The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark

[BT]

I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us, leave them no ground to hide in, go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary.

So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?

[Plane]

remind us. what is it exactly that you advocate we do?

I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us, leave them no ground to hide in, go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary. It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely. It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor. It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything.


Sounds like the Bush program.

What is the diffrent part?

[Universe Prince]

So you are in favor of invading Pakistan?

I am in favor of sending people in to hunt down those who have done something to us. I might favor invading Pakistan if that meant pulling troops out of Iraq. We both know that is not going to happen. I do not favor spreading our military efforts so far that they become weak and ineffective.

[Universe Prince]

Sounds like the Bush program.

The hell it does, unless the Bush program is even more poorly executed than I could possibly imagine.

What is the diffrent part?

The part where we don't preemptively go to war with Iraq, at least not before we have finished in Afghanistan would be a big difference. The part where we focus on capturing people who have actually done something to attack us rather than scooping up hundreds of people from their homes and other non-battlefield locations and attempting to keep them in prison indefinitely, that would be another big difference. In other words, nearly every part of my plan would be different. Why do I even need to explain that?

[BT]

Doesn't hunting them down mean hunting them down, and if that means crossing national borders so be it?

Why the conditionals?

[Plane]

Sounds like the Bush program.

The hell it does, unless the Bush program is even more poorly executed than I could possibly imagine.

What is the diffrent part?

The part where we don't preemptively go to war with Iraq, at least not before we have finished in Afghanistan would be a big difference. The part where we focus on capturing people who have actually done something to attack us rather than scooping up hundreds of people from their homes and other non-battlefield locations and attempting to keep them in prison indefinitely, that would be another big difference. In other words, nearly every part of my plan would be different. Why do I even need to explain that?

No you said ...

"I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us, leave them no ground to hide in, go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary. It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely. It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor. It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything."

And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.

[hnumpah]

"I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us, leave them no ground to hide in, go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary. It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely. It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor. It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything."

And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.

... basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us, leave them no ground to hide in, go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary... (not) scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely... show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor... narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything.

Um, looks like pretty much all of  it.

[Plane]

I don't think that there has been a special effort to persecute the familys of terrorists , but otherwise every item on the list has been addressed.


How would it look diffrent done by some one elese?

100% free of error?


oh please , lets do elect the perfect.

[Universe Prince]

Doesn't hunting them down mean hunting them down, and if that means crossing national borders so be it?

Why the conditionals?

Ahem. I do not favor spreading our military efforts so far that they become weak and ineffective.

[Universe Prince]

And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.

Then provide evidence to me how he accomplished these things. And no, the Iraq war is not one of them.

I don't think that there has been a special effort to persecute the familys of terrorists , but otherwise every item on the list has been addressed.

Then you should have no problem, when 3DHS returns, showing me exactly how they have been addressed.

100% free of error?

Oh get off it. No one is asking for perfection. And you know that.

[Universe Prince]

And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.

Um, looks like pretty much all of  it.

Exactly.

[Cynthia]

While cleaning out my garage today.....sorting all the books from my college days....I found my "Hunting of the Snark".
Brings back memories. 

Good ole college days, they were.

[Plane]

And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do.

Then provide evidence to me how he accomplished these things. And no, the Iraq war is not one of them.

Accomplished?

Like finished?

Do you think that there is a way to finish?

Like you could take out the Garbage one day and say " Done , I will never have to do that again"

Bush has sent American power where the terrorists were and chased them out , a lot were killed but the remnant still needs to be chased down , perhaps in Packistan , but it isn't wise to ignore the local situation, fighting in Packistan would be tougher than fighting in Iraq .

Why not fight them in Iraq? They came and we have slaughtered a lot of them there.

Shall we fight them in Packistan , I think odds are even no matter who is elected that we will.

What is unlikely to happen is a squad of Marshalls arresting Osama and his leutenants while his bodyguards submit passively , this is a job for the Military absolutely.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Bush has sent American power where the terrorists were and chased them out , a lot were killed but the remnant still needs to be chased down , perhaps in Packistan , but it isn't wise to ignore the local situation, fighting in Packistan would be tougher than fighting in Iraq .

Why not fight them in Iraq? They came and we have slaughtered a lot of them there.

Shall we fight them in Packistan , I think odds are even no matter who is elected that we will.

======================================================
For every terrorist that has been killed in Iraq, three more arose to take his place.
Afghanistan is the problem, and NATO needs to beat the Taliban there.

The US cannot really control Iraq, with 22 million people, and Afghanistan, with 12 million or so, in under six years.
Pakistan has a much higher percentage of Islamic fundamentalists and a population of over 170 million.

Invading Pakistan with US troops would be insane. Without a draft, they could never placate Pakistan.

And the US people will not stand for a draft unless some major provocation occurs, (or is allowed to occur). God forbid that happens.

[BT]

Ahem. I do not favor spreading our military efforts so far that they become weak and ineffective.

We already have troops in Afghanistan. On the very border where Osama is believed to be entrenched. Why not send them across? Or is it a bit more complicated than that.