wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:54:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

Who's numbers do you believe? If you listen to the Pentagon is 20
civilians per confirmed terrorist. If you believe the Afghans it is a
lot higher.

Hmm... per "confirmed" terrorist... that leaves some wiggle room I think.

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.

This story changes every time I hear it. The reality is the 50 or so
special ops guys they had were not enough to go after him and we
could not reinforce them fast enough to stop OBL from slipping across
the border.
Most of the problem is the 1000 Northern Alliance fighters we bought,
cut and ran.

So, Rumsfeld was unwilling to put in the number that could do the job, so
it's the military's fault? Actually, I heard we had him cornered, and the
orders came from on high to let the locals handle it.


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.

You told me, it was politics that closed the road. They were mad about
the people we were killing, particularly 3 of their soldiers.

And, they got over it, apparently. So your point is that the situation is
falling apart, yet it doesn't seem to be.

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.

If he uses his sat phone NSA will lock on it and there will be a
Hellfire coming in within seconds of the confirmation. That is his
comms problem. I bet OBL is officially broke and that is the biggest
disruption to his activities. We have our thumb on all of his money
except whatever he has in his pocket. That is not a threat

Yet he supposedly planned the recently foiled attempts in Europe... I'm glad
you know his finances so well... perhaps you should say it slowly into your
phone so the NSA gets the message?

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

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?



New or Gnu or Knew? So many choices. Eh Pumpkin?
--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID.

The magnificent Boatless Harry

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:16:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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?

I don't know if Bush was stupid or misinformed. We have to ask the
same question about Obama. They are trudging down the same road on the
same advice from the same people.

Nope... not even close to the same road. Do you seriously think Obama even
might be stupid? Give me a break.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:21:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:54:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

Who's numbers do you believe? If you listen to the Pentagon is 20
civilians per confirmed terrorist. If you believe the Afghans it is a
lot higher.

Hmm... per "confirmed" terrorist... that leaves some wiggle room I think.

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.

This story changes every time I hear it. The reality is the 50 or so
special ops guys they had were not enough to go after him and we
could not reinforce them fast enough to stop OBL from slipping across
the border.
Most of the problem is the 1000 Northern Alliance fighters we bought,
cut and ran.

So, Rumsfeld was unwilling to put in the number that could do the job, so
it's the military's fault? Actually, I heard we had him cornered, and the
orders came from on high to let the locals handle it.

The original plan was a small contingent of Deltas, aided by the
Northern Alliance people the Green Berets had recruited.
To suddenly change that to dropping in 1000 more troops (to replace
the NA) is not something you can do in the hours they had to do it.
Whether the whole plan was flawed is open to conjecture but if they
were successful we would be in and out without kicking the Afghanistan
tar baby we are stuck in now.
In my opinion the only flaw was not having a couple dozen B52s
orbiting that they could have used in an old time Arc Light Mission.

Read all about it from someone who was there... why was the plan
cancelled... hmmmm....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtml


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.

You told me, it was politics that closed the road. They were mad about
the people we were killing, particularly 3 of their soldiers.

And, they got over it, apparently. So your point is that the situation is
falling apart, yet it doesn't seem to be.

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.

If he uses his sat phone NSA will lock on it and there will be a
Hellfire coming in within seconds of the confirmation. That is his
comms problem. I bet OBL is officially broke and that is the biggest
disruption to his activities. We have our thumb on all of his money
except whatever he has in his pocket. That is not a threat

Yet he supposedly planned the recently foiled attempts in Europe... I'm
glad
you know his finances so well... perhaps you should say it slowly into
your
phone so the NSA gets the message?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:30:02 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

I don't know if Bush was stupid or misinformed. We have to ask the
same question about Obama. They are trudging down the same road on the
same advice from the same people.

Nope... not even close to the same road. Do you seriously think Obama even
might be stupid? Give me a break.


Then that leaves "misinformed" doesn't it. And as to the "road" what
is different? Obama is in lock step with the Bush schedule in Iraq and
he actually escalated in Afghanistan, but still hopes to follow the
Bush withdrawal schedule.

Obama is fulfilling our commitment not to just abandon Iraq/Afg., due to
Bush's negligent behavior.

BTW talking about the wheels coming off the Afghanistan war, we are
now pushing al-qaeda into Tajikistan and Ubekistan. Are we going to
invade them too?
We are trying to use force to stop an idea. That never works.

Perhaps Russia should get involved. lol

Never works? Look what Rove did/is doing to the American dialog.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:35:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In my opinion the only flaw was not having a couple dozen B52s
orbiting that they could have used in an old time Arc Light Mission.

Read all about it from someone who was there... why was the plan
cancelled... hmmmm....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtml

Peppering the mountains with landmines? That was the plan?

Who cleans that mess up?

In case you haven't heard, most of the civilized world calls landmines
"terrorism" of the worst kind. It is the gift that keeps on giving.


So, you're rather not clean up the mess vs. getting the perpetrator of 1000s
of US deaths? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:02:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:35:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In my opinion the only flaw was not having a couple dozen B52s
orbiting that they could have used in an old time Arc Light Mission.

Read all about it from someone who was there... why was the plan
cancelled... hmmmm....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtml

Peppering the mountains with landmines? That was the plan?

Who cleans that mess up?

In case you haven't heard, most of the civilized world calls landmines
"terrorism" of the worst kind. It is the gift that keeps on giving.


So, you're rather not clean up the mess vs. getting the perpetrator of
1000s
of US deaths? Seems like a no-brainer to me.


The problem is we won't clean up the mess. Afghan children will, one
leg at a time.

I guess that is why we are the only western democracy that won't sign
the Ottawa land mine treaty. It puts us right in there with Cuba,
North Korea and Somalia.

I guess they work too well and **** all of the civilians who get
killed or maimed for the next half century until they all get stepped
on.

We're already cleaning up those messes all over the place.

http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-...ml?CP.rss=true

Yes, we should sign the piece of paper too.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:02:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:35:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In my opinion the only flaw was not having a couple dozen B52s
orbiting that they could have used in an old time Arc Light Mission.

Read all about it from someone who was there... why was the plan
cancelled... hmmmm....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtml

Peppering the mountains with landmines? That was the plan?

Who cleans that mess up?

In case you haven't heard, most of the civilized world calls landmines
"terrorism" of the worst kind. It is the gift that keeps on giving.


So, you're rather not clean up the mess vs. getting the perpetrator of
1000s
of US deaths? Seems like a no-brainer to me.


The problem is we won't clean up the mess. Afghan children will, one
leg at a time.

I guess that is why we are the only western democracy that won't sign
the Ottawa land mine treaty. It puts us right in there with Cuba,
North Korea and Somalia.

I guess they work too well and **** all of the civilians who get
killed or maimed for the next half century until they all get stepped
on.

Ours will not maim for the next 50 years. Maybe a year or 6 months or some
designated time. The older land mines were good for years and years. Our
newer mines have a shelf life that is designed in. The Trigger decomposes
or the explosives becomes inert. Do not know the mechanism, but it is
there.