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.
Poppys arn't a sideshow , they are financeing.
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.
You seem to be vague on this , are you thinking that leaveing Saddam alone on his Iraq throne would have produced no hideing place for terrorists? Saddam had terrorists under his roof and could have made room for more. Packistan will be a lot tougher than Iraq when we fight there , better to start with the easyer ones .
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.
You are confuseing me a lot here on this one , you would arrest people more effectively how and discern the proper ones better how? I really can't see how you have a gripe to make on the ehnergy expended or the direction of it , our FBI CIA and Armed Forces have arrested everyone that MIGHT be a problem and let most of them go again . I don't think you have a better methjod in mind , but if you do go on and mention it.
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.
No, there is not any randomness now , and I havent seen you mention a better method of finding thed proper people to arrest yet. Arresting the suspects mothers woould cause the mother of all Habeas Corpus problems wouldn't it?
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.
George Bush has over seen the shooting dead of about half of the Al Queda membership , I have to suppose that a lot of desertion is going on , I still think that your assertion is made first and is unsupported , especially by facts.
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.
Without Nation building you do leave a power vacuum , this follows naturally , and the winner of the resulting struggle being reasonable or freindly would be miraculous. Far better to do a bit of nation building than to leave a mess that would invite us back to fight again later.
I don't think you are paying attention to what you have been saying, I can only spot two minor differences between your proposals and the actual program of the administration. You would like to invade Packistan instead of takeing advantage of Packistani co-operation and you would leave Saddam alive and in controll .
Then you would go after familys of suspects , what ,more than the suspects themselves?
Given the choices availible I disagree with your choice of attacking Packistan instead of Iraq, Packistan is tougher than Iraq by an order of magnitude , enlisting the aid of Packistani authoritys has been dissapointing in lots of ways , but it is better than fighting 100% of Packistan. Iraq was weak and only took a small effort to effect regime change, Saddam at our back demanding his freedom to return to full controll of his feif would have been very bad for us as we fought the implacable Packistanis in their rugged countryside.
After Al Queda decided to fight us alongside the remnant forces of Saddan and the Insurgents we had a hard time for a space of four years, give or take , but what about your suggestion would have been easyer or better?
