On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:02:14 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


If you could point me to those "conditions", I would be most
appreciative. I truly don't remember any realistic conditions ever being
offered. I do remember Mullah Omar at one point, denying that the
Taliban even knew where Bin Laden was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...575593,00.html

Only through the news media's lack of daily coverage, do you perceive
the search for Bin Laden as "on the back burner". The search is
on-going. But it's tough to do, since most experts agree that his likely
hiding spot is in Pakastani territory where we don't have license to
search.

I believe it must be on the back burner. Bin Laden is still free. This
is the most powerful country on the planet. If, bin Laden was a top
priority, there is no way he would still be free 3 years after 9/11.

We don't have a license to search Pakistani territory? So, the following
words, given by Bush to Congress and the American people, were just so
much Bush Bull****? Doesn't the man ever mean what he says?

" And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists."

" From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/2...sh.transcript/

Dave Hall wrote:
If people could be jailed for printing false or misleading
information, a whole slew of "journalists" would be sitting on a slab
right now.


And wouldn't that be convenient for your buddies in Washington?

Here you have it folks: "truth" defined by political convenience of
those in power, enforced by arbitrary & probably indefinite
imprisonment. The U.S. becomes a Stalinist dictatorship, although the
people are encouraged to wave the flag and sing about "freedom."

This is what Dave Hall and his type want to see.

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:
Well, my wife did receive a hand written note from the president
thanking her for her support in the campaign.

Hand-written, eh?


... That's the closest that
I've ever gotten to any correspondence from any other leader.....


Shucks, I've gotten notes, pamphlets, and "letters" from every President
since Nixon, but not because I gave their campaigns money. BTW Pat Nixon
was a beautiful, classy lady. It's a shame she wasted her life on Tricky
Dick.

Your wife got ripped off, some of my friends who gave money to
Republicans got calendars, Christmas cards, invitations to State
functions, and of course an request for more money.

Robert Heinlein once said that buying politicians is a very poor
investment. I think the sorry state of the Union is proof that he was right.

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:00 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to
us.
We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction.

In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in
'96.
The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi,
hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused
deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here.

A more detailed account of what I basically stated.


You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but
seem
quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The
Taliban
offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11.

When? Where? How? From what I remember, the Taliban refused to cough
up Bin Laden. That's the final straw which lead to the Afghan war. Had
they turned OBL over, in all likelihood, we would have had no need to
use the military.

Yet,
bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but
Bush
had hindsight to guide him, and still failed.

The rules change on a daily basis. I'm not blaming Clinton for not
having the foresight to predict 9/11, I'm blaming him for not taking
the chance to take OBL out of the picture for acts of terrorism that
he had been tied to while Clinton was in office. There's no guarantee,
but there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had we
gotten OBL in 96. Anyone with insight should know that terrorism will
only grow until their warped demands are met. How long are we supposed
to ignore the problem before we finally respond to it? The answer to
that question occurred on 9/11/2001. But we should have seen it coming
long before that.

Dave


We are not following the advice we've been giving the Israelis for 40
years:
Respect the differences with your neighbors and learn to live with them.
Until we do that, nothing will change.

You know, that not such bad advice. You should apply it to your
neighbors who own dogs.......

Snide observation aside, you are correct, but what you have to
remember is that when someone has a problem with your whole existence,
and then attacks that existence, you are forced to defend against it.
Knowing that those who follow this warped mindset will continue until
either:

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave

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

Doug Kanter wrote:
snipped

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave


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



I guess that leaves A or B. I'd pick "A".
Paul

"Paul Schilter" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
snipped

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave


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

I guess that leaves A or B. I'd pick "A".
Paul

You cannot defeat people who truly believe in what they're fighting for.
Perhaps you should try and imagine how YOU would behave if this country were
invaded. Are you capable of doing that?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:10:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:00 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to
us.
We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction.

In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in
'96.
The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi,
hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused
deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here.

A more detailed account of what I basically stated.


You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but
seem
quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The
Taliban
offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11.

When? Where? How? From what I remember, the Taliban refused to cough
up Bin Laden. That's the final straw which lead to the Afghan war. Had
they turned OBL over, in all likelihood, we would have had no need to
use the military.

Yet,
bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but
Bush
had hindsight to guide him, and still failed.

The rules change on a daily basis. I'm not blaming Clinton for not
having the foresight to predict 9/11, I'm blaming him for not taking
the chance to take OBL out of the picture for acts of terrorism that
he had been tied to while Clinton was in office. There's no guarantee,
but there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had we
gotten OBL in 96. Anyone with insight should know that terrorism will
only grow until their warped demands are met. How long are we supposed
to ignore the problem before we finally respond to it? The answer to
that question occurred on 9/11/2001. But we should have seen it coming
long before that.

Dave


We are not following the advice we've been giving the Israelis for 40
years:
Respect the differences with your neighbors and learn to live with them.
Until we do that, nothing will change.

You know, that not such bad advice. You should apply it to your
neighbors who own dogs.......

Snide observation aside, you are correct, but what you have to
remember is that when someone has a problem with your whole existence,
and then attacks that existence, you are forced to defend against it.
Knowing that those who follow this warped mindset will continue until
either:

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave

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?

I don't care one iota what they choose to do in their own countries.
But when you take the fight to us, we're going to fight back.

If they want to adopt a live and let live philosophy with respect to
the west, then I'll listen. But remember, they started this fight, not
us.

Dave

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:29:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Paul Schilter" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
snipped

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave


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

I guess that leaves A or B. I'd pick "A".
Paul

You cannot defeat people who truly believe in what they're fighting for.
Perhaps you should try and imagine how YOU would behave if this country were
invaded.

You mean like France in WWII?

Dave

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:32:48 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:02:14 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


If you could point me to those "conditions", I would be most
appreciative. I truly don't remember any realistic conditions ever being
offered. I do remember Mullah Omar at one point, denying that the
Taliban even knew where Bin Laden was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...575593,00.html

A "secret" meeting which was never acknowledged by the Taliban, and an
"offer" given by someone who was under obvious political pressure, and
who, in all likelihood, was not authorized to make.

It's not sounding all that valid. The other key statement:

"However, it is unclear whether the Taliban would have the ability to
seize Bin Laden and hand him over".

...pretty much underlines our reasons for not seriously considering
these "offers".



Only through the news media's lack of daily coverage, do you perceive
the search for Bin Laden as "on the back burner". The search is
on-going. But it's tough to do, since most experts agree that his likely
hiding spot is in Pakastani territory where we don't have license to
search.

I believe it must be on the back burner. Bin Laden is still free. This
is the most powerful country on the planet. If, bin Laden was a top
priority, there is no way he would still be free 3 years after 9/11.

You underestimate the resourcefulness of a single person hiding on a
relatively large planet, with sympathetic supporters. We aren't Star
Fleet, we can't simply search for bio signs and beam them up.


We don't have a license to search Pakistani territory? So, the following
words, given by Bush to Congress and the American people, were just so
much Bush Bull****? Doesn't the man ever mean what he says?

" And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists."

The Pakistani's claim to be with us, but insist that THEY be the ones
to search in their country.

And let's be realistic. We don't have enough military to take on the
entire Wahabbi Muslim world at once.



" From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Pakistan is not "harboring" terrorists, at least not officially. If
you want to make the claim that they are, then you also add
credibility to the claim that most of those countries are linked
together in a network of terrorism which operates independently from
their respective governments.

Dave

"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.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

The domino
theory - do you know what that is and who dreamed it up?

I am aware of the basic theory as it applies to a series of events
which are perpetuated by the events which precipitated them.

How does that apply here?

Dave, it was the only reason ever given for the war. You really need to
get
with some history books. Not web sites. Books.

The war was to prevent the spread of communism into South Vietnam.

Above, you said you were aware of the basic theory. Then, you ask how it
applies here, and follow by saying what you did about preventing the spread
of communism. Are you taking some sort of medication that makes you drowsy?
That's exactly what the domino theory was: The belief that if we didn't stop
communism in Vietnam, it would spread to the rest of South Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.



I can think of a bunch of reasons. To finish the job we started. To
save face. To guarantee work for defense contractors.........

Holy ****! I hope you're being cynical with that remark about defense
contractors. If not, and you're serious, you cannot call yourself a
Christian.



Oh....wait....Nixon still believed it, but he was out of his mind.

Nixon was the one who ended our involvement in the war. He was more
concerned with the Soviets.

No. Kissinger ended the war.

Kissinger did what he was told to do. Kissinger was not the president.
The final decision was Nixon's

At that point in time, Nixon was spending most
of his time raving in the White House and making his staff miserable.

And what wonderful tome told you that?

Dave, I've given you the titles of a few books in the past. Your response
has always been that they just represented the author's opinion. Why waste
my time providing the info again? It doesn't matter to you that historians
are now able to access the diaries of some of the White House players - you
probably think they've been doctored.


While
Kissinger was reporting diplomatic progress, Nixon was privately urging
him
to escalate the war.

According to whom? Facts of course.

You need to read, Dave. Pick any 5 books about the era
and average the results of your reading. You'll see.

I did and I have. The difference is that I don't read books by people
with leftist agendas.

Revisionist history doesn't sit well with me.

Leftist agendas? Interesting. Provide me with the names of the books you've
read. I'll actually get them from the library and read them.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:06:03 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If people could be jailed for printing false or misleading
information, a whole slew of "journalists" would be sitting on a slab
right now.


And wouldn't that be convenient for your buddies in Washington?

Here you have it folks: "truth" defined by political convenience of
those in power, enforced by arbitrary & probably indefinite
imprisonment. The U.S. becomes a Stalinist dictatorship, although the
people are encouraged to wave the flag and sing about "freedom."

This is what Dave Hall and his type want to see.

This is a perfect example of Mr. King's "skill" of context
manipulation. No wonder you are so easily convinced by those who hate
America first.

I never advocated jailing anyone, only that the comments (Which set
the original context, which you snipped) were along the lines that "if
a particular piece of information were false, then there would be
legal action". The fallacious logical conclusion is then that since no
legal action is pending, that the information must be true. This is an
example of the fallacy of false alternatives. The other alternative
that wasn't considered is that we can't simply jail people for
printing misleading information. THAT is why there are no legal cases
pending.

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

"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.

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

"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.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:04:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

The domino
theory - do you know what that is and who dreamed it up?

I am aware of the basic theory as it applies to a series of events
which are perpetuated by the events which precipitated them.

How does that apply here?

Dave, it was the only reason ever given for the war. You really need to
get
with some history books. Not web sites. Books.

The war was to prevent the spread of communism into South Vietnam.

Above, you said you were aware of the basic theory. Then, you ask how it
applies here, and follow by saying what you did about preventing the spread
of communism. Are you taking some sort of medication that makes you drowsy?
That's exactly what the domino theory was: The belief that if we didn't stop
communism in Vietnam, it would spread to the rest of South Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.

The domino theory as I know it is a scientific theory. I do not know
the specifics of how it applied in this case. But I do know that the
war was to prevent the spread of communism.

Communism was spreading and may have spread further had we not made an
issue out of opposing it, which made their job all that much harder.


I can think of a bunch of reasons. To finish the job we started. To
save face. To guarantee work for defense contractors.........

Holy ****! I hope you're being cynical with that remark about defense
contractors. If not, and you're serious, you cannot call yourself a
Christian.

Yes, I was being cynical. You can relax now.


Oh....wait....Nixon still believed it, but he was out of his mind.

Nixon was the one who ended our involvement in the war. He was more
concerned with the Soviets.

No. Kissinger ended the war.

Kissinger did what he was told to do. Kissinger was not the president.
The final decision was Nixon's

At that point in time, Nixon was spending most
of his time raving in the White House and making his staff miserable.

And what wonderful tome told you that?

Dave, I've given you the titles of a few books in the past. Your response
has always been that they just represented the author's opinion. Why waste
my time providing the info again? It doesn't matter to you that historians
are now able to access the diaries of some of the White House players - you
probably think they've been doctored.

It's likely that some were.


While
Kissinger was reporting diplomatic progress, Nixon was privately urging
him
to escalate the war.

According to whom? Facts of course.

You need to read, Dave. Pick any 5 books about the era
and average the results of your reading. You'll see.

I did and I have. The difference is that I don't read books by people
with leftist agendas.

Revisionist history doesn't sit well with me.

Leftist agendas? Interesting. Provide me with the names of the books you've
read. I'll actually get them from the library and read them.

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

Dave

"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.

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

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
...


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.

"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.

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.

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