|
|
|
Chuck, what kind of force would you send after them?
1. We recognize that our enemies are individual, criminal, terrorist thugs, often hiding out in countries without a strong central government or adequate law enforcement. 2. We recognize that our enemies are not all the men, women, and children of Country XYZ, nor the inept, backwater, tribal governments there. 3. We recognize that our enemy is not Islam. 4. We spend 30 or 40 billion on infiltration and espionage, (rather than 200 billion +,+,+ trying to occupy one country out of the dozens where our enemies live), and identify the individual criminal terrorist *******s who would be a threat to the civilized world. 5. We identify these people as those who are participating in the *planning* stages of an attack, (discovered through informants and infiltration) not just every "Muslim S.N. in Youjerkistan" 6. We arrest, or if need be "eliminate" the people we find plotting, or committing, terrorist acts. We do not topple government after government and bomb hell out of entire cities because some terrorists happen to live in the country or in a particular city. 7. We can use the CIA, special forces, whatever it takes to do the job. If the government of Youjerkistan wants to protest us sending in covert operatives to surgically remove the terrorist cancer, we can ask if they'd rather have our entire army up their butts instead. Would you prefer just waiting for them to get here? No, Bush tried that in the early months of his presidency, and it didn't work very well. Do you approve of Kerry's statement that he will take every action *after* we are attacked? I agree with the principle that you don't go to war until you know who your specific enemy *is*, not guess who it might, maybe, could be, someday, if and when, be. You do realize that to take out everybody with the slightest probability of harming the US, we need to nuke the entire rest of the world? (And most of the "liberal" states, I'm sure you'd be happy to add). We have not been attacked, locally, since 9/11. Does that mean we are no longer a target? No, it does not. If we were no longer a target, Bush's "unwinnable" war on terror would be over, wouldn't it? Could part of the reason be that we *are* causing them problems overseas? Our actions overseas are the very *reason* that we are more of a target now than ever. We got stung by killer bees, so we decided to show them who was boss. We picked up a big stick, and started whacking on the hive. Sure, we're killing a few bees- but we're making the rest of the swarm mad as hell. Not all that smart, but, then again......... |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message 1. We recognize that our enemies are individual, criminal, terrorist thugs, 4. We spend 30 or 40 billion... and identify the individual criminal terrorist Bad policy to look upon them as criminals. They think of themselves as at war, we should do likewise, lest we unduly limit our own options. We got stung by killer bees, so we decided to show them who was boss. We picked up a big stick, and started whacking on the hive. Sure, we're killing a few bees- but we're making the rest of the swarm mad as hell. Not all that smart, but, then again......... True... maybe we'd have been better off burning the whole damn hive in one move. |
True... maybe we'd have been better off burning the whole damn hive in one
move. You're about 140 years past your time. That attitude brought us Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, and a long list of black spots on the American conscience in between. A few renegade men stole some horses and killed a settler? Burn the whole damn village, shoot the women, ride down the little kids......... That may be your preferance, but consider that there were only a couple of hundred thousand plains Indians, or fewer, to deal with in the 19th century. By 2025, estimates are there will be two *billion* Muslims, 60% of them under 25 years of age. We can't, and shouldn't kill them all. Unless we can justify making war against an entire society and its government, we have no choice except to prosecute these criminals for what they are. |
In article ,
says... I would love to see the Democrats state how much spending would be enough for Medicaremedicaideducationandtheenvironment. As long as Republicans are in power, there will never be enough spending on social programs. You and I know that to be true. If the Democrats were in power, 'enough' would be that amount of social welfare spending that would guarantee a return to power. That's about as detailed and compelling as those on the left who say Bush is bankrupting the country so we can't afford any social programs. You want to put some flesh on that skeleton? Go to True Majority and look at how much we spend on the military vs. our "enemy" and compared to what we spend on social programs and then let's have a discussion. jps |
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:31:13 -0400, NOYB wrote:
...also shows Bush ahead by 11 points. Bush 54% Kerry 43% That's a 13 point bounce fellas! Bush is now leading in two major polls with leads that are well outside the poll's margin of error. Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly weighted. http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/4/154842/1919 Rasmussen looked at the polling data for both the Time and Newsweek polls, and concluded they support a 3% Bush lead. A not unexpected bounce after the RNC. It is still a horserace. Read down: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... We have not been attacked, locally, since 9/11. Does that mean we are no longer a target? No, it does not. If we were no longer a target, Bush's "unwinnable" war on terror would be over, wouldn't it? This is a cultural war Chuckie. You can call it Bush's war but, these terrorists are hell bent on the destruction of the West and the subjugation of those not killed. Could part of the reason be that we *are* causing them problems overseas? Our actions overseas are the very *reason* that we are more of a target now than ever. They are causing us problems here, therefore we have the right to go kill them there. The group with the stronger constitution will win. If you lefties come to power again then we will surely loose. We got stung by killer bees, so we decided to show them who was boss. We picked up a big stick, and started whacking on the hive. Sure, we're killing a few bees- but we're making the rest of the swarm mad as hell. Not all that smart, but, then again......... Reverse the analogy and you have it correct. |
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:31:13 -0400, NOYB wrote: ...also shows Bush ahead by 11 points. Bush 54% Kerry 43% That's a 13 point bounce fellas! Bush is now leading in two major polls with leads that are well outside the poll's margin of error. Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly weighted. http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/4/154842/1919 Rasmussen looked at the polling data for both the Time and Newsweek polls, and concluded they support a 3% Bush lead. A not unexpected bounce after the RNC. It is still a horserace. Read down: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Indeed, I mentioned this four days ago. -- Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal! And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to! |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message So your recommended course of action would be to hang around the hive, identify and separate out the few bees that actually did the stinging, and relocate these bees for punishment? Unless we can justify making war against an entire society and its government, we have no choice except to prosecute these criminals for what they are. No proactive justification is required. They declared war on us, and initiated several demonstrably warlike attacks before we responded even once. You can damn near count on one hand the number of Islamic organizations that have condemned terrorist actions, or Islamic governments that have taken assertive steps to stop supporting terrorists within their own jurisdiction. This is not a group of people actively rejecting a cultural war. Today's actions are looked upon in the Muslim world as the Third Great Jihad, dating back some 1400 years, and the two gulf wars of recent times do not constitute the prime causative factors. It is a mistake to think that diplomacy and negotiation are the order of the day. That is a western thought process. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com