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.

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.