On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:02:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:25:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...



Clue: The word "strategy" does not necessarily mean the use of force.
There
are other ways to cause an enemy to implode.


Shoot, I was hoping to see an idea worthy of putting in a letter to
our President.

He already has people who know how to use such strategies. Two problems,
though:

1) He needs to sign off on them. In order for this to happen, he'd need to
be able to understand the ideas. No chance of that.

2) Even if he understood the ideas, they wouldn't satisfy one of his
requirements: Any move we make must look good on TV, and give him an
erection.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent solution in the middle
east.


I'm waiting for your idea.

John H

I don't have an idea, John, but the absence of an idea doesn't mean you use
the idea that some idiot pulled out of his ass, like bombing the snot out of
a country just because it makes you feel good.


If you cannot come up with a better idea, then the current idea seems
to be the best.

John H

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

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:02:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:25:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
m...



Clue: The word "strategy" does not necessarily mean the use of force.
There
are other ways to cause an enemy to implode.


Shoot, I was hoping to see an idea worthy of putting in a letter to
our President.

He already has people who know how to use such strategies. Two problems,
though:

1) He needs to sign off on them. In order for this to happen, he'd need
to
be able to understand the ideas. No chance of that.

2) Even if he understood the ideas, they wouldn't satisfy one of his
requirements: Any move we make must look good on TV, and give him an
erection.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent solution in the middle
east.


I'm waiting for your idea.

John H

I don't have an idea, John, but the absence of an idea doesn't mean you
use
the idea that some idiot pulled out of his ass, like bombing the snot out
of
a country just because it makes you feel good.


If you cannot come up with a better idea, then the current idea seems
to be the best.

Only to a pig.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:35:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


It's been a long time, over 25 years ago now. I don't recall the exact
titles.

Dave

Bull****. The actual journals from many of the players weren't released that
soon. Therefore, what you read was fiction, opinion and conjecture.


I never said that what I read was an "actual journal". And actually
it was closer to 30 years ago, when I was still in school, and the war
was part of the course study.

It's interesting how revisionist history changes the perception of
those who read it.

What I read was old enough to still be fresh, yet not so old that we
forget certain things and lose sight of the original objectives.

It's easy after so many years, to spin the facts to look like they
were something that they weren't, especially when many of the major
players are now dead and can't refute them.

Nobody called Nixon a nutcase when he was still alive to defend it.

Dave

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:33:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:57:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Circular reasoning. We've offered to make absolutely NO behavior
changes.
Until then, "C" will not happen.

"We" shouldn't have to. "We" aren't the ones who flew 3 airplanes into
their buildings. "We" aren't the ones who blew a hole in the side of a
naval ship. "We" aren't the ones who cut of the heads of prisoners on
TV.

One of their biggest problems with us is with our life of materialism
and consumerism, among other things. Are you suggesting we all wrap
ourselves in Burqa's and raise goats so that we don't "offend" them?

Nobody said that.

But you suggest that we somehow should not be entitled to continue our
lifestyle and those things which "offend" the Islamo-wack-jobs, or by
protecting our interests, in order to change our "behavior" . We are
not the aggressors. We didn't start it. But we have every right to
defend it.

I did not suggest that we change our lifestyle HERE IN THIS COUNTRY.

But that is exactly what they complain about. They view us as "the
devil" and that they have the god-given duty to "cleanse" the earth of
us.

That has absolutely no relationship to our behavior elsewhere.

And our behavior elsewhere is only the tip of their agenda.

If you could
actually sit down and negotiate with these people, and they insisted that we
remove every billboard in the US which showed scantily clad women, the issue
would be brushed off as a ridiculous demand.

Which is why we're at war now, and terrorists took down two of our
tallest buildings. Their demands are largely ridiculous. Besides, you
don't negotiate with terrorists. That only validates their methods,
and emboldens them to demand more.


Most negotiations begin with
ridiculous demands.

And in their case, would end with them. You can't compromise with
fanatics. I don't think you truly understand the nature of the threat
we're facing.


What we're talking about here is our behavior in other peoples' countries.
Get it?

You are only looking at one aspect. They were not so "offended" with
our behavior when we taught them how to extract oil from their land
and transform from a poor backwards culture into power brokers.

Ironically, at least from the Wahabbist viewpoint in Saudi Arabia, is
that "westernization" of their culture to some degree is what they
want to expunge. They blame us for bringing them into the modern
world.


They don't see it that way. In their eyes, this goes back 30-40 years.
You,
in your myopia, believe history began on 9/11.

Not at all. But unlike you, I don't have a "Blame America first"
mentality.

Dave


Your "mentality" is such that you think we're 100% entitled to our little
holy war.

I don't believe in absolutes. But I'd say we're probably 85% entitled
to our "holy war", considering that WE were the ones attacked.

Funny, Bin Laden wasn't too upset with us when we helped him fight the
Soviets.

Here's a challenge: Can you name 3 things you think we could do
better, in terms of our middle east policies, considering the failures of
the past 40 years? Among your responses, you may NOT suggest using more
military force.

Gee, I don't know, since depending on your perspective, those answers
will change. I'm sure the viewpoint of our behavior when taken from
the perspective of an Israeli will differ considerably from that of an
Islamic Mullah or cleric.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:35:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..


It's been a long time, over 25 years ago now. I don't recall the exact
titles.

Dave

Bull****. The actual journals from many of the players weren't released
that
soon. Therefore, what you read was fiction, opinion and conjecture.


I never said that what I read was an "actual journal". And actually
it was closer to 30 years ago, when I was still in school, and the war
was part of the course study.

I never said you read the journals. Does everything need to be spelled out
for you? Here you go: Since everything we hear from the White House is
filtered, historians cannot write accurately about the inner workings of the
place until "presidential papers" are released, and that rarely happens
until years later. Then, you see books which actually quote the handwritten
notes taken by the various players. At the time you read anything about
Nixon, those documents had not been released. Therefore, what you (and I)
read at the time was no different than the player whose word you do not
trust now: Richard Clark.



Nobody called Nixon a nutcase when he was still alive to defend it.

Of course they did. How old were you in 1975?

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:23:38 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:



I do think that "journalists" should be held to a high standard of
truth and accuracy in what they present as "facts". In those cases
where the article is a smattering of both facts, interspersed with
opinionated conclusions and speculation, it should be duly noted, to
alert people (like you it would seem) who may not be aware enough to
separate true premises from the speculative conclusions.

Dave

It's a shame you don't feel the same way about the lying POTUS and his
gang of thugs, few of whom seem able to tell the truth about anything.

There is no proof that the president lied about anything. You can cut
and paste every op-ed piece from every left wing rag you can find and
it still won't change that simple fact.

Dave

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:30:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I do think that "journalists" should be held to a high standard of
truth and accuracy in what they present as "facts".

For a guy like you, there is no definition of "high standard" that would
stick. Any time you hear something that doesn't fit your house-of-cards
belief system, you say the author is biased.

The truth is self-evident. Opinions are not.

Dave

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:33:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:02:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:25:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
om...



Clue: The word "strategy" does not necessarily mean the use of force.
There
are other ways to cause an enemy to implode.


Shoot, I was hoping to see an idea worthy of putting in a letter to
our President.

He already has people who know how to use such strategies. Two problems,
though:

1) He needs to sign off on them. In order for this to happen, he'd need
to
be able to understand the ideas. No chance of that.

2) Even if he understood the ideas, they wouldn't satisfy one of his
requirements: Any move we make must look good on TV, and give him an
erection.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent solution in the middle
east.


I'm waiting for your idea.

John H

I don't have an idea, John, but the absence of an idea doesn't mean you
use
the idea that some idiot pulled out of his ass, like bombing the snot out
of
a country just because it makes you feel good.


If you cannot come up with a better idea, then the current idea seems
to be the best.

Only to a pig.


If you can criticize, but cannot offer an idea better than that of a
pig, then one must question your criticism.

John H

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

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:33:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:02:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:25:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
news:msldu09efhl3au1vrlmb4ci42n0qaq8ve9@4ax. com...



Clue: The word "strategy" does not necessarily mean the use of
force.
There
are other ways to cause an enemy to implode.


Shoot, I was hoping to see an idea worthy of putting in a letter to
our President.

He already has people who know how to use such strategies. Two
problems,
though:

1) He needs to sign off on them. In order for this to happen, he'd
need
to
be able to understand the ideas. No chance of that.

2) Even if he understood the ideas, they wouldn't satisfy one of his
requirements: Any move we make must look good on TV, and give him an
erection.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent solution in the
middle
east.


I'm waiting for your idea.

John H

I don't have an idea, John, but the absence of an idea doesn't mean you
use
the idea that some idiot pulled out of his ass, like bombing the snot
out
of
a country just because it makes you feel good.


If you cannot come up with a better idea, then the current idea seems
to be the best.

Only to a pig.


If you can criticize, but cannot offer an idea better than that of a
pig, then one must question your criticism.

Only a very sick man chooses violence simply because a better idea doesn't
exist at the moment. Actually, toddlers behave the same way, although it's
usually displayed as a tantrum.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


And in their case, would end with them. You can't compromise with
fanatics. I don't think you truly understand the nature of the threat
we're facing.

With no exceptions I'm aware of, every fanatical regime in the past 200
years has been enchanted with wealth, once it was achieved. Even Stalin, who
was a fanatic about "distribution of wealth", lived just like the tsarist
leaders before him. Islamic fanatics will arrive at the same point. You'll
see.



Your "mentality" is such that you think we're 100% entitled to our little
holy war.

I don't believe in absolutes. But I'd say we're probably 85% entitled
to our "holy war", considering that WE were the ones attacked.

Funny....you're beginning to sound like George and his gang, who, for a year
after 9/11, used the attack as the reason for virtually every new policy,
whether foreign or domestic. They repeated it so much that political
cartoonists were making fun of it as late as this past summer. Get over it.
You can't think clearly if you're stuck in the past.



Here's a challenge: Can you name 3 things you think we could do
better, in terms of our middle east policies, considering the failures of
the past 40 years? Among your responses, you may NOT suggest using more
military force.

Gee, I don't know, since depending on your perspective, those answers
will change. I'm sure the viewpoint of our behavior when taken from
the perspective of an Israeli will differ considerably from that of an
Islamic Mullah or cleric.

Since the Israelis aren't the enemy, remove them from your thoughts and try
harder.

See the problem here? We're up to our necks in ****, and now, there's just
one thing keeping us from making fundamental changes in our foreign policy:
Ego. It's infected not just our leadership, but voters like you, too.