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.

"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.

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?

Now you've taken the analogy too far.
I was simply pointing out that we are undertaking an impractical response with
our determination to militarily subdue any and all countries where a terrorist
is reputed to live.

We will wind up with the rest of the world so ****ed at us, we won't be able to
kill terrorists as fast as they're being born.
That's what the terrorists are counting on, IMO. They expect the US to act like
macho cowboys, and so become our *own* worst enemy.

"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.

snip
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.

snip
Osama Bin Laden has stated many times that he desires a cultural war. He has
spent years working this out while fighting the Soviets and dealing with the
west. The only way the west can win in OBLs war is to become a modern day
version of the Nazi party. OBL is gambling that the west will not commit
cultural suicide to beat him. Sadly, we now have an administration that is
not clever enough work this out - even worse - the current administration
seem cheerily bent on this conversion into the very thing we fought against
in WWII -- with no clear promise that it *will* be enough to win.Witness the
destruction of the Soviets in much the same situation.

Mark Browne

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/

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!

Hold the presses. Seems the Newsweek poll may not have been properly
weighted.



Yopu don't suppose the news magazine polls were constructed to coincide with
the
"George Bush" issues now on sale, do you? Announce something stunning, like
"George Bush is walking away with the election", and a lot of people will buy
magazines.

According to Election Projection, Bush has about a one-state electoral vote
lead
coming out of the convention.

Not unexpected.

Electin Projection's map has Oregon leaning Bush in the latest projection- and
that's unlikely. Also has Washington leaning Bush. If we measured cow country
east of the mountains separately from the western side of the state, Bush would
easily win Washington- but there aren't enough people over there to sway the
state.