TK,

I try not to read intent in your posts. You frequently, although not always, come off sounding like a pompous a$$. I know you’re not seeking my approval, nor anyone else’s, but most sane and rational people prefer to be perceived as socially acceptable, at least among their peers. Since you behave as though you have no peers, then I can see why social acceptability wouldn’t concern you. Just thought I’d mention it on the off chance you weren’t aware and actually gave a dam_n. Except for your pompousity and occasionally really weird positions, you could be an interesting person, worth establishing a dialog with. But really, that ain’t essential.

As presidents go, this one’s the most condemnable since Nixon. And since he’s a cowboy who doesn’t give a sh!t what the rest of the world thinks, I’d be surprised if he cared whether Musharef faced a civil war or not, so long as cowboy Bush gets his outlaw OBL. That such a civil war might precipitate a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India or something, again would be of no concern to our cowboy, cuz the opinions of other nations are irrelevant to U.S. interests.

Musharef faces enough domestic problems as it is, cooperating as much as he has with the U.S. I didn’t think the additional increment of U.S. troops pursuing OBL in Pakistan’s mountainous hinterlands would add an additional increment of protest beyond that which already exists. As it is, that region of Pakistan is essentially ungoverned and lawless, according to news reports.

Pushing this analysis tho, I think the U.S. needs to capture OBL and let him rot in prison, with all the world knowing it. Executing him would make him a martyr among his followers and would be followers, and likely aid terrorist recruiting more than imprisonment would.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

SG,

" you could be an interesting person"

I am damn interesting. Just because we disagree politically does not change that.

Your personal feelings about the president do not change the facts. Those facts are that we could have 500k troops in Afghanistan chasing OBL and it will not make a diff. if Iran and Pak allow him to border hop.

Musharef is doing it for cash and aid the country needs . If he gave it full effort we would have Binny in a week and Mushref would get overthrown.

------------------------------------------------------------

In the famous words of another PP board member, "Pot meet the kettle".

Sincerely,

Rory b.

Don't be using that line unless it applies, RB.
You'll ruin the effect.

Of course your mileage may vary, but I find Salmo one of the least pretentious and pompous contributors of this board.

*The views and opinions stated above are those of the contributor and the contributor alone. There is no affiliation with Salmo or Salmo products. This was a non-paid post and does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of any kind. Caution, contents are hot. Avoid contact with skin. Pregnant women should have sex often. Keep out of reach of children and crusaders.

Oh, and by the way, if King George of Teflon® was truly serious about his "If'n you ain't wit us youse again' us" speech, and that part about harboring of terrorists, then he'd have maintained his focus on bin Laden and put troops in both the Afghan and Pakistan area effectively sealing the borders. If Pakistan didn't cooperate, then they would be guilty of harboring a terrorist, ergo, "... again' us."

But that wasn't really the crusader's agenda, now, was it?

Maybe we should do that with Canada as well GH since a few have come from there.

TK,

Exactly. It would be slightly refreshing if the prez would say what he means and mean what he says.

TK interesting? Yeah, maybe. Damn interesting? Not yet. You need to try harder. Sorry to deflate. And it has nothing to do with any political disagreement we might have. It's about how you present yourself here.

Is there any chance of returning to JLH's post initiating this thread? I thought OBL's taped speech was interesting in that he repeated what most Arabs who oppose or hate the U.S. have been saying for years. We unilaterally support Israel with money and weapons. We don't condemn Israel's state-sponsored terrorism against Palestinians. We do condemn Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. How could anyone not understand that many, if not most, Arabs world-wide would hate the U.S. for that, and be dancing in the streets to see the WTC towers burning and collapsing?

That doesn't make OBL's terrorist act right, since terrorism isn't about rightness. But don't most of you see that Arabs would see the WTC attack as a just retribution for U.S. support of Israel, who commits terrorism against Arabs with U.S. money and weapons?

So little attentions seems paid to identifying and understanding the root cause of Arab intent to commit terrorist acts against the U.S. It seems to me that the likelihood of simply rooting out terrorists and killing them is futile, because there will simply be more terrorists to take their place as long as the U.S. commits acts which motivate and create incentives for others to terrorize us.

Shouldn't we be having that discussion?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

I see you as a very verboes pseudo intellectual. Your present positions based on very thin if any research and even less fact. You then try to make it personal. Nothing anyone else here does not try from time to time. It's just that for some reason you think no one sees that in you. A fool fool's himself first. I think in your circle you are allowed to get away with what you spew unchallenged and when someone challenges the great Salmo it shocks your delicate sensibilities.

Examples:

I have challenged your knowledge on Isreal and Palestine and all you could hang your hat on was a lame challenge about the volume of my reading. Why because you had very little understanding of the history of the region.

I just challenged you on your thoughts on capturing OBL. You did not even know the position of the PAks that was published before we even went in to Afghanistan. It appears you are just parroting the party line.

I have asked you 3 times to back up your posts that GW has made Christian doctrine into laws or heavily influenced laws. Nothing yet.

------------------------------------------------------------

Blame America First blah..blah..blah


If your wife was brutely raped would you ask what SHE did to deserve being raped? "motivate and create incentives for others to"

Salmo,

Lets have that discussion.

"U.S. support of Israel, who commits terrorism against Arabs with U.S. money and weapons?"

Do you know the history of the creation of Palestine, how it came to be how it's funded? Once you demonstrate that you do we can address the above overstatement of the situation.

Never take responsiblity ... ever ... blah .. blah .. blah

I don't know how credible we could be at facilitating a peace summit given the war going on in Iraq, but now that Arafat is gone, we should be viewing this as a fresh opportunity to exert leadership and deal with these age old issues / problems in the middle east. Unfortunately, the best guy to make that happen was Colin Powell. It may just be my perception, but I think Condi Rice has damaged her credibility with her unyielding and stonch defense of every Bush administration decision and she has some work to do to establish herself as Secretary of State.

Bin Laden Said Unble to Run Operations

15 minutes ago

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Pakistan's military has been so effective in pressuring al-Qaida leaders hiding in the tribal region of western Pakistan that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and his top deputies no longer are able to direct terrorist operations, a senior American commander said Thursday.



"They are living in the remotest areas of the world without any communications — other than courier — with the outside world or their people and unable to orchestrate or provide command and control over a terrorist network," said Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy commander of Central Command.


"They are basically on the run and unable to really conduct operations except, in the very long term, provide vision and guidance as Osama bin Laden does when he provides one of those tapes," he added, alluding to a bin Laden video tape released three weeks ago.


Bin Laden has been on the run since U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan (news - web sites) in October 2001.


In a question-and-answer session at the Foreign Press Center, Smith said that for the first time since Pakistan was enlisted as a U.S. ally against al-Qaida, the Pakistani military forces hunting for al-Qaida figures will remain in the western tribal region through the winter.


"It is essential that Pakistan military continue their operations," he said, adding that over the past three to six months they have made "very, very positive moves" against al-Qaida.


South Waziristan, a semiautonomous tribal region along the border with Afghanistan, long has been regarded as one of the most likely hiding places for bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, although there has been no solid intelligence to confirm that.


Between 7,000 and 8,000 Pakistani forces have been deployed in a three-pronged offensive in the eastern reaches of the rugged region this month. U.S. military forces remain largely on the Afghanistan side in hopes of capturing or killing any al-Qaida operatives who cross the border.


"We will continue to search them out. We will find them," Smith said.


The three-star general likened the military effort against bin Laden to the work being done in Iraq (news - web sites) to keep terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other insurgents on the run so "they cannot stay any place for any length of time," thereby reducing their effectiveness.


Smith suggested Central Command may increase the size of the U.S. force in Iraq prior to national elections scheduled for late January.


"As we move closer to elections we will make adjustments to our troop strength to ensure that we will have forces to be able to back up the Iraqi security force in sufficient numbers," he said.


Smith did not say explicitly that more U.S. troops would be sent to Iraq. At one point he said there was no need for "a huge increase" in troops, seemingly suggesting that a smaller increase was possible.


There now are between 135,000 and 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, he said.


Addressing an issue that has received little public attention in the United States recently, Smith said the United States is sharing intelligence with Turkey on a Kurdish rebel group that operates in northern Iraq. The group, known as the PKK, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Turkey.


"We will continue to work with the interim Iraqi government to expel them from the country," Smith said.


"It's a difficult task," he said. "To dig them out and engage that fight I think will take a considerable amount of forces, and we need to do that at the right time."

TK,

I figure you and others see me here however you decide. I’ve never considered myself an intellectual, let alone a verbose pseudo one, but, whatever. I don’t know where you get the great Salmo stuff, unless you make it up for yourself. And my sensibilities are anything but delicate! Further, in my circle, I’m challenged daily. One of the beauties of this BB is that I don’t have to compose 50 page best available science proofs of my point, when I only want to express my opinion.

I’m not particularly interested in BB challenges. It’s not why I’m here. But I’m nearly always interested in an opportunity to learn, which you at times almost offer, which is why I bother to hassle you about the incredibly poor way you present yourself here.

I have no doubt you’re better read on Israel/Palestine than I, but that part of your argument that goes to 4,000 years ago and Abel and Cain lacks credence for me because the history is inseparable from the myth and the faith. When you go there, you substitute opinion or faith, or both, for fact. That’s not to say I couldn’t learn anything about the area and history from you. But I do have sources I consider more reliable. They have PhDs, have studied the history and politics of the region, and have been there several times, one of them has met with some of Arafat’s people a couple times, one of them is Jewish, one is an Episcopalian Priest, and neither of them has the anti-Arab racism that you occasionally display (at least I interpret that from things you’ve written.).

You may conclude that I don’t have enough of the history under my belt to have that discussion. I have some background on the history, but it consists of scattered reading over many years, with my most recent information coming from the friends I mentioned above. Nevertheless, I’ve held the opinion for at least 30 years that our pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian policy was not in our best long term interests, and I think contemporary events are bearing that out.

Regarding OBL, again I’m not interested in your challenges. And I don’t even know or care what the party line is. My line is that we ought to capture him. That Pakistan and Musharef have a problem with our crossing their sovereign border seems absolutely silly, given Bush’s statements about being with us or against us, and no middle ground. Although, yes, I certainly do understand the concept and principles of sovereignty, but I see that the official U.S. policy is that we no longer give a rat’s a$$ about it when it comes to terrorism, or perceptions of linkage to potentially imminent terrorism. Given Bush’s position, I don’t see Pakistan’s objection to our crossing their border as an issue to Bush. Do you? If so, why, given Bush’s statements?

Regarding your last post, that’s positive and interesting news. I note that the General said it will take a “considerable amount of forces,” which aren’t available when they are in Iraq, and that “we need to do it at the right time.” I guess there hasn’t been a “right time” in the past three years, huh?

Bush hasn’t made Christian doctrine into law. However, he has indicated his support for doing so via Constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage and abortion. And there was the example Aunty M posted about Bush’s faith based initiative. So while the prez hasn’t done it, he has expressed his intent or support. Perhaps that doesn’t qualify for you, but it does for me.

RB,

Yes, I mostly ignore you because of the lack of worthwhile content in your posts. It ain’t personal, man; you just don’t say anything worth responding to most of the time.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

keep up the good posts Salmo. You do raise the level of these discussions.

Having said that, you never respond to my posts------------not worth responding to?

Salmo: So nice to see your posts. You try to use logic, and consistent reasoning rather than name-calling and silly personal attacks. Good on ya! I know I am much more milky to be swayed by a post such as your than I am by some of the flame throwers who seem to think that the more personal the attack the better their "arguments" will be accepted.

Jeff'ed,

Sorry. No, not at all. Maybe you didn't ask me anything or comment on one of my posts?

I was picking on RB because his posts are often cut & paste jobs, and his responses to mine are often littered with blah, blah, blah. Man, that's insipid, not to mention totally lacking in original thought.

Dave,

I assume that those investing in name calling and attacks don't have anything intelligent to contribute and are just engaging in mindless entertainment. That's their perogative, of course, but it's a distraction to those who would make constructive use of the BB.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

"Christian doctrine ... prohibiting gay marriage and abortion."

While many (not all) Christian groups are not in favor of gay marriage and abortion, these issues are not 'owned' by Christians. There are other religious and secular groups who also take a similar stand on such social\cultural\moral\ethical\political issues.

PP
While what you stated about these issues not being owned by the Christians is true, the major push for these agendas is by the Christian groups.