No problem with your take on it at all. Error one: The "conquest of
Pakistan" is unnecessary as they have decided to side with us. Error 2: As
to "will Muslim nations just stand by", Saudi Arabia ( They hate Bin Laden
and have no love for the Taliban) has sided with us. Turkey and Egypt also.
Error 3: As to large armies, NATO consists of Belgium, Canada, Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United
Kingdom and the United States. Russia has also sided with us, offered troops
and they know the territory. All totaled, these countries comprise more than
1/5th of the world's population - primarily the industrialized 1/5th.
Don't think for one minute that Bin Laden and his cells can't be found, the
Taliban destroyed and Afghanistan feed and rebuilt. Hell, maybe they'll
eventually become the Japan or Germany of the Middle East - if they want.
It'll be up to them. Did you ever see an old movie called "The Mouse that
Roared"? As a bonus, the economies if the West will also eventually roar.
They always have.
On the other hand, if you decide you are defeated before you even start,
your decision is correct.
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Robert Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bob Blakely wrote:
> >
> > I am sick and tired of folks claiming that we are considering "bombing
> > anyone back to the stone age." I frankly don't care who your "smart
expert"
> > is. He may be smart, but he's ignorant concerning the goals of war, of
the
> > US and of NATO. It appears you may be too. I have explained the mission
of
> > the US (military) in a previous post. Others have also. You were
apparently
> > listening only to those posts or sentiments that fit your naive
impression
> > of what war is. I don't mean to be insulting by using the word naive,
but
> > anyone who thinks the goal is to bomb anyone "back to the stone age" is
> > naive and thinking as a child.
>
> I think you should go back and carefully read what the writer said. You
> are taking violent exception to things he never suggested. He was not
> discussing the goals of war. He was responding to very specific comments
> made on radio, among other places -- comments similar to some I also
> have seen, both here and in other forums, suggestions that we go in and
> bomb or destroy Afghanistan and not worry about collateral casualties.
> He has given a thoughtful answer to why that is not sensible. What is
> your problem with that?
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
