On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:21:40 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill
lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference
between us and those we go after.

The difference is we don't kill people for no reason.


Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You
assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for
no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a
reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you
or me, but I assure you, it is to them.

They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to
get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive.
Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give
them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their
methods, and empowers others to do the same thing.


Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable
reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive.

Cite examples please.


We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point.

We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop
from altitude.

When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world
sit up and take notice to our political agenda?


If the
terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva
convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of
the people that they willingly place in harm's way.

Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization.

What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules
or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage.


What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides.

The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them
cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until
they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels".
If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more.


It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?


I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to
know".

Dave


Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell
need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if
it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an
idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel.

Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network,
the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've
been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes,
we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people
involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and
making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine
our ability.


Are you actually advocating that we should simply sit back and allow the
idiots and lunatics in the Bush Administration "carry on" with their
insane agenda without questioning or criticizing them? You're in a real
time warp here, Dave...you would have preferred to live in the old
Soviet Union.

No, actually the America of the 1940's.


One of the basic problems of the Bush Administration is that it does not
know how to do its job. It is incompetent.

You keep saying that, but to date cannot offer up anything more
substantive that you own opinion to support that allegation. And guess
what, your opinion plus $.50 won't even get you a cheap cup of
coffee.......

Dave

On 28 Jun 2004 01:06:55 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave



It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September
11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs.

A gang of criminal thugs which are covertly supported by more than a
few countries. They smile to our faces when we give them our money,
then use these thugs to stab us in the back for our cultural beliefs.

Like weeds, you can clip off the stems but the weed will keep growing
back. If you don't get to the root, you won't kill the weed. We have
to find and eliminate the support networks that give these thugs any
power. Without that they might as well stand in the desert and throw
rocks.


If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by
invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address
the problem?

As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently)
attacking.

Those who allow these thugs to operate inside their country need to be
made aware of the situation. Then they can either help us, or stand
out of the way. Unfortunately that paints us (helped by leftist
propaganda and spin) as "aggressors", and not the "Weed killers" that
we are.


Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the
9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant
response to the terrorist attacks on America. ???

While there is no credible connection between the 9/11 attacks and Al
Qaeda, there IS credible evidence that they have colluded on other
projects, including the trafficking of arms to the "thugs", and
housing training grounds. There is also evidence that Iraq had some
involvement with the Oklahoma City bombing.

There is evidence that there are links to other Arab countries as
well, including Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. We can't fight such a large
war, so we have to do it piece by piece. Iraq was a logical choice for
many reasons. The most prominent most likely has to do with
establishing a western style democracy, which is the chemotherapy to
the Islamic fundamentalist cancer which feed the thugs. The second
important reason is securing a source for oil should other sources
become disrupted when the next phase of the war commences.

We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run free
while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah.

Who is letting anyone run free? Just because the news is dominated by
liberals digging up more and more mud to sling at Bush (instead of
condemning our enemies), and concentrating on what's going wrong in
Iraq, that doesn't mean that the search for Al Qaeda and OBL is not
still a priority. We keep taking out key members every couple of
weeks. But those stories appear as a quick blip on the radar and are
quickly overshadowed by another round of pictures of so called "abuse"
in Iraqi prisons, or some other disgruntled former government official
tries to earn his 15 minutes of fame by slinging mud at the
administration.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

Who is letting anyone run free? Just because the news is dominated by
liberals digging up more and more mud to sling at Bush (instead of
condemning our enemies), and concentrating on what's going wrong in
Iraq, that doesn't mean that the search for Al Qaeda and OBL is not
still a priority. We keep taking out key members every couple of
weeks. But those stories appear as a quick blip on the radar and are
quickly overshadowed by another round of pictures of so called "abuse"
in Iraqi prisons, or some other disgruntled former government official
tries to earn his 15 minutes of fame by slinging mud at the
administration.

Dave




Wow...not only have you taken a big bite of the Bush Bull**** apple,
you've eaten the whole damned thing, right down to the core.

Yessir, things are wonderful in Iraq, we've got less terrorism in the
world as a result of the Bush Bull****, and everyone is safer. And if
you believe any of that, you've been lobotomized...several times.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave



It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on
September
11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs.

If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by
invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to
address
the problem?

As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not
(currently)
attacking.

No other country would be stupid enough to grant them amnesty the way Iraq,
Iran, and Afghanistan have.

"Jim Donohue" wrote in message
news:55MDc.7374$Yu.2812@fed1read04...
In the interest of never under estimating or minimizing the capabilities
of
your opponents...This is very bad thinking. They are not criminal thugs.
They are members of a relegious group that believes in what they do. They
believe that God will reward them for this belief and for the actions they
take in forwarding this goal.

The requirement on us is to change their believes or annihilate them.
Really is not much middle ground.

I would think that seizing the oil fields and holy sites in Saudia Arabia
would be a start. Perhaps combined with the de-nuclearization of Pakistan
and Iran. I don't suggest we invade - simply annihilate if an acceptable
accomodation is not found. We continue to play with adversaries who would
in good faith remove an American City or two to prove their point. I
suggest that removing all Islamic nuclear capability is simply good sense.
Along the way remove the nuclear capability of North Korea and consider
whether or not we should do the same to India. I see no reason why we
allow
nuclear capability in potentially unfriendly hands. No I do not want to
go
after the Chinese or the Russians...then again their relegious beliefs are
not likely to lead to attacks on America.

It hurts me to turn into a warmonger...but I can see no other path that is
not littered with the remains of dead American Cities.

Good post, Jim.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:39:49 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


All foriegn governments are our enemy. At times we treat them like
friends.

I sometimes think, all governments are our enemy. ;-)


Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it
serve to kill OBL now?

Bin Laden was directly responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on
American soil. In my mind, that's enough to make him the number one
priority then, now, and forever.


All in good time. As I said before, take off the blinders and try to see
the big picture. Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and
visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it
happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from
harm. Letting the terrorists take over won't provide a safe future.

Unless we establish energy independence, a safe future just isn't going to
happen. *Part* of our middle east strategy is to control the flow of oil,
I would suggest that starving the burgeoning economy of say, China, isn't
a guarantee of a safe future.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ma_273_01.html

Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it
serve to kill OBL now?

Effectively prevents that particular criminal terrorist ******* from striking
again.


We are fighting the terrorist's, enemies of the US, on their soil rather
than on our own soil. How would you like a homicide bomber to walk into your
local pizza parlor and blow the place up?

Do I get to pick the pizza joint? (kidding, of course)

I hear this all the time. It's binary crock. As if fighting against the US in
Iraq and sending a few dozen individuals to this country to blow up pizza
parlors and shopping malls, or fly airplanes into buildings can't happen
simultaneously.
In fact, our forcible intrusion into the Middle
East has most likely *increased* rather than decreased the liklihood of more
attacks in the US. True enough, the individuals we kill in Iraq won't be coming
here anytime soon......but their criminal terrorist ******* buddies will be all
the more inspired to do so.

Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and
visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it
happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from
harm.


As we all do. But when your house is on fire, you put it out first before you
begin planning a major remodel cycle that will take 20 or 50 years.

Question: If our focus on Iraq isn't serving the best interests of the
terrorists, (as I believe it is), why are they sacrificing the people required
to keep the pot just barely boiling there?

We are likely to find out, to our profound dismay, that all the terrorists are
*not* moving to Iraq for the purpose of taking on
the American military with their Rube Goldberg bombs and small arms.

No other country would be stupid enough to grant them amnesty the way Iraq,
Iran, and Afghanistan have.

Except

Jordan,
Libya,
Saudi Arabia,
Yemen,
Indonesia,
Pakistan

etc
etc
etc

we don't grant amnesty to criminals in the US, either. Last I checked, we still
have one heck of a lot of them living here.