The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark

[Universe Prince]

I like the Bush plans because it is very hard on the terrorists

I don't believe you.

I don't like the ways you would depart from it because it would make the terrorists job easy.

I don't see how it would be easier than it is now. Right now they have a great recruiting tools in the conflict in Iraq, the trampling of farmers in Afghanistan and the saber rattling against Iran. And the conflict in Iraq provides real world combat training. I doubt denying them these things is going to make their job easy.

Many of the things you suggest are already in process but the diffrences you want are all things that have been tried and found wanting.

So you say. But you have not proven this at all. Yes, I know, you explained how we supposedly did what I suggested before September 11, 2001, and it didn't stop the terrorist attack of that day. For one thing, we were not doing what I have suggested. For another, no plan is ever going to prevent all harm from reaching us. For yet another, there were many reasons why the September 11 terrorists were not stopped that have nothing whatever to do with my suggestion. So your dismissal of my suggestion as having been tried and proven ineffective is wholly unsubstantiated and, as far I can determine, wholly untrue.

[Plane]

That is the trroubble with being unspecific.

Before 9-11 there definately was a great effort to round up the guys that did terrorist acts as individuals , this effort had dozens of successes but as a concept it was flawed .

It can't work to round up the triggermen and leave the organisation that produced them un harmed.

triggermen it seems are pretty cheap to them , and they arn't spending much on each operation, if there are no surviveing teiggermen that is fine with them a few winding up in custody is fine too.

Draining the swamp that produced the mosquitos gets rid of more moskitos than developing a reliable slapping tecnique.

True nothing we could have done or can do will eliminate the threat entirely , but thjat doesn't mean we should not reduce it the maximum we can.

I like the Bush plans because it is very hard on the terrorists

I don't believe you.

[/quote ]

You don't beleive I like the Bush plan?

[Universe Prince]

It can't work to round up the triggermen and leave the organisation that produced them un harmed.

My plan does not leave people like Osama bin Laden alone. But, yes, actually it can work. And I would point out that rounding up people who are not the organization and holding them indefinitely is neither an effective course of action nor likely to hinder recruitment efforts for an organization that exists as an outlet for hatred against us.

Draining the swamp that produced the mosquitos gets rid of more moskitos than developing a reliable slapping tecnique.

And in the process animals who did you no harm are effected. Animals might not get mad and fight back, but people do. And people who live in a culture with really old fashioned ideas about honor can get really damn pissed off by things like that. Hence my lack of faith in Bush's plan and my lack of belief that the current actions are going to be effective.

True nothing we could have done or can do will eliminate the threat entirely , but thjat doesn't mean we should not reduce it the maximum we can.

Exactly what I'd like to do.

You don't beleive I like the Bush plan?

I'm sure you do. I don't believe Bush's plan is "very hard on the terrorists".

[Plane]

Exactly what I'd like to do.

Then you should like the Bush plan , which maximises harm to the organisation , much more than simply prosicuteing the ones you can track down after they have already shot someone.

Yes Draining the swamp is drastic for the creatures that are not moskitoes , it should not be done if something less will work , but something less doesn't work ,we found by trying less ,so we have to return to draining the swamp or putting up with a lot of moskitoes.

[sirs]

Gonna try something here

-------------- s l a t e -------------------------

Yo, H, Cynthia,

My handle is sirs, and I'm a frequent patron here in the saloon.  I'm a partisan conservative, though if I do say so myself, am rather objective in my assessments of policies and actions, though with an obvious conservative prism involved.  I enjoy mixing it up with folks I consider enjoyable and challenging to discuss things with, though I have to concede I will get a tad condescending at times.  I'm very confident in my opinions, that I form thru a network of resources, both domestic and foreign, though again will generally have a conservative bend to them.  While I enjoy debating folks that I disagree with, on occasion I'll allow my emotions to get the better of me when I perceive (albiet possibly inaccurately) folks actively & purposely misrepresenting, if not distorting, facts to support their POV.  Taking quotes out of context, or pushing a false premice that has no support to begin with.  This is in no way being directed at the 2 of you, simply an introduction of me to ....... the saloon basically.  Clean slate if you will. 

While I have several problems and criticisms aimed squarely at our current president, especially on the domestic front, I give him a marginal thumb's up, as it relates to his job performance.  You don't have to agree with me, which is fine.  I can site numerous examples that brought about this deductive conclusion, which again you can disagree with, which is fine.  I do support his military efforts to take on Islamofascist Terrorists, and where they are, which again you can wholeheartedly disagree with, and not be unpatriotic in doing so.  I can site numerous examples of justification for going to war, and the subsequent investigative reports that clear this administration in their going to war, which again, you can disagree with. 

I likely won't back down from an opinion, unless substantive and supported facts are overwhelming to the contrary, and will likely criticize opinions I don't agree with.  I hope you won't think it some personal attack, when I do.  I'll simply need the occasional reminder if my tone is getting too out-of line.  I look forward to future debate & dialog, on these, and many other issues with the 2 of you, and all other saloon patrons.

[Universe Prince]

the Bush plan , which maximises harm to the organisation , much more than simply prosicuteing the ones you can track down after they have already shot someone.

This has not been demonstrated.

but something less doesn't work ,we found by trying less ,so we have to return to draining the swamp or putting up with a lot of moskitoes.

This has not been proven.

[Cynthia]

Thank you, Sirs.

I like your plate.

Consider mine clean, as well.

Ciao down now.....No more personal attacks and slips of the tongue. Those can hurt. ..or at least sting.

By and by..all in all....

Thanks, That was really considerate of you, Gary.

Cindy

[Plane]

the Bush plan , which maximises harm to the organisation , much more than simply prosicuteing the ones you can track down after they have already shot someone.

This has not been demonstrated.

On the contrary  the course of recent history seems to have proven it quite well.
A lot went into tracking and capturing the guys that bombed the World trade towers in 93 , even though the gang that really did it was successfully caught and prosicuted , the larger gang that remained in Afganistan was able to continue to grow. Returning to a prosicution of ten or twelve gunmen from a criminal organisation that can easily spare them is quite well proven to be futile because we have tried it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

On the contrary  the course of recent history seems to have proven it quite well.
A lot went into tracking and capturing the guys that bombed the World trade towers in 93 , even though the gang that really did it was successfully caught and prosicuted , the larger gang that remained in Afganistan was able to continue to grow. Returning to a prosicution of ten or twelve gunmen from a criminal organisation that can easily spare them is quite well proven to be futile because we have tried it.
========================================================
It took Al Qaeda from 1993 until 2001 to deal with the loss of the blind Sheik. After seven years, the supposedly more clever Juniorbush plan has resulted in over 3400 American troops being killed, many times that being maimed for life, the dislocation of over a million Iraqis, and still Bin Laden has not been caught, not has Al Zahiri. And the Taliban
now is back in forse, financed by the opium trade. How the hell is that a more successful plan, I ask you?
 
If Juniorbush had actually had half a brain, he would have persisted in Afghanistan until the Taliban was totally gone. Invading Iraq was a blunder, the biggest perhaps ever made by a US president.

You do not appear to be thinking things through all that clearly.

[BT]

If Juniorbush had actually had half a brain, he would have persisted in Afghanistan until the Taliban was totally gone. Invading Iraq was a blunder, the biggest perhaps ever made by a US president.

As the drawdown continues in Iraq I'm sure a urge is on the horizon for Afghanistan.

Back by popular demand, so to speak.

[Cynthia]

If Juniorbush had actually had half a brain, he would have persisted in Afghanistan until the Taliban was totally gone. Invading Iraq was a blunder, the biggest perhaps ever made by a US president.

As the drawdown continues in Iraq I'm sure a urge is on the horizon for Afghanistan.

Back by popular demand, so to speak.

Brought back, not by popular demand, but by a demand that is long overdue.

We are at a stage in this "war" situation where we have to borrow troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. That is the result of poor planning on the part of the US. ie. Bush and his own team.

[Plane]

If Juniorbush had actually had half a brain, he would have persisted in Afghanistan until the Taliban was totally gone. Invading Iraq was a blunder, the biggest perhaps ever made by a US president.

As the drawdown continues in Iraq I'm sure a urge is on the horizon for Afghanistan.

Back by popular demand, so to speak.

There appears to be a sort of surge beginning on Al Quiedas part in Afganistan.

But is there popular support for it now?

The presence or absence of popular support makes the diffrence in how many men we must provide to counter.

[Xavier_Onassis]

But is there popular support for it now?

The presence or absence of popular support makes the diffrence in how many men we must provide to counter.
================================================
It does?

What is needed is to include this with the withdrawal from Iraq, and inform the public what needs to be done in Afghanistan, how long and how big a force is required.

Luckily the new president will be more credible than Juniorbush.

[Plane]

But is there popular support for it now?

The presence or absence of popular support makes the difference in how many men we must provide to counter.
================================================
It does?

What is needed is to include this with the withdrawal from Iraq, and inform the public what needs to be done in Afghanistan, how long and how big a force is required.

Luckily the new president will be more credible than Juniorbush.

  I think that President Bush has mentioned before that as we are less needed we can leave more and more of the task for the Iraqis to deal with.

Lately there has been an increase in foreign fighters spotted in Afganistan , includeing Turks. I suppose that since Iraq is nearer that they are coordinateing with Osamas people and going to where the plan is.

[BT]

Brought back, not by popular demand, but by a demand that is long overdue.

We are at a stage in this "war" situation where we have to borrow troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan. That is the result of poor planning on the part of the US. ie. Bush and his own team.

Perhaps i misunderstood you. Were you not in favor of fighting the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan? If memory serves Bear and Prince have never had a problem with us being there.

So with calls for a new surge in Afghanistan being heard and implemented i don't foresee any objections from those who disagree with a position in Iraq. Because it is a popular demand from the US population.