On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:28:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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
om...
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.


Well, that would depend on the threat, wouldn't it? You are still in
the criticize mode and not in the solutions mode. What is your idea?

You sound very much like Harry with his comment about the 'nuclear
bomb toting vans' that the Department of Homeland Security couldn't
protect us from. He also had no ideas for prevention, only
name-calling personal attacks.

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

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.

You have no idea what he understands. It's your bias showing.

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.

That's ridiculous, even for you.



As long as you and people like you, are so deeply prejudiced there is
little chance of anything positive happening. You are blinded by your
prejudice to consider these options.



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

You need to consider the very real possibility that there may be no
"intelligent" solution to the current problem. As long as they are
inflexible in their reasons for their "Jihad", there is no room for
compromise.

There will always be the suspicion that any "olive branch" offered to
us, may be only a ploy to buy time and lower our guard enough so that
they can mount a truly horrific attack on us.

Then you have to consider that as loosely formed alliances of
terrorists, there are no guarantees that there would be consensus
within the ranks as to an "acceptable" compromise. We might be able to
sway one group of more moderate Islamics to peace, but another group
may not agree.

The military solution may be the only one.

Dave

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.

It's better than your idea. So what does that make you?

Dave

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:59:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:52:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


"A" didn't work for the Soviet Unino in Afghanistan.

They didn't have th motivation to win.

Are you nuts? They were brutal. Unfortunately for them, we armed the
Taliban, who began shooting down Russian helicopters at an alarming rate,
using surface to air weapons made in the USA.

Yes, and if you remember your history, it was shortly after that that
the iron curtain fell, because they couldn't afford to play keeping up
with the Joneses.

Dave


That has little to do with your comment about their motivation.

Knowing how brutal the Soviets tended to be (they weren't sensitive to
the "PC" reaction like we are), they could have used much more force
if they truly wanted to.

Dave

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:09:51 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

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

I find it difficult to believe Harry Krause is having a discussion
about 'truth'!

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

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.

You have no idea what he understands. It's your bias showing.

I know exactly what he understands.



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.

That's ridiculous, even for you.

In an interview during his first campaign, your leader said he relaxed by
spending an hour or two PER DAY playing video games. Remember: This is when
he was the governor of Texas. I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't take someone
seriously if they have a job like that, and a family, and can find that much
time to play video games. That's a teenage mind, and totally inappropriate
for someone in a position of power.

"Dude! I got the RPG! Now I'm gonna kick some ass!"



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

You need to consider the very real possibility that there may be no
"intelligent" solution to the current problem. As long as they are
inflexible in their reasons for their "Jihad", there is no room for
compromise.

That's because your definition of "intelligent solution" only allows for
violence.



Then you have to consider that as loosely formed alliances of
terrorists, there are no guarantees that there would be consensus
within the ranks as to an "acceptable" compromise. We might be able to
sway one group of more moderate Islamics to peace, but another group
may not agree.

There have been loosely formed alliances of terrorists since the early
1960s, all over the world. The current crop already shares ideas, as
evidenced by a news article from last summer which indicated communications
between Islamic suspects and the FARQ in Colombia. The FARQ has been known
to communicate with the IRA. And, every couple of years, something explodes
in Italy, Spain, Greece, Indonesia, India. The list is endless.

Get over it. The solution is one which you don't want to hear, and are
incapable of understanding.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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.

You have no idea what he understands. It's your bias showing.


I know exactly what he understands.




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.

That's ridiculous, even for you.


In an interview during his first campaign, your leader said he relaxed by
spending an hour or two PER DAY playing video games. Remember: This is
when he was the governor of Texas. I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't take
someone seriously if they have a job like that, and a family, and can
find that much time to play video games. That's a teenage mind, and
totally inappropriate for someone in a position of power.

"Dude! I got the RPG! Now I'm gonna kick some ass!"


That explains it...Bush sees the world in terms of a game of DOOM.

Even worse: Grand Theft Auto. :-) Totally pointless violence.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:28:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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
om...
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.

And only a fool refuses to defend itself when attacked.

Dave

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:37:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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.

It's better than your idea. So what does that make you?

Dave


You're just full of contradictions, Dave.

Not at all. When you are facing a threat and you have two choices, a
military strike or doing nothing (the absence of another idea), then
I'd say the military option is the better choice.

Until you give me a better idea, I'd say we're doing the best that we
can under the circumstances.

Dave

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:50:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

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.

You have no idea what he understands. It's your bias showing.

I know exactly what he understands.

How? How can you be so arrogant as to assume to know what our leader
understands? You know nothing except what you're force fed from the
biased press.

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.

That's ridiculous, even for you.

In an interview during his first campaign, your leader said he relaxed by
spending an hour or two PER DAY playing video games. Remember: This is when
he was the governor of Texas. I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't take someone
seriously if they have a job like that, and a family, and can find that much
time to play video games.

Why not? Heck I find an hour or two out of my busy day to exchange
pleasantries with you and the gang here. So what's the difference? How
many guys do you know who have busy jobs AND have time to fish, boat,
garden, shoot a few dogs etc?

Hell, Clinton had Monica. That was his "entertainment".

That's a teenage mind, and totally inappropriate
for someone in a position of power.

Who are you to make that judgement call?


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

You need to consider the very real possibility that there may be no
"intelligent" solution to the current problem. As long as they are
inflexible in their reasons for their "Jihad", there is no room for
compromise.

That's because your definition of "intelligent solution" only allows for
violence.

You have yet to address the inherent problems of any other solution.
Or maybe you have, and that's why you have failed to offer a practical
alternative.


Then you have to consider that as loosely formed alliances of
terrorists, there are no guarantees that there would be consensus
within the ranks as to an "acceptable" compromise. We might be able to
sway one group of more moderate Islamics to peace, but another group
may not agree.


There have been loosely formed alliances of terrorists since the early
1960s, all over the world. The current crop already shares ideas, as
evidenced by a news article from last summer which indicated communications
between Islamic suspects and the FARQ in Colombia. The FARQ has been known
to communicate with the IRA. And, every couple of years, something explodes
in Italy, Spain, Greece, Indonesia, India. The list is endless.

Get over it. The solution is one which you don't want to hear, and are
incapable of understanding.

You have yet to provide ANY solution. Unless you're suggesting
unconditional surrender?

Dave