OT Apocalypse BushCo!
 

Lord help us all!

"Don White" wrote in message
...

Lord help us all!



So you buy into one mans opinion Don? Are you that partisan?

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:13:55 -0400, " jim--" wrote:

So you buy into one mans opinion Don? Are you that partisan?

It's not one man's opinion. That might have been one man voicing his
opinion, but many feel that way.

bb

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:20:16 -0400, jim-- wrote:


The UN proved itself time and time again as being irrelevant and corrupt.

You must have missed GWB's speech, at that very same organization, asking
for help.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030923-4.html

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:20:16 -0400, jim-- wrote:


The UN proved itself time and time again as being irrelevant and corrupt.

You must have missed GWB's speech, at that very same organization, asking
for help.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030923-4.html

Nope, did not miss it. What was he supposed to do? Call them a bunch of
idiots. And this of course was before Kofi and son, along with France,
Russia and Germany, stole millions from the Oil for Food UN campaign.

Isn't it strange that France, Germany and Russia were the 3 major countries
against our going in and taking Saddam? LOL!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0715/p06s01-wogn.html

There are speculations that the Al Qaida attack suppopsedly planned for between
now and late October will be intended to influence the elections.

Al Qaida was correct that the attack in Madrid would move the Spanish to vote
out
their government.

Al Qaida is convinced that an attack on the US between now and the election
will rally the country to GWB. I believe they are correct, and should we be
attacked we
should evaluate just why our mortal *enemy* wants a particular president in
office.

A letter sent to a British paper by a top Al Qiada leader confirmed that Al
Qaida is very desirous of keeping Bush in the White House. The letter writer
asserts that the
actions and attitudes of the US administration has made it extremely easy to
recruit new members for their organization.

Under Bush, the US more closely resembles the "great Satan" (from the Arab
perspective, at least) that Al Qaida has always represented it to be.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
snip

Under Bush, the US more closely resembles the "great Satan" (from the Arab
perspective, at least) that Al Qaida has always represented it to be.


Why? Because we are fighting them? If so, I say great work Bush.

We now have Russia on the side against international terrorism. The only
answer is to face it head on. Clintons approach did nothing to address the
problem and most likely encourage future attacks.

Why? Because we are fighting them? If so, I say great work Bush.

No. They want us to fight them. That's the whole point. They will do whatever
they can do to insure that we continue to attempt a military solution to a
non-military
equation.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Why? Because we are fighting them? If so, I say great work Bush.

No. They want us to fight them. That's the whole point. They will do
whatever
they can do to insure that we continue to attempt a military solution to a
non-military equation.

Fine. We now have Russia on the side against international terrorism. The
only
answer is to face it head on. And the only one capable is the military. \

Non military Chuck? I guess your answer is to negotiate.

Been there, done that and got the tee shirt. It does not work.

If you are looking for terrorism to be eliminated in a short 4 years then
you live in la la land.

In article , gould0738
@aol.com says...
There are speculations that the Al Qaida attack suppopsedly planned for between
now and late October will be intended to influence the elections.

Al Qaida was correct that the attack in Madrid would move the Spanish to vote
out
their government.

Al Qaida is convinced that an attack on the US between now and the election
will rally the country to GWB. I believe they are correct, and should we be
attacked we
should evaluate just why our mortal *enemy* wants a particular president in
office.

A letter sent to a British paper by a top Al Qiada leader confirmed that Al
Qaida is very desirous of keeping Bush in the White House. The letter writer
asserts that the
actions and attitudes of the US administration has made it extremely easy to
recruit new members for their organization.

Under Bush, the US more closely resembles the "great Satan" (from the Arab
perspective, at least) that Al Qaida has always represented it to be.


The fanatical religious right is running the country. How depressing.

Osama and Bush deserve one another, I just wish the rest of us could be
left out of their little religious war.

jps

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:13:37 -0400, thunder wrote:

You must have missed GWB's speech, at that very same organization, asking
for help.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030923-4.html

That was done purely to appease those few who still consider the UN relevant.


Wow, you're really way into Karl Rove's head these days.

Does Karl know?

jps

Kerry will let them get us first, and *then* he'll try to take action.
Those Al Qaida guys have TV's too. They know what Kerry said.



Only problem with that line is that as far as I know Kerry never said that.

You're confusing what Rush Limbaugh says "Kerry said", with Kerry actually has
actually said.

Non military Chuck? I guess your answer is to negotiate.

Sigh.

Once again, Gould's preferred solution.

1. Identify the enemy. We are not being attacked by foreign armies. We are
being attacked by foreign terrorist criminal *******s. The *******s reside in
little ****ant countries without a strong enough central government, or enough
determination, to rout them. Toppling the governments of a succession of
****ant countries will simply relocate the criminal terrorist *******s. Our
current approach is akin to cracking down on all the drunks and whores on the
east side of town. Once the cops are busy on the east side, the drunks and
whores just mosey over to the west.

2. Infiltrate the enemy. Fall out of love with
"Star Wars" intelligence and get actual flesh and blood operatives into Al
Qaida and other similar groups. Continue to use electronic spy techniques to
supplement the spies and agents with ass in the grass, but renew emphasis on
*human* intelligence.

3. Disrupt and eliminate the enemy.
Our intelligence operatives will be able to
identify specific terrorist individuals during the planning phases, rather than
waiting for an attack to know for sure that something is going to happen. Our
operatives will often be in positions to thwart plans by failing to carry out
responsibilities assigned to them by terrorist groups. Our operatives will be
able to furnish the CIA, special forces, and other groups with name s and
locations of people who need to be surgically removed to *really* insure the
safety and security of the United States.

4. We reserve the military as a tool to put pressure on foreign government who
might otherwise object to our clandestine operations and CIA extractions and
eliminations within their borders. "You don't want to allow us to do this
quietly?
Your choice, Ujerkistan, will be to declare war on the US to stop us. Consider
that option very, very carefully."

Speak softly, and carry a great big frickin stick. But don't start off just
whacking everybody in sight with a stick, realizing that you'll get *some*
terrorists in the process.

Right here is where you chime in with the BS about John Kerry voting to cut $1
billion from the intelligence budget.

(save you the time)

Right here is where I rebutt that John Kerry introduced a bill to cut $1
billion dollars from the Office of Strategic Planning- only after the office
had *failed to spend* several billion dollars previously allocated by congress!
John Kerry's bill to recover $1 billion of the multi- billion agency surplus
never came to a vote, because a couple of
Republican senators intorduced a bill to
cut the *entire, multi-billion dollar amount*

Your guess, that my answer would be to "negotiate" is just flat wrong. Sorry.

In article ,
says...
On 08 Sep 2004 22:34:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

There are speculations that the Al Qaida attack suppopsedly planned for between
now and late October will be intended to influence the elections.

Al Qaida was correct that the attack in Madrid would move the Spanish to vote
out
their government.

Al Qaida is convinced that an attack on the US between now and the election
will rally the country to GWB. I believe they are correct, and should we be
attacked we
should evaluate just why our mortal *enemy* wants a particular president in
office.

A letter sent to a British paper by a top Al Qiada leader confirmed that Al
Qaida is very desirous of keeping Bush in the White House. The letter writer
asserts that the
actions and attitudes of the US administration has made it extremely easy to
recruit new members for their organization.

Under Bush, the US more closely resembles the "great Satan" (from the Arab
perspective, at least) that Al Qaida has always represented it to be.


Chuck, you can't trust Al Qaida. By now you should realize that. If they say
they want Bush, then they really want Kerry. Bush will attempt to get them
first. Kerry will let them get us first, and *then* he'll try to take action.
Those Al Qaida guys have TV's too. They know what Kerry said.

You know, so far Osama has a better record of telling the truth than
Bush. So, my expectation is that if Osama said he's a Bush fan, it's
the truth.

jps

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Why? Because we are fighting them? If so, I say great work Bush.

No. They want us to fight them. That's the whole point. They will do
whatever
they can do to insure that we continue to attempt a military solution to a
non-military
equation.



If you do not think it requires military type action, you are immensely
deluding yourself. The type people they are, have been killing Muslims of
the wrong pursuasion, flying airplanes into sky scrapers, and blowing up
buses and schools and bars and other gathering places for a lot of years.
They cna not to be reasoned with. The only cure for the bad guys is to
remove them from the gene pool.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Non military Chuck? I guess your answer is to negotiate.

Sigh.

Once again, Gould's preferred solution.

1. Identify the enemy. We are not being attacked by foreign armies. We are
being attacked by foreign terrorist criminal *******s. The *******s reside
in
little ****ant countries without a strong enough central government, or
enough
determination, to rout them. Toppling the governments of a succession of
****ant countries will simply relocate the criminal terrorist *******s.
Our
current approach is akin to cracking down on all the drunks and whores on
the
east side of town. Once the cops are busy on the east side, the drunks and
whores just mosey over to the west.

2. Infiltrate the enemy. Fall out of love with
"Star Wars" intelligence and get actual flesh and blood operatives into Al
Qaida and other similar groups. Continue to use electronic spy techniques
to
supplement the spies and agents with ass in the grass, but renew emphasis
on
*human* intelligence.

3. Disrupt and eliminate the enemy.
Our intelligence operatives will be able to
identify specific terrorist individuals during the planning phases, rather
than
waiting for an attack to know for sure that something is going to happen.
Our
operatives will often be in positions to thwart plans by failing to carry
out
responsibilities assigned to them by terrorist groups. Our operatives will
be
able to furnish the CIA, special forces, and other groups with name s and
locations of people who need to be surgically removed to *really* insure
the
safety and security of the United States.

4. We reserve the military as a tool to put pressure on foreign government
who
might otherwise object to our clandestine operations and CIA extractions
and
eliminations within their borders. "You don't want to allow us to do this
quietly?
Your choice, Ujerkistan, will be to declare war on the US to stop us.
Consider
that option very, very carefully."

Speak softly, and carry a great big frickin stick. But don't start off
just
whacking everybody in sight with a stick, realizing that you'll get *some*
terrorists in the process.

Right here is where you chime in with the BS about John Kerry voting to
cut $1
billion from the intelligence budget.

(save you the time)

Right here is where I rebutt that John Kerry introduced a bill to cut $1
billion dollars from the Office of Strategic Planning- only after the
office
had *failed to spend* several billion dollars previously allocated by
congress!
John Kerry's bill to recover $1 billion of the multi- billion agency
surplus
never came to a vote, because a couple of
Republican senators intorduced a bill to
cut the *entire, multi-billion dollar amount*

Your guess, that my answer would be to "negotiate" is just flat wrong.
Sorry.


Sigh. Why the novel Chuck? Can't you state an opinion in a couple of
sentences? You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands.

So how do we do all that without the military being used in reserve as a
tool? Is your world always so perfect?

Sorry but *I* don't have the perfect answer and won't write a novel in a
remote NG claiming so. Perhaps you should give the President a jingle with
yours as you obviously found the answer to the worlds problems.

If you do not think it requires military type action, you are immensely
deluding yourself. The type people they are, have been killing Muslims of
the wrong pursuasion, flying airplanes into sky scrapers, and blowing up
buses and schools and bars and other gathering places for a lot of years.
They cna not to be reasoned with. The only cure for the bad guys is to
remove them from the gene pool.


Good idea Bill.

Let's send our army to attack their army, our air force to attack their air
force, and our navy to attack their navy.

Any idea where we find their army, navy, or air force?

Chuck, what do we do during ther 5-10 years it takes to recruit, train, and
*infiltrate* (to the point of becoming confidants) the terrorist groups?

Same question you asked yesterday.
Same anwer. It won't take 5-10 years.
Al Qaida is recruiting very actively right now. There are more Al Qaida members
today than there were in September 2001, so it looks like our current approach
is *not* working, wouldn't you say? If we kill 1000 a month and they recruit
1500, we're going backwards- not forwards.

Didn't Clinton, or someone, sign an executive order making assassinations
illegal?

It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to overturn an executive order-
merely another executive order. I believe it was Bush the First, btw.

We've had presidential aversions to pre-emptive strikes, too. See how easily
that was overturned?

Sigh. Why the novel Chuck? Can't you state an opinion in a couple of
sentences? You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands.



Sorry if your attention span doesn't allow you to digest four or five
paragraphs.

Sorry to **** you off by busting your binary model of the world and suggesting
that there are more than two alternatives (unbridled aggression and
capitulation) to solving the problem.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
If you do not think it requires military type action, you are immensely
deluding yourself. The type people they are, have been killing Muslims
of
the wrong pursuasion, flying airplanes into sky scrapers, and blowing up
buses and schools and bars and other gathering places for a lot of years.
They cna not to be reasoned with. The only cure for the bad guys is to
remove them from the gene pool.


Good idea Bill.

Let's send our army to attack their army, our air force to attack their
air
force, and our navy to attack their navy.

Any idea where we find their army, navy, or air force?

Your idea of infiltrating the bad guys, has failed so far. We just need to
identify any training camp and destroy it completely, and any supporting
stuff around it. Then maybe the under governed 3rd world countries will get
the idea that it is bad to support the bad guys. A few dozen
assassinations in Saudi land would also help. Also a military specialty (at
least in the old days.)

Your idea of infiltrating the bad guys, has failed so far.

What we're doing now is failing, that's for sure.

I had no idea that we were emphasizing intelligence. Here all this time I
thought we were sending organized armed forces to try to capture clandestine
terrorist criminal *******s. Goes to show what I know.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Your idea of infiltrating the bad guys, has failed so far.

What we're doing now is failing, that's for sure.

I had no idea that we were emphasizing intelligence. Here all this time I
thought we were sending organized armed forces to try to capture
clandestine
terrorist criminal *******s. Goes to show what I know.

Seems as if the military is using more intelligence than you. They have
tracked down most of the people in the deck of cards. And that shows that
do have an intelligence outfit, and are using it.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sigh. Why the novel Chuck? Can't you state an opinion in a couple of
sentences? You obviously have a lot of idle time on your hands.

So how do we do all that without the military being used in reserve as a
tool? Is your world always so perfect?

Sorry but *I* don't have the perfect answer and won't write a novel in a
remote NG claiming so. Perhaps you should give the President a jingle
with
yours as you obviously found the answer to the worlds problems.

Sorry if your attention span doesn't allow you to digest four or five
paragraphs.

You could have made your point with the first sentence in each paragraph. I
think you love to read what you wrote.



Sorry to **** you off by busting your binary model of the world and
suggesting
that there are more than two alternatives (unbridled aggression and
capitulation) to solving the problem.

Actually you offered one solution (as a whole) yourself so I guess your
model is just a binary.

And you never answered my question.

So how do we do all that without the military being used in reserve as a
tool?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Your idea of infiltrating the bad guys, has failed so far.

What we're doing now is failing, that's for sure.

How so?

"Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Your idea of infiltrating the bad guys, has failed so far.

What we're doing now is failing, that's for sure.

I had no idea that we were emphasizing intelligence. Here all this time I
thought we were sending organized armed forces to try to capture
clandestine
terrorist criminal *******s. Goes to show what I know.

Seems as if the military is using more intelligence than you. They have
tracked down most of the people in the deck of cards. And that shows that
do have an intelligence outfit, and are using it.

Running a war with a deck of cards......in your eyes, is intelligent????

Seems as if the military is using more intelligence than you. They have
tracked down most of the people in the deck of cards.

Great. Is the war over then? We've almost caught 52 people in 16 months? Can't
be too many terrorists left if they're not in the deck of cards.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Seems as if the military is using more intelligence than you. They have
tracked down most of the people in the deck of cards.

Great. Is the war over then? We've almost caught 52 people in 16 months?
Can't
be too many terrorists left if they're not in the deck of cards.

Where did he say that Chuck. You can really be a smart ass when folks don't
agree with you.

And you never answered my question.

So how do we do all that without the military being used in reserve as a
tool?



The original statement, the one you found too exhausting to finish, recommends
exactly that. See the point about using the military to insure cooperation for
our agents.

We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

Where did he say that Chuck.

"We've caught almost everybody in the deck of cards"

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Where did he say that Chuck.

"We've caught almost everybody in the deck of cards"

Nice try.

These are your statements I was referring to:

"Great. Is the war over then?"

"Can't be too many terrorists left if they're not in the deck of cards."

Remind me again. Where did he say either?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
(Gould 0738) wrote in message
...
** Who was that American folk singer who sang "Signs,
signs....everywhere
signs'?
(Don MacLean)


Les Emerrson, lead singer in the band Five Man Electrical Band, a Canadian
band.


Oh my! I missed that. Thanks for the enlightment.

"Don White" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
(Gould 0738) wrote in message
...
** Who was that American folk singer who sang "Signs,
signs....everywhere
signs'?
(Don MacLean)


Les Emerrson, lead singer in the band Five Man Electrical Band, a Canadian
band.


Oh my! I missed that. Thanks for the enlightment.

Cool stuff, eh?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have
taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

There is a lot of evidence that Roosevelt knew of the coming attack, and
used it to make sure the USA entered the war officially.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Seems as if the military is using more intelligence than you. They have
tracked down most of the people in the deck of cards.

Great. Is the war over then? We've almost caught 52 people in 16 months?
Can't
be too many terrorists left if they're not in the deck of cards.

The question and answer was not about whether the war was over! You are
getting to be like basskisser and Harry. Selective reading. Was about the
intelligence service. Maybe if we unleashed unlimited firepower on those we
identify through intelligence, we would be a lot further along to peace.
The restrictions limit us severely. How long do you think Sadr would have
been harassing us, if we were not restricted from damaging Mosques? They
hole up in a Mosque and use it as fort. Should now become a free fire zone.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have
taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

There is a lot of evidence that Roosevelt knew of the coming attack, and
used it to make sure the USA entered the war officially.

Provide some, please.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there
was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have
taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

There is a lot of evidence that Roosevelt knew of the coming attack, and
used it to make sure the USA entered the war officially.

Provide some, please.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

Provide some, please.

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/pearl.html

http://www.independent-media.tv/item...egory_desc=Inf
ormation%20related%20to%20Pearl%20Harbor

Two responses selected at random from a Google Search: Roosevelt advance
knowledge Pearl Harbor

I got 472 hits.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
We've never been against pre-emptive strikes. I don't believe there
was a
President who, knowing the US was about to be attacked, wouldn't have
taken
action to prevent such attack. They just didn't put it into words.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

There is a lot of evidence that Roosevelt knew of the coming attack, and
used it to make sure the USA entered the war officially.

Provide some, please.

Read up on Pearl Harbor.

Speculation is quite different from "evidence".