The best way to prevent an offensive force from killing you is to kill them
first.

So let's say there is a country with 25-million people in it. Out of this
25-million, 4%, (or 1-million) hate the US so vehemently that they will become
suicide bombers, or join anti-American militia. These people hide among the
general population. (30-40% of the general population hate the US enough that
they won't get "involved" and rat out the bad guys). The bad guys don't wear
uniforms, march in formation, or ride around in clearly identifiable military
vehicles. We really don't know who the bad guys are until they are setting off
a roadside bomb or firing an AK47 ot our guys.

Looks like we ultimately have two choices, really.

1) Carpet bomb the whole place into a nuclear wasteland, and consider the 24
million either "collateral damage" or racially guilty by virtue of a common
religion.

or:

1. Identify the enemy. Do this by doubling, tripling, or quintupling the
intelligence budget. Use both electronic surveillance *and* clandestine
operatives. Infiltrate the
terrorist cells and identify the criminal terrorist *******s during the
planning process, (not after the fact).

2. Surgically remove the terrorist leaders.
We can do this in ways that would leave even their supporters unsure
whether
the
head ******* was taken out by the US or died of natural causes.


3. Avoid repeating the mistakes of Israel, Russia, and other countries
that
have decades of experience fighting the same problem.

4. Try to insure that we are not creating hatred for the US faster than we
are
killing off the folks who already hate us.


***************


If everybody hates us then why do the oppressed people of the world want to
come here to better their lives?

Sorry, but your question has nothing to do with this discussion. It tries to
refute a postion that "everybody" hates us, and I don't see any claims to that
effect.

We need to eliminate the people who hate us so badly that they will attack us.
That's far from "everybody". In fact, because it isn't even close to a majority
in most of the
Islamic countries in the world it is even more questionable to make war against
an entire country rather than the criminal elements within the country.

We also need to examine our actions to make sure that we do not, unnecessarily
or unjustly, give even more people a valid reason to hate us.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:10:20 -0400, NOYB wrote:


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!

Rasmussen agrees that Bush leads by 4-5 points, not double digits. If the
Time and Newsweek polls were accurate, other polls will start to show
similar results. Time will tell.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Poll...20Sept%206.htm

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 02:05:28 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

Or are you proposing a
national draft?


We'll see a draft again beginning in 2005. Too hot an issue in an election
year. We cannot expand the current war into Iran, (which is the next stage
of the New American Century Plan that Bush has followed to date), without
a *lot* more cannon fodder.

Scary, isn't it? And we are only talking about another Third World
country. Wait until the rest of the PNAC program kicks in and we try
starving China's or India's oil needs. Now, that will be interesting.
And we still do not have a comprehensive energy program. What a way to
run a country.

How many times do you extend the tours of the poor guys and gals in the
Guard and Reserve before you begin bordering on involuntary servitude,
anyway?

I am a Republican wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 4 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.


I love it!!!!

John Smith, trying to hide yet again.

basskisser wrote:
I am a Republican wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 4 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.


I love it!!!!

John Smith, trying to hide yet again.


That one, too? What an asshole.


--
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!

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:10:20 -0400, NOYB wrote:


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!

Rasmussen agrees that Bush leads by 4-5 points, not double digits. If the
Time and Newsweek polls were accurate, other polls will start to show
similar results. Time will tell.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Poll...20Sept%206.htm

The Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll splits the difference. It shows a 7 point
lead for Bush among likely voters. Rasmussen may agree that Bush leads by
4-5 points, but his current poll shows just a one point lead. He blames the
discrepancy on an anomaly in the polling data from last Saturday where Kerry
was actually leading. He throws that poll out, and comes to the conclusion
that Bush leads by 4-5 points. Absurd! It sounds to me like Rasmussen
needs to get his act together. When 3 of the four major polls (Gallup,
Time, Newsweek) come out showing Bush with an average lead of 9.33%, and
Rasmussen shows a 1 point lead, then that doesn't speak very highly of the
accuracy of his polls.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 07 Sep 2004 03:21:50 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:


Snipped

1. Identify the enemy. Do this by doubling, tripling, or quintupling
the
intelligence budget. Use both electronic surveillance *and*
clandestine
operatives. Infiltrate the
terrorist cells and identify the criminal terrorist *******s during
the
planning process, (not after the fact).

snipped

Chuck, I like this idea. It has been mentioned before (maybe by you). My
question would be, what do we do during the 5-10 years it would take to
recruit,
train, and infiltrate the agents who could handle the work? Will the
terrorists
hold off for this time?

John H

No.
Call it collateral damage.
Hurts when it is a little closer to home?

Mark Browne

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...


"Better red than dead". :-)


I like it!

The terrorists have little to fear when we are
distracting ourselves by making war on organized armed forces that have never
attacked us, and are not credible threats in the future.


PS: The PNAC strategies were conceived with the concept of defending the US
against terrorism as a secondary, rather than primary priority. The military
adventures recommended by PNAC are not well advised when defending the US
against terrorism must now be our highest strategic priority. Bush is
surrounded by the authors of the PNAC doctrine- Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc etc etc.
All of his advisors are giving him biased and ultimately ineffective advice.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The terrorists have little to fear when we are
distracting ourselves by making war on organized armed forces that have
never
attacked us, and are not credible threats in the future.


PS: The PNAC strategies were conceived with the concept of defending the
US
against terrorism as a secondary, rather than primary priority.

Wrong. Ridding the World of terrorism was one of the benefits predicted in
the Pax Americana vision for the future.