On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:55:37 -0400, John H. wrote:

Would sending troops into Pakistan be permissable?

Right after 9/11? You betcha, where ever he was. Now? I'm not so sure.
I still want bin Laden's head, but the political realities of invading yet
another country . . .

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:01:19 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:55:37 -0400, John H. wrote:

Would sending troops into Pakistan be permissable?

Right after 9/11? You betcha, where ever he was. Now? I'm not so sure.
I still want bin Laden's head, but the political realities of invading yet
another country . . .

Suppose we should get hit again and lose a couple hundred people. Would it then
be OK to go into Pakistan?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:30:43 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:18:07 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:58:30 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:



We *cannot* protect everything in this country from terrorists.

About all we are "protecting" from terrorists in this country are the
politicians. These would be the last people I'd spend money to protect.
How would *you* go about protecting all the things that need protection, Harry?

First, I'd stop wasting lives and money on Iraq. If we're bringing war
to them, they're certainly capable of bringing it to us, and, in fact,
did, yesterday. We're not defeating terrorism in Iraq.

I'd close our borders and use our national guard to patrol our northern
and southern borders, and increase funding for the coasties so they
could do a better job of patroling our wet borders.

The National Guard has a mission. An armor battalion is wasted performing guard
duties on the border, as is an engineer battalion or signal battalion.
Performing guard duties prevents the Guard from training for their real mission.
Would you activate them full time? Whose National Guard would you use,
Maryland's?


The National Guard's mission should be changed. The various state's
guard can take turns guarding the borders. It'll give them something to
do while waiting for natural disasters. Sending them overseas to
supplement armies of invasion is plain stupid.


Wouldn't it make more sense to increase the size of the Border Patrol and tell
them to shoot?

I'd devise a reliable system for checking freighters and their contents
coming to our ports.

Would we stop every freighter, unload and inspect all the containers? How long
would we allow the line of freighters to get? Would we simply quadruple the size
of the Coast Guard.


I said I would devise a reliable system. I did not say we should check
each freighter. Right now, we have a paperwork system that is a farce.


I'd harden public infrastructure, such as subways, bridges, tunnels,
dams, where possible through retrofitting, and more closely guard all
major venues where people gather in large numbers.

Should we have airport type security for every subway, train, and bus stop in
America? What is a big number? If forty can be killed, is that a big enough
number? Should we have TSA folks at every school cafeteria? Why not? How about
at every high school basketball or football game?

No, I wouldn't use TSA or anything like it. I'd used trained police and
auxiliary police, including lots of volunteers who are trained to assist.


I would take a good chunk of the $2 billion a week we are wasting on
Iraq, and use it instead to buy legitimate intelligence from arab assets
who can be recruited by and infiltrate al Qaeda cells.

Your measly $2 billion wouldn't even come close to guarding the high school
football games.

I suggested that we spend some serious money on obtaining foreign, arab
speaking intel assets. Old farts like you can guard football games.

I'd stop wasting money on bigger and better military hardware
acquisitions, and concentrate military expenditures on personnel and
training that will help us keep track of terrorist activities. We need
fewer bombers, aircraft carriers and tanks, and more brainpower.

The people who build the bombers, aircraft carriers, and tanks take just the
opposite approach. But, your idea about less concentration on conventional
warfare is a good one, unless China gets it in it's shorts to go do some 'land
acquisition'.


Let them build plowshares, or something civilized people need.



That's just off the top of my head.

Well, better think again.

Why? It certainly is more imaginative than the Bush approach, which is a
total, complete, absolute failure.



Oh...in the next election, I think we ought to pick someone smart.

Maybe the Debs will have somebody decent as an alternative?

It doesn't matter. After eight years of Mr. Stupid, almost anyone would
be better.





Your conservative, militaristic approach...doesn't work.

You think adding a few million Coast Guardsmen will do the job?

Our shorelines are an open invitation to incursions. We need lots more
Coastie patrols, and lots more fast interdiction patrol craft with
advanced radar and sonar. And yes, it would make a difference. The CG is
spread mighty thin.

You keep the foxes out of the henhouse by guarding the henhouse 24/7 and
shutting off access where you can. You don't go wandering through the
forest hoping to encounter the very fox who is eating your chickens.

You hunt and kill the fox!


If the weather is decent, we'll probably head out of Solomons for some
sight fishing Sunday. See you out on the water?
I

The magic words, "We need lots more...and lots more..." The problem is that it
would never be enough, Harry.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Harry,
After listening to your comments, it sounds like we use just give up and
roll over. The one thing I am sure of (in your mind), a republican will
never have a good idea, and only the dems will be able to solve the problem.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 01:21:07 GMT, bb wrote:

France today elevated it's terror alert level from
chartreuse "RUN" to the pinque "HIDE".

The US increased it's alert level to yellow "PROP UP THE POLL NUMBERS"
instead of the red "GET OUT THE VOTE" alert that was very popular a
year ago.

In light of this, you folks should all be on your guard.

bb

Some of the Dems seem to be making an issue of the fact that our alert
level was
increased without any supporting intelligence.

I wonder how much intelligence the Brits recieved about today's attack.




Today's sad events should be an eye-opener for Americans.

The Brits have been dealing with terrorism for far longer than we have
(the IRA), their intelligence services are considered far superior to
ours, and they are far more aggressive in pursuing Islamists in their
midst. In spite of all that, they got hit pretty hard today.

The War on Terror ain't gonna do it. The war against Iraq ain't gonna do
it. The al Qaeda boys are not bound by territory or borders, and move
freely when they want and where they want. We're wasting our time in Iraq.

We're going to have to find something better and brighter than we're doing
now, because we have a LOT more targets to hit than the Brits, and we
don't have a quarter of the security in operation they have. And, of
course, our seacoasts are open doors.

We've got some big stuff coming our way, and Homeland Security ain't
agonna stop it.

Just ask our friends, the Brits.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:30:28 -0400, "Real Name"
wrote:

Harry,
After listening to your comments, it sounds like we use just give up and
roll over. The one thing I am sure of (in your mind), a republican will
never have a good idea, and only the dems will be able to solve the problem.


I believe the Dems would do as Harry says, spend lots and lots. But, we'd still
be in the same position.

Hell, I could carry a small atomic demolition munition in my 21' Proline from
Cuba to Florida. All the container inspections in the world wouldn't stop it.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 01:21:07 GMT, bb wrote:

France today elevated it's terror alert level from
chartreuse "RUN" to the pinque "HIDE".

The US increased it's alert level to yellow "PROP UP THE POLL NUMBERS"
instead of the red "GET OUT THE VOTE" alert that was very popular a
year ago.

In light of this, you folks should all be on your guard.

bb

Some of the Dems seem to be making an issue of the fact that our alert
level was
increased without any supporting intelligence.

I wonder how much intelligence the Brits recieved about today's attack.




Today's sad events should be an eye-opener for Americans.

The Brits have been dealing with terrorism for far longer than we have
(the IRA), their intelligence services are considered far superior to
ours, and they are far more aggressive in pursuing Islamists in their
midst. In spite of all that, they got hit pretty hard today.

The War on Terror ain't gonna do it. The war against Iraq ain't gonna do
it. The al Qaeda boys are not bound by territory or borders, and move
freely when they want and where they want. We're wasting our time in
Iraq.

We're going to have to find something better and brighter than we're
doing now, because we have a LOT more targets to hit than the Brits, and
we don't have a quarter of the security in operation they have. And, of
course, our seacoasts are open doors.

We've got some big stuff coming our way, and Homeland Security ain't
agonna stop it.



You have been saying this since September 12, 2001.