Russia isn't saying they are going to kick some country's ass. Only we're stupid enough to get involved in that kind of idiocy. They are saying they will attack terrorist bases where ever they exist - a direct reference and contrast to out leadership's inability to do just that.

Your "3/4 of al-Queda" is an assertion Bush constantly makes, and the press constantly demands he give them something to back up the claim, which he never has. It's propaganda, pure and simple. In addition, now it is coming to light that Pakistan has been wildly exaggerating its claims of kills on al-Queda, and that few foriegn fighters have been killed in Iraq.

Most of al-Queda escaped intact into Pakistan at Tora Bora. We did not pursue them into Pakistan. They are still operating today. It took them five years to plan and execute 9-11. This is the way they operate. In my opinion, the Russian thing was planned by them - it has all their hallmarks on it, and I think it is a practice run for a similair operation they are already planning inside the United States. As a tactic, it was, in my opinion, more terrifiying then 911, and that is what they are looking for. Even if this was not their idea this fact is not going to be lost on them.

Again, the references to Saddam in the war on terror is propaganda stupity. I won't even go there except to say the entire Saddam episode has not decreased the threat of terror, it has increased it and sapped our resources for the real fight.

Libya has been trying to surrender for years. Yesterdays news.

The problem is that the situation in Afganistan is getting worse instead of better.

I also think if we had thrown 200 billion dollars, the equivilent of half our yearly defense budget, at creating a special ops oriented military, it would have been money much better spent. Look what we get out of Iraq - Botsnst and his dreamworld doesn't exist there - we're not fighting terrorists, we are fighting for a faction in a civil war, with the same old army with the same old methods. And all of it caused, in my opinion, by a desire to fight a war that had nothing to do with 911. We are gaining nothing from it that defends us from a Breslan-style attack.

They're most certainly NOT "back in business". That would imply running teh country. You know, executing women in soccer stadium, amputating hands, and sticking little girls in blue sacks instead of in school. Instead, they're holed-up in caves and villages unable to make a coherent threat anywhere.

Libya was relevant when they were working on nukes. Now that they're not, I expect that Elf Aquitane will be in tehre making money like nobody's business.

I believe that the French should lead military intervention in Sudan. They should do it for the children. Funny how everybody recognizes murder but only the USA has the balls to call it by name. Big surpise.

[QUOTE=KirkVining]Your "3/4 of al-Queda" is an assertion Bush constantly makes, and the press constantly demands he give them something to back up the claim, which he never has. It's propaganda, pure and simple. In addition, now it is coming to light that Pakistan has been wildly exaggerating its claims of kills on al-Queda, and that few foriegn fighters have been killed in Iraq.

Most of al-Queda escaped intact into Pakistan at Tora Bora. We did not pursue them into Pakistan. They are still operating today. It took them five years to plan and execute 9-11. This is the way they operate. In my opinion, the Russian thing was planned by them - it has all their hallmarks on it, and I think it is a practice run for a similair operation they are already planning inside the United States. As a tactic, it was, in my opinion, more terrifiying then 911, and that is what they are looking for. Even if this was not their idea this fact is not going to be lost on them.

...QUOTE]


I'll take the President's assessment over yours. When you have his resources, I'll listen to you about military and intelligence assessments.

[QUOTE=KirkVining]The problem is that the situation in Afganistan is getting worse instead of better.

...QUOTE]

They're going to have a popular vote and popular government. In your estimation, that's worse?

Bot

[QUOTE=Botnst]
popular government that has control of what? half of Kabul? :cool:

al qaida and all those bums are there and pretty much un-impeded in most of Afganistan and other stans (russian, urdu and probably pashtoon for states.)

I understand your point. They are busier butchering and robbing each other (as they have since time imemorial) than they are attacking the coalition forces. Hard-core al quedistas attack us. The rest of the stuff is intertribal conflict.

Left turn, :eek:

don't you guys think that's what's going to happen in IRQ if US and the mighty coalition leave? Kurdistan, Sunnistan, Shiiastan....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst I'll take the President's assessment over yours. When you have his resources, I'll listen to you about military and intelligence assessments.

Of course, how dumbkopf of me. The Fuehrer always tells the truth. One must never question him he is infallible.

That would be the best solution, IMO. Holding together an artifical nation of people who hate each other is a long-term heartache. I don't know what we'll have to do to arrange it.

Its already happened. While the news cycle is being drowned out by Swift boats and typewriters, the news that is not being heard is that we have lost control of vast parts of Iraq and Afganistan. The Sunni Fallajah state is becoming a Taliban-like enclave, and even our allies among the Iraqis are separting into their natural nation-states. The Shiites are about to become a de facto province of Iran. The whole thing is unraveling on Buysh, and he is hoping no one will notice between no and Nov 2. We simply do not have enough troops to exert the kind of control the pipedream neo-cons think we have, and the whole exercise has been a waste of lives and money.

Why do you do that, Kirk? I don't think one should unquestioningly accept authority. But OTOH, you're so bent by hate for this Prez that you have no concept of objectivity. Why listen to somebody so filled with loathing--to find truth? BS. That's what I meant by listening to him rather than you. That he also has a vast array of intelligence while you and I have the blogosphere, newspapers and the Forum is a hint to me that perhaps I don't know just every little thing that's going on.

Now if you give me an opinion by somebody else like say, Sandy Berger (even if somewhat disgraced at the moment), I'd sure as heck pay attention. And I do pay attention to him. Or Richard Clark, who also seems careful. You know, smart, objective people who know something.

Bot

Try to google up any information at all on official statistics on any of this. It simply does not exist. In addition, I am also finding that web pages that existed on these suibjects that I had bookmarked at places like Armytimes now no longer exist. It is obvious this information is being deliberately withheld from us and censored as well.

Instead, we get generalities from Bush, and the entire country is in the dark on what our actual success in the war on real terrorists is accomplishing. If you want to take what he says as truth with absolutely no back up, especially given his track record with the truth, you are claiming his truth originates from the simple fact he holds a powerful office. For some reason, that reminds me of a guy with funny little mustache.

<foil>