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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

Wanna see a picture of Osama bin Ali Hairball Harry Kraus?

http://www.combatvets.net/images/9.11.02/turban.jpg