"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave



It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on
September
11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs.

If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by
invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to
address
the problem?

As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not
(currently)
attacking.

Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein
and the
9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant
response to the terrorist attacks on America. ???
We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run
free
while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah.

Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the
mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big
picture.

Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the
mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big
picture.

Jesse James and company rode out of Missouri.

If every time they held up a bank, the government declared martial law in first
Kansas, then Nebraska, then Oklahoma,
etc etc etc......how would that be any different than what we're doing/
planning to do now? Certainly would have never caught the James/Younger Gang
(many of whom learned you don't screw around with a Minnesota farmer's money)

Foreign governments may not be our friends, but neither is any foreign
government the enemy that brazenly and criminally attacked us. We need to put
down the dog proven to be rabid first.....and then if we need to look at other
dogs that could possibly be infected too, we should.


I'm all for getting those criminal *******s.
Absolutely. Work within or outside the confines of international law to get it
done.
Any country worth a dinkle would help us out or at least stand back and let us
bring these *******s to death or trial. No **** ant country would dare protest
us
going in to extract bin Ladin, and our allies would either help or keep silent.
Who would want to side with Osama bin Ladin?

Don't forget that 90% of the country was rootin' for GWB when he said he was
out to get OBL, "dead or alive". Too bad we lost focus.

If our current foreign policy is an effective response to 9-11, the majority of
people cannot see just how. (Bush can't say "There is no connection" one month,
and then say "We're avenging the 9-11 massacre" the next). If our current
foreing policy is not a direct respoinse to 9-11, we have every right in the
world to ask why it isn't.

Solving terorism in general is no higher than item "B", if that's what the
justification for Iraq etc is. Item "A" should be bringing down the *******
that is already attacking us *now*.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in
the
mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big
picture.

Jesse James and company rode out of Missouri.

If every time they held up a bank, the government declared martial law in
first
Kansas, then Nebraska, then Oklahoma,
etc etc etc......how would that be any different than what we're doing/
planning to do now? Certainly would have never caught the James/Younger
Gang
(many of whom learned you don't screw around with a Minnesota farmer's
money)

Foreign governments may not be our friends, but neither is any foreign
government the enemy that brazenly and criminally attacked us. We need to
put
down the dog proven to be rabid first.....and then if we need to look at
other
dogs that could possibly be infected too, we should.

All foriegn governments are our enemy. At times we treat them like friends.

I'm all for getting those criminal *******s.
Absolutely. Work within or outside the confines of international law to
get it
done.
Any country worth a dinkle would help us out or at least stand back and
let us
bring these *******s to death or trial. No **** ant country would dare
protest
us
going in to extract bin Ladin, and our allies would either help or keep
silent.
Who would want to side with Osama bin Ladin?

Crime is a term used in a civil socitety to describe unwanted behavior. In
uncivilized societies there is no crime there is only survival.

Don't forget that 90% of the country was rootin' for GWB when he said he
was
out to get OBL, "dead or alive". Too bad we lost focus.

Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it
serve to kill OBL now?

If our current foreign policy is an effective response to 9-11, the
majority of
people cannot see just how. (Bush can't say "There is no connection" one
month,
and then say "We're avenging the 9-11 massacre" the next). If our current
foreing policy is not a direct respoinse to 9-11, we have every right in
the
world to ask why it isn't.

We are fighting the terrorist's, enemies of the US, on their soil rather
than on our own soil. How would you like a homicide bomber to walk into your
local pizza parlor and blow the place up?

Solving terorism in general is no higher than item "B", if that's what the
justification for Iraq etc is. Item "A" should be bringing down the
*******
that is already attacking us *now*.

All in good time. As I said before, take off the blinders and try to see the
big picture. Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and
visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it
happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from
harm. Letting the terrorists take over won't provide a safe future.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:39:49 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


All foriegn governments are our enemy. At times we treat them like
friends.

I sometimes think, all governments are our enemy. ;-)


Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it
serve to kill OBL now?

Bin Laden was directly responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on
American soil. In my mind, that's enough to make him the number one
priority then, now, and forever.


All in good time. As I said before, take off the blinders and try to see
the big picture. Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and
visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it
happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from
harm. Letting the terrorists take over won't provide a safe future.

Unless we establish energy independence, a safe future just isn't going to
happen. *Part* of our middle east strategy is to control the flow of oil,
I would suggest that starving the burgeoning economy of say, China, isn't
a guarantee of a safe future.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ma_273_01.html

Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it
serve to kill OBL now?

Effectively prevents that particular criminal terrorist ******* from striking
again.


We are fighting the terrorist's, enemies of the US, on their soil rather
than on our own soil. How would you like a homicide bomber to walk into your
local pizza parlor and blow the place up?

Do I get to pick the pizza joint? (kidding, of course)

I hear this all the time. It's binary crock. As if fighting against the US in
Iraq and sending a few dozen individuals to this country to blow up pizza
parlors and shopping malls, or fly airplanes into buildings can't happen
simultaneously.
In fact, our forcible intrusion into the Middle
East has most likely *increased* rather than decreased the liklihood of more
attacks in the US. True enough, the individuals we kill in Iraq won't be coming
here anytime soon......but their criminal terrorist ******* buddies will be all
the more inspired to do so.

Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and
visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it
happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from
harm.


As we all do. But when your house is on fire, you put it out first before you
begin planning a major remodel cycle that will take 20 or 50 years.

Question: If our focus on Iraq isn't serving the best interests of the
terrorists, (as I believe it is), why are they sacrificing the people required
to keep the pot just barely boiling there?

We are likely to find out, to our profound dismay, that all the terrorists are
*not* moving to Iraq for the purpose of taking on
the American military with their Rube Goldberg bombs and small arms.