meade95

Agreed - Though I'm in favor of letting the collective wisdom of the market-place be the way in providing the best path for such.....not the the wisdom of a select few, dare I use that word "experts" again! Ha. But you get my point.... And not a marketplace in which we see artifical costs (high taxes) or reckless self-inflicted restraints on supply (which has been the case for the past 30 years because of enviro/leftist political policy)...... It never ceases to amaze me how those in Congress (or on the street who support such types in Congress) are the one's yelling the loudest about the "high costs of gas"...are the same ones who time and again are directly passing regulations that restrict the very needed supply of oil to begin with....(thus directly helping to cause the higher prices).... Another reality it seems...that is a fad to ignore today....is that oil provides the best and most effective form of energy (for most Americans to use) via cost / benefit ratios. If it did not, there would be all sorts of successful alternative energy options out there.....WITHOUT the need for Gov't mandates. Bill Gates didn't need Gov't mandates for every house or every small business to own a desktop computer......the reality of their increase in productivity was simply reflected in the market place over time (a short amount of time).... But when looking at oil..... Be it from hauling actaul real weight (semi-trucks make this country go round) to the productivity and creativity that comes from the individuality that our freedom of movement and from mass transit help provide......Oil allows for this. The combustible engine is affordable.....People can own cars/trucks and go about their lives without the need for investing in the likes of a second home......which is the case with some of the "alternative", propane vehicles for example. Their costs are through the roof. And hell, vehciles are only a part of the oil debate. Oil is not just gas/fuel issues. Everything we do and use comes from oil - Be it from bike tires, to virtually every product on one's desk right now..... or to the electricity used to power those magical "eco-friendly" vehicles (that actually use more energy than regular cars at the end of the day AND cost more to buy up front...to boot).....And heck, electricity burns the dark crude on top of that.....(for enviro concerns)... Another factor we have to look at is the world is now using 87 million barrels a day - Not us, (U.S) but the world. That's because worldwide wealth is growing - low middle classes are evolving in other countries. GROWTH is good on the whole, not bad. I look at "wind-energy".....Fine. Use more of it. But do so through the market-place. Don't place mandates on its use. Facts are people have been talking about the benefits of wind energy since before I was born. Back in the 50's and 60s.......Yet, today, wind energy makes up for less than 1% of all our energy needs. That speaks volumes to its true effectiveness.......and no one even talks about the acrage needs (and tradeoffs assoicated with that) for real wind energy prodcution. Heck, look what happened when they tried to put wind-energy plants up in the "progressive" NE of the United States...... All those in the Hamptons (Kennedy types) told them to pound sand......It was too much an eye-sore.

+1 - Sounds like a reasonable definition to me.....

Reading back - I completely agree with your last paragraph above - Should have said so sooner - Though, it seems we differ on how to get closer to such an end game - Regarding your fist comments above - I think the constant critique of OIF (while it is still going on...and while it turns more successful each day) gets old. As does the notion that it is providing more ammo for our enemies. To do what? So on 9-11, they (radical Islam) really didn't hate us. They really didn't have all the ammo they needed to do more? The notion that OIF is causing radical muslims to "really" hate us now.....is just foolishness, IMO. They aready were filled with hate before OIF. Their demented minds and those of their preachers obviously already had all the ammo needed for instilling such BS. But back to OIF - Of course in any large operation such as removing one of the most brutal regimes of the past half-century (in a region of the world like the ME)....it isn't going to go completely smoothly. There are going to be mistakes. There is going to be a two steps forward, one step backwars (maybe even two steps backwards at times) processes.......there is going to be changing dynamics, wrong assumptions, the need for adjustments, fresh-eyes, and the such.......And all of this has been happening.... Sorry, but the world isn't all rainbows and butterflys....even when the best of decisions are made. And this is where I see your tone on OIF/WOT...(Steve)..... Constantly would have done it smarter. And I call BS on that. There are all sorts of other unexpected events that could have unfolded via a different route taken..... Hell, if WWII would have been held to the same standards as is today.....with the constant monthly (if not weekly, hell, daily critiques) of how the war is being managed....we would have never come close to winning WWII...... as there were huge blunders and mistakes made all through that war.....right up until we won it....... Difference was.....most Americans were most concerned with winning it!...Not running down why we hadn't already.......and there is a big difference there. Again, reality to me is the world is better off with out Saddam in power. The world is better off without the Taliban in power. The world is better off with over 3/4 + of AQ original leadership dead or captured......(and the remainder reduced to begging Pucktoon hillbillies for their sanctuary.....which one day they will tire of and dimes will be dropped on them.....This is assured to happen.....and has been)..... The world is better off with at least with the notions of freedom and self-worth along with the very real elections taking place in Iraq and Stan promoting forms of quasi-democracy......... These are positive events.....These are potentially world changing events happening as we speak / write (all the while being critiqued non-stop for their faults or why it shoud have been done better).... But on the whole the world is better off because of the above.....and how we have got here has been a struggle....Of course it has.... My god, this is in the heart of the ME. Suggesting these things would be taking place 10 years ago would (with less than 5000 American KIA) would have got you laughed off boards such as these..... Now you get taken to task for supporting such enormous positive changes....because it should have been done smarter / easier, blah, blah, blah......

Hmm, looks like your judgement could be off (once again concerning the current WOT and this operation inparticular)....As more on this raid continues to leak out - Nothing concrete and I'm sure none of us will know for cretain for quite some time anyhow......however... From The Long War Journal Publicly America is still saying nothing but US officials are making intriguing claims off the record. Now, a respected Israeli intelligence expert says he has been told the operation was carried out with the knowledge and co-operation of Syrian intelligence. Ronen Bergman, author of The Secret War with Iran, makes the claim in the Yediot Ahronoth newspaper, based on briefings with two senior American officials, one of whom he says until recently "held a very high ranking in the Pentagon". ________ Or this could simply be a planted story on our end. Psyops of our own causing division within Syria's intelligence community..... Regardless to me, this kinetic solution for this HVT was certainly worth it...(with or without the Syrians playing ball).....if our guys at CENTCOM felt it was worth it......I'll trust their judgement. It is more than clear these type Ops are intelligence driven.....and that our OODA loop is becoming too small for AQ and their mimics to operate within (even within a growing number of countries outside of Stan and Iraq)...

Ok Steve - You obviously don't like being taken to task for false notions and strawman arguments.....so you can stop with the threats.....They don't concern me. Ban me from your silly board because you are being taken to the wood-shed if you m ust....That will only further my points against you...You have a bias and you don't like being shown for having such... So ban me if you must......The choice, is all yours to make. But lets have a little perspective on ANWAR.....Shall we. Facts readily availiable to all...... The American National Wildlife Reserve is 19 million acres..... Of that 1.5 million acres contains known oil reserves, and roughly around 1,500 acres would be affected by drilling. (now mind you, further reserves in ANWAR or off our coasts likely exist, but with no economic incentive for finding such.....such exploration searches are not going to happen).. Opponents of the ANWR.....who eventually give up the false notion of negative envrio impact on ANWAR do to drilling.....often then argue (as Steve does) we will only be able to harvest a nominal (useless) amount of oil. However, U.S. Geological Surveys estimate there to be between 6 and 16 billion barrels of oil (in addition to trillions of cubic feet of natural gas)..... Now by itself.......sure this may not be enough petroleum to end our dependence on foreign oil .......However, Ten billion barrels of oil (a conservative estimate when doing a search of all those in the business projections) is enough, however, to double our current Alaskan oil output ....... Clearly...the amount of oil available is not marginal or useless.....The same amount of oil is equivalent to over 15 years (pushing almost 20 years) of imports from Saudi Arabia alone!.....these additional quanities of U.S. oil.....would also put significant pressure on foreign oil producers (OPEC) when attempting to increase their profits (or power)..... by decreasing the amount of oil they're willing to export for periods of time..... More so......drilling oil from ANWR can greatly benefit the economy. By doubling the oil flowing from Alaska and thus maximizing the capacity of the Alaskan pipeline, production costs will decrease. Another reality.....Despite the rhetoric, we have little to lose and much to gain by drilling in ANWR. ANWR may be a very emotional issue, but is a no-brainer from a policy-making standpoint. It is not an environmental danger, it will not single-handedly solve our energy or security needs either.......but it is certainly a step in the right direction by any and all measures. The notion that we should not proceed with any efforts unless they solve all our energy problems and do so within a X time frame (or less than 10 years, or 12 years, what is it now Steve?).....they shouldn't be taken seriously....is utterly foolish. Reality is we should be persuing drilling in ANWAR along with drilling off our coasts in order to offset our growing foreign dependence.....It is without question a step in the right direction....and without a doubt part of any reasonable program to update / upgrade our current energy policies....

What don't you get about the strawman fallacy you set - That being trying to suggest all we were doing in Iraq was looking for the kinetic solution to the problems. That premise is a complete lie. That was never the only solution we were looking to apply (to either Iraq or Stan). Our efforts standing by both nations since each operation began is proof of this. Furthermore, the notion that the success in Iraq today is from "the surge" is not accurate. Those operations running in Anbar all through 05/06 (Pre-Surge) are just as responsible for setting the ground work....for destorying AQ in Iraq..... The surge was timed perfectly to fill the void that was created by our previous efforts. Name ONE time, that I ever suggested killing bad guys (kinetic solution) was the only option we should be employing. It was you that suggested this was the case....and it is flat out wrong. You set a false premise and were called on it. You now have created a second strawman trying to suggest I think the kinetic solution is the only solution to our fights in Stan and Iraq. Nothing is further from the truth and everyone that is willing to be intellectually honest and read my posts on here can see that. Clearly, you're not willing to be honest on the subject or my positions. I'm the one who has stated repeatedly that our biggest allies in this WOT...are the values of freedoms and self-worth ...that for far too long were denied (even the concepts of) for the people of the ME....... We are now standing by / standing shoulder to shoulder with the peoples of Iraq and Stan....and seeing their newly elected Gov'ts take root...and these values / notions as well. While yes, at the same time using the kinetic solutions on those elements who wish not to see these values / notions allowed to people within these two Nations.

I need to do more playtesting on this as well - On ground floor as well as other floors / including the roof....

And that is a false premise, if the assumption is trying to be made that, that is all we (U.S. Gov't) were/are doing (or that is all we were ever trying to do). The reality in both Iraq and Stan shows the treasure & blood America has been willing to sacrifice in order to do more than just "kill bad guys". We have invested tremendously in the peoples of these nations, in the notions of freedom and self-worth...and in seeing that we stand by these newly established Governments until they can stand on their own. Not even speaking to all of the infastructure projects we have helped with / built (and pressured other nations to forgive old loans too boot, in helping these two new countires trying to re-start themselves).

Wrong. You must start to be WILLING to be intellectually honest. It is clear you're not at this time. You refuse to let facts or reality interfer with your already established bias.... Here is just some of the bio on Zarqawi and his direct affliation to AQ/Bin Laden.... In 1989, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to join the insurgency against the Soviet invasion, but the Soviets were already leaving by the time he arrived;[6] where he met and befriended Osama bin Laden while there. ..... Upon his release from prison in 1999, Zarqawi was involved in an attempt to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman, where many Israeli and American tourists lodged.[8] He fled Jordan and traveled to Peshawar, Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border. In Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a militant training camp near Herat, near the Iranian border.[9] The training camp specialized in poisons and explosives.[10] According to Jordanian officials and court testimony by jailed followers of Zarqawi in Germany, Zarqawi met in Kandahar and Kabul with Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders after travelling to Afghanistan.[8] He asked them for assistance and money to set up his own training camp in Herat.[11] WITH al-Qaeda's SUPPORT, the camp opened and soon served as a magnet for Jordanian militants. ..... Jordanian and European intelligence agencies discovered that Zarqawi formed the group Jund al-Sham in 1999 with $200,000 of start up money from Osama bin Laden.[12] The group originally consisted of 150 members. It was infiltrated by members of Jordanian intelligence, and scattered before Operation Enduring Freedom. ..... After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again traveled to Afghanistan and joined Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters resisting the U.S.-led invasion.[14] He was allegedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi settled in northern Iraq, where he fought along side of the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. ...... ..before the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi ran a "terrorist haven" in Kurdish northern Iraq, and organized the bombing of a Baghdad hotel.[36] According to a March 2003 British intelligence report, Zarqawi had set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad before the Iraq war. The report stated "suggests that senior al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad, to be activated during a U.S. occupation of the city...These cells apparently intend to attack U.S. targets using car bombs and other weapons. (It is also possible that they have received [chemical and biological] materials from terrorists in the [Kurdish Autonomous Zone]),...al Qaeda-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March."[37]

Do yourself a favor - Read from the start - It has been Steve (BFC) that has constantly talked about / tried to point the "bias" finger (political finger, of which Steve has none of, he has assured us)......at myself. It was Steve he started this line of discussion. In turn pointing out bias publications or the political bias of some sources in more than fair game. And completey contributes to any intellectually honest discussion that is trying to take place. For being whatever type of "smart cookie" you take Steve for.....Nothing does away with the false premise he started with (near the top of this thread - which stated "the War on Terrorism will flounder and fail if the concept of winning is limited to killing the enemy or even taking over its territory")... That is a flat out wrong / false premise. With the discussion continuing from there. It is a strawman and Steve was called out on it.......He then took the position of trying to call me political and with an political agenda for taking him to task on this completely flase premise of how the WOT/Iraq has been conducted.

This is too rich - Hell of a way to take any responsibility off of State, I'll give you that.

Newsweek will later say that Iran was helpful? Newsweek? Seriously,Newsweek!? That is who your link here is referencing........ The same Newsweek that wouldn't admit the forged documents of CBS / Dan Rathergate? The same Newsweek with a constant political bias. And again, I already said of course Iran helped dropping dimes on those Taliban members of whom they had a long running feud with........That is neither here nor there. Editorials/opinions from completely bias Newsweek. That is classic. Again, outside of the Taliban where was Iran "helpful". Did that stop supproting terrorsim? Did they clamp down on Hezz in Lebanon? No. Did they open up with full transparancey their energy and weapons programs? No. Did they clamp down on known highlevel terrorists (such as Zarqawi) moving through Iran into Iraq (prior to OIF) No. Did they stop those AQ elements they did put under "house arrest" from supporting other terrorist actions (No, your own link says these elements helped conduct further terrorist acts from within Iran)....All they did was grabbed up Tally's that they had a long axe to grind with. So be it. It was benefiical to them to do so. And we owed them nothing for it. It is like to old saying "I take care of my babies".... .So what! You're suppose to! You're not suppose to get some reward for doing so. And again, your own link goes on to show/say how Iran was using any AQ types they had in custody as a bargaining chip.....for their Own gain. That is fine, however, there are consequences for doing such.....especially when you're a State sponsor of terrorism going on 30 years..... The notion that they were being "helpful" is absurd. They were being helpful for their own self-interests (Vs the Taliban) and trying to bargin AQ elements for further power plays. Again, this is all well and fine.....But we don't have to accept such terms...and it isn't us than this acting unilaterally.......We are not accepting their terms. They made that choice / options..... They live with the results.

Do MG once set-up....Do they fire well out of building windows?

What did they exactly help with? Hmm? How many AQ Operatives did they "turn over". Are they still sheltering Binny's oldest son? Who else? Didn't Zarqawi travel through Iran into Iraq?? Yes. (and that was before the Iraq war even started....Zarqawi /AQ going into Iraq). Lets have it? What exactly did they help with? Outside of helping some within the Taliban (whom they had their own axe to grind with)...... Iran did nothing helpful other than from the fear of their own past actions and what that could mean to/for them.....

Are we talking the same State Dept that assured the DoD / POTUS that it would have X number of Civ-Reconstruction-Teams within Iraq at the start of OIF (and 6 years later still wasn't even near 50% filled?). Are we talking State that couldn't pull its own junk out if its own pants once again and left the 4th ID sitting on boats because they could not get Turkey to cooperate after assurances that they could...... Just curious.....

This correlates with playtesting I have done........ I think there is without question a need for improved accuracy for U.S. snipers - I also like the idea above about the need for better observation/response time with a sniper team when put on overwatch of a specific small zone / building. The idea of having "target light" mean only the sniper fires with others acting in the proper spotter role is a great idea as well...

Agree completley with how you guys go about this / implementing such - However, I would say I've seen more complaints about U.S. snipers and their accuracy over that of UNCONs.........And in some sniper specific playtesting.....I think U.S. sniper accuracy (rated for elite) could/should be tweaked up. As it takes too many shots at times to hit non moving targets well within reasonable ranges.....

I would venture to say for any helpfulness Syria or Iran (as you claim) were days after 9-11 was out of FEAR....not out of compassion or respect for the United States. The world waited...especially terrorist supporting regimes (like those above) to see what this big giant angry elephant was about to do...... The idea that because Syria was called out by POTUS GWB as a terrorist supporting nation (as they had been since mid 80s mind you) caused them to stop supporting us after 9-11 is laughable. As for whether the raid was worth it or not.....and your humble opinion. I'll trust the guys at CENTCOM with actual real facts and Intel as to if it was worth it or not. Both tactically and strategically.

Hmm. People don't like us? Didn't Germany recently elect a more pro-American Gov't..... What about France? Hmm, an extremely pro-American Gov't...all the while rejecting those running with more Anti-American views. What about South Korea? That's right, ditto them as well. This list could go on. Even Italy's new PM speaks affirming of the United States and the need to work with us (outside of Iraq)....... Reality is you seem to get all your news from media types with agendas. Yet in the adult world not all nations are going to agree all the time...and that doesn't mean you're no longer allies because of those situations.... by and large American's allies are still our allies (with new one's emerging within Eastern Europe).... Regarding your last comment. Yawn. Grow up.

Yes. Back to the oil thing. You're still wrong. Drilling in Anwar and off our coast will have an impact on the global oil markets. And in particularly here in the States. Your notion that it will take (what is it, 10 years) isn't accurate.........And fruthermore this is the same lame argument for not doing such 10 years ago.....is that it would take 10 years so why do it.... (hell, why try and fight for new cures or procedures for Cancer....if they can't save all current patients right now today....it will take too long). Reality is it is beyond foolishness that we don't allow for more drilling in the States, AK and off our coasts...... And no one is saying that in and of itself is the full solution....but it is without question part of any reasonable solution. Becoming serious about drilling for oil in the States would have a dramatic impact on the speculative side of the oil equation as well. That is reality. There would be much greater downside for those looking to speculate up....with the risk that more U.S. oil would be coming to market in the future.... You are simply unwilling to be intellectually honest on issue after issue here.....while hiding by the curtain of "I'm not politically bias, others are".... They hell you aren't. It is foolishness that we have not built a new refinery in over 20+ years (because of enviro laws..... While at the same time mandating all sorts of new reformulations standards). It is foolishness that we have been for 20 + years putting all sorts of restrictions and regulations on our energy supplies....... Yet the same people supporting all these restrictions are typically the same people upset about increased prices for such...and the effect they have on an economy (I.e. they're just another form of a manufactured cost / tax that need not be there)... Drilling in ANWAR and off our coasts would do plenty of good. Much more so than not You're flat out wrong ....and once again unwilling to even be intellectually honest on this point alone.

You're a joke - When did the notion of "America's approval rating" become part of the equation of wheather we are having success in the WOT or not.....That was never even mentioned ...but view of AQ and radical Islam were.....And I provided information to show such... Regarding America..... Envy is always going to be there.....it is a natural instinct..... The notion that America has ever been loved around the world (outside of times during WWI and WWII) is hogwash....and painting a romantic past that never really was.... But furthermore, the discussion was about the muslim street (or portions of it) turning against AQ and radical Islam....and polls show this is happening..... Iraq shows this is happening.... But go on once again with your lastest new straw-man....Now about whether America has a growing or declining "favorability" rating. Please. What a joke.

Not for UCONS....but for the US side sniper accuarcy is too low. Doing some further playtesting on it tonight....and it becomes more and more obvious. I understand there are likely some "game" issues with trying to create a better 'gaming balance' with regard to snipers (and not making them to lethel)...but as is now....I think a slight adjustment up in accuracy for U.S. snipers is warranted...... It would make for better game play and added level of realism....

And this just happened all on its own, right.....Not because of our offensive actions. Not because we took the fight to them....not because AQ put Iraq as the front line of the WOT...and lost big time. AQ was the most aggressive attacking terrorists organization (on the U.S.) in the world in from the 90's unitl 2001..... today, look how you are speaking about them..... There is hardly much left of them, they're not that important, they're not able to carry out operations, etc,etc..... Thank you.

US strike in Syria "decapitated" al Qaeda's facilitation network By Bill RoggioOctober 27, 2008 4:51 PM Al Qaeda leader Abu Ghadiya was killed in yesterday's strike inside Syria, a senior US military intelligence official told The Long War Journal. But US special operations forces also inflicted a major blow to al Qaeda's foreign fighter network based in Syria. The entire senior leadership of Ghadiya's network was also killed in the raid, the official stated. Ghadiya was the leader of al Qaeda extensive network that funnels foreign fighters, weapons, and cash from Syria into Iraq along the entire length of the Syrian border. Ghadiya was first identified as the target of the raid inside Syria late last night here at The Long War Journal. The Associated Press reported Ghadiya was killed in the raid earlier today. Several US helicopters entered the town of town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, just five miles from the Iraqi border. US commandos from the hunter-killer teams of Task Force 88 clear the buildings sheltering Ghadiya and his staff. The Syrian government has protested the attack, describing it as an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression" carried out by the US. The Syrian government claimed eight civilians, including women and children, were killed in the strike. But a journalist from The Associated Press who attended the funeral said that only the bodies of seven men were displayed. The US official said there were more killed in the raid than is being reported. "There are more than public numbers [in the Syrian press] are saying, those reported killed were the Syrian locals that worked with al Qaeda," the official told The Long War Journal. "There were non-Syrian al Qaeda operatives killed as well." Those killed include Ghadiya's brother and two cousins. "They also were part of the senior leadership," the official stated. "They're dead. We've decapitated the network." Others killed during the raid were not identified. The strike is thought to have a major impact on al Qaeda's operations inside Syria. Al Qaeda's ability to control the vast group of local "Syrian coordinators" who directly help al Qaeda recruits and operatives enter Iraq has been "crippled."

How about a couple more polls you asked for (and this was showing the tide turning on AQ and its mimics way back in 06).... All Iraqi Ethnic Groups Overwhelmingly Reject al Qaeda September 27, 2006 But Groups Vary on Iran, Syria, Hezbollah Full Report Questionnaire/Methodology Transcript of Brookings Saban Center Event A new poll of Iraqis shows that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis. Shias have mildly positive views of Iran and its President, while Kurds and Sunnis have strongly negative views. Shias and Kurds have mostly negative views of Syria, while Sunnis are mildly positive. Shias have overwhelmingly positive views of Hezbollah, while Kurds and Sunnis have negative views. The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Ltd. / D3 Systems, Inc. A nationwide representative sample of 1,150 Iraqi adults was surveyed September 1-4. It may be easy to assume that as the Iraqi people become more supportive of attacks on U.S.-led forces (see WPO main article), they may grow warmer toward al Qaeda—the probable source of a significant number of attacks on U.S. forces. However, this does not appear to be the case. Al Qaeda is exceedingly unpopular among the Iraqi people. Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings. The Shias and Kurds show similarly intense levels of opposition, with 95 percent and 93 percent respectively saying they have very unfavorable views. The Sunnis are also quite negative, but with less intensity. Seventy-seven percent express an unfavorable view, but only 38 percent are very unfavorable. Twenty-three percent express a favorable view (5% very). Views of Osama bin Laden are only slightly less negative. Overall 93 percent have an unfavorable view, with 77 percent very unfavorable. Very unfavorable views are expressed by 87 percent of Kurds and 94 percent of Shias. Here again, the Sunnis are negative, but less unequivocally—71 percent have an unfavorable view (23% very), and 29 percent a favorable view (3% very). _______________________ Poll: Bin Laden popularity fading in Pakistan updated 6:31 a.m. ET, Sun., Feb. 10, 2008 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Sympathy for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and the Taliban has dropped sharply in Pakistan amid a wave of deadly violence, according to the results of a recent opinion poll. The survey, conducted last month for the U.S.-based Terror Free Tomorrow organization, also identified the party of assassinated opposition leader Benazir Bhutto as the country's most popular ahead of Feb. 18 elections, and said most Pakistanis want President Pervez Musharraf to quit. The poll suggests Pakistanis are looking to peaceful opposition groups after months of political turmoil and a wave of suicide attacks........ According to the poll results only 24 percent of Pakistanis approved of bin Laden when the survey was conducted last month, compared with 46 percent during a similar survey in August. Backing for al-Qaida, whose senior leaders are believed to be hiding along the Pakistani-Afghan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent. Support for the Taliban, whose Pakistani offshoots have seized control of much of the lawless border area and have been engaged in a growing war against security forces, dropped by half to 19 percent from 38 percent, the results said.