The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark

[Xavier_Onassis]

Or is it a bit more complicated than that.

====================================
Imagine several thousands Mexican troops swarming into Texas.

Put turbans on them, then multiply it by twenty.

That is how well received it would be.

Maybe worse.

[Plane]

For every terrorist that has been killed in Iraq, three more arose to take his place.

Nope , Al Queda is shrunken from attrition.

It grew like Kudzu while it received benign neglect , if they had never attacked us enough to get us to respond it would still be growing.

[Universe Prince]

Accomplished?

Like finished?

Do you think that there is a way to finish?

In other words, you're going to assert "And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do" but you cannot actually show me evidence that he has accomplished any of it. So he hasn't done any of it. He's done something else, and you want to claim it's the same as what I said. Why? Presumably to pull the old "you don't know what you're talking about" routine. But I don't believe that is really working out for you. I suggest you try a different tactic.

[Universe Prince]

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.

Last I checked, the troops in Afghanistan were still kinda busy. So what part of sending troops into Pakistan isn't spreading out our forces more? And no, it really doesn't seem that complicated to me at all.

[Xavier_Onassis]

For every terrorist that has been killed in Iraq, three more arose to take his place.



Nope , Al Queda is shrunken from attrition.

It grew like Kudzu while it received benign neglect , if they had never attacked us enough to get us to respond it would still be growing.


=========================
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the invasion. Saddam would not allow them.

I said terrorists, not Al Qaeda, anyway.

[BT]

Last I checked, the troops in Afghanistan were still kinda busy. So what part of sending troops into Pakistan isn't spreading out our forces more? And no, it really doesn't seem that complicated to me at all.

Yeah i heard that. And the people they are fighting are being reinforced and resupplied via Pakistan, the same area in which Osama is residing, so why not chase them back and take the battle to them?

That was what you said your wish was. To take the battle to those that attacked us.

[Plane]

[
Go ahead and try being more specific , I wouldn't mind that.

But if by "accomplished" you mean "compleated" there is nothing with the potential for that , if you are not satisfied with progress so far, what about your suggestions is diffrent enough to cause a greater rate of accomplishment?


Aside from taking family hostage I don't see anything in your suggestions that isn't in the process as it is , that is an interesting idea tho .

[Universe Prince]

Yeah i heard that. And the people they are fighting are being reinforced and resupplied via Pakistan, the same area in which Osama is residing, so why not chase them back and take the battle to them?

That was what you said your wish was. To take the battle to those that attacked us.

It sounds like a grand plan. And if we were not in Iraq, or ending our presence in Iraq, I might be more inclined to approve. If we keep troops in every country we first send them to, and then send more troops into other countries in a chase after terrorists, we will spread our military too thin to be effective. I'm not opposed to hunting down those who attacked us. I'm all for it. I want to see it happen. But while you might believe my thinking is impractical and idealistic, I am aware of practical issues that are involved. Occupying the entire Middle East with our military is not a practical plan.

[Universe Prince]

Go ahead and try being more specific , I wouldn't mind that.

Parcheesi in a box. You said, "And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do." So either you can show me where Bush did what I suggested, or you cannot. Apparently you cannot, or would not need to be tap dancing right now.

[Plane]

Accomplished?

Like finished?

Do you think that there is a way to finish?

In other words, you're going to assert "And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do" but you cannot actually show me evidence that he has accomplished any of it. So he hasn't done any of it. He's done something else, and you want to claim it's the same as what I said. Why? Presumably to pull the old "you don't know what you're talking about" routine. But I don't believe that is really working out for you. I suggest you try a different tactic.

Ok lets see....
I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us,
(This is the first part of the attack on Afganistan and has been constant ever since)


leave them no ground to hide in,

(except where American  authoritys are not welcome?)


 go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary.

(Ok takeing hostages is new , but arresting as many as we can find and freezeing the assets of every contributor is underway.)

It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely.
(I thoughtr you wanted the familys?How do you spot them better? )

It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor.
(Good good.....how does Bush disagree with this?)

It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything.

(What no nation building?  If you leave a power vacuum you will be invited back a few years later.)

[Plane]

For every terrorist that has been killed in Iraq, three more arose to take his place.



Nope , Al Queda is shrunken from attrition.

It grew like Kudzu while it received benign neglect , if they had never attacked us enough to get us to respond it would still be growing.


=========================
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the invasion. Saddam would not allow them.

I said terrorists, not Al Qaeda, anyway.

Terrorists got sponsorship from Saddam Hussien, Abu Nidal for example.

Abu Nidal was a terrorist pioneer , but not a member of Al Queida , far as I know.

[Plane]

Go ahead and try being more specific , I wouldn't mind that.

Parcheesi in a box. You said, "And I don't know whjat part of that Bush didn't do." So either you can show me where Bush did what I suggested, or you cannot. Apparently you cannot, or would not need to be tap dancing right now.

Hey, you gave an almost perfect succinct discription of the Bush program , and aside from the hostage takeing , you assert that Bush isn't doing any of it.

How did I wind up with the burden of proof?

Each thing you mentioned is happening, I don't know if Bush is bold enough to take hostages, do you really think that is possible|?

[BT]

It sounds like a grand plan. And if we were not in Iraq, or ending our presence in Iraq, I might be more inclined to approve.

But we are in Iraq. Have been for awhile. But we have been in Afghanistan longer. And it is that mission that is charged with tracking down Osama,

If i understand you correctly, you are saying we shouldn't go into Pakistan because we don't have the troop strength. I think it is more complicated than that as it could completely destabilize an unstable country and the reward is not worth the risk.

 

[Universe Prince]

Ok lets see....
I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us,
(This is the first part of the attack on Afganistan and has been constant ever since)

Yes, and now we seem engaged in stamping out poppy fields. I doubt the effectiveness of this in hunting down terrorists.

leave them no ground to hide in,

(except where American  authoritys are not welcome?)

Not what I said. But I see you have no evidence of Bush doing this.

 go after their persons, their property and even their families if necessary.

(Ok takeing hostages is new , but arresting as many as we can find and freezeing the assets of every contributor is underway.)

But we're not arresting as many as we can find. That is part of the problem. We're simply arresting anyone accused of terrorism, scooping people and trying to hold them indefinitely regardless of whether they are terrorists or not. This is not the way to slow down terrorist recruiting. Saying we're arresting as many as we can find is sort of like you being arrested for child molestation because some person with a grudge against you merely accused you to the police and then saying "well the police are just arresting all the child molesters they can find". That is so completely not what we're doing.

It would get us the people responsible without a lot of scooping up random people and holding them indefinitely.
(I thoughtr you wanted the familys?How do you spot them better? )

Perhaps you are overlooking the word random.

It will show the people responsible as weak and unable to protect their lives and their honor.
(Good good.....how does Bush disagree with this?)

What the frell does agreeing have to do with it? Your job is to show me that he's done it. You said he did, so show me.

It would narrow our efforts to straightforward goals with clearly defined ends rather than leaving us looking like a bully trying to control everything.

(What no nation building?  If you leave a power vacuum you will be invited back a few years later.)

Who said we had to leave a power vacuum? But no, no nation building. I'm not talking about going to war with each country where terrorists hide. (We would have to make war on ourselves.) I'm talking about simply going after the people who have attacked us.

Your comments lead me to think you're not really paying attention to what I said. You seem to be basing your counterargument more on your own assumptions that on what I said.

[Universe Prince]

Hey, you gave an almost perfect succinct discription of the Bush program , and aside from the hostage takeing , you assert that Bush isn't doing any of it.

No, not what I said.

How did I wind up with the burden of proof?

Because you asserted that Bush is doing what I said. It's your assertion, you prove it.