBL, assuming he even could, why aren't we
occupying Pakistan now.

The Taliban had the ability to turn him over to us. They didn't.

You folks seem to think "The Taliban" is some kind of organized
government with absolute control over every kid with an AK who says he
is Taliban. In real life "taliban" is more of a philosophy than a
group and if we killed every "leader", the same kids with AKs would
still keep popping up, perhaps with a new name and certainly with
different leaders.

I think Mullah Omar would object to that classification. In fact, it's not
monolithic, but it was in charge prior to the invasion.

I also think the idea that OBL is terror central is just to put a face
on it. You don't need a criminal genius or any significant financing
to do the kind of soft target terrorism we are seen in the last 9
years.

Well, sure. So we should just let him go?

In that regard American school kids have been more successful than
al-Qeada just using the internet and their lunch money.

Huh?

George W. Bush's accomplishments

"Colonel Kurtz" wrote in message
...

On 8-Oct-2010, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

A million times more was accomplished on August 6, 1945, than in 9
years

of
tickling the balls of the taliban.

Yeah, so nuking a bunch of civilians is the right move. Good grief!

Good point. Know any way to make the Islamic Maniacs put on uniforms??

Doesn't matter to war monger types like you... just nuke them all is fine
with you. I'm sure a 3yr old is capable of firing a rocket launcher.

George W. Bush's accomplishments

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:24:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:56:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

\

Nobody has been able to control those areas in the history of the
planet including the Brits, the Soviets and now the US spending $117
billion, How do you think Pakistan will do it?

Ok. Then, why did you make the argument that we should demand Pakistan
turn
him over? We're demanding that they step up their war in the area, and
get
back more control.

I just said if we are occupying Afghanistan because some tribal leader
wouldn't turn over OBL, assuming he even could, why aren't we
occupying Pakistan now.

The Taliban had the ability to turn him over to us. They didn't.

See below. I am sure the people we are bombing right now had no
ability to "turn over" bin laden.

Who exactly are we bombing? Mostly terrorists and extremist Taliban.
Unfortunately, civilians are injured/killed sometimes also.

Since the story is Bin Laden travels with about 100 of his own people,
it is not that clear how much influence the Taliban would actually
have anyway.

So, the Taliban, fighting against our 100,000 troops are doing fine, but
against OBL's 100 people, they are no match?

I also think the idea that OBL is terror central is just to put a face
on it. You don't need a criminal genius or any significant financing
to do the kind of soft target terrorism we are seen in the last 9
years.

Well, sure. So we should just let him go?

The question is, are we willing to destabilize Pakistan and perhaps
cause a nuclear war over it.

It's not clear we're destabilizing Pakistan. Did you miss it... the road is
open again.

I agree it would be good to kill Bin Laden but what we are doing now
is not really furthering that objective.

I disagree. It's not perfect, but it seems like we're disrupting his
operational ability, and maybe we'll get lucky and get him.

George W. Bush's accomplishments

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:26:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Colonel Kurtz" wrote in message
...

On 8-Oct-2010, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

A million times more was accomplished on August 6, 1945, than in 9
years

of
tickling the balls of the taliban.

Yeah, so nuking a bunch of civilians is the right move. Good grief!

Good point. Know any way to make the Islamic Maniacs put on uniforms??

Doesn't matter to war monger types like you... just nuke them all is fine
with you. I'm sure a 3yr old is capable of firing a rocket launcher.

You seem to be changing sides. You were saying it was OK to have
collateral damage a couple days ago.

Huh? I'm saying that BAR is a war-mongering ass if he's advocating nuking
civilians because they happen to be Muslims.

BTW you wring your hands about my idea of just killing the Gitmo
people, saying some may be innocent but they have all been vetted for
years.
On the other hand we have CIA guys seeing someone who looks a little
like OBL from 5 miles up and killing everyone within 50 feet of him
with a Hellfire missile and that is fine with you.
Talk about judge jury and executioner.

Never said that, and it's a bit more sophisticated that looking for someone
from 5 miles up who looks a little like OBL.

George W. Bush's accomplishments

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:40:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The question is not about the hit teams (in this case CIA officers
flying drones). I question the other 100,000

We all question the strategy, but I think that Patreaus will tell the
truth
to Obama and be listened to. So, we'll have to see how the planned
withdrawal turns out beginning next year.

I guess you have not been listening to Bob Woodward.
His allegation is that the Pentagon is not really telling Obama all
they know about Afghanistan.
His allegations have a nagging habit of turning out to be true.

If they aren't, then they're being insubordinate. Did they not tell Bush?

George W. Bush's accomplishments

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:43:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:24:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:56:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

\

Nobody has been able to control those areas in the history of the
planet including the Brits, the Soviets and now the US spending $117
billion, How do you think Pakistan will do it?

Ok. Then, why did you make the argument that we should demand Pakistan
turn
him over? We're demanding that they step up their war in the area, and
get
back more control.

I just said if we are occupying Afghanistan because some tribal leader
wouldn't turn over OBL, assuming he even could, why aren't we
occupying Pakistan now.

The Taliban had the ability to turn him over to us. They didn't.

See below. I am sure the people we are bombing right now had no
ability to "turn over" bin laden.

Who exactly are we bombing? Mostly terrorists and extremist Taliban.
Unfortunately, civilians are injured/killed sometimes also.

It seems unclear we really know who we are bombing. If we did we would
have a better innocent to guilty ratio.

What's the ratio? So far, all you've said is a gross number of civilians
killed.

Since the story is Bin Laden travels with about 100 of his own people,
it is not that clear how much influence the Taliban would actually
have anyway.

So, the Taliban, fighting against our 100,000 troops are doing fine, but
against OBL's 100 people, they are no match?

We have a different mission. We are nation building. OBL's guys were
only there to protect him and assure his escape.
Our troops were no match for them in Tora Bora were they?.

We're not nation building as much as stabilizing. Has Obama said nation
building? I don't recall that.

"Our troops" were blocked by Rumsfeld from carrying out the mission.

I also think the idea that OBL is terror central is just to put a face
on it. You don't need a criminal genius or any significant financing
to do the kind of soft target terrorism we are seen in the last 9
years.

Well, sure. So we should just let him go?

The question is, are we willing to destabilize Pakistan and perhaps
cause a nuclear war over it.

It's not clear we're destabilizing Pakistan. Did you miss it... the road
is
open again.

I see the road is open but I don't see the political climate changing
much.

Yet the road is open.. the gov't must feel confident enough to do that.

I agree it would be good to kill Bin Laden but what we are doing now
is not really furthering that objective.

I disagree. It's not perfect, but it seems like we're disrupting his
operational ability, and maybe we'll get lucky and get him.

Most of the disruption is being done by NSA, not the troops in
Afghanistan. They are the ones who have shut down his communication
and the electronic moving of money. OBL is really only as valuable to
terrorists as the amount of money he can get to them and right now
that is zero..

Actually, that's not true. He's hiding due to drone and other potential
attacks. The comms is a result of the threat. He's not using his sat phone
or whatever. The money is certainly a disruption.

George W. Bush's accomplishments

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:49:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:40:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The question is not about the hit teams (in this case CIA officers
flying drones). I question the other 100,000

We all question the strategy, but I think that Patreaus will tell the
truth
to Obama and be listened to. So, we'll have to see how the planned
withdrawal turns out beginning next year.

I guess you have not been listening to Bob Woodward.
His allegation is that the Pentagon is not really telling Obama all
they know about Afghanistan.
His allegations have a nagging habit of turning out to be true.

If they aren't, then they're being insubordinate. Did they not tell Bush?

There are Bush's guys (Petreaus, Gates, Mullen). They told him what he
wanted to hear. Basically "more troops" is the only answer.

I doubt they did that. Do you have any evidence to support that argument?
All the generals were lying, but Bush new better?