Did you ever serve in the military? Have you ever heard of a concept of operational security? Just because they aren't blabbing the timeline to us via the media doesn't mean they don't have one.
If you did serve, remember that a time line doesn't mean that on certain dayes certain things will happen. For the military a limeline involves certains objectives being met before the next stage begins. From what I have been seeing, both from the media and from security breifings, certain goals and objectives are being set and the military is waiting for them to me met. Russel > -----Original Message----- > From: Gary P. McNeel, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:56 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: How long? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:09 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: How long? > > > > > > The problem is the Taliban is moving their defences around the > country to > > it take a lot of bombs to get them all. > > > > They are not going to send in ground troops until they can make > sure they > > can be 100% supported through the air. > > > > I firmly believe these guys know what they are doing. > > Why do you believe that? What has indicated this at all? > > When we entered the Gulf War, Collin Powell said, and I paraphrase, "You > must have a clearly defined objective, timelines and goals." I have seen > none of that. The Military Industrial Complex must be really excited about > all this. > > Just weeks before 9/11, the right were constantly saying "less government, > less spending, yada, yada." Now we are adding new cabinet posts > and I assure > you that a bigger chunk of money will be going toward new security groups, > people, arms, ad infinitum. "Wag the Dog" was never truer. > > You have Ashcroft saying, "There are still threats..." Well, duh. > Where were > these guys BEFORE this happened? There will always be threats. > Cry it enough > and it will be like a car alarm going off, no one even hears it. I am > FUC*ing angry about all this. In a business you would FIRE people who > dropped the ball for a lot less, all the way to the top. This type of > ineptitude is criminal. These foul ups killed 5000+ people in > about a 2 hour > period as we all watched on TV. How could this have happened? And then we > all sit and "praise" Bush for his leadership. Give me a break. He was like > Stalin when Germany rolled in, disappeared for a day and got with > his "team" > and did some damage control. Where does the buck stop nowadays? Certainly > not in Washington! Harry Truman, where are you now, your country > needs you. > This reminds me of "Monster" by Steppenwolf. Time to spin a CD. > > As our country enters into a state of semi-martial law (hundreds of people > in jail on no charges) and our congress is divided over what to do (the > terrorism bill, which passed 100-0 in the Senate and was tied in > the House) > or how much of our personal liberties to take away from us, how much the > constitution can be subverted, we go about business as usual. > > Only, this is not "as usual". We, the American people, are not > even remotely > involved in the process going on in Washington. This is exactly > the type of > thing Ashcroft and his ilk wanted, broader power to circumvent the > Constitution. Do you think that they would have stopped 9/11 had they had > the current Terrorism Bill in place. No, because of the inept handling of > this whole thing. This Bill is just another distraction for the American > public, just a veil. Why are we not holding these people accountable for > their actions (or lack of) preceding the events of 9/11. > > -Gary > > > > > At 09:51 AM 11/2/2001 -0500, you wrote: > > >How long does it take a Superpower to bomb a third-world country into > > >submission? We've been bombing Afghanistan since Oct 7 - I > > >would have thought it would be over by now. Here it is, > November 2, and > > >we don't seem any closer to an end. What concerns me is > > >that there are some who think that Iraq may have been involved > > and may be > > >the target of the next campaign. Iraq has a much better > > >military than Afghanistan so how long would that one take? And, a > > >campaign against Iraq would be completely different that the Gulf > > >war because we wouldn't stop short of going into Baghdad this time. > > > > > >On a side note - I guess the people of Vieques are happy that > > the US Navy > > >has moved on to bombing Afghanistan... > > > > > >Howie > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
