Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants are running scared
This one is dedicated to Islamic Nutcase Hairball Harry
JOSEPH PERKINS THE UNION-TRIBUNE The world's tyrants are running scared December 26, 2003 Moammar Gadhafi had a message this week for Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad. North Korea, Iran and Iraq "should follow the steps of Libya," he said, "so that they prevent any tragedy being afflicted upon their own people." Gadhafi's remarks follow his surprise agreement – announced by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair – to disclose and dismantle the North African country's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Libya's leader wisely recognized that President Bush meant what he said in the days following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. "Every nation and every region now has a decision to make," Bush declared. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Neither the Taliban in Afghanistan nor Saddam Hussein in Iraq took the United States seriously. So now those fallen regimes have been consigned to the dust bin of history. Some suggest that American-led regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq had little or nothing to do with Gadhafi's decision to seek rapprochement with the United States. They suggest that the Libyan leader's welcome decision to forswear unconventional weapons, to renounce terror is as a triumph of diplomacy over military threat. That's just so much hogwash. For the fact is, two decades of economic sanctions against Libya, two decades of international isolation of Tripoli, hardly deterred Gadhafi from pursuing his weapons programs, from subsiding terrorists. But when Bush put the rogue nations of the world on notice, when the U.S. military started to kick tail and take names – first the Taliban, then Saddam – that got the Libyan dictator's attention. Indeed, it hardly was coincidental that Libyan envoys first approached the Bush administration and the Blair government about a disarmament deal in the days leading up to the Iraq war. Nor was it coincidental that Gadhafi actually agreed to the deal, in which Libya's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs will be eliminated, a week after Saddam was dragged out of the "spider hole" in which he was hiding. Of course, there are some war critics, some Bush-bashers who will refuse to acknowledge that America is safer now that Libya has forsworn unconventional weapons, has renounced terror. Much as they refused to acknowledge that America is safer with Saddam's capture, with regime change in Baghdad. They fail to see – or refuse to see – the connection between the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the gathering threat of terror. As President Bush explained, the terror attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. "revealed a future threat of even greater magnitude," of even greater horror. "Terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people would," he said, "if they ever gained weapons of mass destruction, kill hundreds of thousands – without hesitation, without mercy. "This danger is dramatically increased, he continued, "when regimes build or acquire weapons of mass destruction and maintain ties to terrorist groups." That's why anti-war critics are so myopic to suggest that Saddam posed no threat to the security of the American people, to insist that the United States need not have removed him from power. Saddam fully intended to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction. And one day he would have put a chemical, biological or chemical weapon in the hands of terrorists who would use it against either the United States or its allies. After all, he thought nothing of paying the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers $10,000 to $25,000 to kill innocent Israeli citizens. Gadhafi was once as despotic as Saddam, Libya once a state sponsor of terror like Iraq. The Libyan leader has renounced his past. His country has "begun the process of rejoining the community of nations," as Bush attested this past week. Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad would do well to follow Moammar Gadhafi's example. Perkins can be reached via e-mail at . Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Site Index | Contact SignOn | UTads.com | About SignOn | Advertise on SignOn | Make SignOn your homepage About the Union-Tribune | Contact the Union-Tribune © Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants arerunning scared
Hi Christopher,
You hit the nail on the head. No country will be free unless its citizens are willing to lay down their lives for that freedom. To quote Thomas Jefferson; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." It IS our willingness to "kick ass and take names" that allows us the freedoms we enjoy today. Not to mention we slapped Gadhafi down some years ago when he was found to be responsible for an attack on our troops in Beruit. A few thousand pounders through the kitchen door will make even the most reluctant despot take notice. Happy New Year Capt. Frank http://www.home.earthlink.net/~aartworks Christopher Robin wrote: This one is dedicated to Islamic Nutcase Hairball Harry JOSEPH PERKINS THE UNION-TRIBUNE The world's tyrants are running scared December 26, 2003 Moammar Gadhafi had a message this week for Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad. North Korea, Iran and Iraq "should follow the steps of Libya," he said, "so that they prevent any tragedy being afflicted upon their own people." Gadhafi's remarks follow his surprise agreement – announced by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair – to disclose and dismantle the North African country's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Libya's leader wisely recognized that President Bush meant what he said in the days following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. "Every nation and every region now has a decision to make," Bush declared. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Neither the Taliban in Afghanistan nor Saddam Hussein in Iraq took the United States seriously. So now those fallen regimes have been consigned to the dust bin of history. Some suggest that American-led regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq had little or nothing to do with Gadhafi's decision to seek rapprochement with the United States. They suggest that the Libyan leader's welcome decision to forswear unconventional weapons, to renounce terror is as a triumph of diplomacy over military threat. That's just so much hogwash. For the fact is, two decades of economic sanctions against Libya, two decades of international isolation of Tripoli, hardly deterred Gadhafi from pursuing his weapons programs, from subsiding terrorists. But when Bush put the rogue nations of the world on notice, when the U.S. military started to kick tail and take names – first the Taliban, then Saddam – that got the Libyan dictator's attention. Indeed, it hardly was coincidental that Libyan envoys first approached the Bush administration and the Blair government about a disarmament deal in the days leading up to the Iraq war. Nor was it coincidental that Gadhafi actually agreed to the deal, in which Libya's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs will be eliminated, a week after Saddam was dragged out of the "spider hole" in which he was hiding. Of course, there are some war critics, some Bush-bashers who will refuse to acknowledge that America is safer now that Libya has forsworn unconventional weapons, has renounced terror. Much as they refused to acknowledge that America is safer with Saddam's capture, with regime change in Baghdad. They fail to see – or refuse to see – the connection between the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the gathering threat of terror. As President Bush explained, the terror attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. "revealed a future threat of even greater magnitude," of even greater horror. "Terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people would," he said, "if they ever gained weapons of mass destruction, kill hundreds of thousands – without hesitation, without mercy. "This danger is dramatically increased, he continued, "when regimes build or acquire weapons of mass destruction and maintain ties to terrorist groups." That's why anti-war critics are so myopic to suggest that Saddam posed no threat to the security of the American people, to insist that the United States need not have removed him from power. Saddam fully intended to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction. And one day he would have put a chemical, biological or chemical weapon in the hands of terrorists who would use it against either the United States or its allies. After all, he thought nothing of paying the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers $10,000 to $25,000 to kill innocent Israeli citizens. Gadhafi was once as despotic as Saddam, Libya once a state sponsor of terror like Iraq. The Libyan leader has renounced his past. His country has "begun the process of rejoining the community of nations," as Bush attested this past week. Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad would do well to follow Moammar Gadhafi's example. Perkins can be reached via e-mail at . Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Site Index | Contact SignOn | UTads.com | About SignOn | Advertise on SignOn | Make SignOn your homepage About the Union-Tribune | Contact the Union-Tribune © Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants arerunning scared
Capt. Frank Hopkins wrote:
Hi Christopher, You hit the nail on the head. No country will be free unless its citizens are willing to lay down their lives for that freedom. To quote Thomas Jefferson; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." It IS our willingness to "kick ass and take names" that allows us the freedoms we enjoy today. The USA is only willing to kick the ass of countries without significant military forces to oppose it. -- Email sent to is never read. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants arerunning scared
Harry Krause wrote:
Capt. Frank Hopkins wrote: Hi Christopher, You hit the nail on the head. No country will be free unless its citizens are willing to lay down their lives for that freedom. To quote Thomas Jefferson; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." It IS our willingness to "kick ass and take names" that allows us the freedoms we enjoy today. The USA is only willing to kick the ass of countries without significant military forces to oppose it. Who has significant military forces to oppose us? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants are running scared
"drn" wrote in message
... Harry Krause wrote: Capt. Frank Hopkins wrote: Hi Christopher, You hit the nail on the head. No country will be free unless its citizens are willing to lay down their lives for that freedom. To quote Thomas Jefferson; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." It IS our willingness to "kick ass and take names" that allows us the freedoms we enjoy today. The USA is only willing to kick the ass of countries without significant military forces to oppose it. Who has significant military forces to oppose us? China. Russia. France. Yeah. France. Before you start throwing meaningless numbers around (this many soldiers, that many tanks/jets/helicopters), THINK. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants arerunning scared
Doug Kanter wrote:
"drn" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote: Capt. Frank Hopkins wrote: Hi Christopher, You hit the nail on the head. No country will be free unless its citizens are willing to lay down their lives for that freedom. To quote Thomas Jefferson; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." It IS our willingness to "kick ass and take names" that allows us the freedoms we enjoy today. The USA is only willing to kick the ass of countries without significant military forces to oppose it. Who has significant military forces to oppose us? China. Russia. France. Yeah. France. Before you start throwing meaningless numbers around (this many soldiers, that many tanks/jets/helicopters), THINK. After some thought, poppycock! That is what I think. There is no way any sane person could think that one of those countries have a chance in hell winning a war with the US. Face it, if it came down to it and the US really wanted to win that's what happens. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants are running scared
The USA is only willing to kick the ass of countries without significant military forces to oppose it. The USA is the single largest defender of Israel. You do want to see Israel destroyed and their Jews pushed into the sea. Right, Ali Hairball? Oppose the US policies and strengthen Hamas, the PLF, Arafat, etc. Keep up with your Jihad, Osama bin Ali Hairball Harry Kraus, make the Israelis pay the price. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants are running scared
"Christopher Robin" wrote in message
om... The USA is only willing to kick the ass of countries without significant military forces to oppose it. The USA is the single largest defender of Israel. You do want to see Israel destroyed and their Jews pushed into the sea. Right, Ali Hairball? Oppose the US policies and strengthen Hamas, the PLF, Arafat, etc. Keep up with your Jihad, Osama bin Ali Hairball Harry Kraus, make the Israelis pay the price. U.S. policies in Vietnam didn't work out so well because we forgot to notice something. The religious beliefs of the Vietnamese told them that their spirits resided in the land. So, since we couldn't destroy the land, we couldn't destroy their spirits, thus we could never defeat them. They were prepared to fight forever. Another reason was the fact that for a few hundred years, they'd gotten quite a bit of experience with throwing invaders out of Vietnam. We may be doing the same thing with Islamic terrorists. If you and I want a virgin, we can walk into the nearest college bar and find some. They believe they get virgins by being killed and going to heaven. If you think that such religious beliefs aren't that powerful, you haven't spent time talking to a born again Christian. We may not be able to defeat the current enemy with guns and bombs. You might want to expand your thinking a bit. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants are running scared
"Christopher Robin" wrote in message
om... We may not be able to defeat the current enemy with guns and bombs. You might want to expand your thinking a bit. So we should stop sending military assistance to Israel? Please explain..... This might be off-topic: Israel can take care of itself. The French can continue to sell them arms. For the rest of the region, I'd use public opinion and obnoxious political manipulation to deal with the problem. I contributed an idea to the newsgroup in early December. It's perfect. Now, we have 3 or 4 lunatics trying to run a serious war. My idea is to complement that by proposing a plan which is TRULY befitting of a madman. Close the circle, so to speak: 1) Use (and I do mean *use* in the most manipulative sense) all the countries of the Middle East, and any other countries that consider themselves largely Muslim (Algeria, for instance), to determine the definition of "The U.S. has done what Osama has asked". Do this by getting them to define it and put it in writing via the United Nations. We refuse to allow the inclusion of bull**** like "written apologies". Regardless of what you think of the U.N., it would be useful because many countries lend some credence to resolutions, especially if they designed those resolutions. In) this case, a resolution would end up being permission to destroy what needed destroying. A snare, if you will. 2) Negotiate only with the one or two countries we really need oil from to be sure that no matter the results of the resolution, they will continue to sell us oil as before. This probably won't be difficult. 3) As part of the resolution, insist that 3 unrelated polling organizations, from 3 countries, use mutually acceptable methods to determine whether an overwhelming majority of the civilian populations of, say, Iraq, Egypt and Iran believe that our proposed withdrawal constitutes "agreeing to Osama's terms". Now, you have a "coalition" of sorts, the kind that your leader (Bush) could only wish for in between delicious moments of picking his nose. 4) Finally, state in the resolution that our complete withdrawal comes with two caveats: - We will continue to maintain a heavy naval presence in the region, in case our two oil suppliers are "troubled" in any way. That probably means Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. - Any subsequent terrorist attacks which affect even one American anywhere in the world will result in our randomly choosing a city from one of the countries which signed the resolution, and leveling it within 12 hours. The city will literally be chosen from a brown paper bag on television, in the same way people play "secret Santa". It should preferably be chosen by someone utterly frivolous, like Jay Leno or the host of a game show. Stipulate that the first time there's an attack, ships will launch whatever they have on board, short of nuclear weapons. The second time, a clause: "Since ships may not have had time to restock with convential weapons since the first attack, their only choice may be....." How long do you think it would take for Osama *and* Saddam to be escorted to the nearest American embassy by a crowd of concerned parents who didn't want a couple of loose cannons around? Other die-hards will be brought to heel very quickly in a style reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. Nobody will trust their neighbors. They want us to leave, we'll leave. Since OBL won't actually sign the resolution, his agreement will be implied by the opinion poll and the signatures of real leaders. If he wants to show up for a photo op and to signal his approval, that's fine. Lends even more weight to the resolution. Afterwards, he can try and stamp out all the little cells of loonies he's spawned around the world. If he fails and those loonies act on their own, OBL will be the fall guy for the destruction of major cities. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Peace through superior firepower" - The world's tyrants are running scared
Wanna see a picture of Osama bin Ali Hairball Harry Kraus?
http://www.combatvets.net/images/9.11.02/turban.jpg |