wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:37:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a
single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply
traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be
attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed.

Untrue. They may not have participated in the planning, but they refused
to
give up bin laden, etc. They didn't "simply travel" through. They took
over
and their extremist views allowed bin laden's crowd to have a
safe-haven.
Don't try and rewrite Bush's failures.

So what are you going to do about Pakistan where he has done the same
thing?

You're claiming BL is in charge in Pakistan? Well, that's news to the
Pakistanis!


He is certainly more powerful than we are in the area he is in.

But not more powerful than the Pakistani gov't. As I said.

Anyone who thinks Karzai or the Junta de jour in Pakistan actually has
much influence in the tribal areas is deluded.

Which make up (in Pakistan) a relatively small area.

Yeah, just the part where the terrorists are and where we can't seem
to get them.

Well, it's a different country. Are you advocating a new war? I doubt it.


The "Countries" we are trying to ally with are so corrupt any deal we
may hammer out with them is just a love letter in the sand, to be
wiped out with the next tide.

And, your solution is.... isolationism? I think we tried that.


Buy off the *******s and covertly murder the ones who won't go along.
Even Obama has said that is OK.

I wouldn't call it murder, but ok. Isn't that what we're doing? ... drone
attacks, covert teams...

It is possible to lose the whore region and then we would cause
problems for India, Israel and most of the rest of the world.

Whore region? Well, sure there would be problems....

Run, it's the typo police!

heh.