I found this interesting read from Michael G. Leventhal over the
dojgov.net. It gives an interesting historical perspective on our
current war on terror. It appears that dealing with the Muslim fanatics
has a long history in our Republic:

Terrorism and the New American Republic
In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from
Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American
ships.

History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were
blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of
their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others.
Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used
history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. The
quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.

On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the
main issue:

"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds
of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no
Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who
had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador
answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it
was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have
acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and
duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make
slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman
who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of
blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would
continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to
terrorism was force.

"There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and
all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University
law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of
Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering
a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He
invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every
right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring
war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in
a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after
our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to
an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would
have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates
and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down
as pirates."

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists
-- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military
strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War
College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the *******,"
he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our
official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of
the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give
in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late
1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out
$990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues
totaled just $7 million.

"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William
Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one
language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops. Bush invaded Iraq instead of
dealing with the real threat. Saddam was a dictator who brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors at that time. He
might have become a threat, but there was no need to split our effort. Did I
mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in Afganistan? I guess we
don't have enough troops to deal with that either.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
I found this interesting read from Michael G. Leventhal over the
dojgov.net. It gives an interesting historical perspective on our
current war on terror. It appears that dealing with the Muslim fanatics
has a long history in our Republic:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops. Bush invaded Iraq instead of
dealing with the real threat. Saddam was a dictator who brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors at that time. He
might have become a threat, but there was no need to split our effort. Did
I mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in Afganistan? I guess
we don't have enough troops to deal with that either.

There seems to be some pretty good evidence now that Saddam was a
stabilizing influence in the Middle East, rather than the destabilizing
force we thought him to be. After Iran overtakes Iraq, the Muslim civil war
that will likely ensue should be a whopper.

Wonder if he'd like his old job back?

Max

Saddam should be governor of New Jersey.

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...
Saddam should be governor of New Jersey.

I was thinking more like Mayor of New Orleans.

Max

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...
Saddam should be governor of New Jersey.

I was thinking more like Mayor of New Orleans.

We could use another Governor of California.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Gilligan wrote:

Saddam should be governor of New Jersey.


That would be cruel & unusual punishment. Besides, can a
ourt sentence him to that? I thought he had to be appointed
by the libby-rull elitist cabal?

DSK

Sodomy Hussein?

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...
Saddam should be governor of New Jersey.

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops. Bush invaded Iraq instead of
dealing with the real threat. Saddam was a dictator who brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors at that time. He
might have become a threat, but there was no need to split our effort. Did
I mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in Afganistan? I guess
we don't have enough troops to deal with that either.

There seems to be some pretty good evidence now that Saddam was a
stabilizing influence in the Middle East, rather than the destabilizing
force we thought him to be. After Iran overtakes Iraq, the Muslim civil war
that will likely ensue should be a whopper.

Wonder if he'd like his old job back?

He could always run for president (of Iraq) after he's found not
guilty.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops. Bush invaded Iraq instead of
dealing with the real threat. Saddam was a dictator who brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors at that time.
He might have become a threat, but there was no need to split our effort.
Did I mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in Afganistan? I
guess we don't have enough troops to deal with that either.

There seems to be some pretty good evidence now that Saddam was a
stabilizing influence in the Middle East, rather than the destabilizing
force we thought him to be. After Iran overtakes Iraq, the Muslim civil
war that will likely ensue should be a whopper.

Wonder if he'd like his old job back?

Max

There was pretty good evidence back in 1990 that Saddam was preferable to
the alternatives, credit to George I. Remember, when George II was asked if
he consulted his father re/invading Iraq and toppling the regime, he stated
that he consulted with his "other" father, his "earthly" father was probably
telling him that it was a huge mistake. War is peace.

John Cairns