Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (268863)	7/1/2002 2:52:06 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"I am not critical of decisions made." You admit to being a mindless drone. Have another ear of corn. "Those who may already be here and those who were already in Pakistan would have more time and resources if 5000 to 10000 mouths did not have to be fed and hidden." What? you mean a conspiracy is afloat? I thought conspiracies were not an option. Are there conspiracies or aren't there? Why is your version of conpiracy any more valid than others? Sheesh...you conspiracy theorists are all alike. You're either Democrats or Republicans...a straw man.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (268863)	7/2/2002 8:27:33 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

That's pretty funny Tom, you may have a second career in standup! Firstly, I notice that you slyly refused to follow up your own words and conduct a 'systems analysis' of the harmful effects to America of allowing thousands of Taliban / al Qaeda / ISI terrorists to escape from Afghanistan and then flush to locations unknown. Perhaps you suspect that there is no way you can twist such an 'analysis' to make the intelligence failure look like a good thing :) Re your comments: "...I also believe the risks to the American homeland would not be reduced any significant amount if 5000 or even 10,000 more of those in Afghanistan were killed. In fact the danger may have increased. >>> So you are arguing that we are SAFER the MORE terrorists are allowed to run free? Then why bother with the 'War' at all? They were ALL running free before the war... by your definition that should have produced the maximum 'safety' to us :) Re: "...The logistics of 5000 to 10000 is difficult to conceal and one has thousands more candidates to track and find more of the hidden support structure." >>> Right........... So you are saying the more terrorists that are out there, the easier is is to notice them? Gee, how original! The only (well, not the 'only', but rather the major) flaw with this 'theory' is that PAKISTAN has refused to tell us WHO they evacuated, or WHERE they went to, or if they are still there now! Re: "...Ignorant mud hutters isolated in Pakistan are far more an economic drain on the terrorists. Hiding all these folk ties up planning and material resources. Those who may already be here and those who were already in Pakistan would have more time and resources if 5000 to 10000 mouths did not have to be fed and hidden." >>> Ha! The fighters at Kunduz were some of the toughest and most senior leaders in the whole enemy camp... Paki generals and ISI special ops, and senior Tali and hardcore al Qaeda. >>> Now you are saying that the 'best' thing is to let them escape so they will be a 'burden' on Pakistan? Well why not follow your 'logic' out and release all the low-level Taliban folks we've got down in Cuba... so they too can be 'a burden on Pakistan'? Hell, why keep the grunts when the generals have flown the coop? >>> Of course, your theory also ignores the stated US goal to rid Pakistan itself of radical influence. >>> I'm begining to believe that you really didn't bring any of your vaunted 'systems engineering' skills to this task of analyzing the effects of the great 'Airlift of Evil'.