"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That'll end it in a hurry.


So would nukes.


Toss nukes, you get nukes in return.

From whom?


Are you kidding? They're everywhere.

No, I'm not kidding. If Iran or Syria had nukes, they'd already be in
the
hands of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. In your
opinioin,
which terrorist-sponsoring countries already have nukes? I know
Pakistan
has them...and Pakistan's northwestern provinces are crawling with al
Qaeda...but the President of that country isn't a sponsor of
international
terrorism.



Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, North Korea has nukes, the PRC has
nukes, several of the former Soviet "republics" had nukes in their
possession and the whereabouts of many of those are unknown. And those
republics include Moslem states.

Aside from maybe Pakistan, not one of those countries that you mention are
Muslim states in the Middle East...nor are they sponsoring international
terrorist attacks against the United States or Israel.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That'll end it in a hurry.


So would nukes.


Toss nukes, you get nukes in return.

From whom?


Are you kidding? They're everywhere.

No, I'm not kidding. If Iran or Syria had nukes, they'd already be in
the
hands of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. In your
opinioin,
which terrorist-sponsoring countries already have nukes? I know
Pakistan
has them...and Pakistan's northwestern provinces are crawling with al
Qaeda...but the President of that country isn't a sponsor of
international
terrorism.



Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, North Korea has nukes, the PRC has
nukes, several of the former Soviet "republics" had nukes in their
possession and the whereabouts of many of those are unknown. And those
republics include Moslem states.

Aside from maybe Pakistan, not one of those countries that you mention are
Muslim states in the Middle East...nor are they sponsoring international
terrorist attacks against the United States or Israel.



Your question :

"In your opinioin, which terrorist-sponsoring countries already have
nukes?"

I answered your question.

Now you are limiting your question.

Which Arab states in the could have nukes?

Almost any of them. Nukes are not something you have to develop on your
own. Some of the republics of the former Sov Union had nukes for sale.
The government of Russia asked for our help in finding, isolating and
guarding these devices. Your idiot president cut the funding drastically
for these safety measures.

As to which nation-states are sponsoring international terrorism, I
thought by now even you would have learned that "states" do not have to
sponsor terrorism for there to be terrorist attacks against us.

In fact, nations almost don't matter in the equation. Right now, there
could be 20 terrorists living in your home town, each with several of
the pieces and parts needed to make a nuke. These folks could be from
anywhere; they could even be home grown.

Perhaps the real enemy is out-of-control conservatism. Seems to me that
all the recent terrorist attacks on the US have been perpetrated by
conservatives. The folks on your side of the political fence seem the
ones who refuse to get along with others.




--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Perhaps the real enemy is out-of-control conservatism.

More like out-of-control liberalism. If liberals weren't working so hard to
protect the rights of terrorists, it'd be easier for law enforcement to
ensure that the bad guys either locked up...or dead.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Perhaps the real enemy is out-of-control conservatism.

More like out-of-control liberalism. If liberals weren't working so hard to
protect the rights of terrorists, it'd be easier for law enforcement to
ensure that the bad guys either locked up...or dead.




You really, truly are a fascist.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Perhaps the real enemy is out-of-control conservatism.

More like out-of-control liberalism. If liberals weren't working so
hard to
protect the rights of terrorists, it'd be easier for law enforcement to
ensure that the bad guys either locked up...or dead.




You really, truly are a fascist.


That only depends on the topic being debated. I'm a hardcore, cold,
heartless, militaristic fascist when the topic is fighting terrorism.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:24:48 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Perhaps the real enemy is out-of-control conservatism.

More like out-of-control liberalism. If liberals weren't working so
hard to
protect the rights of terrorists, it'd be easier for law enforcement to
ensure that the bad guys either locked up...or dead.




You really, truly are a fascist.


That only depends on the topic being debated. I'm a hardcore, cold,
heartless, militaristic fascist when the topic is fighting terrorism.

Odd that - so am I, but in this case it was my youngest daughter when
I grounded her once or twice.

Oh well, once a hardcore, cold, heartless, militaristic fascist,
always a yada, yada, yada.....

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004

Gould,

You have been all concerned about the republicans keeping the proposed draft
secret till after the elections.

If you have any problems with the draft you need to contact the following
representative:

The following representative introduced the legislation: Mr. RANGEL Dem.
from NY, Mr. MCDERMOTT Dem from Washington State, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS
Dem of Georgia, Mr. STARK Dem from California, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE Dem. from
Hawaii, introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on Armed Services.

The bill to reinstate the draft was introduced by democrats as a way to make
sure the privilege have to serve in the armed forces.

I guess the White House and Republicans are not responsible after all.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I am not suggesting there are any plans for a draft, but NOYB has
suggested attacks on Syria and Iran.

If NOYB's fantasy comes to fruition and we expand this war, he may be
among the
first to go!

From the Selective Service website, "Strategic Goals for 2004"

Strategic Objective 1.1: Within current legislative guidance, enhance the
Agency's ability
to respond flexibly to a DoD request for health care personnel using the
Agency's HCPDS.

**********
Strategic Objective 1.2: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State
Headquarters,
442 Area Offices and 1,980 Local Boards are operational within 75 days of
an
authorized
return to conscription.

*********************
Strategic Objective 1.3: Be operationally ready to furnish untrained
manpower
within DoD
timelines.

************

Strategic Objective 1.4: Support the Agency's ability to provide manpower
to
the DoD with the development and implementation of updated readiness
training
programs.

*************

Strategic Objective 2.1: Improve registration compliance rates.

********

Strategic Objective 2.2: Improve the participation rate in the SSS' High
School (HS) Registrar Program which is composed of individuals who have
agreed
to act as uncompensated Registrars in high schools nationally.

*************

Strategic Objective 2.3: Seek alternative registration methods

*************
Strategic Objective 4.1: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 48
Alternative
Service Offices and 48 Civilian Review Boards are operational within 96
days
after notification of a return to induction.

***********


Sure sounds like a draft is the farthest thing from the government's mind.


A funny thing occurs to me. The Limbaugh fans who squeal, "Don't let them
register our guns! They might come and take them away!" have no difficulty
at
all registering their sons, and soon their daughters for that *exact*
purpose.

Gould,

You have been all concerned about the republicans keeping the proposed draft
secret till after the elections.

If you have any problems with the draft you need to contact the following
representative:

The following representative introduced the legislation: Mr. RANGEL Dem.
from NY, Mr. MCDERMOTT Dem from Washington State, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS
Dem of Georgia, Mr. STARK Dem from California, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE Dem. from
Hawaii, introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on Armed Services.

The bill to reinstate the draft was introduced by democrats as a way to make
sure the privilege have to serve in the armed forces.

I guess the White House and Republicans are not responsible after all.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
There are plans for a draft, but the Bush-****ters won't dare admit it
until after the elections.



Some folks who are reluctant to register their guns, for fear the
government
might take them away, are eager to register their kids for that *exact*
purpose. Go figure.

Gould,

You have been all concerned about the republicans keeping the proposed draft
secret till after the elections.

Taco, not so.

I have simply posted items from the Selective Service website stating that the
2004 goal is to be prepared to furnish XXXXX troops withing XXXXX time
"following the authorization to resume conscription.

If the Republicans wanted to keep this plan a secret, they wouldn't post it on
the internet, would they???

With any luck, the Repubs won't have much to say about whether there's a draft,
or not, after the election. :-)

Time to derail the New American Century disaster plan. Time for a change. We'll
have to see how courageous, or scared, the electorate is in a few weeks.

Gould,
Do you disagree that the party you support wants the draft reinstated?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,

You have been all concerned about the republicans keeping the proposed
draft
secret till after the elections.

Taco, not so.

I have simply posted items from the Selective Service website stating that
the
2004 goal is to be prepared to furnish XXXXX troops withing XXXXX time
"following the authorization to resume conscription.

If the Republicans wanted to keep this plan a secret, they wouldn't post
it on
the internet, would they???

With any luck, the Repubs won't have much to say about whether there's a
draft,
or not, after the election. :-)

Time to derail the New American Century disaster plan. Time for a change.
We'll
have to see how courageous, or scared, the electorate is in a few weeks.