George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:55:08 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:10:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:55:42 -0700, jps wrote:

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

Gosh, it's a good thing Idi Amin didn't have oil under his country.

You notice that since Clinton got his nose bloodied in Africa we are
not really doing much war making there.

Oh, if Idi would have had oil to offer in large quantities in the
middle east, he'd have been GW Bush's target.

My point is that it had nothing whatsoever to do with toppling a
dictator and everything to do with what lives under that sand and
where that sand exists on the planet.

Mentioning that we toppled a dictator is humorous and disingenuous.

It was a tangible result. Everything else in both wars is political
posturing and massive killings of innocents.
Afghanistan will go down in history as the American war with the worst
rate of collateral damage..

And lying. Don't forget the lying about Iraq, and the willful neglect in
Afg.

Really? The worst? I would say WW2, but I'm just adding up the score of
course.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In all fairness....

I would say a new accomplishment is pulling within 2 points of Obama
about which was the better president in today's CNN poll. (45/47)

History will not be as tough on this guy as you are.

I still think Clinton will be remembered for Monica, Bush 1&2 will be
remembered for Saddam and Obama will be remembered because he is the
first black guy in the white house

Since you didn't include the thread, I have no idea what you're talking
about wrt the "better" president. Better than who? Bush? Right.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:47:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



It's not comparable to VN. Come on. We're not carpet bombing villages.

True, instead of carpet bombing we are using pinpoint strikes on the
wrong people. You can't deny the statistics our government is putting
out. They say we killed a couple hundred AQ and 6000 innocents. The
Afghans say it is more like double or triple that number of innocents.

We're doing the best we can. I don't think anyone wants to kill innocents.

Now we find out we are just paying protection money to the Taliban,
hiring them to protect our bases. Karzai wants us to stop propping up
the people we pay him to be against. and the Senate just figured out
we were doing it. Without them we would need thousands more troops
that we don't have.
The wheels are coming off this war.

Perhaps. If so, then we'll leave. If not, then we'll stay a bit longer.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:41:02 -0400, "MMC" wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:48:08 -0500, "MMC" wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In all fairness....

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

BTW, we are not in the business of deposing dictators and Bush is the
one
that failed early and ugly in Afghanistan, Obama just doesn't have the
balls
to turn it off.


no, he has the good moral sense not to abandon a commitment we made.
you're confused

He promised to bring everyone home during the campaign, not honor any
imaginary commitment.
Karzai wants to throw out all private security and is talking about
throwing
out all contractors. Obama may have a convenient out.

Where is that "Mission Accomplished" banner?

Bush's biggest mistake was not believing the one behind him on the
Carrier
We could have brought home all the people from both wars that day and
the end result would be the same.

You got that right!

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:51:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You seem mightily concerned about AQ, but not so much with reducing the
violent attacks in Afg. and around the world.

I am concerned about dead Americans and a war that causes more
problems than it fixes. No more no less.

For Iraq, I agree. Talk to Bush. For Afg., it's too early to tell thanks
to
Bush.

We did depose Saddam in Iraq, what have we done in Afghanistan?

Not enough. We would have been more successful there if Iraq hadn't
happened.

It appears all we have really accomplished is to prop up a corrupt
Kabul government that will fail as soon as we leave and destabilize
Pakistan.

Perhaps it'll fail. We're trying to ensure that doesn't happen. Sounds like
you'd prefer not to try at this point.

We have a single minded obsession with Bin Laden in spite of the fact
that he has not been linked to any of the recent attacks and is far
from the worst threat to the US right now.

Actually, he's been linked to the recent Euro threat. Should we just forget
about him??

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:32:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:55:42 -0700, jps wrote:

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

Gosh, it's a good thing Idi Amin didn't have oil under his country.

You notice that since Clinton got his nose bloodied in Africa we are
not really doing much war making there.

Actually, we have lots of people on the ground there... special ops I
think
they're called. But, feel free to blame Clinton.


I have no problems with a few special ops people being anywhere but it
should be a black op without any direct link to the US.
We used to be real good at that sort of thing.

That is pour best chance of getting Bin Laden. A guy with a sniper
rifle or a laser designator could get him but an army never will.


?? What's wrong with ties to the US? You're in favor of the policy of
targeted murder, right?

The deniability is for the American public. As long as the voters can be
convinced, all is good with the Gov't.
The rest of the world doesn't buy the BS but the average American just
doesn't care or know enough to care.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:07:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


He wasn't in Hamburg where the plot was planned, he wasn't in Spain
where the hijackers were trained and the Taliban did not have any
involvement at all except letting him live there. They certainly did
not know anything about airplanes crashing into buildings.
Their fight is with the people who have invaded their country, no more
no less.
They were there before we arrived and they will be there when we
leave.

So, what you're saying is that if there's a known murderer living in your
house, you're not really responsible for turning him in, because you
weren't
there when he murdered someone...

I am saying if the murderer left the house, you stop shooting at it.

OBL left Afghanistan 9 years ago, yet we still keep up the war.
To use your logic we should be occupying Islamabad and threatening
their government.. I suppose we are already killing their people so
that is a start ... until they just kick us out completely.

Firstly, in our system of justice, the person who harbors a murderer is also
guilty of a crime. Secondly, you're right, he left 9 years or so ago. Bush's
fault. Finally, we're no longer threatening the gov't, since they didn't
have anything to do with OBL and they aren't the Taliban. There's a
timetable for withdrawal. It's been published.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:03:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

... but Bin Laden is not there now.
What part of that is so hard for you to understand. Have we demanded
Pakistan turn over Bin Laden? Have we occupied Islamabad to force them
to?

Why not if your logic is solid?



So, if we leave and he comes back, which would be fairly likely, then
what?
Are we pressuring Pakistan to do more in the wild, border areas?

\

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.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:26:42 -0400, wrote:

OBL left Afghanistan 9 years ago, yet we still keep up the war.
To use your logic we should be occupying Islamabad and threatening
their government..

what do you think we did after 9/11. do you think they had a choice?

I suppose we are already killing their people so
that is a start ... until they just kick us out completely.

we're not muslims. we dont kill for no reason

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:26:42 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

OBL left Afghanistan 9 years ago, yet we still keep up the war.
To use your logic we should be occupying Islamabad and threatening
their government.. I suppose we are already killing their people so
that is a start ... until they just kick us out completely.

the murderer wants to return. think we should let him?

oh. you do.

i forgot you hate the US an love bin laden

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:32:50 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:03:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

... but Bin Laden is not there now.
What part of that is so hard for you to understand. Have we demanded
Pakistan turn over Bin Laden? Have we occupied Islamabad to force them
to?

Why not if your logic is solid?



So, if we leave and he comes back, which would be fairly likely, then what?
Are we pressuring Pakistan to do more in the wild, border areas?

\

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?

wrong. the afghans have been conquered at least 3 time in their
history, most recently by the british in the 19th century. you just
believe cliches

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

On 7-Oct-2010, wrote:

In all fairness....

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

A million times more was accomplished on August 6, 1945, than in 9 years of
tickling the balls of the taliban.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:06:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:55:08 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:10:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:55:42 -0700, jps wrote:

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators
of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about
the
same price.

Gosh, it's a good thing Idi Amin didn't have oil under his country.

You notice that since Clinton got his nose bloodied in Africa we are
not really doing much war making there.

Oh, if Idi would have had oil to offer in large quantities in the
middle east, he'd have been GW Bush's target.

My point is that it had nothing whatsoever to do with toppling a
dictator and everything to do with what lives under that sand and
where that sand exists on the planet.

Mentioning that we toppled a dictator is humorous and disingenuous.

It was a tangible result. Everything else in both wars is political
posturing and massive killings of innocents.
Afghanistan will go down in history as the American war with the worst
rate of collateral damage..

And lying. Don't forget the lying about Iraq, and the willful neglect in
Afg.

Really? The worst? I would say WW2, but I'm just adding up the score of
course.


You are talking total numbers, I am talking the rate. No way was WWII
killing 20 -30 civilians per combatant, even on the eastern front.

Well... total civilian deaths in WW2 were 50-70 million.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

"Colonel Kurtz" wrote in message
...

On 7-Oct-2010, wrote:

In all fairness....

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

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!

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:07:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In all fairness....

I would say a new accomplishment is pulling within 2 points of Obama
about which was the better president in today's CNN poll. (45/47)

History will not be as tough on this guy as you are.

I still think Clinton will be remembered for Monica, Bush 1&2 will be
remembered for Saddam and Obama will be remembered because he is the
first black guy in the white house

Since you didn't include the thread, I have no idea what you're talking
about wrt the "better" president. Better than who? Bush? Right.

This supposed to be a thread about Bush isn't it. It is your thread.
Note I quoted your top note.

You mean at the same time in his presidency? That's a pretty meaningless
stat in my view.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:07:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


He wasn't in Hamburg where the plot was planned, he wasn't in Spain
where the hijackers were trained and the Taliban did not have any
involvement at all except letting him live there. They certainly did
not know anything about airplanes crashing into buildings.
Their fight is with the people who have invaded their country, no more
no less.
They were there before we arrived and they will be there when we
leave.

So, what you're saying is that if there's a known murderer living in your
house, you're not really responsible for turning him in, because you weren't
there when he murdered someone...

I am saying if the murderer left the house, you stop shooting at it.

OBL left Afghanistan 9 years ago, yet we still keep up the war.
To use your logic we should be occupying Islamabad and threatening
their government.. I suppose we are already killing their people so
that is a start ... until they just kick us out completely.

Nobody controls the territory within the national boundaries of
Afghanistan. Some might control the territory they are in right now but,
when they go three miles in any direction someone moves into to control
the territory that was just vacated.

Afghanistan hasn't advanced socially and culturally beyond tribalism.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:15:17 -0400, BAR wrote:



Nobody controls the territory within the national boundaries of
Afghanistan. Some might control the territory they are in right now but,
when they go three miles in any direction someone moves into to control
the territory that was just vacated.

Afghanistan hasn't advanced socially and culturally beyond tribalism.

at one time, through the 60's and70's, afghanistan was a fairly modern
state, growing towards becoming a thriving country.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:52:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:08:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

wrong. the afghans have been conquered at least 3 time in their
history, most recently by the british in the 19th century. you just
believe cliches

The Brits took Kabul and controlled the government but they did not
control Kandahar. It was all they could do to keep the Kyber Pass
open.

what's the UK defense budget again?

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:52:01 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:08:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

wrong. the afghans have been conquered at least 3 time in their
history, most recently by the british in the 19th century. you just
believe cliches

The Brits took Kabul and controlled the government but they did not
control Kandahar. It was all they could do to keep the Kyber Pass
open.

what's the UK defense budget again?

It was very large in those days.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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??

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:06:23 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:26:42 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

OBL left Afghanistan 9 years ago, yet we still keep up the war.
To use your logic we should be occupying Islamabad and threatening
their government.. I suppose we are already killing their people so
that is a start ... until they just kick us out completely.

the murderer wants to return. think we should let him?

oh. you do.

i forgot you hate the US an love bin laden

No I think Clinton should have sent a hit team to put a bullet in his
head when we had him fingered. I still think our best chance to get
bin laden is to pull the army back and let covert hit teams go after
him.

And, you think those teams are not looking for him?

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
 

On 11-Oct-2010, wrote:

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.

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.

The subject seems complicated to some people because the "war" is not
against a country, it's against a "religion" and entire culture. It can't
be fought conventionally. A maniacal offense by the enemy is successful and
will never be abated until the "religion" becomes civilized. That won't
happen for hundreds of years. A military police action will, and has,
simply gotten thousands of legitimate, civilized people killed, while the
maniacs regenerate like fire ants.

Iraq NEEDED Hussein (the U.S. doesn't need a Hussein) to maintain a degree
of civility. Afghanistan has no hope ever of becoming civilized. It need
to be isolated, surveilled (from the perimeter and from the sky) and its
inhabitants prevented from ever getting out. Concurrently, the U.S. state
department has to stop importing these maniacs for "diversity" purposes.
It's probably already too late.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:22:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:06:23 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:26:42 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

OBL left Afghanistan 9 years ago, yet we still keep up the war.
To use your logic we should be occupying Islamabad and threatening
their government.. I suppose we are already killing their people so
that is a start ... until they just kick us out completely.

the murderer wants to return. think we should let him?

oh. you do.

i forgot you hate the US an love bin laden

No I think Clinton should have sent a hit team to put a bullet in his
head when we had him fingered. I still think our best chance to get
bin laden is to pull the army back and let covert hit teams go after
him.

And, you think those teams are not looking for him?


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.

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?

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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? :)

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

"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

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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? :)

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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.

George W. Bush's accomplishments
 

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.