Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2006 10:25:09 -0400
Didn't Ol' Sammy bin Laden train under Bush, the Elder's CIA?
Yeah. It was during this little thing called the Cold War. Ever heard
of it? At the time, the threat of nuclear annihilation by the USSR was
a more real danger than terrorism on American soil. Was it a mistake?
Probably, heck almost certainly.
I wonder why on earth we haven't yet caught him? Want to bet that we
never will? There is a possibility that /his/ hatred is well-planned.
Of course I know all about the rugged terrain of Afghanistan and his
myriad of hidey-holes but, DANG! If I had spit on the sidewalk and
gone to ground the local police would have me inside of 15 minutes. He
can't be that good when we have down-looking satellites all over low
earth orbit that can find a fly speck on the jacket of anyone using
several wavelengths of light.
Umm...is that why we have caught all the drug cartels and labs in South
America? Seriously, they hate the American government as much, if not
more, than the terrorists. They are just not willing to face certain
death for their cause (money).
As for the planes, there is also a large nuclear power plant nearby (in
fact within the flight path of at least a couple of the planes) the
plane-bombing of which would possibly have devastated the entire east
coast, no time requirements. If the intention was large numbers of dead
that would have been my choice. Why not do greatest damage instead of
least damage?
Planes hitting nuclear plant == something we expected (i.e., many
nuclear power plants are protected against terrorist attacks, at least
notionally).
Planes hitting building == something only Tom Clancy thought up (I am
not sure if someone else brought up the idea, but Clancy is the only one
of which I know; go read "Executive Orders").
The point is that terrorism works on psychological impact. They bet
that hitting big buildings had a greater impact than hitting nuclear
plants. I tend to agree. Besides, your rationale could just the same
be applied to the 1993 attack on the WTC. They already had established
a pattern of targetting buildings. Of course, buildings like the
Pentagon (the center of US military might) and the WTC (the center of US
economic might) were chosen for their prestige and other
characteristics, not just for the sheer number of people.
Why, then, focus on Iraq and Saddam who had yet to do us any damage?
???
Were you born after 2001? UN sanctions? Before the current Bush
adminstration, Clinton, Gore, and lots of Democrats and liberals:
- asserted that Saddam *did have* WMDs
- asserted that he was in violation of *numerous* UN resolutions
- called for military action against him
Bush is the one actually executed it. Now he is the bad guy. Now, my
thoughts:
- the war was ineffectively prosecuted
- the way the media was notified/handled with respect to many
war-related things was abysmal
- we are already there and we need to finish the job before we get out
Seriously, don't bash the guy for no reason. I fyou are going to bash,
at least pick some things that are rooted in fact.
Don't you think that a few hundred thousand troops in Afghanistan would
have been the main thrust, Saddam to come later?
The whole scenario just doesn't make any sense.
I don't know. I am not a war planner.
Unless...
Cybe R. Wizard
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Reply to: