"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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.

Not mentioned much on the kiddie news shows you watch: There's an awful lot
of nuclear material that's gone missing from the former Soviet Union. Nobody
knows where it is. It was being monitored by people who hadn't been paid in
months, and who were, therefore, easily bought.

Even though public tv is a rats nest of liberal/socialist madness, you
should check the tv listings for what's on Nova each week. You might learn
something. And, listen to NPR each morning, instead of Bob & Sally's drive
time McDrivel.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

I did not say that they want the US to die, rightists have been floating
that strawman. They just want the US to stop meddling in their affairs.

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).

So they have to pay for them. BFD. Buy some more gas so they have more money
to work with. Besides, there is plenty of drugs being grown in Afghanistan
now - to they have plenty of narco-dollars to work with. Keep the drugs
illegal so that the price stays high and the trade is underground.

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 sporadic 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.

Are you living on a different planet than me? If you got money, you can get
guns.

For the kind of pressure you are describing to have any meaning, the
pipelines would have to dry up at the producers, and all the weapons would
have to get "used up". This would take many years. In the mean time, we have
lots of soldiers getting killed in Iraq now!

In any case, there are plenty of weapon to kill American soldiers floating
around the world now.

Mark Browne

I guarantee you'd be singing a different tune if they were between 18 and 25
years old and Nookular Boy was calling for more soldiers.

"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.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be
sure
he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be
*all*
bad.


Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who
thought
we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when
I
got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over
there.

How old are YOUR kids, NOYB?

If I had family that lived in NYC or Washington, DC, I'd worry that they'd
be killed by a terrorist attack. Unlike you, I believe that rebuilding Iraq
into a Democracy, and maintaining military bases there as a deterrent (or
launching point) against other terrorist-sponsoring countries, will
ultimately make us safer in our own cities. In the 1940's, our country felt
they had the moral authority to send young men to Europe to fight against
the Germans because they knew that what was happening over there would one
day affect us.



Sitting around idly while terrorists take pot shots at us is no way to live.




"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
I guarantee you'd be singing a different tune if they were between 18 and
25
years old and Nookular Boy was calling for more soldiers.

"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.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get
the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could
be
sure
he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't
be
*all*
bad.


Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who
thought
we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly,
when
I
got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over
there.

How old are YOUR kids, NOYB?

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Sitting around idly while terrorists take pot shots at us is no way to
live.


Unfortunately, you are only able to imagine two options: Doing nothing, and
taking a war to Iraq. It is a virtual certainty that there were alternative
ideas which were either never heard & understood by your leader, or never
made it onto his desk.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

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 happens is that, once people have experienced a Republican
administration and are reminded of how willing they are to rob the kitty for
a small number of constituents and supporters, they go back to the reality
that bills have got to be paid and the gov't has to have enough money to pay
them so we're not passing the burden onto future generations.


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).

Oh, and Republicans aren't of the same mind? They're so confused with
California it's insane. There's a split opinion between leaving Grey Davis
in power since the state is in a horrible situation (helped by the likes of
Bush friends Enron) since it'll reflect poorly on the Democrats, and
stealing the seat through a recall election based on people's discomfort.

By all accounts, if you'd do that to Bush right now, he'd be thrown out of
office.

Republicans are no less slimy that Democrats, they're just whiter.

"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.

The last rebate check was an advance on taxes you were going to owe.

But that doesn't matter, does it? You got a check!

Mark Browne wrote:

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.

Which is what we are doing. Do you think we are intentionally letting
our soldiers get killed? What the leftist pravda news does not report,
is the covert operations which are attempting to route out the "bad
guys", as well as much of the other background duties that are being
performed.

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?

Because WE are the ones who are taking the biggest pounding. Do you
think we should hand the spoils over to the wimps like France and
Germany (Who had their own self serving reasons to oppose the war) when
they did nothing to earn the right?



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.

The UN!?!? The UN has no power other than what our military is willing
to sign on to. What can the UN accomplish that we cannot? What, is the
French military going to do something that we have not been able to?


That means that it is time to let them have some say in how
things are done.

And if the UN becomes involved, it will magically eliminate terrorist
action? How naive can you be? Most Iraqis and Arabs alike consider the
UN to be a puppet of the U.S. anyway, at least when it comes to physical
might.


It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and
rebuilding contracts.

You guys on the left just can't seem to let go of this issue.

End of story.

Nothing is ever that easy.


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.

I never said that I don't read. That was Doug who promoted THAT rumor. I
read ALOT, I just don't read fiction stories, or trite "artsy" forms of
literature. There are far more intriguing true stories to read. I was
not refering to the psychology of the Arab paople specifically, but
rather the perception, that us pulling out with our tails between our
legs, would give to the rest of the world.


Just how stupid do you think these people are?

Judging from the many leftists, with their naive and idealistic
attitudes in this country, statistically there's bound to be a few in
Iraq as well.


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!

But at what cost? We all know that there are warped Arabs, who are
willing to strap on a bomb and take themselves out in the name of Jihad.
How many family memebrs will die before these people start to question
the sense of their actions?



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?

Not liberate them. We're trying that now. If they don't want freedom,
and instead declare "Jihad" on us, then it becomes a battle of survival
of the fittest. Us or them. Who do you vote for?


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?

Then those people should rise up in opposition to those who are fighting
a terroristic battle plan against us. Only the most paranoid, xenophobic
radical Islamic, would stand in the way of progress.


Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better
than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not.

No? If they're all dead, who will carry out terrorist acts against us?


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!

There has been a good deal of evidence that suggests that Tim McVeigh
was "enouraged" by Iraqi agents who were all too happy to have an
American face to place on their actions. Tim Mc Veigh fit the
psychological profile almost perfectly for someone to be recruited into
a terrorist cell (Or a religious cult for that matter). He had esteem
issues, he felt disenfranchised, he was an underachiever.

Oh, and since I'll anticipate your next question, here's the link:

http://www.marsearthconnection.com/okc.html


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.

So will we.


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.

This war was inevitable. Sometime in the future we would have to deal
with this threat. How do you effectively fight a target which is not
well defined? You have two choices; Dialogue, or military action. For
dialogue to be effective and meaningful, there has to be something to be
gained and lost which can be negotiated through the art of compromise.
If your enemy refuses to play the game, then what is left?

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

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

Most of those solutions are the obvious ones. Each is fraught with the
problems of uncertainty, and lacks a "rewind" mechanism to use when we
find that it wasn't the best solution.



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?

Who says they are winning? They might be putting up a good battle, but
they are self destructing themselves in the process. When it is all said
and done, and if they do succeed in forcing us out, what will they have
to show for it, besides knowing that they bested the best military in
the world? Their land will be in ruin, their population decimated. Is
pride THAT important?

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?

Not directly, but I do know human nature to some degree.

I do spend some time reading some of what is available on the web

That's suspect already. How do you know what you read on the web
reflects the actual feelings of anyone besides the bias of the writer?


and exchanging the odd email with Arab friends.

That's probably a little more reliable, depending on the insight of the
particular Arab. Judging from the correspondance that I've read, a great
many Iraqi's are grateful that we removed Saddam for them. They just
don't want us hanging around. If the terrorists would stop mucking up
the rebuilding effort, then we'd be out of there that much sooner. All
the more reason why the Iraqi people should dime these radicals out.



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.

How do you figure? We can blow them back into the next century, if we
decide to. They would be making a great gamble, on just how far they can
push us before we decide that we've finally had enough.


*They* are very aware of that.

As long as you guys on the left continue to erode our resolve at home,
then they can bank on it. Otherwise, they have a lot to fear. They have
guys like you to thank for their will to stand up to us. Your country
owes you a great debt.......

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.

When was the last superpower in Iraq?

All we can do at this point is loose more money
and people without any possibility of winning.

You are really pessimistic aren't you? Is this a result of just wanting
the Bush Doctrine to fail, or are you just not willing to fight for a
good cause? If we all were to adopt your attitude, we might as well
disable our whole military, since you seem to feel that it would be
ineffective against the "new wave" warriors.


We can't get to the people
behind this without killing everybody. They *do* know that.

And they should fear that, since we have the capability to do just 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?

Then we should adopt their own tactics against them. We too should fade
into the background and track and apprehend each and every terrorist we
can find.

Dave

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
If I had family that lived in NYC or Washington, DC, I'd worry that they'd
be killed by a terrorist attack. Unlike you, I believe that rebuilding
Iraq
into a Democracy, and maintaining military bases there as a deterrent (or
launching point) against other terrorist-sponsoring countries, will
ultimately make us safer in our own cities. In the 1940's, our country
felt
they had the moral authority to send young men to Europe to fight against
the Germans because they knew that what was happening over there would one
day affect us.



Sitting around idly while terrorists take pot shots at us is no way to
live.

That's what's going to continue to happen in Iraq, so get used to it.

You seem to think our desire to make Iraq into a democracy is the panacea
for solving the terrorist problem. Democracy only takes hold in countries
that desire it. Iraq isn't one of them. Once we're gone, they'll move
swiftly back to the tribal lifestyle.

This will be both a political and military failure in the end. Our efforts
to nation build will again be thwarted by the cultural forces that existed
long before we or the English attempted to bring civility to the region.

If we don't find a way to gracefully exit, Iraq will become America's
Chechnya.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


What the leftist pravda news does not report,

"Pravda"? Holy smokes! Dave has a new word!


It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and
rebuilding contracts.

You guys on the left just can't seem to let go of this issue.

Forget "potential oil supplies" and focus on "rebuilding contracts". You
don't think it's just a tad tasteless (and arrogant and stupid) to bomb the
snots out of a country, and then restrict the rebuilding process (smirk) to
a handful of political cronies?



I never said that I don't read. That was Doug who promoted THAT rumor.

It's a rumor?


How many family memebrs will die before these people start to question
the sense of their actions?

A whole lot more will die. You're only able to think like a Westerner.
Johnson....Nixon...Bush....Dave Hall...all the same. That's why we got
hammered so badly in Vietnam. You cannot understand that other cultures
don't view war, death and victory/defeat the way we do. If an invading force
was marching through your neck of the woods, you would do exactly what the
Iraqis "terrorists" are doing.



Not liberate them. We're trying that now. If they don't want freedom,
and instead declare "Jihad" on us, then it becomes a battle of survival
of the fittest. Us or them. Who do you vote for?

Get out, and begin inflicting enormous financial pain on the Saudis through
voluntary oil use reduction by Americans. ...OK...just get a little more
worm on the hook so it doesn't get nibbled off in tiny pieces...


Then those people should rise up in opposition to those who are fighting
a terroristic battle plan against us.

"Terroristic" ??? Bush-Bot Alert! Your monkey-leader is begin to affect
your mind, Dave. I wonder if mind control can be considered a biologicalular
weapon.



Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better
than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not.

No? If they're all dead, who will carry out terrorist acts against us?

If WHO is all dead, Dave? Everyone in Iraq? Or, are you dreaming about tiny
nuclear weapons that only "take out" half a building or a car? apologies
for "take out", a favorite term of the impotent right-wing



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.

So will we.

Well, our soldiers are getting to the point where they aren't too thrilled
about being outdoors in Iraq. For some people, mostly TV droid/couch
potatoes, that's fine, but some folks like to walk around. Not being able to
do that sorta makes them depressed or crazy or both. Bad for morale.


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.

This war was inevitable. Sometime in the future we would have to deal
with this threat. How do you effectively fight a target which is not
well defined? You have two choices; Dialogue, or military action. For
dialogue to be effective and meaningful, there has to be something to be
gained and lost which can be negotiated through the art of compromise.
If your enemy refuses to play the game, then what is left?

Sigh...you are intensely stupid, Dave. You say the target is not
well-defined, but a war was inevitable. You know that the 9/11 gang was
primarily made up of Saudis. Your chump leader says there was no clear
connection between 9/11 and Iraq. So, no target, dead bad guys from country
A, no clear finger pointing at country B, so it's inevitable that we invade
country B. We have a logic bomb here.

If I give you ten bucks, would you pith yourself, please? *

*1 a : to kill (as cattle) by piercing or severing the spinal cord b : to
destroy the spinal cord or central nervous system of (as a frog) usually by
passing a wire or needle up and down the vertebral canal