Onward Christian Soldiers Pt II
 

Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting. However you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way, you just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:12:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting. However you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way, you just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

Nicely put.

And very true.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:12:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting. However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way, you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

Nicely put.

And very true.

I often wax poetic. :-)

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:29:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:12:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting. However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way, you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

Nicely put.

And very true.

I often wax poetic. :-)

There once was a man from Nantucket....

Um.....never mind....

Later,

Tom

"Beware the one legged man in a butt
kicking contest - he is there for a
reason."

Wun Hung Lo - date unknown

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting. However you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way, you just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team if
you're able to think a little more clearly.



When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the window.

Eisboch

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:04:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting. However you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way, you just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the window.

What really gets to you is that some of those aren't meant for you,
but you are in the line of fire.

That puts a whole different perspective on the subject. :)

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:04:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if
possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting. However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so
ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going
into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way
of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way, you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team
if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the
window.

What really gets to you is that some of those aren't meant for you,
but you are in the line of fire.

That puts a whole different perspective on the subject. :)

Which is more terrifying? Flying bullets & mortar shells, or when you get
The Look from your wife?

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:59:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:04:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if
possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting. However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so
ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going
into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way
of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way, you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team
if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the
window.

What really gets to you is that some of those aren't meant for you,
but you are in the line of fire.

That puts a whole different perspective on the subject. :)

Which is more terrifying? Flying bullets & mortar shells, or when you get
The Look from your wife?

Bullets, mortar and RPGs.

My wife knows better. She tried that from the git go and it didn't
work. She actually asked me one time in a joking fashion why and I
told her plainly and simply why - took about an hour in fact.

After that, she never tried it again. :)

Then again, after all these years, I found it was easier to compromise
and get along than try ordinary games of dominance.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:59:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:04:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a
problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if
possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting.
However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so
ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going
into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a
way
of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way,
you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a
team
if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the
window.

What really gets to you is that some of those aren't meant for you,
but you are in the line of fire.

That puts a whole different perspective on the subject. :)

Which is more terrifying? Flying bullets & mortar shells, or when you get
The Look from your wife?

Bullets, mortar and RPGs.

My wife knows better. She tried that from the git go and it didn't
work.

At around the age of eight, my son reached the conclusion that his mother
"Look" was hysterically funny, and would collapse laughing when she tried it
on him. By doing so, he took away not just her ammo, but her weapons, boots,
helmet and EVERYTHING. She was helpless. :-)

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:45:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:59:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:04:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a
problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if
possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting.
However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so
ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going
into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a
way
of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way,
you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a
team
if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the
window.

What really gets to you is that some of those aren't meant for you,
but you are in the line of fire.

That puts a whole different perspective on the subject. :)

Which is more terrifying? Flying bullets & mortar shells, or when you get
The Look from your wife?

Bullets, mortar and RPGs.

My wife knows better. She tried that from the git go and it didn't
work.

At around the age of eight, my son reached the conclusion that his mother
"Look" was hysterically funny, and would collapse laughing when she tried it
on him. By doing so, he took away not just her ammo, but her weapons, boots,
helmet and EVERYTHING. She was helpless. :-)

It's tough being in the middle of the battle and having to fight
nekkid. :)

Later,

Tom

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message
...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:04:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a
problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if
possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting.
However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so
ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going
into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way
of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way,
you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team
if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the
window.

What really gets to you is that some of those aren't meant for you,
but you are in the line of fire.

That puts a whole different perspective on the subject. :)

Which is more terrifying? Flying bullets & mortar shells, or when you get
The Look from your wife?


The wife of a Marine from my town just received the visit notifying her that
her 29 year old husband, and father of two little boys, was killed in action
Monday. Now which do you think is more terrifying?

http://www.koin.com/news.asp?ID=1584

Another life wasted...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Snafu wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message
...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:04:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a
problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if
possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting.
However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or
so
ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers
going
into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a
way
of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other
way,
you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a
team
if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the
window.

What really gets to you is that some of those aren't meant for you,
but you are in the line of fire.

That puts a whole different perspective on the subject. :)

Which is more terrifying? Flying bullets & mortar shells, or when you
get
The Look from your wife?


The wife of a Marine from my town just received the visit notifying her
that
her 29 year old husband, and father of two little boys, was killed in
action
Monday. Now which do you think is more terrifying?

http://www.koin.com/news.asp?ID=1584

Another life wasted...


Indeed, and for absolutely no reason. A total wasted life, a new widow,
two fatherless boys, sacrificed for what?

For democracy, you ungrateful monster.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:45:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Which is more terrifying? Flying bullets & mortar shells, or when you get
The Look from your wife?

Bullets, mortar and RPGs.

My wife knows better. She tried that from the git go and it didn't
work.

At around the age of eight, my son reached the conclusion that his mother
"Look" was hysterically funny, and would collapse laughing when she tried it
on him. By doing so, he took away not just her ammo, but her weapons, boots,
helmet and EVERYTHING. She was helpless. :-)

That's because she didn't do it right. If the child had been
conditioned to know that "the look" was only the precursor to pain or
something equally unpleasant, he would 've learned to respect "the
look" rather than ridicule it.

It's all in the symbolism of it.


Dave

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:02:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Snafu wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message
...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:04:37 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
Now, this is interesting, jps. This is something I don't have a
problem
with. If you're going into battle, you have to go in crazy, if
possible.
Hopefully crazier than the people you're going to be fighting.
However
you
reach that state of mind doesn't matter. I think it was a year or so
ago
that Time Magazine ran an article on the fear felt by soldiers going
into
battle. I've never been there, but I'd imagine that if you have a way
of
reducing that fear, or channeling the adrenaline in some other way,
you
just
do it. If nothing else, it makes you a more valuable member of a team
if
you're able to think a little more clearly.

When you realize those mortars and bullets whizzing around your head
were meant for you, a lot of academic philosophy goes right out the
window.

What really gets to you is that some of those aren't meant for you,
but you are in the line of fire.

That puts a whole different perspective on the subject. :)

Which is more terrifying? Flying bullets & mortar shells, or when you get
The Look from your wife?


The wife of a Marine from my town just received the visit notifying her that
her 29 year old husband, and father of two little boys, was killed in action
Monday. Now which do you think is more terrifying?

http://www.koin.com/news.asp?ID=1584

Another life wasted...


Indeed, and for absolutely no reason. A total wasted life, a new widow,
two fatherless boys, sacrificed for what?


That you don't know is telling in itself.

I suppose it might make you feel a little better if we just ignored
the signs and kept to ourselves in blissful ignorance while the forces
of darkness continued to build against us.

I suppose you'd then reluctantly agree that when the military is
called to duty to defend our shores against the waves of terrorist
attacks, that it's justified. Only by then the casualty count will be
much higher in both military and innocent U.S. citizens.
But that's preferable to what we're doing now right?

Dave

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote...

The forces of darkness? Man, they're already operating on these shores.

I would posit that "the military" is unable to protect our shores from
terrorist attackers. Right now, any terrorist willing to commit suicide
can blow up just about any building in Washington, DC.

The flaw in your theory is that, if it were true, we'd have plenty of
body
bags and blown-up buildings in the US right now. But we don't. After
all,
if they are "already operating on these shores" and can "blow up just
about
any building", what's stopping them?

It's not on their schedule yet.


Is that so? And you previously stated that most of the terrorist have left
Fallujah.

You seem to have first hand knowledge of the terrorists, their activities
and their plans. How is that Krause? Should we notify the FBI?

Or are these just wild ass guesses to support your stupid argument of the
moment?

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:42:38 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote...

The forces of darkness? Man, they're already operating on these shores.

I would posit that "the military" is unable to protect our shores from
terrorist attackers. Right now, any terrorist willing to commit suicide
can blow up just about any building in Washington, DC.

The flaw in your theory is that, if it were true, we'd have plenty of
body
bags and blown-up buildings in the US right now. But we don't. After
all,
if they are "already operating on these shores" and can "blow up just
about
any building", what's stopping them?

It's not on their schedule yet.


Is that so? And you previously stated that most of the terrorist have left
Fallujah.

You seem to have first hand knowledge of the terrorists, their activities
and their plans. How is that Krause? Should we notify the FBI?

Or are these just wild ass guesses to support your stupid argument of the
moment?

~~ snicker ~~

Jim said wild ass...

"Harry Krause" wrote:

It doesn't take hordes. They're here or on the way. As to what they are
waiting for, well, whatever they are waiting for, right? We haven't done
so well so far guessing what they have in mind, eh?

Then why would you think your guesses are any better than anyone else?

Jack

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:50:28 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Indeed, and for absolutely no reason. A total wasted life, a new widow,
two fatherless boys, sacrificed for what?


That you don't know is telling in itself.

I suppose it might make you feel a little better if we just ignored
the signs and kept to ourselves in blissful ignorance while the forces
of darkness continued to build against us.

The forces of darkness? Man, they're already operating on these shores.
I am going going to get into partisan politics, so I'll just say this:
there is little different in sought end result between the Islamists of
the Middle East and many of the fundie evangelical Christians here.
They're all cut from the same cloth.

Christians aren't blowing up buildings and killing thousands of
people, when they refuse to take that complimentary Bible when the
door gets slammed in their faces.


I suppose you'd then reluctantly agree that when the military is
called to duty to defend our shores against the waves of terrorist
attacks, that it's justified.

I would posit that "the military" is unable to protect our shores from
terrorist attackers. Right now, any terrorist willing to commit suicide
can blow up just about any building in Washington, DC.

So when is it "justified" to use our military? Or do you believe that
we should just disband it all, since you seem to feel that they're
ineffective.....

Dave

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:28:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote...

The forces of darkness? Man, they're already operating on these shores.

I would posit that "the military" is unable to protect our shores from
terrorist attackers. Right now, any terrorist willing to commit suicide
can blow up just about any building in Washington, DC.

The flaw in your theory is that, if it were true, we'd have plenty of body
bags and blown-up buildings in the US right now. But we don't. After all,
if they are "already operating on these shores" and can "blow up just about
any building", what's stopping them?

It's not on their schedule yet. Anyone who wants to can drive up right
next to just about any federal office building in DC. If you think
otherwise, you're delusional.


And if the government suddenly decided to subject every person and car
to a complete search before nearing any federal building, you'd scream
that the government was violating their civil "rights".

There's just no pleasing you guys......

Dave

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:43:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:42:38 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote...

The forces of darkness? Man, they're already operating on these shores.

I would posit that "the military" is unable to protect our shores from
terrorist attackers. Right now, any terrorist willing to commit suicide
can blow up just about any building in Washington, DC.

The flaw in your theory is that, if it were true, we'd have plenty of
body
bags and blown-up buildings in the US right now. But we don't. After
all,
if they are "already operating on these shores" and can "blow up just
about
any building", what's stopping them?

It's not on their schedule yet.


Is that so? And you previously stated that most of the terrorist have left
Fallujah.

You seem to have first hand knowledge of the terrorists, their activities
and their plans. How is that Krause? Should we notify the FBI?

Or are these just wild ass guesses to support your stupid argument of the
moment?

~~ snicker ~~

Jim said wild ass...

I like your thinking. You look for the humor in all this absurdity.
And there certainly is no shortage........

Dave

"Harry Krause" wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:

It doesn't take hordes. They're here or on the way. As to what they are
waiting for, well, whatever they are waiting for, right? We haven't
done
so well so far guessing what they have in mind, eh?

Then why would you think your guesses are any better than anyone else?

They're not better than everyone else's...just better than some.

And worse than others. So that leaves them... average. And so far
completely without merit, at least since Bush took action, eh?

Jack

"Harry Krause" wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:

It doesn't take hordes. They're here or on the way. As to what they
are
waiting for, well, whatever they are waiting for, right? We haven't
done
so well so far guessing what they have in mind, eh?

Then why would you think your guesses are any better than anyone
else?

They're not better than everyone else's...just better than some.

And worse than others. So that leaves them... average. And so far
completely without merit, at least since Bush took action, eh?


Which proves zip.

Your guesses? You're right.

Jack

"Harry Krause" wrote:

Come talk to me about this again when a few terrorists blow up a
building or facility here...

Oh, I believe there will be another incident here in the US... eventually.
But not because of what the administration is doing. It would happen
anyway, and possibly would already have happened if not for us taking the
fight to the terrorists. That, specifically, is where your theory falls
apart. According to you, we are hurrying toward the event. I believe we
have delayed the inevitable, and most likely have foiled some plans along
the way. The facts, as they stand today, favor my hypothesis.

But we're both guessing, right?

Jack

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:25:43 GMT, "Jack Goff" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote:

Come talk to me about this again when a few terrorists blow up a
building or facility here...

Oh, I believe there will be another incident here in the US... eventually.
But not because of what the administration is doing. It would happen
anyway, and possibly would already have happened if not for us taking the
fight to the terrorists. That, specifically, is where your theory falls
apart. According to you, we are hurrying toward the event. I believe we
have delayed the inevitable, and most likely have foiled some plans along
the way. The facts, as they stand today, favor my hypothesis.

But we're both guessing, right?

Jack


Harry's saying that terrorists can blow any federal building at any
time they desire, but they haven't desired to do so.

You're saying they can't blow any federal building at any time they
desire, and, therefore, haven't done so.

I think your *guess* is much closer to the mark.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:04:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:28:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote...

The forces of darkness? Man, they're already operating on these shores.

I would posit that "the military" is unable to protect our shores from
terrorist attackers. Right now, any terrorist willing to commit suicide
can blow up just about any building in Washington, DC.

The flaw in your theory is that, if it were true, we'd have plenty of body
bags and blown-up buildings in the US right now. But we don't. After all,
if they are "already operating on these shores" and can "blow up just about
any building", what's stopping them?

It's not on their schedule yet. Anyone who wants to can drive up right
next to just about any federal office building in DC. If you think
otherwise, you're delusional.


And if the government suddenly decided to subject every person and car
to a complete search before nearing any federal building, you'd scream
that the government was violating their civil "rights".

There's just no pleasing you guys......

Dave


That's not the point. The point is that most of our Homeland Security is
a fraud. You cannot protect a country or its buildings or its
infrastruture against terrorists. If you think otherwise, review the
history of Israel, a country that takes security far more seriously than
we do, has more experience fighting terrorists, and has a much more
highly trained and motivated defense force than we do.


If your claim is that you can not protect something 100% of the time,
then I agree with you. But that shouldn't preclude us from getting
that number up to 60 or 75%. If even one or two lives are spared, it's
a worthwhile effort.

If all we can do is devolve into a police state, then we've lost.

So the alternative is to do nothing? Sit here in blissful ignorance
until the next attack comes and then sit there and "gosh-darn" and
"golly-gee" our way around the issue?

There is a workable medium between those two extremes. But you can't
criticize our efforts because they're not 100% effective on one hand,
and then accuse us of devolving into a police state in the other. You
can't have it both ways.

Dave