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

snip
Bingo! The western world would soon fall apart with out the free flow of
oil. The next big war will be involve two or all of China, India or the
US.
Russia will side with who ever pays them the most for their oil.

In a few years the US out of national necessity will have to crack open
the
Gulf of Mexico, the California Coast, and all of the untapped resources in
Alaska.

Yep, that will solve the problem for about a year, then we will be in eactly
the same place.
Remeber when little Bush decided to drop raising the CAFE average in the
first few weeks of his term? THis is *not* the kind of thinking that is
going to solve this problem.

Mark Browne

snip
Chuck, there's nothing sudden about it, and the three stated elements of
strategy listed in your post are not mutually exclusive; nor were they
difficult to see right from the start by those who cared to look.
Yep, the PNAC site lays it all our pretty well.

This has
always been about the strategic securing of the mid-east
... Oil ...
and preventing
attacks, and doing so by killing or thwarting terrorists, the historically
chosen mo of the Arab/Muslim world.
And tell me abain how well has the west been about to pull this off over the
last thousand or so years? The middle east folks seem to have developed a
plans that has stopped every other agressor to visit thier lands. They have
had a lot of practice.

This has always been about western
representative governments, led by
Now here is an odd little snippet - tell me again about this coalition of
the willing? It will be very interesting to see how things go when the Brits
throw Blair out on his ass.

the US, telling the other large group of
world populace that, NO, we are not going to stand idly by while a
medieval
people
Telling choice of adjective. Would it would be better if they were ultra
modern? When the Soviets were telling the world about their intrests in the
middle east things somehow looked different from *our* point of view. I
doubt that the folks in the middle east saw a lot of difference.

with primitive theocratic notions of law and society
Right on! Tell that to the US religouis right!

destroys every
legal, social, and economic human betterment that western civilization has
generated in the last thousand years.

Destrction of everything we hold dear? Correct me if I got this wrong - as I
recall - they have been trying to get the west to butt out of their
business. In reading through the OBL stuff on the web, I did not see much
about the destruction of the west. Perhaps you have a cite that can clear
this up for me?

Mark Browne

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"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?

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.

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

snip
Spend some time reflecting on "The Troubles" in Ireland!
After considerable effort, it was learned that naked force was not the
correct answer.
The lessons learned *can* be applied to the middle east.

Get the stinking English out of Ireland!

JohnH wrote:



You've still not addressed the statement. If our military budget was nothing,
and Republicans were in power, the Democrats would still complain about the lack
of money for social welfare.

John H


If it weren't for social welfare, you never would have had a "career" in
the military or a job as a substitute teacher now.


--
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!

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"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?

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.

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

snip
Spend some time reflecting on "The Troubles" in Ireland!
After considerable effort, it was learned that naked force was not the
correct answer.
The lessons learned *can* be applied to the middle east.

Get the stinking English out of Ireland!


Bert has a jingoistic, simple-minded solution for all the world's problems.


--
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!

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"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?

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.

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to
see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

snip
Spend some time reflecting on "The Troubles" in Ireland!
After considerable effort, it was learned that naked force was not the
correct answer.
The lessons learned *can* be applied to the middle east.

Get the stinking English out of Ireland!


Bertie,

Let's break this down slowly.

I asked you to consider how the lessons learned in Ireland can be applied
to the middle east.
Your reply was for the aggressor to leave the occupied lands.
Can I take this to mean that you think that the US and UK should pull out of
the middle east?
Lest we forget, the British are involved in both conflicts, and there *are*
questions of terrorism and domestic security in both cases.

Mark Browne

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"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?

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.

What would be your response? Would you wait until the next attack to
see
if
the terrorists really meant to harm us?

snip
Spend some time reflecting on "The Troubles" in Ireland!
After considerable effort, it was learned that naked force was not the
correct answer.
The lessons learned *can* be applied to the middle east.

Get the stinking English out of Ireland!


Bertie,

Let's break this down slowly.

I asked you to consider how the lessons learned in Ireland can be applied
to the middle east.

So, we'll give the Irish the ok to push the English into the sea? (Chuck,
this is little sea meaning water.)

Your reply was for the aggressor to leave the occupied lands.
Can I take this to mean that you think that the US and UK should pull out
of
the middle east?

Aren't the Palistinines the agressors. The jew have been in Judea for
thousands of years while the Palistinines are a recent entry to Judea?

Lest we forget, the British are involved in both conflicts, and there
*are*
questions of terrorism and domestic security in both cases.

The Irish and the Jews occupied the lands long before the English and
Palistinines, respectively, breached the borders.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:08:49 +0000, NOYB wrote:


That site also states that Rassmussen has explained that the Times and
Newsweek polls included too many republicans. That's pretty amazing
that
they know that Rassmussen is saying that already...because Rassmussen's
own website said that he'd give the reason for a discrepancy in the
different polls at 3 pm E.T. today. How does the author of your
electoral-vote website know what Rassmussen is going to say 2 hours
before
Rassmussen says it?

Liberal conspiracy? Perhaps, you should wait until 3 pm to see if he is
correct. By the by, others have noticed the faulty weighing:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/4/154842/1919

According to Chris Bowers (the author of that site you just listed), Harris,
Pew and NAES polls from earlier this year show that more people consider
themselves Democrat than Republican. He then tries to extrapolate the data
to reach the conclusion that Bush leads by only 5.6% rather than the 10 or
11 points shown in the Times and Newsweek polls. What a crock!

There are so many flaws with this theory, that it's laughable that any
serious person would even consider it. Here's just a few problems that I
see:

*The Harris, Pew and NAES polls could have been inaccurate for several
reasons...one of which could be that none of them considered whether the
people questioned were "likely voters".

*People might consider themselves "more Republican" since those three polls
were conducted.

*The assumption that just because "other" polls say that 94% of Republicans,
and only 82% of Democrats will vote for their party's nomination, doesn't
mean that *those* polls were accurate in the first place.

* You can't extrapolate data across multiple polls (which were polling
different questions, and at different points during the election year) to
conclude that a current Newsweek, or a current Time poll is inaccurate.
That's the most absurd reach that Bowers is trying to make

*mydd.com is a partisan Democratic site

"thunder" wrote in message

*If*, and *if*... What makes you think Russia can afford another war
anymore than we can?

What makes you think that either we or Russia can afford *not* to fight this
war? We couldn't afford to fight WW II, either, but it was something that
had to be done.