wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once
again,
ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road.

Boy, that's broad minded........

Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the
face of
the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists?

Where IS binLaden?

Dead.

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once
again,
ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road.

Boy, that's broad minded........

Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from the
face of
the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists?

Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How do
you know this?

Just the ones shouting "Death to America".

" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?



NOYB wrote:
I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same thing
about Iran: we needed a staging area.


For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq? Why didn't
President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that Saddam
reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a staging
area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he said?

In other words, your answer is 1- untrue 2- illogical 3- contrary to
what the Bush Administration has stated. I guess you must really hate
those rotten lying incompetent *******s!



By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting
terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring
nations.


He's not "buddying up".


Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia?

... He's using them for whatever little help we can get
from them until the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on
terror.

Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan?

... It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.


You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and
announce it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on
Clinton's watch. So his policy by definition was effective. Meanwhile
how many billions has Bush spent on ineffective policy?

DSK

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once
again,
ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road.

Boy, that's broad minded........

Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from
the
face of
the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists?

Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How
do
you know this?

Just the ones shouting "Death to America".

Ah, so you are now saying that only part of them were terrorists? And
the only terrorists there were shouting "death to America"? And
further, are you stating that every single person who shouts "death to
America, is, indeed a terrorist? How so? Please explain how you've come
to the conclusion that a terrorist must be anti-American, and that
every person anti-American must be a terrorist.

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut. Once
again,
ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the road.

Boy, that's broad minded........

Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from
the
face of
the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists?

Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist? How
do
you know this?

Just the ones shouting "Death to America".

Ah, so you are now saying that only part of them were terrorists? And
the only terrorists there were shouting "death to America"? And
further, are you stating that every single person who shouts "death to
America, is, indeed a terrorist? How so? Please explain how you've come
to the conclusion that a terrorist must be anti-American, and that
every person anti-American must be a terrorist.


We can sort that out when sifting through the rubble.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?



NOYB wrote:
I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same
thing about Iran: we needed a staging area.


For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq?

We already had *TWO*: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, we were
supposed to have Turkey also...but they backed out at the last
minute...which cost us the ability to cut off the Baghdad to Syria escape
route used by fleeing Baath officials (and Russian Spetsnatz hauling WMD).



Why didn't President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that
Saddam reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a
staging area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he
said?

You never play poker, do you?



He's not "buddying up".


Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia?

No. We've made pretty strong demands on the Saudis and Pakistanis. We on
cordial terms with the rulers of both of those countries because we share a
common enemy: Islamic extremists.



... He's using them for whatever little help we can get from them until
the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on terror.

Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan?


... It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.

You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.

Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave
them. They didn't develop them overnight.


So his policy by definition was effective.

Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing
their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective
policy.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut.
Once
again,
ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the
road.

Boy, that's broad minded........

Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from
the
face of
the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists?

Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist?
How
do
you know this?

Just the ones shouting "Death to America".

Ah, so you are now saying that only part of them were terrorists?
And
the only terrorists there were shouting "death to America"? And
further, are you stating that every single person who shouts "death
to
America, is, indeed a terrorist? How so? Please explain how you've
come
to the conclusion that a terrorist must be anti-American, and that
every person anti-American must be a terrorist.


We can sort that out when sifting through the rubble.

Yeah, great. You've certainly shown your intelligence. It sounds as if
you want to blow everyone up that isn't white, or American, or
Republican, or does not live in Naples, FL. Sounds like you need one of
those pickup trucks with a rebel flag in the rear window and a gun
rack.

wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

That would have been a good time to bomb downtown Beirut.
Once
again,
ill-conceived diplomacy will cost American lives down the
road.

Boy, that's broad minded........

Can you think of a more effective way to surgically remove from
the
face of
the Earth 100,000 anti-US terrorists?

Are you saying that every person in the area was a terrorist?
How
do
you know this?

Just the ones shouting "Death to America".

Ah, so you are now saying that only part of them were terrorists?
And
the only terrorists there were shouting "death to America"? And
further, are you stating that every single person who shouts "death
to
America, is, indeed a terrorist? How so? Please explain how you've
come
to the conclusion that a terrorist must be anti-American, and that
every person anti-American must be a terrorist.


We can sort that out when sifting through the rubble.

Yeah, great. You've certainly shown your intelligence. It sounds as if
you want to blow everyone up that isn't white, or American, or
Republican, or does not live in Naples, FL. Sounds like you need one of
those pickup trucks with a rebel flag in the rear window and a gun
rack.


Maybe I already have one.

You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.



NOYB wrote:
Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave
them. They didn't develop them overnight.


Not according to the inspectors.

Actually, there were some indications of duplicity by the North Koreans
during the '90s, but it was partially over missiles and partially over
material which the IAEA removed.

If North Korea developed nukes before, it was probably on Bush Sr's watch.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp


So his policy by definition was effective.


Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing
their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective
policy.


???
Do you really believe this?

DSK

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:31:25 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
So Hizbollah supports Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Once again...no big
surprise.

Syria and Iran are the last two countries in the Middle East whose
governments *openly* support international terrorist groups. The time to
deal with them is now.


The time to deal with Iran was before we ran up a huge debt and
overburdened the Army trying to "deal with" Iraq. And up until last
week, Syria has been very friendly and cooperative towards the Bush
Administration and vice-versa. Sort of like the way we keep cozying up
to Pakistan, which keeps it's own stable of terrorists at the ready.

So now you're agreeing that Bush's attempts to fight a "war on terror"
has largely been ineffective?

DSK

Again, Doug, it ain't over 'til it's over.

You are correct in your statement that we should have dealt with Iraq many years
ago.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."