"harry.krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying
fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to
send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't
you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway
around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children
in your own backyard?


Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The
insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds.

As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend
themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them
coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time.
And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as
defenseless as if they were driving down route 95.

The "intel" the Bush Misadministration "acts" upon is so bad that we have
no way of knowing whether threats to our homeland are real or nonexistent.
Why, after all that has been revealed about our ****-poor intel would
anyone believe the Bu****es about anything?


AFter 9-11 happened on his watch, Bush should have jumped
from a helicopter into the still-smoldering ruins of the WTC.

The blame for our intel failure can be placed at the door of Carter and the
Democrats of the 80's. We were told to believe in a kinder world and the
past actions of the CIA were considered criminal and they were forbidden to
engage in tactics that were popular and sanctioned during the height of the
cold war. A crippled CIA relied on Satellite intel and had no-one on the
ground when needed.

Clinton was more interested in disarming America than in foreign enemies
(Waco). To be fair, Bush was probably an isolationist but he as a
conservative was going to rearm the military after 8 years of consistent
budget cuts for the military under Clinton and the fiscally budget conscious
congress (Republican).

I agree with your statement that we shouldn't rely on good news intel!

I feel that the Bush administration is suffering from an erroding base and
needs good news to get his numbers up. He has several agendas for US that
need to be addressed and they are not being given fair play in the press.
(For the most part not the fault of the press. That's our fault for not
thinking thru these issues for ourselves.)