Mark Browne wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists.
Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power
of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I
think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail,
with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing
sandles
and little not much else but rice.

The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC
were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely
equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the
curtain" supplying them the arms.

1) Man behind the curtain - Saudi oil money - You bet the Arab kings want
the USA to fail in this adventure.

Transactions like this should be easy to trace. However, the Saudis are
in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, some of the more fundamental
Islamics, hate the US for what it stands for. On the other hand, the US
is their biggest customer for their oil. As much as the loss of oil
would hurt us, the loss of our dollars would equally hurt the Saudis.


2) Supply of weapons - Worlds arms market - You name it; it's for sale.

A far different cry from a country which is more than willing to supply
arms gratis, simply because they have a political stake in the outcome
(and they have a large stockpile to pull from).

For the right price, I'll bet that there are nukes for sale in the former
Soviet states. For that matter; who knows what Pakistan could do if we lean
on them hard enough on the Taliban thing.

Again, where the arms are coming from will be sporatic and expensive,
and should be tracable. If WE put pressure of the countries that supply
arms to terrorists, as well as blockade or heavily monitor the Iraqi
borders, the supply of arms will dry up.


Dave

Mark Browne wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question:
What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize
the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government
feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out -
at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open
arms by the majority of the population.

In any other scenario, we stay.

So you are willing to run the country into the ground for an ideological
point. For details - See the Soviet example in Afghanistan.

Unless of course, you are able to explain how this is going to turn out
different. Please explain in detail, using fully formed concepts. The
underlying truth of the rebel actions is that it is *much* easier to break
things then it is to fix them. We spend weeks of hair pulling effort to get
something working - they blow it up in an hour. It is not physically
possible to guard the infrastructure of an entire country. Efforts to do so
are doomed; we want to use fewer people, not more. What are we going to do
that the Soviets did not? Clams will like the part about the Soviets brutal
punishment of the natives for attacks. The problems is that this provided an
endless stream of converts to the rebel cause.

While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom
fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to
do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is
keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you
around, they may be able to pull it off.


But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the
psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility
damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the
job done"?

We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses,
and pull out. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this
will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear
message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that
we're at their mercy. I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in
shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. I
personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through
respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our
options open up a bit.

Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable
situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur,
both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of
the campaign. Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. There
would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while
not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of
yet.

Dave

jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. And where do
you get off calling me "rich"? That's the biggest lie that the
Democtrats have been trying to pull over everyone's eyes. The tax break
was across the board, which means we ALL got a break, proportional to
what we put in. I'd never vote for anyone who is in favor of taking more
money from me.

I don't think the democratic candidates care what you think since there's no
way of capturing your vote.

Me any far more people than you seem able to count. Most Americans have
a problem with paying taxes. If you give them a choice between a
candidate who lowers taxes, versus one who raise them, guess who will
win. What the democrats have been trying to play is the class warfare
game. They call the tax cut a "Tax break for the rich", which is
misleading, if not an outright lie. The hope is that the poor and
undereducated will buy into this propaganda, and jump on the democrat
bandwagon. The DNC knows that they have little chance of capturing the
corporate vote, so the rich become the demons and whipping boys of the
DNC and their mindless followers. It's nothing more than favoring
policies which redistrubute the wealth, which is not fair to those who
earn it. What the DNC and their minions are also seemingly clueless
about, is that the more you squeeze the rich, and corporations, the more
they are driven to relocate offshore, thereby denying us not only tax
money (Some is better than none), but also job opportunities.



It's only once they've assumed to office of the President that they're
obligated to take your views into account.

The only thing they care about is their own political aspirations. Why
else would the democrats hope the economy stays poor, (and were caught
on tape talking about it) and favors the media planting the seeds of
doubt into investor's minds, by encouraging more negative forecasts
(Which will conveniently end if a democrat gets elected). The democratic
part of today, is a horrible sshell of what it once was. It's nothing
more than the voice of the liberal left, who will do whatever it takes
to gain and maintain power. The more ground they loose, the more
desperate and obvious their tactics become. Not ONE of the now 10
democratic political candidates has a positive platform of their own.
They have no detailed plan to outline why we should vote for them. They
are basing their whole campaigns on bashing Bush. Everything they say
that they stand for is nothing more than "the anti-bush". I want to know
how they are going to turn the economy around. How will they do a better
job than Bush? How will they handle the terrorist situation? What would
they do diffferently. Why would their plan be any better? THAT is what I
want to see in a "debate" not an open free for all, to throw daggers
that the current president. Until they can convince me that theirs is a
better plan, then they have no business trashing the current one.


I'm afraid the next president will be elected without your assistance Dave.

Then rest comfortably knowing that my vote will cancel yours.

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off.

How did YOU spend your $400 check, Dave?

I bought a grass catcher for my lawn tractor, and paid for most of my
daughter's pre-school.

The last rebate check bought me a water softener, and some other things
for the house.


And, would it have ****ed you off if Bush had never said a word about a tax
break, so everything remained the same as last year?

It's a far different thing to have never have had something, then having
something and then having it taken away.


In a nutshell, I have gotten $1000 in the form of checks back, thanks to
Bush. I am also paying about $800 less a year. Compound that with the
small raises that have come about, and I'm doing a bit better than I was
a few years ago.
$800 may not sound like much, but it's better than not getting anything.
It will make for some nice Christmas presents

When people ask whether I'm doing better now than under Clinton, I can
answer with a resounding "yes".

Bottom line: better in my pocket than in the government's, no matter how
you cut it.

Dave

Mark Browne wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt
with
now.

3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior
President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so
soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if
Bush
41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched
Schwarzkopff
into Baghdad in the first Gulf War.
snip
Or if Ray Gun had not built him up in the first place!

I love these what-if games. You have trouble with Clinton telling a few
whoppers? There is enough dirt on Ray Gun to go on forever!


Yea, like forcing the downfall of the USSR. Not bad, I'd say.....

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off.

How did YOU spend your $400 check, Dave?

I bought a grass catcher for my lawn tractor, and paid for most of my
daughter's pre-school.

The last rebate check bought me a water softener, and some other things
for the house.


And, would it have ****ed you off if Bush had never said a word about a
tax
break, so everything remained the same as last year?

It's a far different thing to have never have had something, then having
something and then having it taken away.


In a nutshell, I have gotten $1000 in the form of checks back, thanks to
Bush. I am also paying about $800 less a year. Compound that with the
small raises that have come about, and I'm doing a bit better than I was
a few years ago.
$800 may not sound like much, but it's better than not getting anything.
It will make for some nice Christmas presents

When people ask whether I'm doing better now than under Clinton, I can
answer with a resounding "yes".

Bottom line: better in my pocket than in the government's, no matter how
you cut it.

How does it feel to have borrowed all that money from your daughter?
Do you suppose she will resent paying for it?

Mark Browne

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Until they can convince me that theirs is a
better plan, then they have no business trashing the current one.

Perhaps you're looking for someone to come up with a very flashy plan. This
won't happen. If you and you wife think a hot night of excitement means
sitting down periodically to redo the household budget, you need a hobby.

All the Democrats need to do is remind people that no individual in his
right mind would set up his personal budget the way Bush did with the
country's. Only an idiot foresees an enormous increase in spending and
responds by giving away a large chunk of his cash reserves, especially when
he's already in hock up to his eyeballs.

So, it's a matter of asking "If you saw your just-left-home 20 yr old kid
doing this with her money, what would be your response?"

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

And, would it have ****ed you off if Bush had never said a word about a
tax
break, so everything remained the same as last year?

It's a far different thing to have never have had something, then having
something and then having it taken away.


In a nutshell, I have gotten $1000 in the form of checks back, thanks to
Bush. I am also paying about $800 less a year. Compound that with the
small raises that have come about, and I'm doing a bit better than I was
a few years ago.
$800 may not sound like much, but it's better than not getting anything.
It will make for some nice Christmas presents

When people ask whether I'm doing better now than under Clinton, I can
answer with a resounding "yes".

Bottom line: better in my pocket than in the government's, no matter how
you cut it.

Dave



It's an interesting fantasy world in which you live. Nobody has to pay for
anything they want, like a war.

snip
While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom
fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have
to
do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is
keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like
you
around, they may be able to pull it off.


But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the
psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility
damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the
job done"?

We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses,
and pull out.

Not yet.

I *was* suggesting that we not get mired in this before it started. You
seemed to think that was a bad idea then; can you remember that far back?
Does it sound like such a bad idea now?

Since we *are* in it - our goal should be to minimize loses while getting
the job done. The administration is still trying to hang on to control while
asking for assistance. Why in the world would anybody get involved without
getting a piece of the action? Exactly how stupid does little Bush think the
rest of the world is? It is getting to be time to suck it up and pass the
baton to the UN. That means that it is time to let them have some say in how
things are done. It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and
rebuilding contracts.

End of story.

But you are not considering the emotional boost that this
will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear
message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that
we're at their mercy.

For someone who does not do much reading and has never spent any time
talking to these people, you seem to know a lot about the psychology of the
Arab people. Not! Just how stupid do you think these people are? I don't
think they need the USA to tell them if they are winning or loosing - they
can figure these things out for themselves.They already know that the
emperor has no clothes!

I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in
shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us.

Kill them to liberate them - Where have I heard that before?

In any case - the population was ruthlessly oppressed by a small group
before we dropped by. Now you want to continue the oppression of these
people by nuking them? Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better
than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not. On the other hand, it
might turn a lot of people that did not care one way or the other into
vengeful enemies. If you remember the OK city bombing, some of the ****ed
off people might even be American citizens!

I
personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through
respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our
options open up a bit.

I don't think they respect or fear us. Actually, I think that they are
laughing at us! They *are* just killing us; the longer we stay there, the
better they will get at it. At this point, little Bush has driven us into a
box - We have very few viable options. I did outline them in march while the
war was still running hot.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=end+g...nsc04&rnum= 1

Do you see *any* other options besides the ones outlined?

Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable
situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur,
both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of
the campaign.

Negotiations? Now there's a hoot! Um, who do you intend to talk to? What
embassy do you go to? What do you have to offer that is better then *them*
winning? Can you think of any carrot that they might go for?

Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness.

Who are we trying to kid? We can run our country into the ground without
ever impressing them. Do you have any idea what *they* are thinking? I do
spend some time reading some of what is available on the web and exchanging
the odd email with Arab friends. I don't think we are making the impression
you are hoping for.

There
would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while
not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of
yet.

Why would *they* negotiate? We are in the loosing position. *They* are very
aware of that. All they have to do is more of what they are doing. As I have
stated before, this area has been invaded several times and the locals have
formed some very effective strategies. They have driven off every super
power that has dropped by. All we can do at this point is loose more money
and people without any possibility of winning. We can't get to the people
behind this without killing everybody. They *do* know that.

In the revolutionary war the rascally colonists refused to stand and fight
like they were supposed to; instead they hid behind trees and killed lots of
red coats. The administrations "dash to Baghdad" killed anybody that opposed
us, and left all tens of thousands of soldiers in the field. Now *they*
stage 15 or so raids a day, blow up a power station or town hall, and fade
back into the crowd. This is much better for them than standing and fighting
in the open desert like we hoped they would. Instead they hide behind the
civilian population and kill some US soldiers. Do you see any parallels
here?

Mark Browne

PS - I told you so!

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the
psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility
damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the
job done"?

We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses,
and pull out.

News flash: We were in a bad situation the moment your leader, who thinks
he's playing a video game, first opened his mouth and began sabre rattling.
That was long before the first shots were fired, but from that moment on, he
put us in a position where there was no turning back.

"Bad situation"? That was obvious to a whole lot of people long ago, Dave.

The enemy could've been crumbled in other ways:

1) Having their leaders snuffed out in spooky ways, like that truck we
nailed with a drone-launched bomb in Sudan or wherever the hell it was.

2) Telling a few of those countries that they can rot in their own **** for
all we care (a policy that's even suggested by some progressive Arab
thinkers who've had it up to here with the extremist whiners).

But...no. When you're the president and your need for a constant erection
can only be satisfied by scenarios resembling something from "Ghost Recon",
you have to go to war to be satisfied.

Question: If we had to kiss Saudi Arabia goodbye for a few years as an oil
supplier, and ask Americans to immediately find ways to sacrifice by driving
their cars 30% less, do you think we'd do it, or would we prefer to send our
kids overseas to be killed?